Home Non Cigar Related

Climate change website...check it out

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html

Thought that this would add a little to the debate. Check it out. Comments?

Comments

  • Average Temperature of CA in January 1900: 47 degrees.
    Average Temperature of CA in January 2009: 47.6 degrees.
    HOW CAN WE AS HUMANS SURVIVE A 0.6 DEGREE FLUCTUATION IN TEMPERATURE?
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,806 ✭✭✭
    So were basing the argument on one specific area on a 100 year period? How about the earth as a whole, and consider the fact the earth is a few billion years----well that puts at boiling in some places in a few hundered years--------oh but I forgot, we wont be here so who cares?
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    Vulchor:
    So were basing the argument on one specific area on a 100 year period? How about the earth as a whole, and consider the fact the earth is a few billion years----well that puts at boiling in some places in a few hundered years--------oh but I forgot, we wont be here so who cares?
    Yea, it's not like the Earth has been warming since the last Ice Age... I mean it's not like the Earth has ever been covered by water before... That right there would just be crazy talk. We all know the temperature of the Earth isn't a cyclical thing.
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    PuroFreak:
    Vulchor:
    So were basing the argument on one specific area on a 100 year period? How about the earth as a whole, and consider the fact the earth is a few billion years----well that puts at boiling in some places in a few hundered years--------oh but I forgot, we wont be here so who cares?
    Yea, it's not like the Earth has been warming since the last Ice Age... I mean it's not like the Earth has ever been covered by water before... That right there would just be crazy talk. We all know the temperature of the Earth isn't a cyclical thing.
    No, we all know it IS cyclical. The question is how much does mankind affect these cycles and are we capable of doing anything about it.

    The easy answer is that we are more then capable but, too many people feel somewhat like yourself and that is what is preventing us from doing anything. Which for a lot of people in the non climate change theory camp, that is a victory in itself. Just my opinion.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    laker1963:
    PuroFreak:
    Vulchor:
    So were basing the argument on one specific area on a 100 year period? How about the earth as a whole, and consider the fact the earth is a few billion years----well that puts at boiling in some places in a few hundered years--------oh but I forgot, we wont be here so who cares?
    Yea, it's not like the Earth has been warming since the last Ice Age... I mean it's not like the Earth has ever been covered by water before... That right there would just be crazy talk. We all know the temperature of the Earth isn't a cyclical thing.
    No, we all know it IS cyclical. The question is how much does mankind affect these cycles and are we capable of doing anything about it.

    The easy answer is that we are more then capable but, too many people feel somewhat like yourself and that is what is preventing us from doing anything. Which for a lot of people in the non climate change theory camp, that is a victory in itself. Just my opinion.
    I understand what ya mean Laker, my point is we don't know that we are causing it, in fact the Earth was warming before there was any kind of carbon emissions from man kind to effect the climate. My problem comes from people that claim to "know" we have caused the Earth warm at a quicker rate and are willing to punish everyone economically with legislation that we don't know will do any good what so ever. The Cap and Trade bill that is on the table right now is a prime example of this. I'm not saying cutting pollution is a bad thing, but to hurt business and raise energy costs for everyone, especially in a time of economic crisis, on a theory that is far from proven, is a dangerous path to take.
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    PuroFreak:
    laker1963:
    PuroFreak:
    Vulchor:
    So were basing the argument on one specific area on a 100 year period? How about the earth as a whole, and consider the fact the earth is a few billion years----well that puts at boiling in some places in a few hundered years--------oh but I forgot, we wont be here so who cares?
    Yea, it's not like the Earth has been warming since the last Ice Age... I mean it's not like the Earth has ever been covered by water before... That right there would just be crazy talk. We all know the temperature of the Earth isn't a cyclical thing.
    No, we all know it IS cyclical. The question is how much does mankind affect these cycles and are we capable of doing anything about it.

    The easy answer is that we are more then capable but, too many people feel somewhat like yourself and that is what is preventing us from doing anything. Which for a lot of people in the non climate change theory camp, that is a victory in itself. Just my opinion.
    I understand what ya mean Laker, my point is we don't know that we are causing it, in fact the Earth was warming before there was any kind of carbon emissions from man kind to effect the climate. My problem comes from people that claim to "know" we have caused the Earth warm at a quicker rate and are willing to punish everyone economically with legislation that we don't know will do any good what so ever. The Cap and Trade bill that is on the table right now is a prime example of this. I'm not saying cutting pollution is a bad thing, but to hurt business and raise energy costs for everyone, especially in a time of economic crisis, on a theory that is far from proven, is a dangerous path to take.
    Even this is debateable Puro. If you look at the new technologies and opportunities to export these technologies into parts of the developing world could actually be a real boon for N. American business.

    As we are foot dragging waiting for 100% proof (which is what I have seen advocated here) other countries on other continents are doing just that.

    Should business not pay their fair share of the pollution and the resulting green house gasses that they create? Are we the little guy going to pick up the bill for yet another mess which is created by decisons which we also had no say in.

    I don't understand the position that business should be allowed to carry on unfettered entirely. Do you really still believe that even after the current financial mess, that the people who run these huge corporations are to be trusted. AGAIN!?!?!

    It is these people who are paying for the "science" which calls into question the majority findings of credible scientist' from around the world.

    How do these scientist'(the green house gas believers) play into the government taxation orgy that you guys seem to say is what is really behind all these claims? Are these scientist then, really in the back pockets of government, even while they seem to be at odds with them over what measures should be taken to correct the situation? Can you explain that to me, I don't get it?
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,806 ✭✭✭
    I agree Laker....and we should alble able to see and agree that either side of the arguement can find "scientists" to unequivocally PROVE their side of the issue. It is the independent scientists without a vested interest or without a political/financial agenda that should be most looked at---and those scientists believe in climate change which humans effect by a vast majority. Very little science is ever proven, it is fully of theories that people accept. Im afraid the risks of not believing the evidence on this one is more dangerous than doing nothing. This can also be a great economic gain for the US and a new way to lead the world in generating energy, but it seems again we are too tied to our love of oil which will hurt us even further financially.
  • link
    be sure to read the info box
  • cabinetmakercabinetmaker Posts: 2,561
    My question is iof the earth "if" warming, or cooling, or whatever the theory of the day is. If humans are causing it to warm, then what is the correct temperature supposed to be? Noone has ever answered that question, it was side-stepped by re-naming "global warming" to "global climate change".

    The Sun has cycles as well, heating and cooling, and I'm pretty sure no humans live there to cause it. As a matter of fact, the Sun - which by the way 1,299,400 times the volume of the Earth - just might be what causes climate change here. I mean am I be stoopid for thinking that a giant ball of super-heated nuclear reacting gas that could fit almost 1,300,000 Earths in it might have more to do with climate change than what us paltry little piss-ant humans are capable of on our best day??

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/06/army-vs-global/
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
    http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7y.html

    There are also plenty of links that say just the opposite, but as more and more scientists hop off the "Algore global warming" bandwagon; I just have to go with science. The science says we are not causing it.

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

    Edit - I included a wikipedia entry becaused it is heavily referenced.
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,349
    laker1963:
    http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html

    Thought that this would add a little to the debate. Check it out. Comments?
    Here's another great site, http://www.350.org/en

    This goes far greater than warming temperatures. It effects climate change as a whole. Areas that are usually warmer in the winter are getting colder, and areas that usually colder are getting warmer. Now things aren't out of hand yet, but isn't that good? Basing whether something is bad or not ONLY on the worst things happening is not very smart. Around the world things have been happening that normally do not in the areas they are happening. Most scientists around the world agree that humans are influencing the globe in some way or another and it's not a good thing. Sure the climate will change by itself, history has proven it, but speeding up the process is not helping us. It's not really a debate anymore, it's scientific fact, though scientists said the world wasn't flat and though they were right, it took a long time for the general public to believe it. Science is usually above the normal ideas of the common folk, mainly because science doesn't always say or do the easy thing. Even if this whole thing is a wash, wouldn't it be better to not induce trillions of tons of nasty stuff in OUR AIR? That just makes sense, why use the same stuff that has caused so many disasters and is out-dated? How about all the millions and billion of gallons of oil that has spilled in our oceans? Get rid of this crap and move on. Taking money out of this whole realm of politics would fix most of the main issues. Also it probably is worth mentioning that most of the industrialized nations have began to come around to this, except china and the US, which is really sad, I like to think of the US as being the leader in the world and always on the for-front but sadly we have began to take a backstage.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,806 ✭✭✭
    Not to be stupid at all cabinet----a little ignorant as to the issue and science yes....but not stupid:)
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    mustluvcigars:
    link
    be sure to read the info box
    UMMM, that was laughable.
    So what, another British Lord, (hardly any kind of expert) has an extreme view on this subject. His views like a lot of right wing, upper class, priviledged society are full of scare mongering and lies.
    Do you honestly believe that ANY president would sign away the sovereign rights of the US to a world government? C'mon, what kind of "proof" is this? It is an opinion, and not a very well thought out one, designed to scare people. Haven't you had enough of these tactics? They are transparent and sad.
  • There are extreme views to the right and left. I was just posting one I found related to this topic, I guess the sovereignty part does over shadow what I was trying to point out. It was the point about the suit against Al Gore in England I meant to bring the attention to.
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    mustluvcigars:
    There are extreme views to the right and left. I was just posting one I found related to this topic, I guess the sovereignty part does over shadow what I was trying to point out. It was the point about the suit against Al Gore in England I meant to bring the attention to.
    I went to look for information regarding Al Gore being sued in Great Britain. Here is a link to a site where it is discussed is some detail.

    http://www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/england-to-al-gore-your-movie-is-inaccurate

    It makes for some good reading and without giving away the ending... it does NOT poke holes in Al Gore's movie in its entirety, it question certain points of arguement made in the movie which were found to be unprovable or not in accordance with present scientific theory.

    It should be pointed out that even after the lawsuit, the courts said the film could still be used in schools in Great Britain, with certain discussion points and areas of concern for the courts to be discussed in class prior to the film being shown.

    There are lots of good comments here.
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,349
    laker1963:
    mustluvcigars:
    There are extreme views to the right and left. I was just posting one I found related to this topic, I guess the sovereignty part does over shadow what I was trying to point out. It was the point about the suit against Al Gore in England I meant to bring the attention to.
    I went to look for information regarding Al Gore being sued in Great Britain. Here is a link to a site where it is discussed is some detail.

    http://www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/england-to-al-gore-your-movie-is-inaccurate

    It makes for some good reading and without giving away the ending... it does NOT poke holes in Al Gore's movie in its entirety, it question certain points of arguement made in the movie which were found to be unprovable or not in accordance with present scientific theory.

    It should be pointed out that even after the lawsuit, the courts said the film could still be used in schools in Great Britain, with certain discussion points and areas of concern for the courts to be discussed in class prior to the film being shown.

    There are lots of good comments here.
    Yeah, I saw some thing on HBO or showtime where a reporter from britian or somewhere went to a "town hall" thing where Gore was speaking and hazed him on this very thing.
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,349
    laker1963:
    mustluvcigars:
    link
    be sure to read the info box
    UMMM, that was laughable.
    So what, another British Lord, (hardly any kind of expert) has an extreme view on this subject. His views like a lot of right wing, upper class, priviledged society are full of scare mongering and lies.
    Do you honestly believe that ANY president would sign away the sovereign rights of the US to a world government? C'mon, what kind of "proof" is this? It is an opinion, and not a very well thought out one, designed to scare people. Haven't you had enough of these tactics? They are transparent and sad.
    Laker as you laugh at that, I wouldn't be too surprised if it may happen... I can almost see one single large corporation taking control of most of the world. Sort of like what you see in Wall-E. Sounds funny but the way nations are so built up on a handful of corporations it may just happen.
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    phobicsquirrel:
    laker1963:
    mustluvcigars:
    link
    be sure to read the info box
    UMMM, that was laughable.
    So what, another British Lord, (hardly any kind of expert) has an extreme view on this subject. His views like a lot of right wing, upper class, priviledged society are full of scare mongering and lies.
    Do you honestly believe that ANY president would sign away the sovereign rights of the US to a world government? C'mon, what kind of "proof" is this? It is an opinion, and not a very well thought out one, designed to scare people. Haven't you had enough of these tactics? They are transparent and sad.
    Laker as you laugh at that, I wouldn't be too surprised if it may happen... I can almost see one single large corporation taking control of most of the world. Sort of like what you see in Wall-E. Sounds funny but the way nations are so built up on a handful of corporations it may just happen.

    Yes but that isn't quite the same scenerio. The "Lord" in the video was saying these present day world governments were conspiring to take over all governments and have them replaced by one World government.

    The @ssholes are so power hungry, does anybody really think they would voluntarily give up the power they so relish and give over control to some outside world body? It's laughable.

    Now a corporate world leader is another thing entirely. If that were to ever happen... I would be what is today considered a Terrorist. I can't see myself taking orders from Colonel Sanders or Ronald McDonald, for some reason.
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,349
    laker1963:
    phobicsquirrel:
    laker1963:
    mustluvcigars:
    link
    be sure to read the info box
    UMMM, that was laughable.
    So what, another British Lord, (hardly any kind of expert) has an extreme view on this subject. His views like a lot of right wing, upper class, priviledged society are full of scare mongering and lies.
    Do you honestly believe that ANY president would sign away the sovereign rights of the US to a world government? C'mon, what kind of "proof" is this? It is an opinion, and not a very well thought out one, designed to scare people. Haven't you had enough of these tactics? They are transparent and sad.
    Laker as you laugh at that, I wouldn't be too surprised if it may happen... I can almost see one single large corporation taking control of most of the world. Sort of like what you see in Wall-E. Sounds funny but the way nations are so built up on a handful of corporations it may just happen.

    Yes but that isn't quite the same scenerio. The "Lord" in the video was saying these present day world governments were conspiring to take over all governments and have them replaced by one World government.

    The @ssholes are so power hungry, does anybody really think they would voluntarily give up the power they so relish and give over control to some outside world body? It's laughable.

    Now a corporate world leader is another thing entirely. If that were to ever happen... I would be what is today considered a Terrorist. I can't see myself taking orders from Colonel Sanders or Ronald McDonald, for some reason.
    ah.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,806 ✭✭✭
    We did all take orders from W for 8 years.....seems like Ronny or the Colonel might be a step up----at least in IQ :)
Sign In or Register to comment.