Arctic ice melting continues

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I live in a Country that has ~40% of it's land mass covered in permafrost and thus produces no crops. Explain to me again why global warming is bad.

Which is why enviromentalism and capitalism isn't a good mix. Or else we'd be investing in buying up Canadian land and just WAITING for the warmup. Real estate investing based on global catastrophe.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andrewwhyte 1]

You make that sound like a bad thing.

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

Quote

I live in a Country that has ~40% of it's land mass covered in permafrost and thus produces no crops. Explain to me again why global warming is bad.

Which is why enviromentalism and capitalism isn't a good mix. Or else we'd be investing in buying up Canadian land and just WAITING for the warmup. Real estate investing based on global catastrophe.

Shhhhh!

Don't tell anybody.

illegible usually

[jumper03 0]

Quote

Quote

"it could speak to the planet having warmth in the interior ...

I'd say the presence of the largest volcano in the solar system (84k feet tall and the size of Arizona) would indicate that Mars does have warmth in the interior. Then again, I'm no scientist....

replace does with DID have interior heat. There is no evidence of volcanic activity on Mars at present.

Scars remind us that the past is real

[billvon 3,132]

>I live in a Country that has ~40% of it's land mass covered in
> permafrost and thus produces no crops. Explain to me again why
> global warming is bad.

Plauges, hurricanes, disease, towns and cities sinking, and methane explosions come to mind. Or it might end up being good for you overall. But it's going to be _very_ bad for some people. Ask the people in Louisiana if they'd be OK with a trend towards more Katrina-level storms.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

>I live in a Country that has ~40% of it's land mass covered in
> permafrost and thus produces no crops. Explain to me again why
> global warming is bad.

Plauges, hurricanes, disease, towns and cities sinking, and methane explosions come to mind. Or it might end up being good for you overall. But it's going to be _very_ bad for some people. Ask the people in Louisiana if they'd be OK with a trend towards more Katrina-level storms.

First of all – I do think human activity is contributing to climate change – but much less then many claim - and I do think that reducing the output of fossil fuels is necessary – but more for the reason that we have limited reserves and have to reduce so we do not run out of oil, natural gas and coal before we have alternative energy sources.

There is too much “believe” in the global warming debate and not enough critical science.

A few facts:

We had a Medieval Warm Period from 800 to 1300, followed by a Little Ice Age until around 1900. Says Philip Stott, London University professor emeritus of bio-geography: "During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today."

Glacier researcher Roger Braithwaite noted in Progress in Physical Geography, some glaciers are growing and "there is no obvious common or global trend of increasing glacier melt in recent years".

There is no agreed link between warming and extreme weather. As a House of Lords committee said in July, after grilling dozens of climate experts, "there is uncertainty and controversy about the underlying data required to substantiate this claim".

The US National Climatic Data Centre says "other storms have had stronger sustained winds when they made landfall", including one in 1935. It adds: "The most deadly hurricane to strike the US made landfall in Galveston, Texas, on September 8, 1900 . . . claiming more than 8000 lives." A century ago.
If anything, hurricanes are weaker. Says the World Meteorological Organisation: "Reliable data from the North Atlantic since the 1940s indicate that the peak strength of the strongest hurricanes has not changed, and the mean maximum intensity of all hurricanes has decreased."
As a paper accepted last month by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society notes: "Globally there has been no increase in tropical cyclone frequency over at least the past several decades . . ." And, besides, "no connection has been established between greenhouse gas emissions and the observed behaviour of hurricanes".. "There is no long-term trend in the number of landfalling hurricanes since 1900," says the National Climatic Data Centre.


The problem is that is not fashionable to say that the current global warming might just be part of a “natural” cycle and human activity has only marginal effect. The well known “skeptical” scientist Bjorn Lomborg produced a paper some years ago showing that even using “green” scientists methodologies – a total implementation of the Kyoto protocol would only effect global warming in a very small way. So maybe there are better ways of using the resources used tgo implement Kyoto to look after the planet?

I remember reading that the last five major volcanic eruptions emitted more CO2 into the atmosphere than the combined total that humans have produced in history. Something to think about…..

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Maybe this is why.

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/7/12/2

Naw, can't be. It's gotta be all the fault of humans. Especially Bush!!

Article talks about solar magenetic activity. Didn't seem to indicate higher energy output.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Nice post Mikkey. Beats the emotional "the sky is falling" response by the Global Warmers. Kudos!!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Global Warming is also occuring on Mars.

So you've gone from the second to the third stage of climate-change denial. "OK, maybe it's happening, but it has NOTHING to do with us!"

I predict that within two years you will move on to the fourth stage, which is "OK, maybe we _do_ have something to do with it, but maybe the changes will be good. What, didn't you eco-freaks ever think of THAT?"

The good thing about having a wide range of denials is that you can always use another one when the one you are using gets shot down.

Play the ball, not the person. If you have an issue with what I say, then present a counter-point. Personal attitudes will not earn you any respect.


-

[billvon 3,132]

>Personal attitudes will not earn you any respect.

As you have shown me nothing but scorn and ridicule on this forum, I'm not too worried about losing your respect. It would be a step up!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Personal attitudes will not earn you any respect.

As you have shown me nothing but scorn and ridicule on this forum, I'm not too worried about losing your respect. It would be a step up!

I tend to treat people the way they treat me.

-

[JohnRich 4]

News:

Quote

Study: Sun's Changes to Blame for Part of Global Warming

Increased output from the Sun might be to blame for 10 to 30 percent of global warming that has been measured in the past 20 years, according to a new report. ...climate models of global warming should be corrected to better account for changes in solar activity...

Source: Live Science

Since the ice caps on Mars are also receding, and since there are no human-caused emissions on Mars, it's kind of hard to blame the arctic ice melt solely on humans...

Damn those greedy Martians and their sport utility vehicles!

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

News:

Quote

Study: Sun's Changes to Blame for Part of Global Warming

Increased output from the Sun might be to blame for 10 to 30 percent of global warming that has been measured in the past 20 years, according to a new report. ...climate models of global warming should be corrected to better account for changes in solar activity...

Source: Live Science

Since the ice caps on Mars are also receding, and since there are no human-caused emissions on Mars, it's kind of hard to blame the arctic ice melt solely on humans...

Damn those greedy Martians and their sport utility vehicles!

What a great excuse to buy more SUVs ourselves. Burn more coal and natural gas too. F#ck conservation, it will all be the Sun's fault.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

What a great excuse to buy more SUVs ourselves. Burn more coal and natural gas too. F#ck conservation, it will all be the Sun's fault.

This opinion is exactly why I'm so skeptical of global warming. I'm no expert in this field, but I've seen both arguments on global warming. I'm not saying that we don't have any effect on it, but there is too much research showing similar global trends thru history, and not enough research to actually link our current problem with our fossil fuels. The idea of more CO2 makes sense though. Your opinion which is common of many people seems to be taking advantage of this situation to push the greenie agenda. Trying to scare a mob into believing that global warming is all human's fault is the perfect way to push this agenda. It wouldn't matter if it was all the sun's fault and if global warming was totally debunked. Yall'd still be preachin down with the suvs. I'd be much more likely to believe research from someone that was indifferent towards the subject and didn't have a preconceived problem in mind.

[Gravitymaster 0]

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050930_sun_effect.html


Study: Sun's Changes to Blame for Part of Global Warming
By Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Managing Editor
posted: 30 September 2005
01:12 pm ET



Increased output from the Sun might be to blame for 10 to 30 percent of global warming that has been measured in the past 20 years, according to a new report.

Increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases still play a role, the scientists say.

But climate models of global warming should be corrected to better account for changes in solar activity, according to Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West of Duke University.

The findings were published online this week by the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Scientists agree the planet is warming. Effects are evident in melting glaciers and reductions in the amount of frozen ground around the planet.

The new study is based in part on Columbia University research from 2003 in which scientists found errors in how data on solar brightness is interpreted. A gap in data, owing to satellites not being deployed after the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, were filled by less accurate data from other satellites, Scafetta says.

The Duke analyses examined solar changes over 22 years versus 11 years used in previous studies. The cooling effect of volcanoes and cyclical shifts in ocean currents can have a greater negative impact on the accuracy of shorter data periods.

"The Sun may have minimally contributed about 10 to 30 percent of the 1980-2002 global surface warming," the researchers said in a statement today.

Many questions remain, however. For example, scientists do not have a good grasp of how much Earth absorbs or reflects sunlight.

"We don't know what the Sun will do in the future," Scafetta says. "For now, if our analysis is correct, I think it is important to correct the climate models so that they include reliable sensitivity to solar activity. Once that is done, then it will be possible to better understand what has happened during the past hundred years."



-

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050930_sun_effect.html


Study: Sun's Changes to Blame for Part of Global Warming
By Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Managing Editor
posted: 30 September 2005
01:12 pm ET



Increased output from the Sun might be to blame for 10 to 30 percent of global warming that has been measured in the past 20 years, according to a new report.



"The Sun may have minimally contributed about 10 to 30 percent of the 1980-2002 global surface warming," the researchers said in a statement today.

-

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[FallRate 0]

Quote

What a great excuse to buy more SUVs ourselves. Burn more coal and natural gas too. F#ck conservation, it will all be the Sun's fault.

Right on! And keep jumping those Twin-Otters while bitching about the asshole in the SUV.

But wait...didn't you mention that you own your own airplane? Hmm...so you would like to see a $500 fine for someone who drives an SUV to work, but you have no problem with flying your own gas hog for shits and giggles?

Sorry to shine a light on your hypocrisy, but you did recently post a thread entitled "Truth is the First Victim". It inspired me to highlight the bullshit.

FallRate

[diverborg 0]

Quote

Right on! And keep jumping those Twin-Otters while bitching about the asshole in the SUV.

But wait...didn't you mention that you own your own airplane? Hmm...so you would like to see a $500 fine for someone who drives an SUV to work, but you have no problem with flying your own gas hog for shits and giggles?

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

What a great excuse to buy more SUVs ourselves. Burn more coal and natural gas too. F#ck conservation, it will all be the Sun's fault.

Right on! And keep jumping those Twin-Otters while bitching about the asshole in the SUV.

But wait...didn't you mention that you own your own airplane? Hmm...so you would like to see a $500 fine for someone who drives an SUV to work, but you have no problem with flying your own gas hog for shits and giggles?

Sorry to shine a light on your hypocrisy, but you did recently post a thread entitled "Truth is the First Victim". It inspired me to highlight the bullshit.

FallRate

My "gas hog" gets 20mpg. Could be better, I admit, but most SUVs are worse.

I don't think I called for any fines, either.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[FallRate 0]

Quote

My "gas hog" gets 20mpg.

Yep. You have a gas hog, glad we can agree. You also happen to be burning leaded fuel. You may have an STC for unleaded fuel, but that doesn't erase the fact that you are burning fuel with the best of 'em.

Quote

Could be better, I admit, but most SUVs are worse.

So your shit stinks only a little?

Quote

I don't think I called for any fines, either.

http://dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1697431;search_string=fad;#1697431
You'll need to scroll down.

Second offense is apparently $1000 dollars, in your opinion.

Edited to add:
I would like to point out that I met Dr. Kallend about five years ago. He's a good guy and his contribution to the sport of skydiving in regards to exit order is quite valuable and much appreciated. I like him.

However, it doesn't mean that I'm not going to jump all over this.

FallRate

[kallend 2,175]

I continue to believe that driving an SUV single occupancy into downtown Chicago or NYC in rush hour is anti-social in the extreme and should be priced out. Flying a small plane single occupancy into O'Hare or JFK is equally anti social and IS ALREADY discouraged by large fines (if you don't have a reservation) and humungous fees if you do. I see no significant difference.

As for traveling cross country, I think my plane is actually more efficient than my car (Taurus) when driving distances are taken into account. Distance by air is typically 20% less than by road, often even less if it involves going over the mountains.

I have yet to drive my plane through any inner city neighborhoods.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I continue to believe that driving an SUV single occupancy into downtown Chicago or NYC in rush hour is anti-social in the extreme and should be priced out. Flying a small plane single occupancy into O'Hare or JFK is equally anti social and IS ALREADY discouraged by large fines (if you don't have a reservation) and humungous fees if you do. I see no significant difference.

As for traveling cross country, I think my plane is actually more efficient than my car (Taurus) when driving distances are taken into account. Distance by air is typically 20% less than by road, often even less if it involves going over the mountains.

I have yet to drive my plane through any inner city neighborhoods.

Lame!!

-

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

I continue to believe that driving an SUV single occupancy into downtown Chicago or NYC in rush hour is anti-social in the extreme and should be priced out. Flying a small plane single occupancy into O'Hare or JFK is equally anti social and IS ALREADY discouraged by large fines (if you don't have a reservation) and humungous fees if you do. I see no significant difference.

As for traveling cross country, I think my plane is actually more efficient than my car (Taurus) when driving distances are taken into account. Distance by air is typically 20% less than by road, often even less if it involves going over the mountains.

I have yet to drive my plane through any inner city neighborhoods.

Lame!!

-

You are welcome to your opinion. Keep driving your SUV in the city traffic. Don't expect to see my plane there .

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,132]

>Since the ice caps on Mars are also receding, and since there are no
>human-caused emissions on Mars, it's kind of hard to blame the arctic ice
>melt solely on humans...

So the question becomes -

When the solar flux drops again (which is always does) will the anti-climate-change people go back to claiming that there's no such thing as global warming?

The CO2 content of the atmosphere has a huge effect on how much heat is retained. We're gradually increasing it. That means, over time, average temps will increase. Since this is actually happening as predicted, anti-climate-change people are changing their tune from "there's no such thing as climate change" to "maybe it's not 100% human caused" and the more recent "maybe it's a good thing that everything is melting! Did you idiot environmentalists ever think of THAT?" Since that combines both self-righteousness and a chance to bash someone, it's becoming more popular.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I continue to believe that driving an SUV single occupancy into downtown Chicago or NYC in rush hour is anti-social in the extreme and should be priced out. Flying a small plane single occupancy into O'Hare or JFK is equally anti social and IS ALREADY discouraged by large fines (if you don't have a reservation) and humungous fees if you do. I see no significant difference.

As for traveling cross country, I think my plane is actually more efficient than my car (Taurus) when driving distances are taken into account. Distance by air is typically 20% less than by road, often even less if it involves going over the mountains.

I have yet to drive my plane through any inner city neighborhoods.

Lame!!

-

You are welcome to your opinion. Keep driving your SUV in the city traffic. Don't expect to see my plane there .

Didn't I tell you I bought a new Acura? The SUV is still being used to haul mulch, motorcycles etc. I never drive either into the city. I use the rail service.

Arguing that your plane is more fuel efficient than a car is a little like arguing it's better to drive a fuel efficient car than to carpool. The commercial airliner is going there anyway.


-