US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

This is a discussion on Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled within the Environment forums, part of the US Discussion category; some scientist believe we are do for another ice age !! the point is that the climate on this planet is undergoing constant changes and ...


Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Environment

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 03-29-2013, 08:53 PM
yidnar's Avatar
Registered User
Member #31184
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Inside your head.
Posts: 6,805
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,131 Times in 853 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 389
yidnar may be on a path to greatness yidnar may be on a path to greatness yidnar may be on a path to greatness yidnar may be on a path to greatness yidnar may be on a path to greatness yidnar may be on a path to greatness yidnar may be on a path to greatness yidnar may be on a path to greatness yidnar may be on a path to greatness yidnar may be on a path to greatness yidnar may be on a path to greatness yidnar may be on a path to greatness yidnar may be on a path to greatness
some scientist believe we are do for another ice age !! the point is that the climate on this planet is undergoing constant changes and shifts [some for long and some for short spans of time ] with or without man kind ..this has been the case for hundreds of millions of yrs .
__________________
I survived a liberal pregnancy!!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to yidnar For This Useful Post:
polarbear (03-31-2013)
Sponsored Links
USMessageBoard.com is the premier Political Forum Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free!
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 03-29-2013, 08:54 PM
Registered User
Member #41061
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,375
Thanks: 311
Thanked 840 Times in 575 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 507
Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet
If they say it's science, it has to be true.

We're seeing the birth of science fundamentalists.

Hallelujah.
__________________
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.” -- Robert Heinlein
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Crackerjaxon For This Useful Post:
CrusaderFrank (04-01-2013), Matthew (03-30-2013)
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 03-29-2013, 08:55 PM
Pete7469's Avatar
Destroyer of Marxism
Member #43198
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: The Real World
Posts: 2,085
Thanks: 4,413
Thanked 950 Times in 623 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1141
Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court
Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court
Quote: Originally Posted by healthmyths View Post
Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years.

"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.
According to The Economist, "given the hiatus in warming and all the new evidence, a small reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity would seem to be justified." On face value, Hansen agrees the slowdown in global temperature rises can be seen as "good news".
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

By the way Hames Hansen has been the BIGGEST champion of Global Warming!!!

Hmmm... those of us who said the jury was still out on Global Warming... who were the brunt of idiotic comments, jeers as being anti-science... please
I'm not gloating but here is my little dance!!!

Attachment 25149
Yet another thread where MMGW myths are dealt yet another blow, but the bed wetters will cry foul or attack the messenger. For those of you who cling to Algore's Cult I have the solution to Global Warming, and how we can drastically reduce human production of CO2.

It will have to be a well coordinated effort undertaken by everyone who believes human beings are causing the earth to heat up and are dedicated to CO2 reduction. It will require a minimal initial expense, but some significant labor costs in the end.

If you truly believe in changing the earth for the better, this April 20th 2013 at 12 noon eastern standard time (you folks on the west coast might have to set an alarm clock and wake up early) place a plastic bag over your heads and tape it around your neck. Trap all that exhaled CO2 in the bag, relax and take short shallow breaths. You may become tired, but don't give up. Remain that way for at least 12 hours. It is not recommended you perform this procedure on children younger than 16 or on young adults that express skeptisizm.

I can absolutely guarantee complete success on April 21st. Not only will the world be a cooler place, the collective intelligence of mankind will increase at least %25.
__________________


“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”
-P.J. O'Rourke


Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
-Ben Franklin


In order to be a liberal you have to be a complete blithering idiot, or a criminally insane authoritarian sociopath.
-Me
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Pete7469 For This Useful Post:
Matthew (03-30-2013)
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 03-29-2013, 09:03 PM
Registered User
Member #13758
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Portland, Ore.
Posts: 32,082
Thanks: 12,398
Thanked 6,489 Times in 4,817 Posts
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2648
Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute
Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by Dont Taz Me Bro View Post
Global warming is caused by sun activity. Only extremist nutters believe in this man made crap.
You mean extremist nutters like the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society on earth?

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

You mean like the Geological Society of America;
The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change


Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

Or like the American Geophysical Union;
http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/pdf/posit..._Statement.pdf

“The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.
During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.
With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.”
Adopted by the American Geophysical Union December 2003; Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007, February 2012.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 03-29-2013, 09:07 PM
Registered User
Member #13758
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Portland, Ore.
Posts: 32,082
Thanks: 12,398
Thanked 6,489 Times in 4,817 Posts
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2648
Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute
Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute
What we have here is a real time demonstration of the vast ignorance of the 'Conservative' viewpoint. Kiddies, you can't make reality by believing in stupidity. Your willful ignorance is sadly humorous.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 03-29-2013, 09:09 PM
Pete7469's Avatar
Destroyer of Marxism
Member #43198
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: The Real World
Posts: 2,085
Thanks: 4,413
Thanked 950 Times in 623 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1141
Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court
Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court Pete7469 could be on the Supreme Court
Quote: Originally Posted by Old Rocks View Post
What we have here is a real time demonstration of the vast ignorance of the 'Conservative' viewpoint. Kiddies, you can't make reality by believing in stupidity. Your willful ignorance is sadly humorous.
Funny how we say the same thing about you bed wetters.
__________________


“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”
-P.J. O'Rourke


Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
-Ben Franklin


In order to be a liberal you have to be a complete blithering idiot, or a criminally insane authoritarian sociopath.
-Me
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 03-29-2013, 09:20 PM
RetiredGySgt's Avatar
Registered User
Member #5176
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 33,698
Thanks: 40
Thanked 6,515 Times in 4,020 Posts
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 3218
RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute
RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by Old Rocks View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by healthmyths View Post
Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years.

"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.
According to The Economist, "given the hiatus in warming and all the new evidence, a small reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity would seem to be justified." On face value, Hansen agrees the slowdown in global temperature rises can be seen as "good news".
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

By the way Hames Hansen has been the BIGGEST champion of Global Warming!!!

Hmmm... those of us who said the jury was still out on Global Warming... who were the brunt of idiotic comments, jeers as being anti-science... please
I'm not gloating but here is my little dance!!!

Attachment 25149
Yes, the pause in the warming is good news. Temporary good news. Due to the convergence of the massive aerosol release from the burning of coal in China and India, the decrease in the energy we are getting from the sun, and the several strong La Ninas versus the one strong El Nino we have seen since 1998.

However, we have seen temporary pauses, and even downturns, in the temperature before.

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/ho...last-100-years
So the cool is temp but the short raise was really the norm? This is why you are laughed at.
__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable
-Laurence J. Peters
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to RetiredGySgt For This Useful Post:
polarbear (03-31-2013)
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 03-29-2013, 09:22 PM
Circe's Avatar
Registered User
Member #42360
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Aeaea
Posts: 1,828
Thanks: 410
Thanked 365 Times in 292 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 207
Circe could be State Senator Circe could be State Senator Circe could be State Senator Circe could be State Senator Circe could be State Senator Circe could be State Senator Circe could be State Senator Circe could be State Senator Circe could be State Senator Circe could be State Senator Circe could be State Senator
The only climate change of interest is that which took place in the past.

We have actual data about that.

There is no data about climate change in the future, because it hasn't happened and we can't know what will happen.

So any so-called "model" about the climate in the future is necessarily nonsense and purely political.

They can't correctly predict the weather three days from now: how can they possibly predict it a century from now? It's just politics. Liberals trying to bully conservatives in one direction or another.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Circe For This Useful Post:
Missourian (03-30-2013), Pete7469 (03-29-2013), polarbear (03-31-2013)
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 03-29-2013, 09:44 PM
Registered User
Member #32646
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 8,225
Thanks: 503
Thanked 1,616 Times in 1,172 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1270
healthmyths could be on the Supreme Court
healthmyths could be on the Supreme Court healthmyths could be on the Supreme Court healthmyths could be on the Supreme Court healthmyths could be on the Supreme Court healthmyths could be on the Supreme Court healthmyths could be on the Supreme Court healthmyths could be on the Supreme Court healthmyths could be on the Supreme Court healthmyths could be on the Supreme Court healthmyths could be on the Supreme Court healthmyths could be on the Supreme Court healthmyths could be on the Supreme Court healthmyths could be on the Supreme Court healthmyths could be on the Supreme Court healthmyths could be on the Supreme Court
Quote: Originally Posted by Cowman View Post
Science Proves Man-made Global Warming

"Before the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 levels were about 280 parts per million, which falls within the average range of an inter-Ice Age warm period. Now, though, because of the burning of fossil fuels, atmospheric CO2 is at 390 ppm. This is a very large change over a short period of time. What this means is that over the last 300 years, we’ve raised atmospheric CO2 so much that the difference between pre-Industrial levels and the current concentration is the same as the difference between pre-Industrial levels and the last Ice Age. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that because of this, the average global temperature has gone up about one and a half degrees since the Industrial Revolution. And it will continue to rise as long as we continue to pump more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
A) I don't know about the other countries but the USA is

"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).
This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years. Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon
sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood
products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.
World Climate Report » Earth?s Carbon Sink Still Strong and Growing
http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/...odbury_001.pdf

So you can understand.. The USA could produce 15% more CO2 and our forests,etc. would absorb it.
So the USA can't be put into the category of contributing to "Global warming" due to CO2!

B) Please explain how for over 100 years the base point for temperature readings has been the temperature reading stations around the world.. but not in 12.5% of the earth's land mass!

The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
"IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

"We found [U.S. weather] stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source." (Watts 2009) Are surface temperature records reliable?

In the 1970s concerned environmentalists like Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado feared a return to another ice age due to manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun.

Since about 1940 the global climate did in fact appear to be cooling. Then a funny thing happened-- sometime in the late 1970s temperature declines slowed to a halt and ground-based recording stations during the 1980s and 1990s began reading small but steady increases in near-surface temperatures. Fears of "global cooling" then changed suddenly to "global warming,"-- the cited cause:

manmade atmospheric pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.
Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 03-30-2013, 01:53 AM
Registered User
Member #30967
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,018
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1,888 Times in 1,411 Posts
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1063
Politico could be on the Supreme Court
Politico could be on the Supreme Court Politico could be on the Supreme Court Politico could be on the Supreme Court Politico could be on the Supreme Court Politico could be on the Supreme Court Politico could be on the Supreme Court Politico could be on the Supreme Court Politico could be on the Supreme Court Politico could be on the Supreme Court Politico could be on the Supreme Court Politico could be on the Supreme Court Politico could be on the Supreme Court Politico could be on the Supreme Court
When you're clueless simple thinga tend to confuse you.
__________________
If you want a neg make a clueless comment about my political affiliation.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 03-30-2013, 06:32 AM
Registered User
Member #13758
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Portland, Ore.
Posts: 32,082
Thanks: 12,398
Thanked 6,489 Times in 4,817 Posts
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2648
Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute
Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by healthmyths View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Cowman View Post
Science Proves Man-made Global Warming

"Before the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 levels were about 280 parts per million, which falls within the average range of an inter-Ice Age warm period. Now, though, because of the burning of fossil fuels, atmospheric CO2 is at 390 ppm. This is a very large change over a short period of time. What this means is that over the last 300 years, we’ve raised atmospheric CO2 so much that the difference between pre-Industrial levels and the current concentration is the same as the difference between pre-Industrial levels and the last Ice Age. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that because of this, the average global temperature has gone up about one and a half degrees since the Industrial Revolution. And it will continue to rise as long as we continue to pump more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
A) I don't know about the other countries but the USA is

"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).
This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years. Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon
sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood
products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.
World Climate Report » Earth?s Carbon Sink Still Strong and Growing
http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/...odbury_001.pdf

So you can understand.. The USA could produce 15% more CO2 and our forests,etc. would absorb it.
So the USA can't be put into the category of contributing to "Global warming" due to CO2!

B) Please explain how for over 100 years the base point for temperature readings has been the temperature reading stations around the world.. but not in 12.5% of the earth's land mass!

The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
"IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

"We found [U.S. weather] stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source." (Watts 2009) Are surface temperature records reliable?

In the 1970s concerned environmentalists like Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado feared a return to another ice age due to manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun.

Since about 1940 the global climate did in fact appear to be cooling. Then a funny thing happened-- sometime in the late 1970s temperature declines slowed to a halt and ground-based recording stations during the 1980s and 1990s began reading small but steady increases in near-surface temperatures. Fears of "global cooling" then changed suddenly to "global warming,"-- the cited cause:

manmade atmospheric pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.
Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective
Total shit. Since 1979, we have had satellites, as well as ground stations, measuring the increase in temperatures. And an independent study by a skeptic, Muller of Berkeley, confirmed the accuracy of the present organizations involved in studying the temperature rise.

FAQ|Berkeley Earth
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 03-30-2013, 06:44 AM
jon_berzerk's Avatar
Registered User
Member #42969
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,820
Thanks: 4,044
Thanked 3,402 Times in 2,262 Posts
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 3684
jon_berzerk has a reputation beyond repute
jon_berzerk has a reputation beyond repute jon_berzerk has a reputation beyond repute jon_berzerk has a reputation beyond repute jon_berzerk has a reputation beyond repute jon_berzerk has a reputation beyond repute jon_berzerk has a reputation beyond repute jon_berzerk has a reputation beyond repute jon_berzerk has a reputation beyond repute jon_berzerk has a reputation beyond repute jon_berzerk has a reputation beyond repute jon_berzerk has a reputation beyond repute jon_berzerk has a reputation beyond repute jon_berzerk has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by healthmyths View Post
Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years.

"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.
According to The Economist, "given the hiatus in warming and all the new evidence, a small reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity would seem to be justified." On face value, Hansen agrees the slowdown in global temperature rises can be seen as "good news".
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

By the way Hames Hansen has been the BIGGEST champion of Global Warming!!!

Hmmm... those of us who said the jury was still out on Global Warming... who were the brunt of idiotic comments, jeers as being anti-science... please
I'm not gloating but here is my little dance!!!

Attachment 25149
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 03-30-2013, 06:46 AM
Registered User
Member #35352
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,592
Thanks: 235
Thanked 1,144 Times in 869 Posts
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 604
zeke is faster than a speeding bullet zeke is faster than a speeding bullet zeke is faster than a speeding bullet zeke is faster than a speeding bullet zeke is faster than a speeding bullet zeke is faster than a speeding bullet zeke is faster than a speeding bullet zeke is faster than a speeding bullet zeke is faster than a speeding bullet zeke is faster than a speeding bullet zeke is faster than a speeding bullet zeke is faster than a speeding bullet zeke is faster than a speeding bullet zeke is faster than a speeding bullet zeke is faster than a speeding bullet
Quote: Originally Posted by Cowman View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Dont Taz Me Bro View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Cowman View Post

That would make most of the world's scientists in this field of study extremist nutters.
There is no science. It's all been corrupted by politics. You automatically assume that because one is a scientists that means they are unbiased.

By the way, there was a time when most of the world's scientists thought the idea that the earth revolved around the sun was shear lunacy.
You're a conspiracy theorist. You think 97% of the world's climate scientists are corrupt.


Not only that. He thinks those studies funded by the oil companies are unbiased as well?
LMAO.

SO my side gets 100 scientists to say warming is real and the oil companies get 2 sciesntists to say it is not, and somehow the 100 are wrong and the 2 are correct.
That could only make sense to a rethug.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 03-30-2013, 06:48 AM
Freewill's Avatar
Registered User
Member #33456
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 8,399
Thanks: 1,296
Thanked 2,248 Times in 1,639 Posts
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2096
Freewill has a reputation beyond repute Freewill has a reputation beyond repute Freewill has a reputation beyond repute
Freewill has a reputation beyond repute Freewill has a reputation beyond repute Freewill has a reputation beyond repute Freewill has a reputation beyond repute Freewill has a reputation beyond repute Freewill has a reputation beyond repute Freewill has a reputation beyond repute Freewill has a reputation beyond repute Freewill has a reputation beyond repute Freewill has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by Pete7469 View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by healthmyths View Post
Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years.

"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.
According to The Economist, "given the hiatus in warming and all the new evidence, a small reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity would seem to be justified." On face value, Hansen agrees the slowdown in global temperature rises can be seen as "good news".
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

By the way Hames Hansen has been the BIGGEST champion of Global Warming!!!

Hmmm... those of us who said the jury was still out on Global Warming... who were the brunt of idiotic comments, jeers as being anti-science... please
I'm not gloating but here is my little dance!!!

Attachment 25149
Yet another thread where MMGW myths are dealt yet another blow, but the bed wetters will cry foul or attack the messenger. For those of you who cling to Algore's Cult I have the solution to Global Warming, and how we can drastically reduce human production of CO2.

It will have to be a well coordinated effort undertaken by everyone who believes human beings are causing the earth to heat up and are dedicated to CO2 reduction. It will require a minimal initial expense, but some significant labor costs in the end.

I can absolutely guarantee complete success on April 21st. Not only will the world be a cooler place, the collective intelligence of mankind will increase at least %25.
How about this, just ban all private jet travel? I am thinking you should remove the part of your post about the plastic bag.

Last edited by Freewill; 03-30-2013 at 06:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 03-30-2013, 06:51 AM
Freewill's Avatar
Registered User
Member #33456
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 8,399
Thanks: 1,296
Thanked 2,248 Times in 1,639 Posts
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2096
Freewill has a reputation beyond repute Freewill has a reputation beyond repute Freewill has a reputation beyond repute
Freewill has a reputation beyond repute Freewill has a reputation beyond repute Freewill has a reputation beyond repute Freewill has a reputation beyond repute Freewill has a reputation beyond repute Freewill has a reputation beyond repute Freewill has a reputation beyond repute Freewill has a reputation beyond repute Freewill has a reputation beyond repute Freewill has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by zeke View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Cowman View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Dont Taz Me Bro View Post

There is no science. It's all been corrupted by politics. You automatically assume that because one is a scientists that means they are unbiased.

By the way, there was a time when most of the world's scientists thought the idea that the earth revolved around the sun was shear lunacy.
You're a conspiracy theorist. You think 97% of the world's climate scientists are corrupt.


Not only that. He thinks those studies funded by the oil companies are unbiased as well?
LMAO.

SO my side gets 100 scientists to say warming is real and the oil companies get 2 sciesntists to say it is not, and somehow the 100 are wrong and the 2 are correct.
That could only make sense to a rethug.
So the 100 are paid by the government to make their claims and the 2 are paid for by the oil companies, seems to me that all could or should be considered suspect. Especially the 100 considering that is the only way they make money. Also the 2 would be putting their profession on the line by lying, if they are.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Lower Navigation
Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Environment
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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:53 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.