Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming  
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3242 times:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm

Another piece of evidence that suggests that global warming is man-made, and caused by man-made green house gas emissions. Those that bury their heads in the sand are fast running out of alternative 'theories' to support their denial.

153 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCupraIbiza From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 836 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3235 times:

The thing is we will never really know for sure. The environmental zealots look to have won this war. Global green house gases will be reduced. But we wont know what would have happened if nothing was done. I recject the term head in the sand and instead use realist who has his eyes wide open. Just remeber planes were going to fall from the sky because of Y2K bug.....


Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
User currently offlineCoz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3218 times:

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 1):
But we wont know what would have happened if nothing was done.

That's a bit like saying "I'm going to continue to smoke cigarettes because maybe the evidence about tobacco and cancer could be wrong."

Are you sure you really want to find out?

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 1):
Just remeber planes were going to fall from the sky because of Y2K bug.....

If one potential crises turns out to be relatively unfounded, they're all unfounded?

Wonderful logic.

Keep in mind, it took many years of preparation and hard work to prepare computer systems for the Y2K. If we had done nothing, it would have been a disaster. Climate change presents the same set of problems. These problems need to be addressed with the same urgency that society addressed the Y2K issue.


User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3214 times:

Just wait for the I-don't-want-to-be-inconvenienced crowd to show up!  Silly

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 1):
The environmental zealots look to have won this war.

"Zealots"? As you were saying, "I recject the term". And there was no war, that word is so over-used.

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 1):
Global green house gases will be reduced.

By the looks of it, there might be a chance that the production of green house gases will increase a little less quickly. That is very far from a sustainable solution.

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 1):
But we wont know what would have happened if nothing was done.

And do we want to? CO2 affects ecosystems around the planet in many not yet understood ways, such as reefs. It's not just about global warming, but about a host of issues that pop up because humankind still can't decide whether or not it's a good idea to release, i just a few decades, billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere that took millions of years to be filtered out of it.

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 1):
Just remeber planes were going to fall from the sky because of Y2K bug.....

You can impossibly be implying that these two are in any way, shape or form related.

[Edited 2007-07-11 01:56:27]


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineCoz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3207 times:

Quoting Aloges (Reply 3):
You can impossibly be implying that these two are in any way, shape or form related.

I was thinking the same thing. The glide ratio of most aircraft is far from what I'd call "falling from the sky". And last time I checked, no aircraft I can think of requires a valid date to keep the engines running.  Silly

[Edited 2007-07-11 02:03:24]

User currently offlineCupraIbiza From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 836 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3203 times:

Quoting Coz (Reply 2):
That's a bit like saying "I'm going to continue to smoke cigarettes because maybe the evidence about tobacco and cancer could be wrong."

Um no because I dont think anyone disputes this anymore (do they?)

Quoting Coz (Reply 2):
it would have been a disaster.

How do you know???????



Quoting Aloges (Reply 3):
You can impossibly be implying that these two are in any way, shape or form related.

Only in the way that the world community has blindlessly follwowed what we are told.

Let me clarify I am not saying that CO2 emissions are or are not harming the environment. I am saying lets keep the debate open. Lets not put our heads in the sand to quote the thread starter



Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
User currently offlineCoz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3194 times:

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 5):
Um no because I dont think anyone disputes this anymore (do they?)

Yes, those people whose interests lie in the success of the tobacco industry tend to fund biased nicotine studies.

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 5):
How do you know???????

Because I've been writing software professionaly since before 2000.

[Edited 2007-07-11 02:18:38]

User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3193 times:

Quoting Coz (Reply 4):
I was thinking the same thing. The glide ratio of most aircraft is far from what I'd call "falling from the sky"

 rotfl  Good point!

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 5):
Only in the way that the world community has blindlessly follwowed what we are told.

I take it you mean "blindly"?

Are we talking about the same "world community"? I'm just asking because the one that I've been watching (and done my little bit of participating in) has all but blindly followed anything related to global warming; no, its alleged leaders have not even remotely been able to agree on something everyone else might be supposed to follow!

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 5):
I am saying lets keep the debate open.

Which debate? The one contesting that there is no global warming, the one contesting that man-made CO2 emissions contribute to it or the one about the size of their impact?



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3186 times:

Instant BS call.

The new study claims that solar output has been decreasing for the last 20 years.

Oh really?

Want to tell that to NASA and Columbia University who concluded exactly the opposite?

It's also a direct contradiction of the Federal Institute of Technology in Switzerland which in 2004 said the sun was generating it's highest output in the past 1000 years.

It's not coincidence is it that this report claiming low solar output just happens to come out at the bottom of the eleven year long sun spot cycle?

Let's play scientist



Mind pointing out for me the decrease in solar output?


User currently offlineCupraIbiza From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 836 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3186 times:

Quoting Coz (Reply 6):
How do you know???????

Because I've been professionaly writing software since before 2000.

Was it software that could see into the future?

Quoting Aloges (Reply 7):
Which debate? The one contesting that there is no global warming, the one contesting that man-made CO2 emissions contribute to it or the one about the size of their impact?

Yep keep all of the debates open. Global cooling was the problem in the 1970s.



Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
User currently offlineHalcyon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3165 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 8):
Instant BS call.

 checkmark 

And while we're throwing around articles, this one will hold interest to just about everyone I believe:

Nifty-do-Dah


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3163 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 8):
Instant BS call.

The new study claims that solar output has been decreasing for the last 20 years.

Oh really?

Want to tell that to NASA and Columbia University who concluded exactly the opposite?

They don't.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 8):
Mind pointing out for me the decrease in solar output?

Yes, after 1980, which is where your graph stops and the data published by Lockwood is valid.

Have you even read the paper in Royal Soc. J. Proc. A? How can you claim it's bullshit without even reading it?


User currently offlineCupraIbiza From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 836 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3157 times:

So what major changes has everyone here made to reduce their CO2 emissions?


Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3153 times:

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 11):

They don't.

They don't what?

Are you saying that NASA and Columbia University didn't publish a report in 2003 concluding that solar output is and has been increasing? Now NASA and Columbia University disagree with you too.

Let's ask NASA

Quote:
The recent trend of a .05 percent per decade increase in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) in watts per meter squared, or the amount of solar energy that falls upon a square meter outside the Earths atmosphere. The trend was measured between successive solar minima that occur approximately every 11 years. At the bottom, the timeline of the many different datasets that contributed to this finding, from 1978 to present.

Let's look at NASA's graph.



Quoting 777236ER (Reply 11):
Yes, after 1980, which is where your graph stops and the data published by Lockwood is valid.

The graph is incremented in fifty year divisions.

For people with poor math skills: 1950 + 50 = 2000... not 1980


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3149 times:

Quoting Halcyon (Reply 10):
And while we're throwing around articles, this one will hold interest to just about everyone I believe:

Have YOU even read the Lockwood paper?

What is it with people not only determined to ignore the science, but to condemn it without even reading the numerous papers published in legitimate journals?!

Just in case you were in any doubt as to the credentials of the author, here they are:

Learned Societies: Fellow of the Royal Society of London (FRS)
Fellow, Institute of Physics (FInstP)
Chartered Physicist (CPhys)
Member, American Geophysical Union
Fellow, Royal Astronomical Society (FRAS)
International Awards: 1990 The Zel'dovich Award for Commission C (Ionospheric Physics). Awarded by COSPAR (The Committee on Space Research, of the International Council of Scientific Unions).
1990 The Issac Koga Gold Medal . Awarded by URSI (The International Union of Radio Science).
1998 The Chapman Medal . Awarded by the Royal Astronomical Society, London
2003 The Charles Chree Award and Prize . Awarded by the Institute of Physics, London.
2006 Elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society of London

Some of his papers you might like to read up on:

2002

205. M. Lockwood
An evaluation of the correlation between open solar flux and total solar irradiance
Astron and Astrophys., 382, 678-687, 2002

206. M. Lockwood
Long-term variations in the open solar flux and links to variations in Earths climate
In “From Solar Min to Max: Half a solar cycle with SoHO”, Proc. SoHO 11 Symposium, Davos, Switzerland, March 2002, ESA-SP-508, pp 507- 522, ESA Publications, Noordvijk, The Netherlands, 2002.

207. J. A. Davies, T. K. Yeoman, I. J. Rae, S. E. Milan, M. Lester, M. Lockwood and K. A. McWilliams
Ground-based observations of the auroral zone and polar cap ionospheric responses to dayside transient reconnection
Annales Geophys., 20, 781 – 794, 2002

208. D. H. Mackay, E. R. Priest, and M. Lockwood
The Evolution of the Sun's Open Magnetic Flux: I. A Single Bipole
Solar Physics, 207(2), 291-308, 2002

209. D. H. Mackay, and M. Lockwood
The Evolution of the Sun's Open magnetic Flux: II. Full solar cycle simulations
Solar Physics, 209(2), 287-309, 2002.

210. M. Lockwood
Foreword by the Chairman of the EISCAT Council
Annales Geophysicae, 20, 1261 – 1262, 2002

211. E. E. Woodfield, J. A. Davies, M. Lester, T. K. Yeoman, P. Eglitis, and M. Lockwood
Nightside studies of coherent HF Radar spectral width behaviour
Annales Geophysicae, 20, 1399 – 1413, 2002

212. M. Lockwood
Relationship between the near-Earth interplanetary field and the coronal source flux: Dependence on timescale
J. Geophys, Res., 107, doi. 10.1029/2001JA009062, 2002
2003

213. M. Lockwood
Twenty-three cycles of changing open solar flux
J. Geophys. Res., 108, doi 10.1029/2002/JA009431, 2003

214. M. Lockwood , B.S. Lanchester , H. Frey , K. Throp, S. Morley, S.E. Milan, and M.E. Lester,
IMF Control of Cusp Proton Emission Intensity and Dayside Convection: implications for component and anti-parallel reconnection,
Annales Geophys., 21, 955 – 982, 2003

215. S.E. Morley and M. Lockwood,
The effect of reconnection rate pulse height on cusp ion steps
Annales Geophys., 21, 947 – 953, 2003
2004

216. M. Lockwood, R.B. Forsyth, A. Balogh, and D. J. McComas
Open solar flux estimates from near-Earth measurements of the interplanetary magnetic field: comparison of the first two perihelion passes of the Ulysses spacecraft
Annales Geophys, 22, 1395-1405, 2004

217. T. J. Stubbs, M. Lockwood, P. Cargill, M. Grande, B. Kellett, and C.H. Perry
A comparison between ion characteristics observed by the POLAR and DMSP spacecraft in the high-latitude magnetosphere
Annales Geophys., 22, 1033-1046, 2004.

218. M. Lockwood and S.E. Morley,
A numerical model of the ionospheric signatures of time-varying magnetic reconnection: I. Ionospheric convection
Annales Geophys., 22, 73-91, 2004.

219. J. Moen, M. Lockwood, K. Oskavik, H.C. Carlson, W.F. Denig, A.P. van Eyken, and I.W. McCrea
The dynamics and relationships of precipitation, temperature and convection boundaries in the dayside auroral oval
Annales Geophys., 22, 1-15, 2004

220. M. Lockwood, Solar Outputs, their variations and their effects of Earth, in The Sun, Solar Analogs and the Climate,
Proc. Saas-Fee Advanced Course, 34 by J.D. Haigh, M.Lockwood and M.S. Giampapa, eds. I. Rüedi, M. Güdel, and W. Schmutz, pp107-304, Springer, ISBN: 3-540-23856-5, 2004

221. A. Rouillard and M. Lockwood,
Oscillations in the open solar magnetic flux with period 1.68 years: imprint on galactic cosmic rays and implications for heliospheric shielding
Annales, Geophys, 46, 22, 4381-4395, 2004

222. T. J. Stubbs, P. J. Cargill, M. Lockwood, M. Grande, B. J. Kellett, and C. H. Perry
Extended cusp-like regions and their dependence on the Polar orbit, seasonal variations, and interplanetary conditions
J. Geophys. Res., 109, A09210, doi:10.1029/2003JA010163, 2004
2005

223. H. Lee, I. Tosh, N. Morris, M. Lockwood and S-W. Kim,
The optomechanical design of Amon-Ra instrument,
Electronic Imaging and Multimedia Technology IV, Edited by C-S Li and M. M. Yeung,
Proc. S.P.I.E., 5638, 248-261, 2005.

224. S. K. Morley and M. Lockwood
A numerical model of the ionospheric signatures of time-varying magnetic reconnection: II. Measuring expansions in the ionospheric flow response
Annales Geophys. , 23, 2501-2510, 2005.

225. M. Lockwood, J. Moen, A. P. van Eyken, J.A. Davies, K. Oksavik, and I.W McCrea,
Motion of the dayside polar cap boundary during substorm cycles: I. Observations of pulses in the magnetopause reconnection rate
Annales Geophys, 23, 3495–3511, 2005.

226. M. Lockwood, J.A. Davies, J. Moen, A. P. van Eyken, K. Oksavik, I.W McCrea and M.E. Lester
Motion of the dayside polar cap boundary during substorm cycles: II. Generation of poleward-moving events and polar cap patches by pulses in the magnetopause reconnection rate
Annales Geophys, 23, 3513–3532, 2005.

227. K. Throp, M. Lockwood, B. S. Lanchester, S. K. Morley, and H. U. Frey
Modeling the observed proton aurora and ionospheric convection responses to changes in the IMF clock angle: 1. Persistence of cusp proton aurora,
J. Geophys. Res., 110, A12311, doi:10.1029/2003JA010306, 2005.

228. M.W. Dunlop, M.G.G. T. Taylor, J.A. Davies, C. J. Owen, F. Pitout, A. N. Fazakerley, Z. Pu, H. Laakso, Y. V. Bogdanova, Q.-G. Zong, C. Shen, K. Nykyri, B. Lavraud, S. E. Milan, T. D. Phan, H. Rème, C. P. Escoubet, C. M. Carr, P. Cargill, M. Lockwood, and B. Sonnerup
Coordinated Cluster/Double Star observations of dayside reconnection signatures.
Annales Geophys., 23, 2867–2875, 2005.

229. H. Lee, S.-W. Kim, A. Richards, I. Tosh, N. Morris, and M. Lockwood,
Stray-light analysis of Amon-Ra instrument
Optical Modeling and Performance Predictions II, Edited by M.A. Kahan,
Proc. S.P.I.E., 5678, 46-57, 2005.
2006

230. M. Lockwood, K. Throp, B.S. Lanchester, S.K. Morley, S.E. Milan, M. Lester, and H. U. Frey
Modelling the observed proton aurora and ionospheric convection responses to changes in the IMF field clock angle: 2. The persistence of ionospheric convection.
J. Geophys. Res., 111, A02306, doi:10.1029/2003JA010307, 2006.

231. S. K. Morley and M. Lockwood
A numerical model of the ionospheric signatures of time-varying magnetic reconnection: 3. Quasi-instantaneous convection responses in the Cowley-Lockwood paradigm
Annales Geophys., 24, 961–972, 2006.

232. M.Lockwood, A.P. Rouillard, I.D. Finch, and R. Stamper
Comment on The IDV index: its derivation and use in inferring long-term variations of the interplanetary magnetic field strength by Svalgaard and Cliver
J. Geophys. Res., 111, A09109, doi:10.1029/2006JA011640, 2006

233. M. Lockwood
What do cosmogenic isotopes tell us about past solar forcing of climate?
Space Sci. Rev., 125, 95-109, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-9049-2, 2006

234. J.M. Sullivan, N. Ivchenko M.Lockwood, T.Grydeland, E.M. Blixt, and B.S. Lanchester
Phase calibration of the EISCAT Svalbard Radar interferometer using optical satellite signatures
Annales Geophys. Ann. Geophys., 24, 2419–2427, 2006
2007

235. I. Finch, and M. Lockwood
Solar wind-magnetosphere coupling functions on timescales of 1 day to 1 year
Annales Geophys., 25, 495-506, 2007

236. A.P. Rouillard, M. Lockwood, and I. Finch
Centennial changes in the solar wind speed and in the open solar flux
J. Geophys. Res., 112, A05103, doi:10.1029/2006JA012130, 2007
In press

237. M.W. Dunlop, M. G. G. T. Taylor, J. A. Davies, Z. Pu, A.N. Fazakerley, C.J. Owen, Y. V. Bogdanova, F. Pitout, H. Laakso, Q. -G. Zong, C. Shen, K. Nykyri, B. Lavraud, S. E. Milan, Z.-X. Liu, C. P. Escoubet, H. Rème, C. M. Carr, P. Cargill, T. D. Phan, M. Lockwood and B. Sonnerup,
Comparative Cluster/Double Star Observations of the High and Low Latitude Dayside Magnetopause
Proc. Cluster symposium, ESTEC, ESA Publications, Nordvijk, The Netherlands, in press, 2007

238. M. Lockwood
Century-Scale Variations in Total Solar Irradiance and Open Solar Magnetic Flux: Implications for Earth’s Climate
Living Reviews, to be published (on line), 2007

239. A.P. Rouillard, and M. Lockwood
Centennial changes in solar activity and the response of galactic cosmic rays
Adv. Space Res., in press, 2007

240. A.P. Rouillard, and M. Lockwood
The latitudinal effect of co-rotating interaction regions on galactic coamic rays
Solar Phys., in press, 2007

241. M. Lockwood, and C. Fröhlich
Recent changes in solar outputs and the global mean surface temperature
Proc. Roy. Soc. A, in press, 2007
Under Review

242. M. Lockwood , S.S. Foster and R. Stamper
What do cosmogenic isotopes tell us about past variations in solar irradiance?
Phys. Rev. Lett., submitted, 2006.

243. J.A. Davies, M.W. Dunlop, C.H. Perry, M. Lockwood, I. Alexeev, M.G.G.T. Taylor, A.N. Fazakerley, C.J. Owen, A. Marchaudon, R.H.W. Friedel, X.H. Deng, M. Grande, and P.W. Daly
Energetic Electron Signatures in an Active Magnetotail Plasma Sheet
Adv. Space Res., submitted, 2005

244. M.W. Dunlop, A. N. Fazakerley, R. Fear, M Hapgood, M Lockwood, J.A. Davies, C.H. Perry, C J Owen, and A. Balogh
The magnetopause transition parameter: Cluster observations
Annales Geophys., submitted, 2005

245. M.Lockwood and S.S. Foster
Reconstructing solar facular brightening from sunspot group data
Solar Physics, submitted, 2006

246. M. Lockwood, D. Whiter, B. Hancock, R. Henwood, T. Ulich, H.J. Linthe, and M.A. Clilverd
The long-term drift in geomagnetic activity: calibration of the aa index using data from a variety of magnetometer stations
Annales Geophys., submitted, 2006

247. M. Lockwood, A.P. Rouillard, I. Finch, and R. Stamper
How large was the rise in open solar flux during the 20th century? - Application of Bayesian Statistics
Annales Geophys., submitted, 2006

248. A.P. Rouillard, and M. Lockwood
The response of galactic cosmic rays tp propagating diffusive barriers: application of system identification analysis
Astron. and Astrophys., submitted, 2007

249. A.P. Rouillard, I. Finch, M. Lockwood and K. Mursula,
Solar wind speed semi-annual variations and polar coronal hole evolution
Geophys. Res. Lett., submitted, 2007

250. A.P. Rouillard, and M. Lockwood
Solar stream magnetism: analytic prediction of 3-dimensional heliospheric fields and flows
Astron. and Astrophys., submitted, 2007

251. I. Finch, A.P. Rouillard, and M. Lockwood
Solar wind speed as the source of the annual variation of geomagnetic activity
Geophys. Res. Lett., submitted, 2007

Only going back five years, to get you started.

Nearly all on solar flux, all accepted to noted journals, fellow of Royal Society, Institute of Physics and Royal Astronomical Society. What is it about this man that makes you condemn and shun his work without even reading it, whereas the rest of the scientific community accepts it as valid scientific research with wide-ranging consequences?

Ignoring people like Mike Lockwood is like ignoring a doctor who tells you you have cancer, or ignoring an engineer who tells you your machine is going to break, or ignoring a chemist who tells you nitroglycerin is explosive.


User currently offlineHalcyon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3144 times:

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):

Oh my, did I hit a nerve? Did YOU even read what I posted? Hmm?

Yes, I read the whole thing, 1980, divergence, etc. etc, and now I see you posting a ton of names. Now read MDs post and look at that. You're know for going off on tirades, and obviously I read your bloody article, otherwise what would I know to disagree with? I don't agree that the levels have decreased a lot, because many sources show otherwise.

Whoop-de-do.

EDIT: I DO think that humans impact global warming, but I don't find it reasonable to suggest that we're murdering ourselves. The whole thing is highly political and alarmist.

[Edited 2007-07-11 02:51:29]

User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3133 times:

Quoting Coz (Reply 2):
Keep in mind, it took many years of preparation and hard work to prepare computer systems for the Y2K. If we had done nothing, it would have been a disaster. Climate change presents the same set of problems. These problems need to be addressed with the same urgency that society addressed the Y2K issue.



Quoting Coz (Reply 6):
Because I've been writing software professionaly since before 2000.

IMHO, Y2K was a colossal hoax. I worked on the so-called 'response' to the 'threat' of Y2K and in no case did I see a problem for our particular shop: we develop s/w that's used to design and license nuclear reactors. A fairly serious business (although we are allowed to laugh...). And I've been writing s/w professionally since 1975. Yes, there were computers then.

But to the point of global climate change, the environment is an enormously complex system to model. There are tons of feedback effects, influential parameters that we are still trying to quantify, and a basic lack of really accurate historical data. We have to infer much. Measuring isotopic ratios in ice core samples can give us some gross data, but I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it. How we cast the size of the cells used in any study has a real effect on the outcome, as well.

That's not to say that GHG-induced warming is not a real threat. And, if we do nothing and the GCC advocates are correct, it will soon be too late to do anything in a practical manner. Therefore a prudent approach is to try to limit GHG emissions as much as we can.

To do this in anything like a thoroughgoing manner, however, will require the active participation and cooperation of India and China, whose carbon-based energy use is accelerating like mad. As well, for once America will have to get by with less of the pie than has been the case: it already accounts for 1/4 of the world's energy consumption for 5% of the population, i.e. 5x per capita more than the average. In Canada we need to do our part as well, although since our population is so much smaller than the US the overall effect is less.

Options?
-- limit growth in CO2-emitting power generation facilities & industries (a big problem since there's lots of coal and it's relatively cheap);
-- promote nuclear & hydro where appropriate (may be constrained in nuclear by lack of capable staff);
-- wind is something I'm ambivalent about: there is a fair bit of energy out there, but it's unreliable and can cause grid
problems. I do not see it as a magic bullet;
-- tidal & solar power in select locations;
-- geothermal energy: there's huge amounts of it right below us, admittedly with many potential problems, but hey? who isn't up for a challenge.
-- fusion ? Well, when I started in this business 30+ years ago, the greybeards told me fusion was 20-25 years away. Now that I'm a greybeard, I tell the new kids that fusion is 50+ years away, if ever. I do not think ITER in Cadarrache will reoslve the problems.

But the coal lobby is strong, they will bend many politicians to their goals. Clean coal (so-called CCS technology) _may_ provide a viable path, but it has yet to be demonstrated. I understand there is a proof-of-concept plant being built near Long Beach, California. I hope it succeeds.

A bit long-winded, but my humble contribution.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3123 times:

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):
What is it with people not only determined to ignore the science, but to condemn it without even reading the numerous papers published in legitimate journals?!

Because science has often and consistently been wrong, and it is only thru our own folly to believe that they are not wrong now.

There are plenty of previous examples were the scientific cure for a problem was worse than the actual original problem.

And to answer, what is wrong with CO2? After all, it is what plants use in their energy cycle. Now if you are talking about other poisons, I am all for removing them from the environment. But plants take the O out of CO2 to give us the oxygen we breathe.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3112 times:

By Richard Black
BBC Environment Correspondent


Yeah, reports someone with his job on the line. The solar "theory" was experimentally proven, we'll see what becomes of this.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3107 times:

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 12):
So what major changes has everyone here made to reduce their CO2 emissions?

I personally am trying to eat more beans to offset the paranoia. That reminds me we should be opening a new Taco Del Mar in town shortly....it's a new brand for this state.

[

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):

Learned Societies: Fellow of the Royal Society of London (FRS)

Never heard of it

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):
Fellow, Institute of Physics (FInstP)

Never heard of it

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):
Chartered Physicist (CPhys)

Just like a pilots rating.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):
Member, American Geophysical Union

He joined a club

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):
Fellow, Royal Astronomical Society (FRAS)

He joined another club

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):
Fellow, Royal Astronomical Society (FRAS)

Another club....I hope he gets a newsletter.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):
International Awards: 1990 The Zel'dovich Award for Commission C (Ionospheric Physics). Awarded by COSPAR (The Committee on Space Research, of the International Council of Scientific Unions).
1990 The Issac Koga Gold Medal . Awarded by URSI (The International Union of Radio Science).
1998 The Chapman Medal . Awarded by the Royal Astronomical Society, London
2003 The Charles Chree Award and Prize . Awarded by the Institute of Physics, London.
2006 Elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society of London

The boy scouts call those Merit Badges.

Sorry, If I am being a bit harsh on the guy, but I learned a long time ago listening to Art Bell introduce guests is that a lot of his experts have the same medals/licenses/memberships in the same groups. Just means he is supporting of what the group promotes.

Quoting Halcyon (Reply 15):
EDIT: I DO think that humans impact global warming, but I don't find it reasonable to suggest that we're murdering ourselves. The whole thing is highly political and alarmist.

Agreed, I can't allow myself to dismisss natural variences so easily, but it looks like the man is evil crowd can.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 16):
Options?
-- limit growth in CO2-emitting power generation facilities & industries (a big problem since there's lots of coal and it's relatively cheap);

Agreed, but keep in mind that oil, gas, and manufactured fuels such as biofuels all fit into this catagory. I don't think you can limit it with the current power increases.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 16):
-- promote nuclear & hydro where appropriate (may be constrained in nuclear by lack of capable staff);

Hydro is very enviromentally damaging, just look at the Bonneville project and it's effect on the Colombia river. Nuclear is probably the best option mainly because it's waste why long lasting and highly toxic can be localized in storage.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 16):
-- wind is something I'm ambivalent about: there is a fair bit of energy out there, but it's unreliable and can cause grid
problems. I do not see it as a magic bullet;

Hardly the wind isn't universal, Ted Kennedy won't let that plant be built off Martha's Vinyard because it will destroy his view, it isn't constant, and I can tell you from experience that there are some places where the wind conditions will destory the clutches in the fan in short order.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 16):
-- tidal & solar power in select locations

Tidal is hardly proved, and I wouldn't consider it even close to mature, more at about the point solar was in the 1960's. Also I have concerns about the effects on fish and marine mammels, not to mention sea patterns.

Solar is probably the best bet but frankly we are screwing up on how to do it. You don't go with the major project. If I had any money to spare I would love to invest in that company that is working on installing solar panels on 3-tab roofing shingles.

I see small homeowner based projects to be the way to go.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 16):
-- geothermal energy: there's huge amounts of it right below us, admittedly with many potential problems, but hey? who isn't up for a challenge

Actually there isn't that much for big projects, unless you happen to be in iceland. But I do see the "heat pump" systems are gaining in popularity for temperture regulations of homes. That is where the efficency will come from.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 16):
-- fusion ? Well, when I started in this business 30+ years ago, the greybeards told me fusion was 20-25 years away. Now that I'm a greybeard, I tell the new kids that fusion is 50+ years away, if ever. I do not think ITER in Cadarrache will reoslve the problems.

Mr. Scott would have had it up and running by now.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21460 posts, RR: 53
Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3105 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 17):
Because science has often and consistently been wrong, and it is only thru our own folly to believe that they are not wrong now.

The computer on which you're typing that and the airplanes you're trusting your life to are products of what you believe to be "often and consistently wrong".

Fact is that science is a system for the finding, verification and optimization of knowledge about the world. And it is the only such system to have sustained success in yielding reliable results which you can (and do) trust your life to.

Okay, now on again with the "science is nonsense" propaganda show...!  crazy 


User currently offlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2049 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3101 times:

Quoting 777236ER (Thread starter):
Another piece of evidence that suggests that global warming is man-made, and caused by man-made green house gas emissions. Those that bury their heads in the sand are fast running out of alternative 'theories' to support their denial.

So you really believe that the Sun, the one and only source of all energy on the planet, has nothing to do with temperatures on the Earth. Ok. If you say so. You also probably still believe that 2 BILLION people watched Al Gore's concerts this weekend too...



As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3098 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 17):
Because science has often and consistently been wrong, and it is only thru our own folly to believe that they are not wrong now.

That's a rather bizarre position to take. I hope that you don't use a computer, use electricity, use anything metal, plastic, rubber or fabric, fly a plane or ride a car, lest science be wrong and these things blow up!

Quoting Halcyon (Reply 15):
Whoop-de-do.



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 13):

They don't what?

Instead of flippant remarks, have you actually read the paper cited in the link in the thread opener...you know the very paper you're saying is bollocks?

Just for you, here are some of the relevent results from the Lockwood and Frohlich paper. [Note, these are fair use excerpt and come from M. Lockwood and C. Fröhlich Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880; 2007]



These figures show monthly means of parameters taking since 1975. The first figure is the international sunspot number , R. The second figure shows the open solar flux, Fs. The third figure shows the neutrons generated by cosmic rays incident on the Earth's atmosphere as seen by Climax. The fourth figure shows the TSI (which is based on data including the data from your graph above). These parameters are used to measure the solar cycle The final figure shows the Earth's surface air temperature.

Data for the longer term is shown below:



The variation in R for 1890-2000 is shown in the first figure. The second figure shows the solar cycle length L for the same time period. The third figure shows the change in Fs. The fourth figure shows the abundence of the isotope 10Be which is a palaeoclimate indicator. 10Be is a product of galactic cosmic rays hitting atmospheric O, N and Ar atoms and thus is an indicator of solar activity. Finally, the last figure shows the Earth's surface air temperature.

It doesn't take a genius to see the loss in correlation between the solar activity and surface air temperature towards the end of the 20th century. This is hard data, using the data you've posted above, without bias or prejudiced, presented in a respected journal by a respected author. If you think the paper is bollocks, fine, but instead of just slating it because it disagrees with your view and you can't stand to be wrong, at least read it then give a reasoned scientific response. Saying it's bollocks and pulling the first thing you find from Google to condemn it isn't enough. This is hard science, the type that allows you to post on the internet in the first place.

Time for bed!

[Edited 2007-07-11 03:36:31]

User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3093 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 21):
So you really believe that the Sun, the one and only source of all energy on the planet, has nothing to do with temperatures on the Earth. Ok. If you say so. You also probably still believe that 2 BILLION people watched Al Gore's concerts this weekend too...

Did I say that? No! All I said was paraphrased from the paper which you haven't read: the recent trend in global surface temperatures has diverged from solar activity.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 19):
Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):

Learned Societies: Fellow of the Royal Society of London (FRS)

Never heard of it

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):
Fellow, Institute of Physics (FInstP)

Never heard of it

If you don't know what the Royal Society is then I'm amazed you went to school in a prosperous Western nation. I really am.

This isn't about which politician you side with, or even whether you should drive your 11mpg gas-guzzling car. This is about scientific evidence. The fact that people feel it's OK to ridicule science and applaud ignorance is frightning. And before one more person says it, you can't prove a scientific theory, for Christ's sake. Did you go to school?!

[Edited 2007-07-11 03:37:01]

User currently offlineCupraIbiza From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 836 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3092 times:

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 12):
So what major changes has everyone here made to reduce their CO2 emissions?

Geez I am wondering why other than L-188 (that was gold by the way) no one here has answered this question? Hmm I sense a severe case of hypocrisy



Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
25 Klaus : Yeah, the pitfalls of oversimplification. The sun provides most of the energy, but the amount of energy retained on earth apparently depends more on
26 MDorBust : I'm sure you would have no problems linking us to a copy of the paper, since you've got it at hand and all. Okay... other than the expected eleven ye
27 Post contains images Klaus : I drive relatively rarely. It's basically enough to keep the battery from self-discharging below the point where the car won't start on its own next
28 Post contains images Halcyon : Hey, I did, and flippantly showed that I did. Now you, on the other hand, don't bother to read my article. You're doing what you accuse me of doing..
29 GuitrThree : Then how do you explain that Mars and Venus temperature rises are relatively similar to Earths? Is that "oversimplification?"
30 Coz : Because you had lost all credibility. Perhaps you didn't realize. This thread is about the findings of new evidence regarding climate change and the
31 Klaus : Since the radiation intensity of the sun apparently didn't rise in the past few years, other mechanisms would seem more plausible. Either that or the
32 Queso : I love global warming threads. Nobody can prove anything either way because any information presented can be easily disputed by the opposing viewpoint
33 Post contains images Klaus : Sure. Conservation of precious resources is so obviously a stupid idea.... Fact checking? Consistency? Verification? Nah. Much too troublesome. Reali
34 CupraIbiza : You accuse me of personal attacks? Read your post! I was merely trying to highlight that so many people are quick to preach about the environment and
35 Queso : Glad to see you're finally coming around to understanding that this whole idea of man-made global warming is a sham, Klaus. Welcome to a new level of
36 Post contains images L-188 : You know we quit the empire in 1776. Seriously though, I have heard the term used but couldn't name any specific royal societies or their bylaws. Tha
37 AndesSMF : Umm...and how many theories have gone by the wayside in the last 100 years? Pretty certain that those who believed science was behind them thought it
38 Klaus : I'd gladly do that if the verifiable evidence didn't consistently point into exactly the opposite direction. Well, the verifiable evidence doesn't se
39 Post contains images Coz : How dare you question me.
40 Klaus : Thousands. And every single one of them was either replaced by one which was more consistent with verifiable evidence or at least kicked out because
41 AndesSMF : And that doesn't apply to many other previous theories? I mean, it is well known and not disputed that the earth has warmed and cooled before, the on
42 L-188 : Which is the exact opposite answer for those in the arctic. We are looking at tree lines expanding north darkening the landscape and holding in the h
43 RJdxer : Hmmm, the first day of winter is December 21st, yet the coldest time of winter is always in January or February. Summer starts in June yet late July a
44 Post contains images Mir : Either we can do some minor things now, or seriously major things later. If we do the minor things now, and turn out to be wrong, then we're out mone
45 RJdxer : But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output. But in about 1985,
46 Mir : Alright, I see what you're getting at. It's possible that there's bleedoff - I don't know how well that principle extends to longer periods of time. I
47 RJdxer : When humans can quit thinking in terms of our life span and start thinking in terms of the planets, then a lot of these answers will be self evident.
48 Post contains images Aloges : Funny how these threads always end up in the gutter...
49 Post contains links and images 777236ER : This is the paper: M. Lockwood and C. Fröhlich Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880; 2007 You'll need an Athens account or a subscription to P
50 DLPMMM : And you do not see the problem with the data you presented? Look at the temperature graphs you presented. The first graph shows a steady increase in
51 Post contains links Baroque : http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?tip=1&id=6628 Here are the first two foreign members of the Roy Soc for 2007 "Professor Wallace Smith BroeckerProf
52 777236ER : Not when averaged. Read the paper. Apart from at the end of the 20th centure, from 1980+, where the solar flux is decreasing and the surface temperat
53 RJdxer : Consider that that same fragility and instability have been here for hundreds of millions of years through warming and cooling periods and that man h
54 777236ER : You can bring out as much psuedoscience, or whatever pops into your head at any given moment, but have you read any scientific paper on climate chang
55 WellHung : The 'scientists have been wrong before' argument is just about on par with the 'we're conceited to think we can have an effect on a huge planet that h
56 RJdxer : No, and I don't have too because this statement still stands..... Humans have no idea of how the planet or the solar system for that matter operate i
57 777236ER : Well there you go. If you don't even bother to read the scientific paper this thread discusses, why are you here? Yes, we do. The 10Be picture goes b
58 MDorBust : Wait a second. You start a thread, provide us with one source, then lambast us for not reading another source... which you can't even provide? The on
59 RJdxer : Because thos scientific papers are biased in my opinion. Explain the Marfa lights then. When your done with the explanation, which would be the first
60 777236ER : So you're suggesting that something you haven't even read is biased?! Asked and answered in the papers you haven't read. Not at all, the questions yo
61 Baroque : Even better, achieve enough to merit election to the Roy Soc!
62 JakeOrion : Ok, please provide me the exact climate, temperatures, weather, tides, moon phases, etc. every day for the past 5 billion years. Anyone? Here's the tr
63 777236ER : Yes we do. Right, so you won't fly the 787 because the finite volume and finite element work done - the EXACT SAME TECHNIQUES used for climatology -
64 PPVRA : I'm not so sure about that!!! Unfortunately the only piece of evidence I have is in some science TV channel's archive. It was a program that talked a
65 JakeOrion : No we don't, if we do: Explain what exactly dark matter is; we know about gravity, but explain why the planets are in a rotationally orbit and not pu
66 777236ER : Dark matter is hypothetical, planets rotate about the sun due to gravitational laws developed by Newton and later expanded by quantum work (although
67 MDorBust : And you never stop to wonder about copyrighted scientific research that is only provided for a fee? The mere fact that you have to buy this report is
68 777236ER : You mean like every single journal published today?! FREE from government resources. Are you seriously suggesting that the Royal Society publications
69 Post contains links 777236ER : It appears I am wrong, for only the third time in my life! Here's the article, for free: http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa200718
70 Post contains images MDorBust : You don't even have to wait for the morning, or science. Common sense wins from the very beginning. Full stop right there. Okay, so the sun was respo
71 777236ER : You're critisising his analysis, but not his results. Why? Do you have a problem with the results? What about the methodology is wrong? Yes, of cours
72 MDorBust : Uh, I thought I was pretty critical of the results of his analysis. Uh uh. I'm sure all the people that did all the original research were just wrong
73 777236ER : You posted some of that research above. There is new research, no one has collated this data before. No one has shown so clearly the lack of correlat
74 Halcyon : Please just be quiet about people reading the thing. Please? Even if people use pieces of the article in Figure 4 compares the centennial variations
75 NorthStarDC4M : This is just proof of the only single certainty in the Global Warming debate: Every Report will have a report saying why it is wrong and yet another r
76 MDorBust : Your response doesn't even make sense. Uh no, there wasn't. Except for the people that originally researched all the data... and came to an opposite
77 RJdxer : I hate it when that phrase pops up. Don't you? I can take other people statistics and come up with numbers I like too. And the bias of those people i
78 AirTranTUS : Report: The last report was wrong Report: Actually, we were right These "reports" keep going back and forth. How are we supposed to know what is right
79 777236ER : MDorBust, before you keep on making a fool out of yourself, notice that the NASA report you quoted without reference is talking about Total Solar Irra
80 Post contains links 777236ER : Psst, NASA agrees: http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/environment/danger_point.html This study finds that global warming of 0.6ºC in the past 30 yea
81 Mir : The scientific method is indeed a pretty crappy means of figuring things out. But it's a heck of a lot better than anything else we've come up with (
82 Post contains links PPVRA : They also predict a stronger sun-spot cycle: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif which if anything, shouldn't help. . .
83 Connies4ever : Anything that drives us towards more hydrogenated fuels is a 'less bad' thing than simply burning up more gas & coal. Run-of-the-river hydro developm
84 MDorBust : It's a special mark of honor to be considered a fool by you. Seems to me that both reports are talking TSI. Unless the new report is talking about so
85 Post contains links RJdxer : I never said that man is not assisting in climate change. With all the internal combustion engines running you would have to be a fool to think that.
86 MD-90 : Hmmm....looks like the global warming religionists have another new piece of holy scripture to add to their conversion arsenal.
87 Post contains images FlyUSCG : Without reading this entire thread... 1.) Can SOMEONE please explain to me who is at fault for the DOZENS of ice ages the earth has come out of? I mea
88 NWA742 : That is true - and may I be the first to welcome you to the club. -NWA742
89 Baroque : They still think it is driving climate change, but they are pointing out that the system seems to have become decoupled in the last part of the 20th
90 Connies4ever : Hi mate ! Always strikes me as passing strange that the people with the strongest and sometimes extreme views about this theory or that are usually t
91 Baroque : Uh oh, I have just such a fixture in mid Aus and IN CANADA. What are you forecasting Connies?
92 L-188 : Barney the purple dinosaur farted.......if you think cow pies put out some methane, you should see what giant lizard poo does.
93 Joni : That graphs plots the length of the solar cycle, not the irradiance. This is flawed logic at best. Just because the evidence exists, doesn't mean it'
94 David L : Well, the thing is... the Global Warming "experts" predicted there would be more record breaking high temperatures in the UK this summer, i.e. higher
95 Joni : Those points sound more like weather, as opposed to climate. Climate change doesn't deal with the UK and this or next year, but global trends over de
96 David L : Agreed... and yet "climate experts" told the BBC there would be record-breaking temperatures in the UK this summer due to global warming. But it will
97 Post contains images NWA742 : You should take a trip over here to central Texas. It's been a lovely wet and cool summer this year as opposed to the typical hot and dry. Of course
98 777236ER : Regardless of what 'weather experts' the BBC trots out to fullfil its latest waggy finger role on the news, the serious science behind climate change
99 Post contains images NWA742 : Yes, keep telling yourself that. Big deal. Human causation of global warming isn't fact - there's a wide range of scientific evidence and opinion on
100 777236ER : It's not about me telling myself that. I've got nothing to gain from it being true, believe you me my ego is big enough for me to afford to be indiff
101 David L : Again, I know! The point is that if Weather Action are right that there's a link between solar activity and climate, their predictions of slight cool
102 777236ER : Well, there is a huge link between solar activity and climate, but the data from Lockwood's paper shows that the solar activity and global surface te
103 David L : I know. Isn't that what the thread's about? And if he's wrong, we'll know in a couple of years. Saying he's wrong now won't change the outcome.
104 777236ER : But if he's wrong, he's wrong now. Listening to him now suggests that man-made greenhouse gasses aren't the problem, implying we can keep on increasi
105 David L : Do you seriously think everyone's going to sit on their backsides for two years because of a prediction by Weather Action? It's such a simple test, w
106 777236ER : I've got hostility towards it because it's not borne out in the evidence, the same way I'd have hostility towards someone saying AIDS isn't caused by
107 RayChuang : The BBC article is utter ridiculous Bravo Sierra. Does anyone remember the famous Maunder minimum of the 17th and 18th Centuries, when the near-absenc
108 777236ER : What about Lockwood's paper?
109 Joni : There is a mountain of evidence according to which human actions are causing the greenhouse effect to increase at an accelerating rate. There is no c
110 David L : To be fair, the point covered by that BBC article is that the sun's influence is no longer the main driving force. Hardly. A lot of people might find
111 Baroque : Hallelujah. Someone has noticed. It is thought that whatever coupling there was has now been overriden. Now can we stop and go home? Unless someone w
112 PPVRA : A lot of scientists don't think so. Look up the Oregon Petition, signed by nearly 18,000 scientists. Agree. The debate isn't over, both side have ple
113 Post contains images MD80fanatic : I honestly think the killer tsunami of 2004 was caused not by an earthquake, but by a high speed massive impactor from space. When was the last time a
114 Post contains images David L : I don't know about 5000 miles but tsunamis can cause devastation "a long way away" depending on the shape of the "receiving" shore, among other thing
115 MD80fanatic : Suppose for a moment that a large rock did splash down in the Indian Ocean. What would happen to the localised ocean plate below that has been consta
116 Lehpron : Y2K was just there around the corner, it was obvious. Global warming is like evolution, it takes much longer than a human lifetime to make a slight d
117 Joni : I'm not 100% sure, but I think I've already explained to you earlier, why you shouldn't think that the "Oregon Petition" would be an indication that
118 David L : Probably but the impact would have registered quite distinctly, too. There's still the question of whether or not anyone reported a loud screaming no
119 Post contains links Baroque : You are "missing" part of the point, David. The timing and accuracy of the whatsit was such that it struck the ocean above the epicentre of the quake
120 Post contains images David L : Yup. I'm useless! Perhaps "government officials" were positioned to cough very loudly at just the right moment to distract everyone. Sorry, MD80fanat
121 WellHung : Things like this "Oregon Petition" are the last threads of hope for these folks, who, for some reason, choose not to believe the overwhelming evidenc
122 Halcyon : Lots of buzzwords, but little info. I love how much "mountains of evidence" gets used. None of my article was ever addressed...and the "mountain of e
123 Post contains images WellHung : I assume you are referring to the newspaper op-ed with zero research and/or analysis of its own. There is no need to address it. Find a legitimate sc
124 777236ER : No, people who disagree get taken seriously, research is done, their opinion is shown to be wrong (as in this case), then they're laughed at if they
125 Post contains images Halcyon : Considering what I've seen in this thread? So evasive you can't account for "opinion." Ignore things when the facts don't fit and call it "non-scient
126 Halcyon : Very compelling.
127 Post contains images WellHung : There are contrary ideas, however, they can't compete because they have no basis in reality. Not all of us equate 'scrutinizing' with 'ignoring'. Unt
128 777236ER : Thank you.
129 Post contains images Halcyon : My view that I've spoken with people in person? While you continue to quote yourself into unsightly redundancy, I might as well join in. Most welcome
130 777236ER : I'm more than happy to admit that the majority of people who harp on about how we're destroying the environment are ignorant hippies with nothing bet
131 Post contains images Halcyon : And I really don't have a problem with being green and whatnot, but it gets tiresome when it's made into such a ruckus. I think it also takes away fr
132 Post contains links and images AC773 : You brought out your best Bugle for an article written by a think tank? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute (I've personally checked eve
133 Post contains images MD80fanatic : He didn't miss part of the point at all. Although he and I disagree, he made a fair attempt at wrapping his head around my unpopular theory and gave
134 Joni : Have you read the IPCC's material? No, this isn't how science works at all. Haven't you been to school? Competing ideas are scrutinized and their pre
135 Halcyon : Enough to understand what a quotation mark means. Apparently you don't track what the heck I'm talking about, do you?
136 David L : But I don't think it is unheard of. As I understand it, what made this one so bad was the distance and, more importantly, the orientation and shape o
137 Joni : Back to the point: have you read the IPCC's material or haven't you - and if yes, which publications?
138 Halcyon : If you want me to start listing crap for you, why don't you PM me instead. Quit wasting bandwidth and trying to steer arguments in vain. Or, better y
139 Joni : Then I find it a bit odd that in Reply 131 you seem to be longing to see just that kind of report, modulo the "tiny bit" term. Why so testy?
140 Post contains images Baroque : Me too. Blind as a bat I am. Feel free to differ. But afore you do: 1. Check tsunami records, there are historical record of damage at great distance
141 Halcyon : I'll leave you alone to ponder my question...maybe you'll understand why I'm relatively uninterested in those reports...there's a mention of the reas
142 Joni : Frankly it doesn't matter to me "under what reasoning" you've read the IPCC's work (if indeed you have), but I advise you to read it in a sincere fra
143 Post contains images Halcyon : You know, you don't seem to be able to care at all about anything other than your own views Joni, and you seem quite bitter. I'd take your advice, bu
144 Joni : I don't believe every "view" should be treated equally. The theories that are supported by evidence should be preferred to ones that are at variance
145 Post contains images Cfalk : Global warming will do great things for the world! Look at all the land in Canada, Scandanavia and Siberia which is virtually unpopulated and too cold
146 Baroque : I think you might find that it will only get warmer. We may not develop another sun to give longer summers, nor will the current sun climb higher in
147 Cfalk : Sunlight is not the issue for farms at high latitudes. It is the dates of the last freeze in Spring and the first freeze in Fall that determine the a
148 Post contains images Halcyon : Besides the vague comments about my texts, I think you just nailed it! I'm all for being green when people can afford it, and I know humans contribut
149 Joni : IIRC it's been estimated that a global warming effect of under 2 degrees C would have a net positive effect, but the net effect would turn negative a
150 Cfalk : Why? Earth's temperatures go up and down like a yo-yo. Recent ice cores show that not too long ago, there was no ice on Greenland. Why do we have the
151 Joni : No-one was saying that as far as I know. By returning to what it was I meant a return to more gradual changes in climate, caused by causes other than
152 Baroque : True, but there are limits to how much longer the frost free season will become in high lats. If it were possible to grow two wheat crops in warmer c
153 Pilothica737 : Ahhh who cares about global warming?!?! At least I can get my indian tan! Afterall, I am 1/2 Indian....
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Global Warming Caused By Sun, Not Gases -- Expert posted Mon Jan 29 2007 12:51:37 by AerospaceFan
Study: Global Warming Not Man Made! posted Tue Oct 24 2006 14:57:15 by DLPMMM
Hurricanes=Not Due To Global Warming, Say Experts posted Sat Sep 24 2005 03:01:34 by Komododx
Global Warming - Hypothetical Question posted Sun Jul 1 2007 06:45:08 by NWA742
Global Warming... Is There Anything It Can't Do? posted Mon Jun 18 2007 23:55:47 by MDorBust
Global Warming Question.......... posted Sat May 19 2007 19:44:44 by Mike89406
Chopping Down Trees Could Fight Global Warming posted Sun Apr 22 2007 01:43:08 by MaverickM11
Help Battle Global Warming posted Fri Apr 20 2007 08:21:51 by Scooter01
Wind Shear By Global Warming May Curb Hurricanes posted Wed Apr 18 2007 05:51:29 by KFLLCFII
Global Warming...yeah Right! posted Tue Apr 10 2007 15:00:20 by KaiGywer