Global Warming..........

[PLC1]

if the GLOBE is warming as in GLOBAL warming then it seems to me that the warming would be happening all over the planet.

I wonder if there were global warming alarmists during the end of the last ice age. I mean the globe was warming enough at that time to meld loads of ice from all over the planet. I guess if you look at it that way, then I am all for global warming.... till the next ice age that is...

No.

The average temperature of the Earth is greater than it has been in historical times.

How much of that increase is due to human activities is debatable.

What is not debatable is that increase in average temperatures results in changes in ocean currents and air currents, which affects local climates in different ways. The Earth is far too complex to simply get uniformly warmer.

The other thing that is debatable is whether humans can reverse or even slow the process of climate change. Personally, I seriously doubt that we can, for a variety of reasons:

Reducing the overall carbon footprint of human activities would require global cooperation on a previously unheard of scale.

Even if we were to suddenly stop emitting greenhouse gasses overnight, the carbon dioxide and methane already there would affect global climate for decades.

The increase in temperature, like the increase in greenhouse gasses is extremely small, as a percentage.

Warming that has already taken place has resulted in some feedback loops.

Our goal as a nation needs to be energy independence, whether that means nuclear or whatever. Currently, we depend for our lifeblood on nations that despise us. Surely, no one is so "right" or so "left" as to think that is an acceptable situation.

 

[Pandora]

if you don't know, then its clear you have never bothered to really look at the issue..and you don't care. It does not matter at all, your going to belive that there is none, regardless what we tell you. If you really wanted to know, and really want to be open, you would just go read some about it

I have

 

[Pandora]

No.

The average temperature of the Earth is greater than it has been in historical times.

How much of that increase is due to human activities is debatable.

What is not debatable is that increase in average temperatures results in changes in ocean currents and air currents, which affects local climates in different ways. The Earth is far too complex to simply get uniformly warmer.

The other thing that is debatable is whether humans can reverse or even slow the process of climate change. Personally, I seriously doubt that we can, for a variety of reasons:

Reducing the overall carbon footprint of human activities would require global cooperation on a previously unheard of scale.

Even if we were to suddenly stop emitting greenhouse gasses overnight, the carbon dioxide and methane already there would affect global climate for decades.

The increase in temperature, like the increase in greenhouse gasses is extremely small, as a percentage.

Warming that has already taken place has resulted in some feedback loops.

Our goal as a nation needs to be energy independence, whether that means nuclear or whatever. Currently, we depend for our lifeblood on nations that despise us. Surely, no one is so "right" or so "left" as to think that is an acceptable situation.

I agree with you that the planet as a whole is warmer right now than when we first started taking records, where I break with you is if its a natural cycle of the earth or not. Before various ice ages we have no idea how hot the planet got as whole and we are not sure what caused the various ice ages or what caused the ice ages to end and to begin again.

I think the earth has a natural cycle and no scientist today can say with proof otherwise,

I am ok with the idea that humans have caused some of the heating but I disagree that we are sure the planet would not naturally get hot and or cold if we were not here. And I totally break with all the man made global warming people on the idea that if we just have a new tax things will get better.

Ted Turner said we would be eating each other by now, AlGore said worse. yet the blind followers just keep following no matter how wrong they keep getting it. Back when i was a kid the big fear was global cooling, many scientist still think global cooling is the danger not global warming. I guess you have to pick your camp...AlGore and Ted Turner are not in my camp. They have gotten it wrong too many times and their solutions are retarded.

 

[PLC1]

I agree with you that the planet as a whole is warmer right now than when we first started taking records, where I break with you is if its a natural cycle of the earth or not. Before various ice ages we have no idea how hot the planet got as whole and we are not sure what caused the various ice ages or what caused the ice ages to end and to begin again.

I think the earth has a natural cycle and no scientist today can say with proof otherwise,

I am ok with the idea that humans have caused some of the heating but I disagree that we are sure the planet would not naturally get hot and or cold if we were not here. And I totally break with all the man made global warming people on the idea that if we just have a new tax things will get better.

Ted Turner said we would be eating each other by now, AlGore said worse. yet the blind followers just keep following no matter how wrong they keep getting it. Back when i was a kid the big fear was global cooling, many scientist still think global cooling is the danger not global warming. I guess you have to pick your camp...AlGore and Ted Turner are not in my camp. They have gotten it wrong too many times and their solutions are retarded.

I think you have it right, except for the global cooling part. No credible scientist is saying that the Earth is getting cooler just now. That hypothesis was discarded decades ago.

Al Gore and Ted Turner are not scientists, but alarmists. Serious scientists are saying the same thing you just said; human activities are probably causing some of the warming.

Of course, levying a new tax is not going to make the Earth any cooler.

I think probably the denial of scientific fact is based on the fear of what politicians and alarmists are going to do with the global warming phenomena, but the climate deniers are no more credible than the alarmists.

What we should do, beyond question, is study global climate change and try to make some predictions about what it is likely to mean for a given local area. We won't do that, of course, as that would be logical, and politics are hardly ever based on logic.

 

[Hobo1]

It's all so easy. Build nuclear power plants because it is the only alternative form of power that can supply the kind of electricity this country needs to function efficiently and profitably. Convert all cars to one of the many forms of energy that uses electricity.

Raise the gas tax so we can buy all of the rain forests. Right now, the price of rain forest land in Indonesia and Brazil is dirt cheap. Manage the forest just like the large timber companies manage forest land in the US and Canada.

If that doesn't solve global warming, then nothing is going to help.

 

[Gipper]

It's all so easy. Build nuclear power plants because it is the only alternative form of power that can supply the kind of electricity this country needs to function efficiently and profitably. Convert all cars to one of the many forms of energy that uses electricity.

Raise the gas tax so we can buy all of the rain forests. Right now, the price of rain forest land in Indonesia and Brazil is dirt cheap. Manage the forest just like the large timber companies manage forest land in the US and Canada.

If that doesn't solve global warming, then nothing is going to help.

You are thinking logically. There is no room for that in the AGC movement. Your solutions are not welcome.

One world government controlled by Marxists is the only answer. Get with the program...

 

[Hobo1]

You are thinking logically. There is no room for that in the AGC movement. Your solutions are not welcome.

One world government controlled by Marxists is the only answer. Get with the program...

Yup, if the Government doesn't run it, and it doesn't feel "GREEN" all over, then the lefties aren't interested. It's a curse to be a Conservative engineer these days.

Well, that's okay too - I like the warm weather. The first thing I did when I got out of High School was to get out of Chicago. Even if Chicago warmed up it still would suck, because it doesn't have a beach!

 

[Gipper]

Yup, if the Government doesn't run it, and it doesn't feel "GREEN" all over, then the lefties aren't interested. It's a curse to be a Conservative engineer these days.

Well, that's okay too - I like the warm weather. The first thing I did when I got out of High School was to get out of Chicago. Even if Chicago warmed up it still would suck, because it doesn't have a beach!

There is a beach in Chicago. Remember Lake Michigan? It can be nice some times, but it usually is a bit cold. Maybe AGW (not AGC - my typo) will help to warm up Lake Michigan...so you can return. However, I suspect swimming in that lake except for the few weeks of summer will require a wet suit and a great deal of bravery...since global warming is a bunch of BS.

 

[The Scotsman]

.............global warming is a bunch of BS.

If I may go totally off topic for a wee second. This is more in the way of an inter-cultural question - bearing in mind that you are doing an admirable job entertaining our prime minister at the moment....... anyway, I though bull sh1t came in heaps, or piles or indeed steaming mounds but never bunches? Thus should AGW not be a construed as a pile of bull sh1t or a heap or some other protrusion of said odourous fertiliser?

Just a thought........anyway back to planetary heating.

 

[PLC1]

If I may go totally off topic for a wee second. This is more in the way of an inter-cultural question - bearing in mind that you are doing an admirable job entertaining our prime minister at the moment....... anyway, I though bull sh1t came in heaps, or piles or indeed steaming mounds but never bunches? Thus should AGW not be a construed as a pile of bull sh1t or a heap or some other protrusion of said odourous fertiliser?

Just a thought........anyway back to planetary heating.

I hear they put it in bunches now, because heaps and piles produce too much methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas, you know.

It's good that the gipper is winning one for global warming by keeping his in bunches.

All that is quite different from people getting their panties in bunches whenever they hear that glaciers are actually melting in the real world. That real world can be quite unattractive at times. Limbaughland is more fun.

 

[Gipper]

Pesky! Where have all the hurricanes gone?

Will a hotter world lead to more intense storms [As Warmists regularly predict]?

2010 might be on track to be the warmest ever (according to GISS), but right now, we may be about to set a new record of tropical storms — in inactivity. Ryan Maue tracks the global accumulated activity and reports that by the end of July we might break the record low we set last year.

Ryan N. Maue’s 2010 Global Tropical Cyclone Activity Update: "July 15: If no additional ACE occurred in July, the 24-month global ACE total would be 1095 compared to last month at 1173. The previous 30-year low was 1091 set recently in September 2009. No lower values exist during the past 30-years.

Global and Northern Hemsiphere Tropical Cyclone Activity is near a record low

Looking at the National Hurricane Center, it doesn’t seem like there is much activity on the way between now and the end of July.

Advisories issued for the North Atlantic, The East Pacific, The West Pacific, and the Indian Ocean are all the same: There is no tropical storm activity for this region.




SOURCE (See the original for links and graphics)

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/hurricanes-storms-take-holiday-too/