Greenhouse theory smashed by biggest stone

[sunsettommy]

From PHYSORG.COM

Greenhouse theory smashed by biggest stone
Space and Earth Science March 14 2006

Excerpt,

A new theory to explain global warming was revealed at a meeting at the University of Leicester (UK) and is being considered for publication in the journal "Science First Hand". The controversial theory has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences (http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html#), the apparent rise in average global temperature (http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html#) recorded by scientists over the last hundred years or so could be due to atmospheric changes that are not connected to human emissions (http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html#) of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil (http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html#). Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude (http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html#) could damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the amount of warming solar radiation (http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html#) reaching the earth's surface.

http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html

I wonder if this will amount to anything?

[Timberwolf]

Maybe all the warming is due to how much more of the planet is concrete and steel as compared to 80 years ago...just a thought. You see, most of the temperature rise recorded is in our cities. Out in the rural areas, there isn't much warming at all.

[Native American]

According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences (http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html#), the apparent rise in average global temperature (http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html#) recorded by scientists over the last hundred years or so could be due to

You got the apparent part right! In fact, virtual "global warming" is closer to reality. "Virtual", as you may recall, means "in essence, but not in actual fact". As in, "virtual reality".

I looked at average temperatures at the Kalispell airport (http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?mtkali) from 1899 to 2005. For that period, annual temperatures are quite steady -- a linear regression even yielded a negative slope. What about the much ballyhooed summer temperatures? I looked at July and found the same thing. The narrower period used by the USGS authors -- 1910-1980 -- produced cooling results for annual and July temperatures. I would be interested to see how the USGS authors found increasing temperatures.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9588

[sunsettommy]

You got the apparent part right! In fact, virtual "global warming" is closer to reality. "Virtual", as you may recall, means "in essence, but not in actual fact". As in, "virtual reality".



http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9588

I see you will not discuss the interesting article.

Just deny there is any warming.

The article actually postulates that the warming we see now maybe attributed to the Tunguska event in 1908.

Maybe you try reading the posted article before putting your cloven foot in your mouth?

[sunsettommy]

Maybe all the warming is due to how much more of the planet is concrete and steel as compared to 80 years ago...just a thought. You see, most of the temperature rise recorded is in our cities. Out in the rural areas, there isn't much warming at all.

I agree with you here.

John Daly has long pointed that out the difference between Urban and Rural temperature changes.

The thermometers in those growing cities becomes compromised with the addition of bricks,concrete and asphault over the years.It has no choice but show a warming.

[Native American]

I see you will not discuss the interesting article.

Just deny there is any warming.

Thanks, I will! Especially when the most accurate scientific data shows no evidence of "global warming"!

Notice how the rest of us post scientific data, while you don't?

Global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measurements, shows no evidence of warming during the past 18 years.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/sat.gif

[Telit laikitiz]

Thanks, I will! Especially when the most accurate scientific data shows no evidence of "global warming"!

Notice how the rest of us post scientific data, while you don't?

Global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measurements, shows no evidence of warming during the past 18 years.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/sat.gif
:bdh: Global Warming is a sacred religions cash cow. Notice how they all "believe" in global warming. What happened to the separation of church and state? Only when it benefits apparently. Japanese are paying through the nose for gw in taxes and penalties but the poor common folk will realize they have been had only when the seas don't rise and the weather doesn't destroy their land. It is as Michael Chrichton said "A state of fear". People are literally being taxed for the air, but sometimes you can fool all the people. They don't need evidence when they have faith that gw exists(and pays handsomely).:thud: :moo: :uhh: :smirky:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Maybe all the warming is due to how much more of the planet is concrete and steel as compared to 80 years ago...just a thought. You see, most of the temperature rise recorded is in our cities. Out in the rural areas, there isn't much warming at all.
In his book, State of Fear, Michael Crichton published many temperature graphs from locations around the world, many of which proved conclusively that temperatures increased in urban heat islands while short distances away from those urban centers temperatures declined. One particular example was the comparison between New York City, where temperatures increased, and Albany, NY, where temperatures declined. Albany is only about 50 miles north of NYC. Crichton stated that scientists estimate that about half the global warming during the past 100+ years was due to those urban heat islands.

Crichton's source for the temperatures in those graphs was the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/).

[Naturalized-Texan]

C'mon, NA.

You know very well that global temperatures have increased by about 0.6 deg C since the Little Ice Age ended 100+ years ago. Why do you keep on denying that undeniable FACT. The only question is: What caused that warming? The global-warming demagogues claim that it is being caused by human activities despite the fact that there is no evidence to support that claim. It's FAR more likely that the warming in the past 100+ years is nothing more than the natural recovery from that 500-year Little Ice Age.

Either way, there's no denying that global temperatures have increased in the past 100+ years.

[Timberwolf]

NA...I, for one, have had it up to my eyeballs with that stupid chart that is a DECADE AND A HALF out of date. I think I've seen it posted 10 or 12 different times.

Stop with the nonsense or stop discussing this issue...you're acting foolishly.

[Native American]

In his book, State of Fear, Michael Crichton published many temperature graphs from locations around the world, many of which proved conclusively that temperatures increased in urban heat islands while short distances away from those urban centers temperatures declined.

Oops. Bobby and Markus won't be happy.....

[Native American]

C'mon, NA.

You know very well that global temperatures have increased by about 0.6 deg C since the Little Ice Age ended 100+ years ago.

No offense meant, NT, but no, I do not know that! In fact, we haven't had thermometers which were capable of reading to an accuracy of 0.1 degrees or so (which is what you need if you are going to accurately detect a "0.6 deg C rise") until fairly recently, much less 50 to 100 years ago!

On the contrary, what our accurate temperature measurements (satellite data) show is that global temperatures are remarkably steady.

Which is why the "global warming" ecowackos in this thread become so agitated when I post that satellite temperature graph! They hate seeing actual scientific data, because it blows their theory!

[Native American]

NA...I, for one, have had it up to my eyeballs with that stupid chart that is a DECADE AND A HALF out of date.

So why do you refuse to post more recent satellite data??

[Rhino]

In his book, State of Fear, Michael Crichton published many temperature graphs from locations around the world, many of which proved conclusively that temperatures increased in urban heat islands while short distances away from those urban centers temperatures declined.....I'm reading that book now, though I'm not very far into it. So far it's excellent, and I like the way he references actual scientific data for use in a fiction novel. Unique concept.

[sunsettommy]

NA...I, for one, have had it up to my eyeballs with that stupid chart that is a DECADE AND A HALF out of date. I think I've seen it posted 10 or 12 different times.

Stop with the nonsense or stop discussing this issue...you're acting foolishly.

Well you know that only fools continue to post old out of date stuff after it has been pointed out to them.

Then since the troll refuses repeatedly to post the link to that chart.It must be because he does not want to expose the website that he got this old and out of date chart from.

[Native American]

Well you know that only fools continue to post old out of date stuff after it has been pointed out to them.

Only frauds like you continue to claim data is "out of date" despite you being unable to demonstrate the data is out of date.

For that reason, you're perhaps an even bigger fraud than your buddy Bobby Arctor, in fact.

[DoctorDoom]

Source page: MYTHS OF GLOBAL WARMING (http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/global_warming_myths.htm)

<hr>
Global temperatures have been monitored by satellite since 1979 with the Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) flying on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) TIROS-N series of polar-orbiting weather satellites. Data from nine separate satellites have been combined to provide a global record of temperature fluctuations in the lower troposphere (the lowest 5 miles of the atmosphere) and the lower stratosphere (covering an altitude range of about 9-12 miles). The global image above shows monthly-averaged temperature anomalies (departure from seasonal normals), while the graph shows point or area-averaged anomalies for the entire period of record (since January 1979).

The lower tropospheric data are often cited as evidence against global warming, because they have as yet failed to show any warming trend when averaged over the entire Earth. The lower stratospheric data show a significant cooling trend, which is consistent with ozone depletion. In addition to the recent cooling, large temporary warming perturbations may be seen in the data due to two major volcanic eruptions: El Chichon in March 1982, and Mt. Pinatubo in June 1991.Global Temperature Anomalies (http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/)

[Telit laikitiz]

Way to go Dr. D! Too bad the people who are profiting with a capital "P" could give a rats rear end about facts and figures or data and evidence. They see the gold and they want it. By the time it is figured out for what it is, it will be too late. But we "knights of truth" must continue the fight. We must expose these charlatans. But how? I try to do my part here in Japan, but I am returning to the U.S. in may. I hope someone heard the truth.

[sunsettommy]

Only frauds like you continue to claim data is "out of date" despite you being unable to demonstrate the data is out of date.

For that reason, you're perhaps an even bigger fraud than your buddy Bobby Arctor, in fact.

So the chart you keep posting that ends at 1990 is still IN date?

I have pointed out that it ends at 1990.Surely anyone can see that.

OOOPs I just demonstrably proved that it is out of date.

:hahaha:

You are a bigger moron than I suspected.

[Rhino]

....refuses repeatedly to post the link to that chart.......http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/global_warming_myths.htm

[Naturalized-Texan]

So why do you refuse to post more recent satellite data??
As you very well know, I HAVE posted up to date satellite data directly from a NASA web site (http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html). Since you are acting like a troll about it, I'll post them again:

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/images/strato_temp.gif

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/images/tropo_temp.gif

[Native American]

There goes Bobby Arctor's "global warming" theory.....

Looks like, on balance, the global temperature is unchanged.

Which is what I have said, all along.

And which is what my temperature graph shows also, I might add....


http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/sat.gif

"Global warming" is a myth, as I have said.

[Native American]

So the chart you keep posting that ends at 1990 is still IN date?

Yep. Nothing has changed since then.

I have pointed out that it ends at 1990.Surely anyone can see that.

Yes, of course. But notice how you have never been able to post any data which shows anything has happened to the temperature since then?

That's why my temperature chart isn't "out of date" - the global temperature is the same now as it has been for the past 50 years or so, which is the data range over which Man has been able to take fairly accurate temperature readings.

OOOPs I just demonstrably proved that it is out of date.

Nope, you just demonstrated that you are a fool who doesn't have any new data which would show that the data I posted is "out of date".


:hahaha:

You are an even bigger moron than I suspected.

[Popperite]

Then since the troll refuses repeatedly to post the link to that chart.......


http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com (http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/global_warming_myths.htm)/hardtruth/global_warming_myths.htm (http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/global_warming_myths.htm)

You should really see the index page of that.....

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/

[Native American]

Hey Popperite, are you or Bob Arctor or sunsettommy ever going to post any "more recent" accurate temperature data which you imagine "contradicts" the highly accurate satellite global temperature data shown below???

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/sat.gif

[Naturalized-Texan]

No offense meant, NT, but no, I do not know that! In fact, we haven't had thermometers which were capable of reading to an accuracy of 0.1 degrees or so (which is what you need if you are going to accurately detect a "0.6 deg C rise") until fairly recently, much less 50 to 100 years ago!
That is flat-out FALSE, and you know it. Even several skeptic web pages have published SURFACE temperature data that show warming in the 50 years following the end of the Little Ice Age, followed by cooling from 1940 through 1980, followed by warming since 1980. It's obvious that you aren't knowledgeable enough of science to understand that there are significant variations in temperature trends in the stratosphere when compared with the troposphere and with the surface. I have posted temperature graphs for the stratosphere and the troposphere and the variations are obvious.

Since I posted satellite data from NASA, here is a graph of surface temps from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/) (the source that Michael Crichton used in State of Fear):
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif

On the contrary, what our accurate temperature measurements (satellite data) show is that global temperatures are remarkably steady.
False, as you have seen from the NASA satellite graphs I posted.

Which is why the "global warming" ecowackos in this thread become so agitated when I post that satellite temperature graph! They hate seeing actual scientific data, because it blows their theory!
Since you're posting an inaccurate, out-of-date satellite graph, I can understand their (and my) agitation. You are making all of us who know that there is no evidence that global warming is being caused by human activities look like fools, when you're the only one who is actually acting like a fool.

[Native American]

That is flat-out FALSE, and you know it. Even several skeptic web pages have published SURFACE temperature data that show warming in the 50 years following the end of the Little Ice Age, followed by cooling from 1940 through 1980, followed by warming since 1980.

Your own graph which you posted above shows you are a fool:



http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/images/strato_temp.gif

[Naturalized-Texan]

NA, despite the fact that I just proved that your out-of-date satellite graph is pure BS, you still persist in posting it. Quit making yourself look like a fool. You are hurting our cause with your :bsflag:

I'm beginning to think that you are a left-wing :trollhook who has infiltrated this board to make us conservatives look bad. You are certainly doing just that.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Your own graph which you posted above shows you are a fool:
OK. I've had it. I must tell it like it is:

You are a bald-faced LIAR.

[Native American]

NA, despite the fact that I just proved that your out-of-date satellite graph is pure BS,

No, you didn't. On the contrary, you posted two graphs, one of which showed a (slight) warming trend, the other of which showed a (slight) cooling trend. On average, those two balance out, indicating no "warming trend" whatsoever.

In addition, you totally ignore the core temperature of the Earth.

So what you are doing is cherry-picking your data, so desperate are you to "prove" that "global warming" somehow exists.

You are the one who is full of utter BS, sir.

[Rhino]

You should really see the index page of that.....

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/I saw it. I was just posting the requested source without commentary. As far as I'm concerned, these global warming arguments are endless and futile, so I rarely provide commentary. Nobody's ever gonna agree anyway, so what's the point in getting all worked up?

[sunsettommy]

Thanks to RHINO I saw why Native American never wanted to post the link for his now fabled satellite chart.

Here is the ENTIRE section that was with the chart:

Myth #1: Scientists Agree the Earth Is Warming. While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measurements, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/sat.gif
Even if the earth's temperature has increased slightly, the increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last several thousand years years. Indeed, the earth experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries - a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings colonized Greenland and built settlements in Canada.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/global_warming_myths.htm

He he.......

It says that there has been no warming the past 18 years using the global satellite data.The chart only shows 12 years.The satellite data in this chart is a little off anyway since the satellite's orbital corrections since then have been made driving up the temperature a little higher.

The link itself is getting old since nothing past 1996 is mentioned.

It appears that NA is into old links.

:licky:

[Warlady]

I believe there is a ° of surface warming on the Earth. The question is what caused it, does it matter, and is it a big deal? So far I'm not convinced it IS a big deal. And I'm certainly not convinced it's caused by humans. Volcanoes cause more green house gasses than any humans or bovine gasses can. It's just not that simple.

[DoctorDoom]

The link was also provided in post # 17. The page containing the contested graphic is in fact part of an archived mirror of another site (http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/wake_up_america.html) rather than a product of the main site.

IAC, graphics can be provided to point both ways. It depends on how the data used to create them is tailored to a specific political or ideological end.

As for GW, who cares? It's foolish to assume that anything can be done about it, inasmuch as global climate change has been occuring for many millions of years. It has been much colder, q.v., the ice age, and much warmer, q.v., Bachelor Bobby's statement, "So, in the Cretaceous it was very hot, and there were no ice caps. Sea levels fell quite a bit when things cooled."

BTW, Bobby refused to answer my question, "Why was it very hot? Were the fossil-fuel burning vehicles and industries dumping out prodigious amounts of carbon dioxide then? Was it George Bush's fault?"

If ultimately and against all odds, the "Woe is us!" scenarios prove to be right, it would cost hundreds of biilions of dollars less to adapt to the changes (the ETBs should appreciate that) than to try to stop them.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Let's look at all the graphs in question and analyze them:

Graph #1:
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/sat.gif

Graph # 2:
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/images/strato_temp.gif

Graph # 3:
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/images/tropo_temp.gif

Graph # 4:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif

1) Graph #1 ends in 1990, so it has only 12 years of temperature data.

2) Graphs #2 and #3 show data through October 2005, so they have 15 more years of data.

3) Graph #2 (lower stratosphere temperatures) shows significant cooling between 1993and 2005, well beyond the range of Graph # 1.

4) Graph #3 (lower troposphere temperatures) shows an increase in temperatures between 1995 and 2005, well beyond the range of Graph #1. According to the NASA web site (http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html), temperatures in the lower troposphere increased at the rate of +0.08 deg. C/decade (through 2004). That is about half the rate of increase in surface temperatures (close to +0.20 deg. C/decade since 1979). At that NASA web site there are links to possible explanations of the differences among surface, tropospheric, and stratospheric temperatures.

5) Graph #4 shows global surface temperatures from 1880 to about 2005. It's clear that the cooling trend from the Little Ice age continued until about 1910, followed by a warming trend until about 1942, followed by a cooling trend until about 1976, followed by another warming trend until the present date. Total warming since 1910 has been about 0.08 deg. C with about half of that warming occurring before 1942 (prior to the great post-WW II industrial expansion and population explosion).

[Naturalized-Texan]

In my analysis of the above graphs, I left out a couple of important points that are mentioned at the NASA web site.

- The spikes in Graph #2 (stratosphere temperatures) were due to volcano eruptions - the 1982-3 spike was caused by the eruption of El Chichon and the 1992-3 spike was caused by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.

- A significant part of the recent warming shown in Graph #3 (troposphere temperatures) was caused by the natural "El Niño" and "La Niña" phenomona.

[Native American]

3) Graph #2 (lower stratosphere temperatures) shows significant cooling between 1993and 2005, well beyond the range of Graph # 1.

4) Graph #3 (lower troposphere temperatures) shows an increase in temperatures between 1995 and 2005, well beyond the range of Graph #1.

Yep, one graph indicates "global warming" is occurring, the other graph indicates "global cooling" is occurring.

And no graphs showing core temperatures were provided.

[Native American]

Graph # 4:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif


5) Graph #4 shows global surface temperatures from 1880 to about 2005. It's clear that

Amusingly, your vaunted graph actually shows very little "clearly", given the fact that we haven't been able to measure temperatures to an accuracy of 0.1 degrees C until fairly recently, so the data on your graph for the years 1880 through 1950 or so are BS, actually.

[Native American]

Also, in case you weren't aware of this fact yet, those "temperatures" in your vaunted graph are merely estimates, not actual recorded factual data, Naturalized-Texan.


The figures presented below therefore are mean monthly global surface temperature estimates for the entire period of reliable temperature records, 1880 to 2004.


Plus not only are they merely estimates, they are based on interpolated data!

Absolute estimates of global mean surface temperature are difficult to compile for a number of reasons. Since some regions of the world have few temperature measurement stations (e.g., the Sahara Desert), interpolation must be made over large, data sparse regions.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html

So I wouldn't go putting too much stock in those "temperature readings" in that graph of yours if I were you.....

[Bob_Arctor]

As for GW, who cares? It's foolish to assume that anything can be done about it, inasmuch as global climate change has been occuring for many millions of years. It has been much colder, q.v., the ice age, and much warmer, q.v., Bachelor Bobby's statement, "So, in the Cretaceous it was very hot, and there were no ice caps. Sea levels fell quite a bit when things cooled."

BTW, Bobby refused to answer my question, "Why was it very hot? Were the fossil-fuel burning vehicles and industries dumping out prodigious amounts of carbon dioxide then? Was it George Bush's fault?"
I must have missed it, sorry about that. The reason why the Cretaceous was so hot was because of extremely high levels of CO2 - something like 1000 ppm or even higher, maybe triple (or higher) than it is today. This CO2 came from massive volcanism. It's been shown that the plates were moving much faster then than they are now, meaning that a lot of erupting magma filled the spreading gaps. Seawater back then held a lot of CO2, as sediment from those days shows erosion by carbonic acid. Also keep in mind that the thick chalk layers were laid down then as well, meaning that much of the CO2 was sequestered, which brought levels down, which in turn allowed for cooling and ice cap formation. The sea levels dropped several hundred feet in the process.

Check this out:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left>Science 24 February 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5764, p. 1095
DOI: 10.1126/science.311.5764.1095a
</TD><TD align=right>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
News Focus

<!-- BEGIN: legacy HTML content --><!--RESUMEHIGHLIGHT--><VARDEF id=TEXT>AAAS ANNUAL MEETING:
Hot Times for the Cretaceous Oceans

<CENTER>AAAS ANNUAL MEETING, 16-20 FEBRUARY 2006, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI</CENTER>

Eli Kintisch
Ancient evidence from the sea floor suggests that the ocean surface some 90 million years ago was hotter than the water in a hot tub--and that climate modelers are underestimating the link between carbon dioxide and warming. The new data, presented in St. Louis, Missouri, by climate modeler Karen Bice of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, comes from three sea-floor cores drilled in 2003 off Suriname in the tropical Atlantic. The cores contain rocks from the Cretaceous period, 65 million to 145 million years ago. By studying microscopic shells in shale and analyzing oxygen isotopes and trace elements, the researchers concluded that sea surface temperatures then may have reached 42°C--14° warmer than the tropical Atlantic is now and 5° higher than previous estimates for the period. Studies of organic material from the cores confirmed previous estimates that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels during 20 million years of the Cretaceous were between two and six times the current level of 380 parts per million.


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5764/1095a

Rising ocean levels will present a problem which would be good to avoid. If you'll examine this thread, post #26
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=159952&page=2
You'll see several maps showing current and projected coastlines after a two meter rise. (I wouldn't ask you to go to IIDB, but the poster there had no link to the source of the maps.)

[Native American]

Ancient evidence from the sea floor suggests that the ocean surface some 90 million years ago was hotter than the water in a hot tub--and that climate modelers are underestimating the link between carbon dioxide and warming.

Rising ocean levels will present a problem which would be good to avoid.

Well, OK, but if Man wasn't able to alter his behavior enough back in 90 million BC to avoid the problem of "hot tub" ocean and the consequent high ocean levels, what makes you think Man can do anything about that potential "problem" now ???

[sunsettommy]

You should really see the index page of that.....

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/

I saw it.

I would be skeptical of many claims they make.Judging from the index headlines.

There maybe a few gems in it.But when it is a conspiracy forum they tend to create what is not there.

[sunsettommy]

I noticed that the 100 Atmospheric nuclear testing explosions and many surface and below ground nuclear explosions goes undiscussed.

Surely they effect the global climate with all that fallout.

Why the omission in science reporting of this?

[Native American]

I noticed that the 100 Atmospheric nuclear testing explosions and many surface and below ground nuclear explosions goes undiscussed.

Surely they effect the global climate with all that fallout.


That's highly doubtful.

[aaron11]

I believe there is a ° of surface warming on the Earth. The question is what caused it, does it matter, and is it a big deal? So far I'm not convinced it IS a big deal. And I'm certainly not convinced it's caused by humans. Volcanoes cause more green house gasses than any humans or bovine gasses can. It's just not that simple.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^ yep...

The real threat is taking action on an issue that is likely irreversible and potentially good for our future anyway...

[sunsettommy]

Originally Posted by sunsettommy
I noticed that the 100 Atmospheric nuclear testing explosions and many surface and below ground nuclear explosions goes undiscussed.


Surely they effect the global climate with all that fallout.



That's highly doubtful.

How so?

[Bob_Arctor]

Well, OK, but if Man wasn't able to alter his behavior enough back in 90 million BC to avoid the problem of "hot tub" ocean and the consequent high ocean levels, what makes you think Man can do anything about that potential "problem" now ???
What? What on earth are you talking about?

[aaron11]

Bob, I believe he is saying that man wasn't even here the last time, yet this time you lay it at our feet, at least partially...

[Idolator]

From Wikipedia:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

And a Google image search (http://images.google.com/images?q=global+mean+temperature).

There is most certainly a consensus that there has been a significant warming trend recently.

[Idolator]

Also, I have to comment on this, from this page (http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/global_warming_myths.htm):
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/sat2.gif

They're using a Gallup poll to determine what the scientific consensus is? I've never heard of something like that.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Idolator: There is most certainly a consensus that there has been a significant warming trend recently.
There are no informed people around here who claim differently. The only disagreement is whether the warming is natural or caused by human activities. No one here has presented any evidence that the warming is being caused by human activities.

[Idolator]

There are no informed people around here who claim differently. The only disagreement is whether the warming is natural or caused by human activities. No one here has presented any evidence that the warming is being caused by human activities.
I said nothing about what was causing the trend. I pointed out that it is undeniable that the earth is currently getting warmer, which some (uninformed) posters keep arguing against.

Edit: Oops, major typo.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I said nothing about what was causing the trend. I pointed out that it is undeniable that the earth is currently getting warmer, which some (uninformed) posters keep claiming.
Correction. This is how your sentence should have read:

"I pointed out that it is undeniable that the earth is currently getting warmer, which ONE (uninformed) poster keeps claiming."

That one uninformed poster is no longer posting here.:biglaugh:

[sunsettommy]

Correction. This is how your sentence should have read:

"I pointed out that it is undeniable that the earth is currently getting warmer, which ONE (uninformed) poster keeps claiming."

That one uninformed poster is no longer posting here.:biglaugh:

He has not posted for 2 whole days.I wonder what happened to him?

He was all over for months and then zippo,nothing.

[Naturalized-Texan]

He has not posted for 2 whole days.I wonder what happened to him?

He was all over for months and then zippo,nothing.
Read Rhino's post (#173) at this link and you'll find out what happened to him:

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=33568&page=9

[sunsettommy]

Read Rhino's post (#173) at this link and you'll find out what happened to him:

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=33568&page=9

Oh thanks NT.

I saw that then he was able to make another post in the thread.Apparently the last one since.

I for one like the quieter atmosphere.

However where is Bob?

[Naturalized-Texan]

However where is Bob?
I've been wondering that myself.

[Timberwolf]

What about Bob? LOL Dunno, ask Richard Doofus....hehehehehe