The Great Global Warming Swindle - Page 4

dalem · 03-30-2007, 18:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RadioM

I wasn't aware I was supposed to be proving global warming.
I'll knock up a few relevant articles when I get some time this afternoon.

Though it won't change gunnuts stance and neither do the 'contrary explainations provided in full' change mine.

Regardless, I think we have reached a nice common ground at present.

Again you miss the crux of the point. The planet MAY be warming. The planet MAY even be warming at an ahistorical rate. But you have no man-made mechanism to account for it.

-dale

RadioM · 04-01-2007, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

Again you miss the crux of the point. The planet MAY be warming. The planet MAY even be warming at an ahistorical rate. But you have no man-made mechanism to account for it.

-dale

I am very well aware of the crux of the point.

I HAVE provided evidence of man-made mechanisms that could be causing global warming.

That you choose (as you climate sceptic religion compells you) not to believe this evidence than that is fine, but don't discount that the evidence is being provided.

RadioM · 04-01-2007, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

I haven't had the time to go through any of them, so don't yell at me if some of the articles (or any) seem extremist or laughable.

No need to worry, that's generally not how I argue a position.

That tends more to be the attitude of the sceptics

ArmchairGeneral · 04-01-2007, 20:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

Again you miss the crux of the point. The planet MAY be warming. The planet MAY even be warming at an ahistorical rate. But you have no man-made mechanism to account for it.

-dale

Yes, there is a mechanism. CO2+other supposed greenhouse gases that prevent radiation of infrared radiation from the earth's atmosphere. Does it actually work? I don't know. But it is a plausible mechanism. And until someone provides a more plausible mechanism (and solar cycles have not convinced me at all) I'm going to have to take anthro GW seriously.

gunnut · 04-01-2007, 21:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

Yes, there is a mechanism. CO2+other supposed greenhouse gases that prevent radiation of infrared radiation from the earth's atmosphere. Does it actually work? I don't know. But it is a plausible mechanism. And until someone provides a more plausible mechanism (and solar cycles have not convinced me at all) I'm going to have to take anthro GW seriously.

The solar cycle affects us in enormous ways. The El Nino/La Nina cycle every 11 years is tied to solar activity. A sudden jump in black spots affects our communication world wide.

These are smaller than a hiccup for the sun yet they determine the earth's immediate weather pattern. I believe the sun ultimately has great influence over the earth's climate, more than anything that we can produce within a few hundred years.

ArmchairGeneral · 04-01-2007, 21:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

The solar cycle affects us in enormous ways. The El Nino/La Nina cycle every 11 years is tied to solar activity. A sudden jump in black spots affects our communication world wide.

These are smaller than a hiccup for the sun yet they determine the earth's immediate weather pattern. I believe the sun ultimately has great influence over the earth's climate, more than anything that we can produce within a few hundred years.

I had not heard of connections between solar activity and El Nino before. Looked it up, it seems possible, but it doesn't really seem to be widely accepted. Solar flares affect our telecommunications, but I know of no immediate climate effects tied to them. The sun certainly has a huge effect on our climate; it is, after all, the energy source for all climate phenomena. However, I don't know the Sun has significant short term effects on the climate. I hear a lot about Milankovitch Cycles and such, but they don't seem to be very short term in nature.

dalem · 04-02-2007, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RadioM

I am very well aware of the crux of the point.

I HAVE provided evidence of man-made mechanisms that could be causing global warming.

That you choose (as you climate sceptic religion compells you) not to believe this evidence than that is fine, but don't discount that the evidence is being provided.

Have your mechanisms passed any rigorous scientific tests and therefore been verified?

-dale

RadioM · 04-02-2007, 03:59 AM

These are some of the main research articles atributing current global warming to humans.

1). In 1995, a team of researchers led by Dr. Benjamin Santer of the Lawrence Livermore Labs examined the pattern of heating in the atmosphere. That pattern of warming -- over land and water and warm and cold areas -- produced a very specific pattern. That pattern matches the pattern projected by computer models of "greenhouse gas" plus sulfate warming. When the vertical structure of the warming was examined, it was found to be graphically different from the structure produced by natural warming.

"A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere," Nature, Vol. 382, July 4, 1996, B.D. Santer, et al.

2). A team of scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center verified an increase of extreme weather events in the US. They concluded the growing weather extremes are due, by a probability of 90 percent, to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Those extremes -- which reflect an intensification of the planet's hydrological cycle from atmospheric heating -- are not consistent with natural warming and, instead, resemble the changes that were projected for emissions from fossil fuels. The researchers declared the climate in the US is becoming more "greenhouse-like" -- with more intense rain and snowfalls, more winter precipitation, more droughts, floods and heat waves. It concluded: "[T]he late-century changes recorded in US climate are consistent with the general trends anticipated from a greenhouse-enhanced atmosphere."

Trends in U.S. Climate during the Twentieth Century, Consequences, Spring, 1995, Vol. 1, No. 1, Thomas Karl et al. Also: "The Coming Climate," by Thomas R. Karl, Neville Nicholls and Jonathan Gregory, Scientific American, May, 1997.

3). David J. Thomson, a signals analyst at AT&T Bell Labs, evaluated a century of summer and winter temperature data. While some scientific skeptics had attributed this century’s atmospheric warming to solar variations, Thomson discovered the opposite: the accumulation of greenhouse gases had overwhelmed the relatively weak effects of solar cycles on the climate. He also discovered that since the beginning of World War II, when accelerating industrialization led to a skyrocketing of carbon dioxide emissions, the timing of the seasons began to shift. Since 1940, he wrote in the journal, Science, the seasonal patterns "of the previous 300 years began to change and now appear to be changing at an unprecedented rate."

"The Seasons, Global Temperature and Precession," by David J. Thomson, Science, Vol. 268, April 7, 1995; also, "Dependence of global temperatures on Atmospheric CO2 and solar irradiance," David J. Thomson, 1997

4). A research team led by David Easterling of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center found the night-time and winter-time low temperatures are rising nearly twice as fast as the daytime and summer-time high temperatures. Easterling called the findings a "fingerprint" study of "greenhouse warming." The research was based on data from 5400 observing stations around the world. "The rise in [minimum-temperatures] is due to higher humidity and more water vapor, especially in the winter in northern latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. In an increasingly 'greenhouse' world this is the kind of rise you’d expect to see," Easterling said. He added that If the warming were natural, and not driven by fossil fuel emissions, the high and low temperatures would more or less rise and fall in parallel.

"Temperature Range Narrows between Daytime Highs and Nighttime Lows," Science, July 18, 1997, David Easterling et al.

5). In 1998, researchers examining weather records for the previous 600 years declared that 1997 was the hottest year at least since the 1400s. Using written records and information gleaned from tree rings, ice cores and coral reefs, researchers reconstructed the world's climate record for the past 600 years. The record revealed that the warmest years in that span were 1997, 1995, and 1990. Michael Mann and Raymond Bradley, of the University of Massachusetts, and Malcolm Hughes, of the University of Arizona, examined the correlation between temperature changes and other factors such as volcanic activity and variations in the sun's brightness. Those other factors showed a strong relationship with temperatures in earlier centuries, 'but during the 20th century, with its abrupt warming, there is little relationship between any of the natural factors we looked at' and the rising temperatures, Mann said. In the past century, he said, 'we see a remarkable correlation with carbon dioxide emissions, which swamps these natural factors.'

"Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries, Nature, April 23, 1998, No. 392 pp 779-787, Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley & Malcolm K. Hughes

6). Mann, Bradley and Hughes followed their Nature study with another climate reconstruction from the year 1000 AD to 1998. They found that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest in the last millennium. Strikingly, the team found that the planet had been undergoing a slight but steady cooling trend from 1000 to about 1880. That trend was abruptly reversed as temperatures began to rise rapidly in tandem with large-scale industrialization based on our use of coal and oil.

"Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations" Geophysical Research Letters, March 15, 1999, Volume 26 Issue #6 Pages 759-762

7). Researchers examined the planet's temperature record between 1900 and 1998. In particular, they assessed the relative roles of four "climate forcing" components -- solar irradiance and stratospheric volcanic aerosols (which occur naturally) and greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols (which are generated by human fossil fuel combustion). The team, led by Simon Tett of the Hadley Centre in the U.K., found: "The temperature changes over the 20th century cannot be explained by any combination of natural internal variability and the response to natural forcings alone." A commentary in Nature concluded: "The researchers’ findings were unambiguous…All in all, it seems we can lay to rest the idea that recent climate warming is just a freak of nature."

Nature, Vol. 399, pp 569-572 10 June 1999

8). An analysis of the climate of the last 1,000 year published in the July 14, 2000 issue of Science suggests that human activity is the dominant force behind the sharp global warming trend seen in the 20th century. The study, by Dr. Thomas J. Crowley, a geologist at Texas A&M University, found that natural factors, like fluctuations in sunshine or volcanic activity, were powerful influences on temperatures in past centuries. But he found that they account for only 25 percent of the warming since 1900. The lion's share, he said, can be attributed to human influences, particularly to rising levels of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" that come from the burning of fuels and forests. These twin lines of evidence provide further support for the idea that the greenhouse effect is already here," Dr. Crowley wrote in describing the work in today's issue of the journal Science. Several climate experts said his findings offer the most direct link yet between people and the 1.1 degree rise in average global temperature over the last 100 years.

"Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years," Dr. Thomas J. Crowley, Science, 14 July 2000, v. 289

9). In March, 2001, researchers found a significant increase between 1970 and 1997 in the amount of CO2 and Methane in space -- which had migrated out from earth's atmosphere.

Nature, 15 March, 2001, v. 410, pp. 355-357 "Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997" John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges

10). In 2005, a team of researchers, lead by NASA's James Hansen, found that the earth had become a "net importer" of heat -- due to the build-up of human-generated carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

"Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications," Science, Vol 308, Issue 5727, 1431-1435, 3 June 2005

dalem · 04-02-2007, 14:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RadioM

These are some of the main research articles atributing current global warming to humans.

1). In 1995, a team of researchers led by Dr. Benjamin Santer of the Lawrence Livermore Labs examined the pattern of heating in the atmosphere. That pattern of warming -- over land and water and warm and cold areas -- produced a very specific pattern. That pattern matches the pattern projected by computer models of "greenhouse gas" plus sulfate warming. When the vertical structure of the warming was examined, it was found to be graphically different from the structure produced by natural warming.

"A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere," Nature, Vol. 382, July 4, 1996, B.D. Santer, et al.

What is natural warming? What is our basis for understanding those mechanisms?

A computer model that gets matched back in 1995 does not constitute rigorous testing.

Quote:

2). A team of scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center verified an increase of extreme weather events in the US. They concluded the growing weather extremes are due, by a probability of 90 percent, to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Those extremes -- which reflect an intensification of the planet's hydrological cycle from atmospheric heating -- are not consistent with natural warming and, instead, resemble the changes that were projected for emissions from fossil fuels. The researchers declared the climate in the US is becoming more "greenhouse-like" -- with more intense rain and snowfalls, more winter precipitation, more droughts, floods and heat waves. It concluded: "[T]he late-century changes recorded in US climate are consistent with the general trends anticipated from a greenhouse-enhanced atmosphere."

Trends in U.S. Climate during the Twentieth Century, Consequences, Spring, 1995, Vol. 1, No. 1, Thomas Karl et al. Also: "The Coming Climate," by Thomas R. Karl, Neville Nicholls and Jonathan Gregory, Scientific American, May, 1997.

Circumstantial. How does increasing C02 from human industry cause an increase in weather extremes? What is natural warming, as above?

Quote:

3). David J. Thomson, a signals analyst at AT&T Bell Labs, evaluated a century of summer and winter temperature data. While some scientific skeptics had attributed this century’s atmospheric warming to solar variations, Thomson discovered the opposite: the accumulation of greenhouse gases had overwhelmed the relatively weak effects of solar cycles on the climate. He also discovered that since the beginning of World War II, when accelerating industrialization led to a skyrocketing of carbon dioxide emissions, the timing of the seasons began to shift. Since 1940, he wrote in the journal, Science, the seasonal patterns "of the previous 300 years began to change and now appear to be changing at an unprecedented rate."

"The Seasons, Global Temperature and Precession," by David J. Thomson, Science, Vol. 268, April 7, 1995; also, "Dependence of global temperatures on Atmospheric CO2 and solar irradiance," David J. Thomson, 1997

Why just a century of data? If it's a century of data why mention 300 years in the summation? Why label the people that disagree as "skeptics" when what they are disagreeing with is a nascent theory with no hard evidence that has passed no scientific tests?

Quote:

4). A research team led by David Easterling of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center found the night-time and winter-time low temperatures are rising nearly twice as fast as the daytime and summer-time high temperatures. Easterling called the findings a "fingerprint" study of "greenhouse warming." The research was based on data from 5400 observing stations around the world. "The rise in [minimum-temperatures] is due to higher humidity and more water vapor, especially in the winter in northern latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. In an increasingly 'greenhouse' world this is the kind of rise you’d expect to see," Easterling said. He added that If the warming were natural, and not driven by fossil fuel emissions, the high and low temperatures would more or less rise and fall in parallel.

"Temperature Range Narrows between Daytime Highs and Nighttime Lows," Science, July 18, 1997, David Easterling et al.

Why would "natural" warming necessarily lead to parallel rises?

Quote:

5). In 1998, researchers examining weather records for the previous 600 years declared that 1997 was the hottest year at least since the 1400s. Using written records and information gleaned from tree rings, ice cores and coral reefs, researchers reconstructed the world's climate record for the past 600 years. The record revealed that the warmest years in that span were 1997, 1995, and 1990. Michael Mann and Raymond Bradley, of the University of Massachusetts, and Malcolm Hughes, of the University of Arizona, examined the correlation between temperature changes and other factors such as volcanic activity and variations in the sun's brightness. Those other factors showed a strong relationship with temperatures in earlier centuries, 'but during the 20th century, with its abrupt warming, there is little relationship between any of the natural factors we looked at' and the rising temperatures, Mann said. In the past century, he said, 'we see a remarkable correlation with carbon dioxide emissions, which swamps these natural factors.'

"Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries, Nature, April 23, 1998, No. 392 pp 779-787, Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley & Malcolm K. Hughes

Again, simple correlation is circumstantial and not very respectable in and of itself. Plus, the idea that this century has undergone "abrupt" warming is not correct.

Quote:

6). Mann, Bradley and Hughes followed their Nature study with another climate reconstruction from the year 1000 AD to 1998. They found that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest in the last millennium. Strikingly, the team found that the planet had been undergoing a slight but steady cooling trend from 1000 to about 1880. That trend was abruptly reversed as temperatures began to rise rapidly in tandem with large-scale industrialization based on our use of coal and oil.

"Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations" Geophysical Research Letters, March 15, 1999, Volume 26 Issue #6 Pages 759-762

Solar activity was also at a recorded maximum in the 1990s. So what? The Earps and Doc Holliday prevailed in their infamous gun battle at the O.K. Corral in 1881 - to me this signals the beginning of the above-mentioned temperature increase. Probably something to do with smokeless powder discharges released by the gunfight and the death of a few of the Clantons who were were notorious bean-eaters.

And what is "rapidly" with respect to global temperature?

Quote:

7). Researchers examined the planet's temperature record between 1900 and 1998. In particular, they assessed the relative roles of four "climate forcing" components -- solar irradiance and stratospheric volcanic aerosols (which occur naturally) and greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols (which are generated by human fossil fuel combustion). The team, led by Simon Tett of the Hadley Centre in the U.K., found: "The temperature changes over the 20th century cannot be explained by any combination of natural internal variability and the response to natural forcings alone." A commentary in Nature concluded: "The researchers’ findings were unambiguous…All in all, it seems we can lay to rest the idea that recent climate warming is just a freak of nature."

Nature, Vol. 399, pp 569-572 10 June 1999

There is nothing in the above to comment on - it's an opinion only.

Quote:

8). An analysis of the climate of the last 1,000 year published in the July 14, 2000 issue of Science suggests that human activity is the dominant force behind the sharp global warming trend seen in the 20th century. The study, by Dr. Thomas J. Crowley, a geologist at Texas A&M University, found that natural factors, like fluctuations in sunshine or volcanic activity, were powerful influences on temperatures in past centuries. But he found that they account for only 25 percent of the warming since 1900. The lion's share, he said, can be attributed to human influences, particularly to rising levels of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" that come from the burning of fuels and forests. These twin lines of evidence provide further support for the idea that the greenhouse effect is already here," Dr. Crowley wrote in describing the work in today's issue of the journal Science. Several climate experts said his findings offer the most direct link yet between people and the 1.1 degree rise in average global temperature over the last 100 years

"Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years," Dr. Thomas J. Crowley, Science, 14 July 2000, v. 289.

"burning of...forests"? Whose? Where? From what cause?

Quote:

9). In March, 2001, researchers found a significant increase between 1970 and 1997 in the amount of CO2 and Methane in space -- which had migrated out from earth's atmosphere.

Nature, 15 March, 2001, v. 410, pp. 355-357 "Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997" John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges

So what? If anything it's a counter to the enviro-panic.

Quote:

10). In 2005, a team of researchers, lead by NASA's James Hansen, found that the earth had become a "net importer" of heat -- due to the build-up of human-generated carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

"Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications," Science, Vol 308, Issue 5727, 1431-1435, 3 June 2005

A simple conclusory sentence, nothing to comment on here. And I've critiqued Hansen's work in other forums before - it's not very good.

Overall my Tombstone Theory is as scientifically rigorous as the anthro GW theory. The difference is that I know my theory sucks.

-dale

brokensickle · 04-02-2007, 14:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RadioM

Hang on. I just realized I’ve already provided a fair portion of evidence.

There was the article about how anthropogenic CO2 and Sulfur emissions are significantly greater than volcanic emissions.

Plus the Met Office: Climate Change Myths link. Written in that annoying Myth vs Fact format which doesn’t really help anyone, but still provides a good summary of the case in support of human influenced climate change.

Then a post laying out how the supposedly debunked ‘hockey stick’ graph has been replicated and its methodology passing peer review.

Sure nothing conclusive, but Evolution hasn’t been conclusively proven either.
Certainly enough information has been presented to at least support the possibility of human emissions being responsible for climate change.

If you choose to support the view that human emissions are not contributing to climate change that is fine. However to suggest that no EVIDENCE has been provided is misleading.

Evidence has been provided for both sides of the argument (though more of an introductory nature for further research). It is then simply a question of personal interpretation.

The California oilfields areas produced H2S Gas before oil was ever pumped from the ground. In fact the H2S gas oozes up from the ground naturally in most areas of the globe. H2S is a two part hydrogen and one part sulphur. Septic tanks in the Central Coast area of California trap this gas which emmenates upward from the Earth in large quanities to create sulphur crystals in unvented septic tanks. It is very corrossive to concrete and iron as I have witnessed with my own eyes upon having my septic system pumped from time to time. We actually stabilize some of these extremely harmful gases by burning them in refineries and converting some to usable pure sulphur products for medicines, agricultural, and industry.

In the Gulf of Mexico the Earth releases large amounts of methane. In fact some scientist believe that large crystals of methalhydride that are collecting on the Gulf floor could break off and gas off as they leave the pressures of the deep and naturally gas people and animals ibn the Gulf area.

Ivan

gunnut · 04-02-2007, 14:49 PM

Here's an easy way to prove "global warming" is a hoax.

If "global warming" were real and the debate is over and blah blah blah, why did the global warming cultists change their religion to "GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE?"

Warming - temperature can only go up

Climate Change - we have covered our asses no matter what happens

dalem · 04-02-2007, 15:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

Here's an easy way to prove "global warming" is a hoax.

If "global warming" were real and the debate is over and blah blah blah, why did the global warming cultists change their religion to "GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE?"

Warming - temperature can only go up

Climate Change - we have covered our asses no matter what happens

...And people are Bad no matter what. Personally I'd pay good money to see these climate whiners crushed under a mile of moving ice.

-dale

gunnut · 04-02-2007, 16:47 PM

This is the type of hypocrisy I hate. First Al Gore, now John Travolta... A Boeing 707 no less. With 4 engines, it's hardly the most fuel efficient plane.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23390848-details/Air+miles+Travolta+urges+fans+to+'do+their+bit'+fo r+the+environment/article.do

Quote:

With five private jets, Travolta still lectures on global warming
30.03.07

His serious aviation habit means he is hardly the best person to lecture others on the environment. But John Travolta went ahead and did it anyway.

The 53-year-old actor, a passionate pilot, encouraged his fans to "do their bit" to tackle global warming.

But although he readily admitted: "I fly jets", he failed to mention he actually owns five, along with his own private runway.

Clocking up at least 30,000 flying miles in the past 12 months means he has produced an estimated 800 tons of carbon emissions – nearly 100 times the average Briton's tally.

Travolta made his comments this week at the British premiere of his movie, Wild Hogs.

He spoke of the importance of helping the environment by using "alternative methods of fuel" – after driving down the red carpet on a Harley Davidson.

Travolta, a Scientologist, claimed the solution to global warming could be found in outer space and blamed his hefty flying mileage on the nature of the movie business.

But his appointment as a "serving ambassador" for the Australian airline Qantas doesn't seem to have much to do with the movies. Nor does a recent, two-month round-the-world flying trip.

"It [global warming] is a very valid issue," Travolta declared. "I'm wondering if we need to think about other planets and dome cities.

"Everyone can do their bit. But I don't know if it's not too late already. We have to think about alternative methods of fuel.

"I'm probably not the best candidate to ask about global warming because I fly jets.

"I use them as a business tool though, as others do. I think it's part of this industry – otherwise I couldn't be here doing this and I wouldn't be here now."

Travolta's five private planes – a customised £2million Boeing 707, three Gulfstream jets and a Lear jet – are kept at the bottom of his garden in the US next to a private runway.

Indeed, such is his enthusiasm for flying, he persuaded his wife, actress Kelly Preston, to name their son Jett when he was born 14 years ago.

Five years ago he piloted his own Boeing 707 on a 13- city "Spirit of Friendship Tour" for Qantas, taking in Los Angeles, Auckland, Sydney, Singapore, Tokyo, London, Paris and New York and amassing over 35,000 flying miles.

More recently, a gruelling promotional schedule for his two latest projects, Hairspray and Wild Hogs, has seen him fly extensively over the past year.

This includes a country-wide tour of the US and a visit to Canada as well as this week's appearance in Leicester Square.

Such prolific mileage means that, over the past 12 months, he has accumulated around 800 tonnes of carbon emissions.

According to a recent study by the government-funded Carbon Trust, this means he boasts a carbon "footprint" nearly 100 times that of the average Briton, who is responsible for 10.92 tons of Co2, from his flights alone.

One of the world's leading climate change businesses, the Carbon Neutral Company, has written to Travolta, suggesting ways he could reduce these alarming levels.

He has yet to respond to their advice. Environmental groups were quick to criticise Travolta for "discrediting the cause".

John Buckley, managing director-of CarbonFootprint.com, said: "John Travolta has such a high-profile celebrity status, so what he says carries an extraordinary amount of weight.

"So it is such a shame when someone of his standing is so outspoken about green issues, yet fails to practise what he preaches.

"Unfortunately someone of his standing ends up discrediting the cause itself, because he is saying people should protect the environment on one hand, yet travelling on a private plane on the other.

"Green issues are serious and should be treated as such.

"It is vital for celebrities to toe the line when they speak out in support of it."

gunnut · 04-02-2007, 17:00 PM

Travolta's 707 is a -138B formerly operated by Qantas Airline. Judging from this photo, the turbojet engines were never upgraded to turbofans, if such an upgrade was even available. These things guzzle quite a bit of fuel.

Image take from this site:

John Travolta's B707-138B photo - Sunbird Photos by Don Boyd photos at pbase.com

dalem · 04-02-2007, 21:36 PM

My internet porn footprint is pretty huge.

-dale

04-02-2007, 03:59 AM	#53 (permalink)
RadioM Patron Join Date: 02-18-07 Location: Tasmania Posts: 201 Country:	These are some of the main research articles atributing current global warming to humans. 1). In 1995, a team of researchers led by Dr. Benjamin Santer of the Lawrence Livermore Labs examined the pattern of heating in the atmosphere. That pattern of warming -- over land and water and warm and cold areas -- produced a very specific pattern. That pattern matches the pattern projected by computer models of "greenhouse gas" plus sulfate warming. When the vertical structure of the warming was examined, it was found to be graphically different from the structure produced by natural warming. "A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere," Nature, Vol. 382, July 4, 1996, B.D. Santer, et al. 2). A team of scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center verified an increase of extreme weather events in the US. They concluded the growing weather extremes are due, by a probability of 90 percent, to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Those extremes -- which reflect an intensification of the planet's hydrological cycle from atmospheric heating -- are not consistent with natural warming and, instead, resemble the changes that were projected for emissions from fossil fuels. The researchers declared the climate in the US is becoming more "greenhouse-like" -- with more intense rain and snowfalls, more winter precipitation, more droughts, floods and heat waves. It concluded: "[T]he late-century changes recorded in US climate are consistent with the general trends anticipated from a greenhouse-enhanced atmosphere." Trends in U.S. Climate during the Twentieth Century, Consequences, Spring, 1995, Vol. 1, No. 1, Thomas Karl et al. Also: "The Coming Climate," by Thomas R. Karl, Neville Nicholls and Jonathan Gregory, Scientific American, May, 1997. 3). David J. Thomson, a signals analyst at AT&T Bell Labs, evaluated a century of summer and winter temperature data. While some scientific skeptics had attributed this century’s atmospheric warming to solar variations, Thomson discovered the opposite: the accumulation of greenhouse gases had overwhelmed the relatively weak effects of solar cycles on the climate. He also discovered that since the beginning of World War II, when accelerating industrialization led to a skyrocketing of carbon dioxide emissions, the timing of the seasons began to shift. Since 1940, he wrote in the journal, Science, the seasonal patterns "of the previous 300 years began to change and now appear to be changing at an unprecedented rate." "The Seasons, Global Temperature and Precession," by David J. Thomson, Science, Vol. 268, April 7, 1995; also, "Dependence of global temperatures on Atmospheric CO2 and solar irradiance," David J. Thomson, 1997 4). A research team led by David Easterling of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center found the night-time and winter-time low temperatures are rising nearly twice as fast as the daytime and summer-time high temperatures. Easterling called the findings a "fingerprint" study of "greenhouse warming." The research was based on data from 5400 observing stations around the world. "The rise in [minimum-temperatures] is due to higher humidity and more water vapor, especially in the winter in northern latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. In an increasingly 'greenhouse' world this is the kind of rise you’d expect to see," Easterling said. He added that If the warming were natural, and not driven by fossil fuel emissions, the high and low temperatures would more or less rise and fall in parallel. "Temperature Range Narrows between Daytime Highs and Nighttime Lows," Science, July 18, 1997, David Easterling et al. 5). In 1998, researchers examining weather records for the previous 600 years declared that 1997 was the hottest year at least since the 1400s. Using written records and information gleaned from tree rings, ice cores and coral reefs, researchers reconstructed the world's climate record for the past 600 years. The record revealed that the warmest years in that span were 1997, 1995, and 1990. Michael Mann and Raymond Bradley, of the University of Massachusetts, and Malcolm Hughes, of the University of Arizona, examined the correlation between temperature changes and other factors such as volcanic activity and variations in the sun's brightness. Those other factors showed a strong relationship with temperatures in earlier centuries, 'but during the 20th century, with its abrupt warming, there is little relationship between any of the natural factors we looked at' and the rising temperatures, Mann said. In the past century, he said, 'we see a remarkable correlation with carbon dioxide emissions, which swamps these natural factors.' "Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries, Nature, April 23, 1998, No. 392 pp 779-787, Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley & Malcolm K. Hughes 6). Mann, Bradley and Hughes followed their Nature study with another climate reconstruction from the year 1000 AD to 1998. They found that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest in the last millennium. Strikingly, the team found that the planet had been undergoing a slight but steady cooling trend from 1000 to about 1880. That trend was abruptly reversed as temperatures began to rise rapidly in tandem with large-scale industrialization based on our use of coal and oil. "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations" Geophysical Research Letters, March 15, 1999, Volume 26 Issue #6 Pages 759-762 7). Researchers examined the planet's temperature record between 1900 and 1998. In particular, they assessed the relative roles of four "climate forcing" components -- solar irradiance and stratospheric volcanic aerosols (which occur naturally) and greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols (which are generated by human fossil fuel combustion). The team, led by Simon Tett of the Hadley Centre in the U.K., found: "The temperature changes over the 20th century cannot be explained by any combination of natural internal variability and the response to natural forcings alone." A commentary in Nature concluded: "The researchers’ findings were unambiguous…All in all, it seems we can lay to rest the idea that recent climate warming is just a freak of nature." Nature, Vol. 399, pp 569-572 10 June 1999 8). An analysis of the climate of the last 1,000 year published in the July 14, 2000 issue of Science suggests that human activity is the dominant force behind the sharp global warming trend seen in the 20th century. The study, by Dr. Thomas J. Crowley, a geologist at Texas A&M University, found that natural factors, like fluctuations in sunshine or volcanic activity, were powerful influences on temperatures in past centuries. But he found that they account for only 25 percent of the warming since 1900. The lion's share, he said, can be attributed to human influences, particularly to rising levels of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" that come from the burning of fuels and forests. These twin lines of evidence provide further support for the idea that the greenhouse effect is already here," Dr. Crowley wrote in describing the work in today's issue of the journal Science. Several climate experts said his findings offer the most direct link yet between people and the 1.1 degree rise in average global temperature over the last 100 years. "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years," Dr. Thomas J. Crowley, Science, 14 July 2000, v. 289 9). In March, 2001, researchers found a significant increase between 1970 and 1997 in the amount of CO2 and Methane in space -- which had migrated out from earth's atmosphere. Nature, 15 March, 2001, v. 410, pp. 355-357 "Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997" John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges 10). In 2005, a team of researchers, lead by NASA's James Hansen, found that the earth had become a "net importer" of heat -- due to the build-up of human-generated carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. "Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications," Science, Vol 308, Issue 5727, 1431-1435, 3 June 2005

04-02-2007, 14:49 PM	#56 (permalink)
gunnut *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-27-06 Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 9,377 Country:	Here's an easy way to prove "global warming" is a hoax. If "global warming" were real and the debate is over and blah blah blah, why did the global warming cultists change their religion to "GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE?" Warming - temperature can only go up Climate Change - we have covered our asses no matter what happens

04-02-2007, 21:36 PM	#60 (permalink)
dalem Lord High Hullabalooster *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-23-04 Location: Columbia Heights, MN Posts: 8,325 Country:	My internet porn footprint is pretty huge. -dale