Global Warming, A Good Thing? - Page 18

brokensickle · 02-12-2007, 14:10 PM

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change-News-UK-TimesOnline

Ivan

dalem · 02-12-2007, 14:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brokensickle

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change-News-UK-TimesOnline

Ivan

Hey, what's this "we" sh!t?

I've been right all along.

-dale

brokensickle · 02-12-2007, 14:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

Hey, what's this "we" sh!t?

I've been right all along.

-dale

It's nice to know were right sometimes.

I got this article off Drudges Site. Star dust might be dangerous if Mr. Sun does not do His work it seems.

The libs are going to be subdued by their Nature god for being bad.

Ivan

Sombra · 02-12-2007, 14:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

It still does not change the fact that Greenland is not as warm today as it was 2000 years ago. And that is not the only historic evidence. The Huns were forced to migrate from Central Asia to wreck havoc on Rome mainly because the Steppes can no longer support the large horse herds that they had while their enemies relying on cattle grew stronger.

Could you please prove that 2000 years ago Greenland was warmer?

brokensickle · 02-12-2007, 15:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sombra

Could you please prove that 2000 years ago Greenland was warmer?

The Vikings, as in Eric the Red, Thor Valdson, Leaf Ericson, and Viking settlers farmed and ranched Greenland some thousand plus years ago when the weather was warmer.

Ivan the Red, White and Blue.

Sombra · 02-12-2007, 15:19 PM

Brokensickle the magic number was 2000 years ago....

dalem · 02-12-2007, 15:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sombra

Brokensickle the magic number was 2000 years ago....

I think he meant 1,000 years ago.

Linky for the linkaholics.

-dale

gunnut · 02-12-2007, 16:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sombra

Brokensickle the magic number was 2000 years ago....

It was warmer 2000 years ago than today. In fact, it didn't get colder until about 1000 years ago.

Greenland was able to support a relatively large cattle and sheep population back then. The settlement was recorded to be 10,000 strong. Those people relied on farm animals for survival just like their relatives in Scandanavia. If Greenland was as cold as it is today, explain the presence of large number of herbavores and a fairly good sized town 1000 years ago.

gunnut · 02-12-2007, 16:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brokensickle

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change-News-UK-TimesOnline

Ivan

Quote:

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Ad鬩e penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

That's what I've been saying all along. It's not "global."

I take issue with that term "global" warming. Parts of the world is getting colder while other parts are getting warmer. You can't have "global" while excluding a large part of the planet from your statement.

Poor Al Gore gave a speech about global warming a few years ago in New York, during winter. It was the coldest day in New York in the last 50 years. Few people could actually make it to his speech because they were snowed in.

Climate conference 2 years ago in Montreal, Canada. People held up signs warning about global warming and how evil Bush is for not signing the Kyoto protocol, were bundled up in layers of winter clothing because it was one of the coldest day in the last decade.

Global warming is a hoax.

**astralis** · 02-12-2007, 16:10 PM

steyn's article is a bit strange.

first he takes the viewpoint that climate change/global warming is not anthropic in nature; then he shows that what change there is, is statistically meaningless; but then he asserts at the end that the ridiculousness of the kyoto protocol was that it has very little benefit for the money spent.

however, he seems to say that there would be a change in temperature if man modified his activities, albeit at a ruinously high cost:

"And now Jerry Mahlman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research says "it might take another 30 Kyotos" to halt global warming: 30 x $397 billion is . . . er, too many zeroes for my calculator.

So, faced with a degree rise in temperature, we could destroy the planet's economy, technology, communications and prosperity. And ruin the lives of millions of people.

Or we could do what man does best: adapt."

soooo, under such a condition, the question still remains: how much of a role does mankind play in climate change? none whatsoever, little, some, much, all?

i personally think "all" and "much" is ridiculous, but "little" or "some" is not wholly out of the question. certainly nowhere close to the level of those (as dalem so very aptly put it) whom engage in doomsturbation, but none at all? doubtful.

bacteria could change the atmosphere of the earth, after all.

brokensickle · 02-12-2007, 16:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sombra

Brokensickle the magic number was 2000 years ago....

Sorry bout that. My mistake, as I was thinking in terms of earth time generalities. I didn't think you were talking specifically.

IVAN

brokensickle · 02-12-2007, 16:27 PM

CO2 Science

IVAN

brokensickle · 02-12-2007, 17:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

I think he meant 1,000 years ago.

Linky for the linkaholics.

-dale

It seems the Vikings were forced to leave.

Ivan

dalem · 02-12-2007, 23:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astralis

steyn's article is a bit strange.

first he takes the viewpoint that climate change/global warming is not anthropic in nature; then he shows that what change there is, is statistically meaningless; but then he asserts at the end that the ridiculousness of the kyoto protocol was that it has very little benefit for the money spent.

however, he seems to say that there would be a change in temperature if man modified his activities, albeit at a ruinously high cost:

"And now Jerry Mahlman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research says "it might take another 30 Kyotos" to halt global warming: 30 x $397 billion is . . . er, too many zeroes for my calculator.

So, faced with a degree rise in temperature, we could destroy the planet's economy, technology, communications and prosperity. And ruin the lives of millions of people.

Or we could do what man does best: adapt."

soooo, under such a condition, the question still remains: how much of a role does mankind play in climate change? none whatsoever, little, some, much, all?

I think you're blowing right past Steyn's literary license to grapple with claims that aren't there. He's simply pointing out that even the people that do claim that man is making things warmer don't believe we can make a statistically significant difference in making them less warm. Add a few hyperbolically-simple zeroes and you illustrate the folly of the Kyoto position.

You CAN wear away a ten-foot granite boulder simply by throwing rocks at it, but it would take a ridiculous amount of time, or a very large number of rocks to do it.

Quote:

i personally think "all" and "much" is ridiculous, but "little" or "some" is not wholly out of the question. certainly nowhere close to the level of those (as dalem so very aptly put it) whom engage in doomsturbation, but none at all? doubtful.

Until a viable and tested mechanism is shown though, it must remain at "none", scientifically.

Quote:

bacteria could change the atmosphere of the earth, after all.

Over hundreds of millions of years.

-dale

glyn · 02-14-2007, 08:10 AM

A little more fuel for the fire, perhaps?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1363818.ece

02-12-2007, 14:10 PM	#256 (permalink)
brokensickle *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 10-28-06 Posts: 838	Good Artical from interesting perspective. An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change-News-UK-TimesOnline Ivan __________________ "Evil opposes freedom and uses those who pervert it as pawns to destroy it."

02-12-2007, 15:19 PM	#261 (permalink)
Sombra Patron Join Date: 11-27-04 Posts: 274	Brokensickle the magic number was 2000 years ago.... Last edited by Sombra : 02-12-2007 at 15:21 PM.

02-12-2007, 16:10 PM	#265 (permalink)
astralis *Foreign Service* Moderator Lei Feng Protege Join Date: 08-23-05 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 3,484 Country:	steyn's article is a bit strange. first he takes the viewpoint that climate change/global warming is not anthropic in nature; then he shows that what change there is, is statistically meaningless; but then he asserts at the end that the ridiculousness of the kyoto protocol was that it has very little benefit for the money spent. however, he seems to say that there would be a change in temperature if man modified his activities, albeit at a ruinously high cost: "And now Jerry Mahlman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research says "it might take another 30 Kyotos" to halt global warming: 30 x $397 billion is . . . er, too many zeroes for my calculator. So, faced with a degree rise in temperature, we could destroy the planet's economy, technology, communications and prosperity. And ruin the lives of millions of people. Or we could do what man does best: adapt." soooo, under such a condition, the question still remains: how much of a role does mankind play in climate change? none whatsoever, little, some, much, all? i personally think "all" and "much" is ridiculous, but "little" or "some" is not wholly out of the question. certainly nowhere close to the level of those (as dalem so very aptly put it) whom engage in doomsturbation, but none at all? doubtful. bacteria could change the atmosphere of the earth, after all. __________________ Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present. -Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

02-12-2007, 16:27 PM	#267 (permalink)
brokensickle *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 10-28-06 Posts: 838	Here are Articles about benifits of CO2 in atmosphere. CO2 Science IVAN

02-14-2007, 08:10 AM	#270 (permalink)
glyn *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-15-06 Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK Posts: 6,886	A little more fuel for the fire, perhaps? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1363818.ece __________________ Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

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

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Iraq fuels Global Jihad	Ray	Political Discussions	4	12-23-2006 12:43 PM
One time filtering out sharpshooter is a good thing	Lunatock	Pics & Videos	0	01-03-2006 17:28 PM
new modeling for global warming	Parihaka	Science & Tech	8	10-20-2005 21:43 PM
Global warming ,colder weather , ICE AGE!!!	Commando	The Western Alliance	66	03-07-2005 02:39 AM
The Kyoto Protocol is Dead	Gio	Current Affairs	48	01-07-2005 03:53 AM