Fortress Forever

Go Back   Fortress Forever > Off Topic > Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-06-2007, 01:48 AM   #61
o_|404|innoc-tpf-
 
o_|404|innoc-tpf-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Found this site interesting.

National Resources Stewardship Program

They're a group in Canada trying to influence Canadian public policy to overcome the misinformation about this subject.

On a related link I found this condense article some of the groups members work here

Of note was this quote

Quote:
Four hundred and forty million years ago, when CO2 levels are estimated to have been more than 10 times today's, our planet was in the depths of the coldest period in the last half billion years. At other times, high CO2 levels coincided with warm periods. There is no meaningful correlation with temperature in the geological record.

Over the past half million years, the Antarctic ice core records show a remarkable link between temperature and CO2 . Yet, these records consistently show that temperature rises some 800 years before CO2 rises, not after it.

Even over the past century the CO2/warming correlation is poor, with significant cooling taking place between 1940 and 1980 while human-produced CO2 emissions were increasing rapidly. In all these records there is no evidence to show that CO2 has ever acted as a climate driver or even as a significant secondary effect to accelerate climate warming.
Their position would seem to suggest that the common issue raised with the "man caused" Global Warming being related to Co2 is unsupported.
o_|404|innoc-tpf- is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-06-2007, 05:36 AM   #62
o_uber
 
o_uber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
It's actually supported quite well, I believe. There does seem to be some counter trends though. For example, the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, and quite possibly the warm period 440 million years ago.

Again though, there are ice age cycles. So whether or not there's CO2 in the air, there's going to be these cycles. Within these long periods of ice ages come interglacials (moderate) and glacial periods (colder temperatures). There even temperature variations within these, as well. So there's always been a large variation of temperatures and CO2 along with these variations. (We, currently, for example, are in the midst of an interglacial).

[Edit: Apparently, after some looking up, this period of around 440 million years ago seems to coincide with what was an ice age. I cannot vouch for the CO2 levels though. Plants, after all, were said to have had mass extinctions.]

600 million years, during what is called the Snowball Earth, almost all of the water, including oceans, were frozen over. It's attributed to the very large amount of vegetation life that was able to use the CO2 for their photosynthesis.

The Medieval Warm Period, also, is mainly said to be caused by solar variation (which goes to show how much of an impact such variables can have), and mostly regional (though still large) impact. The Little Ice Age, too, is primarily said to be caused by solar variation as well as volcanism. (A volcano, after all, is what caused the Year Without a Summer in 1816.)

So, all in all, there's a lot of factors that have got to be determined.

Last edited by o_uber; 02-06-2007 at 05:45 AM.
o_uber is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-06-2007, 01:55 PM   #63
o_zsilver_fox
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Actually nevermind.

Last edited by o_zsilver_fox; 02-06-2007 at 02:10 PM.
o_zsilver_fox is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-06-2007, 08:25 PM   #64
o_soundchaser
 
o_soundchaser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cow Hampshire USA
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Man can disappear from Earth and there would still be global warming.

Man has nothing to do with global warming. There isn't any scientific evidence of man screwing up the ozone.

Polar ice core samples prove that climate conditions of Earth
have had global warming time and time again over thousands of years.

It's an Earth thing, not a human thing.
o_soundchaser is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-06-2007, 08:29 PM   #65
o_uber
 
o_uber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Er soundchaser, you sort of have to look at what is considered "normal variation" and "abnormal variation" in comparison to past trends. This is where scientists get the notion of human-caused global climate change.
o_uber is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-06-2007, 08:47 PM   #66
o_soundchaser
 
o_soundchaser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cow Hampshire USA
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
It's all in the Ice Core samples.

Earth in the past has been hotter than it is now.

Scientists struggle to make things up or they'll be out of a job. So why not
make a big deal out of global warming, which is utter nonsense.

You have 2 types of scientists. The "scare munger"(liberal) scientist and the "head out of the clouds"(conservative) scientist. Scare mungers are all over the global warming band wagon to create controversey and a paycheck.
o_soundchaser is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-06-2007, 08:47 PM   #67
o_cruor
 
o_cruor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sweden
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Yes indeed Soundchaser, for example have a look here at this chart compiled by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office. It clearly shows a correlation between a rapide rise in average global temperature and mankinds industrial revolution which started in the late 18th century and blossomed in early 19th century.



Is it coincidence that Earth's most rapid rise in temperature that we know of would coincide with our industrial age where we have been spewing out carbondiooxide, carbonmonoxide, freon, an all manor of other greenhouse gases.
o_cruor is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-06-2007, 08:49 PM   #68
o_|404|innoc-tpf-
 
o_|404|innoc-tpf-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Cruor, and there are more and more scientists speaking out saying that the correlation between warming and CO2 levels is not supported. That was what the Canadian Group I cited above was saying.
o_|404|innoc-tpf- is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-06-2007, 08:55 PM   #69
o_soundchaser
 
o_soundchaser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cow Hampshire USA
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Cruor. Try to explain this to the people in North Dakota where the temperature is a balmy -40 degrees F plus. This is not an uncommon temp in this region so don't tell me it's due to global warming.





Where were these temperatures taken?? Sahara Desert?
o_soundchaser is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-06-2007, 09:05 PM   #70
o_cruor
 
o_cruor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sweden
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
@Innoc

I know and tbh I'd say at least some of them are paid of by people and companies who have a lot to gain on not having a worldwide save the environment bananza.

Think whatever you will but when I see data of the sort I posted above, I get spooked. The correlation is uncanny, almost the exact instant mankind enter the industrial revolution the temperature enters a linear curve steadily rising. sure 1 degree celcius might not seem a lot in one decade, perhaps especially to people not used to celcius. But from a geographical perspective this is a monumental rise in temperature.

Once again I say, I'd rather be safe than sorry. If not for myself then for my future children and grandchildren.

@Soundchaser

That is not is not the temperature of any given place but rather a chart of the temperature anomoly on a global scale in average temperature compiled from measurements all around the globe, so in all effect it's the temperature of Earth and it's rising fast. Sure Earth's temperature have risen and fallen before but then we're talking a couple of millenia perhaps to pull of what this chart shows has happened in on century. However Earth has been a victim to the occacional freak heating or cooldown. But that has most often been in correlation to monumental nature catastrophies such as a huge breakout in volcano eruptions spewing out greenhouse gases and/or dimming the sky with ash (nuclear winter sort of), and of course our sun has had it's spikes and solar flares etc.

Last edited by o_cruor; 02-06-2007 at 09:13 PM.
o_cruor is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-06-2007, 09:32 PM   #71
o_uber
 
o_uber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Soundchaser, can you give me an example of a time period in which the global temperature, on the average, was higher than it is now?

It's misleading and extremely detrimental/ignorant to state that liberal scientists are liars, and conservative scientist are truth-tellers. It a statement that completely lacks merit.

Here's a better graph to show an example of my previous statements, I believe:

and


Plus, soundchaser, if you live anywhere near North Dakota, the place from which you got your example, you know that it's a bad example. Yeah, the temperatures have been way below zero this past week here, but it's been just about the only week this winter with below-zero temperatures! This entire winter has been moderate. Very little snow has fallen and for the most part, it's been warm enough to stay outside without a jacket (for us Minnesotans, anyway)!

But that's a bad example, regardless. It would be so ignorant to rule out short-term climate cycles, and then say that because today is cold therefore there is no warming of the Earth. Furthermore, disregarding short-term cycles of seasons, it would also be imprudent to say that because of what's being called global warming, there should be absolutely no cold weather.

That's not what global warming is, at all.

Innoc, I've pointed out that there is a bit of problem with the National Resources Stewardship Program statements. They're misleading. It coincides with a period during which there was an ice age (430-460 million years ago). That period, which is marked by mass extinctions (the Ordovician), lacked the carbon cycle we're familiar with today, had the landmass in Pangaea formation, and had a measurably fainter amount of sunlight.
o_uber is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-06-2007, 09:48 PM   #72
o_soundchaser
 
o_soundchaser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cow Hampshire USA
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruor
@Soundchaser

That is not is not the temperature of any given place but rather a chart of the temperature anomoly on a global scale in average temperature compiled from measurements all around the globe, so in all effect it's the temperature of Earth and it's rising fast.
Interesting global temp chart, but, this is not proof that man is destroying Earth with it's industrial revolution.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruor
Sure Earth's temperature has risen and fallen before but then we're talking a couple of millenia perhaps to pull of what this chart shows has happened in on century. However Earth has been a victim to the occacional freak heating or cooldown. But that has most often been in correlation to monumental nature catastrophies such as a huge breakout in volcano eruptions spewing out greenhouse gases and/or dimming the sky with ash (nuclear winter sort of), and of course our sun has had it's spikes and solar flares etc.
Like I said above. It's an Earth thing, not a human thing just as you have described.
o_soundchaser is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-06-2007, 09:58 PM   #73
o_soundchaser
 
o_soundchaser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cow Hampshire USA
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by uBeR
Soundchaser, can you give me an example of a time period in which the global temperature, on the average, was higher than it is now?

It's misleading and extremely detrimental/ignorant to state that liberal scientists are liars, and conservative scientist are truth-tellers. It a statement that completely lacks merit.

Here's a better graph to show an example of my previous statements, I believe:

and


Plus, soundchaser, if you live anywhere near North Dakota, the place from which you got your example, you know that it's a bad example. Yeah, the temperatures have been way below zero this past week here, but it's been just about the only week this winter with below-zero temperatures! This entire winter has been moderate. Very little snow has fallen and for the most part, it's been warm enough to stay outside without a jacket (for us Minnesotans, anyway)!

But that's a bad example, regardless. It would be so ignorant to rule out short-term climate cycles, and then say that because today is cold therefore there is no warming of the Earth. Furthermore, disregarding short-term cycles of seasons, it would also be imprudent to say that because of what's being called global warming, there should be absolutely no cold weather.

That's not what global warming is, at all.

Innoc, I've pointed out that there is a bit of problem with the National Resources Stewardship Program statements. They're misleading. It coincides with a period during which there was an ice age (430-460 million years ago). That period, which is marked by mass extinctions (the Ordovician), lacked the carbon cycle we're familiar with today, had the landmass in Pangaea formation, and had a measurably fainter amount of sunlight.
In all of your research and all of your argument here...you still have not proven that man is the cause of this "global warming".
o_soundchaser is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-06-2007, 10:06 PM   #74
o_uber
 
o_uber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
I'm not in the business of proving things to you. You've made some wildly false claims; I'm trying to show you where you went wrong.

You said liberal scientists are liars, and conservative scientists are not. That's plain absurdity.

You said there've been periods during which it was warmer. I asked you to give me an example of a period during which the global temperature, on the average, has been warmer. You did not.

You said look at North Dakota's cold temperatures during this week as if it were to disprove the notion of global warming. I explained to you why that was a bad example.

I've already explained time and again, and I hope quite clearly, that there have always been cycles (and cycles within those cycles even cycles within these) of temperature variations. I was trying to point out to you, however, as I stated to you earlier, you have to look at what is considered "normal variation" and "abnormal variation" in comparison to past trends.

Last edited by o_uber; 02-06-2007 at 10:11 PM.
o_uber is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-06-2007, 10:15 PM   #75
o_|404|innoc-tpf-
 
o_|404|innoc-tpf-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by uBeR
Innoc, I've pointed out that there is a bit of problem with the National Resources Stewardship Program statements. They're misleading. It coincides with a period during which there was an ice age (430-460 million years ago). That period, which is marked by mass extinctions (the Ordovician), lacked the carbon cycle we're familiar with today, had the landmass in Pangaea formation, and had a measurably fainter amount of sunlight.
Actually Uber that was their point. To use CO2 as an indicator is not reliable.
o_|404|innoc-tpf- is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-06-2007, 10:28 PM   #76
o_zsilver_fox
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
I know I'll get flamed to hell for this, but.

o_zsilver_fox is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-06-2007, 10:40 PM   #77
o_soundchaser
 
o_soundchaser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cow Hampshire USA
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
This "Global Warming" Theory is more political than scientific. Liberals are all over this hoax as the "truth". WHY? click and read --> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...l+warming+hoax

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ae1c76f63fd.htm
The Biggest LIE:Global Warming as the Great Reds' Green Hoax

Our Mission is to expose Global Warming as the Biggest & Most Succesful LIE, believed by more Americans and Europeans than any piece of political proganda ever. From pre-school on, children in America are brainwashed with this propaganda. The media is awash in this false orthodoxy which is beleived by "educated" and ignorant persons alike.

Christine Todd Whitman, Bush's Head of the EPA, has received it as "sound science."

But is it?

Fact: Climate Changes are invevitable, and cyclical, and recurrent, and unpreventable.

For example, long before man could have possibly had any measurable impact upon the earth's environment, The Middle Ages hosted a Warm Trend far greater than our current trend, which may actually be a cooling trend, depending upon your data and TIME HORIZON.

(The only thing we know for sure in climatological science is that we are, long-term, headed for a new ICE AGE!)

Global Warming is bad science, worse politics and catastrophic economics.

The Earth Summits, the man-made global warming hypothesis, and the Kyoto Accords are politically-motivated, Marxist South American Reds generally beame "greens" with the collapse of the USSR),


As you can see from these charts, "Global Warming" is a HOAX

o_soundchaser is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-06-2007, 11:05 PM   #78
o_soundchaser
 
o_soundchaser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cow Hampshire USA
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Truth hurts eh liberals?

global warming is nothing but a hoax when it comes to man being the cause.

The Earth's climate was infact hotter than it is now according to "ELITE" scientists.

Last edited by o_soundchaser; 02-06-2007 at 11:11 PM.
o_soundchaser is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-06-2007, 11:08 PM   #79
o_uber
 
o_uber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
In your own words, you haven't proven anything.

Thank you for your post from the conservative FreeReupublic forum though, which also states that the views expressed there not explicitly their own. It'd be like someone posting a post from a random aficionado from some political forum to totally disprove the notion of global warming! Well, that doesn't help much.

But please, please, read what I've been writing since the very start of this thread. I've already stated, a million times!, that there've been global variations in temperatures from the get-go! It's what I've been saying all along. I said it over a year ago in a thread just like this one! I don't know how many times I'm going to have to explain it, but please at least just read a few posts back, at the very least.
o_uber is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 02-06-2007, 11:09 PM   #80
o_zsilver_fox
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Because a group of extremists has the least biased opinion.
o_zsilver_fox is offline   Reply With Quote


Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.