jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (55 posts)

Fun in the Global Warming Debate

  1. Will Apse profile image89
    Will Apseposted 5 years ago

    The Koch brothers are climate change skeptics, Their business is chemicals, coal and transportation- three areas likely to be hit hard by any moves to a low carbon economy.

    They have respect for science, though, and decided to partly fund a new study at Berkeley run by a climate skeptic Professor, Prof Richard Muller .

    Unfortunately. after studying temperature data in more detail than has ever been done before, the said Professor has been converted. The data showed temperature rising more sharply than previous studies.

    Further analysis convinced him that only human activity could possibly be responsible.

    He said: "We were not expecting this, but as scientists, it is our duty to let the evidence change our minds." He now considers himself a "converted sceptic" and his views had undergone a "total turnaround" in a short space of time.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/ … hange-mind

    This is what in the UK would be called a 'Koch Up'. Shame it is all a bit late.

    1. tom hellert profile image54
      tom hellertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry kids n Cats Manmade global warming is as fake as Dolly Partons boobs, sure all the data looks interesting but it has been found out the warmers cooked the numbers based studies on 2 or3  of 35 data points- http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scient … arming.htm
      Secondly t\http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scientists-caught-producing-false-data-to-push-global-warming.htm -SO fake RESULTS AGAIN.... I think I shall start with a bit of history; I am talking about Chris Berman “wayyy BACk Back Back all the way to the mid Cretaceous that’s approximately 100 million years ago for you non-geologic folks. It was estimated by a collaboration of Professors (1) in the Applied Science Department at NYU (Rampino et al) that Carbon-dioxide releases associated with a mid-Cretaceous super plume and mountain building activities in the Ontong-Java Plateau have been suggested as a principal cause of the mid-Cretaceous global warming. CO2 emissions resulting from super-plume tectonics could have produced atmospheric CO2 levels from 3.7 to 14.7 times the modern pre-industrial value of 285 ppm (that’s1100 to 4000 ppm). Based on the temperature sensitivity to CO2 increases used in the weathering-rate formulations, this would cause a global warming of from 2.8 to 7.7 degrees Celsius that is 37-44 degrees Fahrenheit (toasty) over today's global mean temperature.  =o its volcanoes that have historically had a major impact 35-45 degrees ...so I dont buy what Al gore is selling and i dont believe global-warming is manmade or occuring today...

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You need to read up a bit more on the subject. Nobody is denying the effect of natural forces, today and in the past. However, the effect of anthropomorphic factors has been scientifically measured and is undeniable. The climate at any given time is the product of natural and man made forces. Why is it so hard for you to grasp that climate change is not an either/or matter? (either man made or natural). You need a checkup to make sure you're not a victim of the Tea Party syndrome!  http://ralphdeeds.hubpages.com/hub/The- … ou-have-it

        1. Will Apse profile image89
          Will Apseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Prof Muller concluded after his study that there was no evidence that variations in the solar cycle had any part in the warming trend neither did volcanic activity.

          He asserts a 95 per cent correlation between rising CO2  levels and global temperature. In other words, he now believes that there are no natural cycles involved whatsoever (part of his previous position). It is all down to man made emissions.

          There is nothing new in his findings.It just backs up all the other major studies.

          The fun part is that the Kochs paid $150,000 for this. They would have done better funding more disinformation websites.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That's ironic. I wasn't aware that the Kochs funded Muller.

            I haven't read any scientists who rule out the effect of solar cycles or other natural phenomena at times in the past nor in the future. My understanding is that for any given period natural forces may have no effect on climate, may cancel the effect of greenhouse gases or accelerate the effect of greenhouse gases. All considered, the most likely outcome in the next century or half-century sufficiently to result in disruptions which will require some rather costly and  inconvenient, to put it mildly, adjustments in many parts of the world.

            1. Will Apse profile image89
              Will Apseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Muller was only looking at a 250 year period.

              He concluded that the solar cycles had no noticeable impact in that period. Volcanic activity was probably responsible for some short term cooling but the underlying trend was upwards as a result of increasing CO2.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Thanks. I'll try to read Muller's report or more about it at least.

                1. Will Apse profile image89
                  Will Apseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I would. I'm only trying to precis his finding here. I know other scientists have more elaborate explanations than Muller's very simple conclusions.

              2. tom hellert profile image54
                tom hellertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Thats the problem with Muller he didn't do the research looking al the way back - maybe he didn't have the resources or some of the data... you have to look over a longer cycle than 250 years when the earth is 5 billion years old thats like looking at today and saying i am very ealthy when in fact i was dead a one time or say that you are sickly if you have a cold today but have never had a day in the hospital or missed a day of work. So if muller would have checked further back he may have changed his view. I wonder who was giving him funding

                1. Will Apse profile image89
                  Will Apseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  If you are looking at the impact of human beings on climate, the last 250 years is what matters.

                  Muller tried to account for the observed temp changes in that period by reference to solar and volcanic activity, he was, after all, a climate skeptic.

                  The data would only support an explanation based on greenhouse gas emissions from human activity, so being an honest man, he revised his opinions.

                  Also, there are studies of Antarctic ice sheets cores that allow temp changes to be quantified over the last 750.000 years. The last 200 years has seen the sharpest temp changes.

        2. tom hellert profile image54
          tom hellertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Ralph (Ithink)- as a geologist environmental science major and working in the environmental field for 15- yearsI ave forgotten more than others know... secondly your undeniable items are very denible considering as I have said before when 2 of 36 data points are used to conclude something and in other cases the methodology is so flawed that I don't need to check my view you and many many others have to realize why the media and  scholastics have an agenda to destroy certain industries and  push their ridiculous zealotry such as global warming I went through Al Gores an "inconvenient (miss)-truth in that movie alone there were at least 50 lies...I have checked MY sources and the global warmers sources and it all comes back to the lefty liar media is putting forth thr garbage conclusions based on garbage data- more people are coming over to the correct side of truth its only the big highly visible folks caving to popular misconceptions known as " man made global warming" the biggest LIE is that there is a consesus about GWarming....

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            HAHAHHAHAHAHA

            As for why we know global warming is occurring it's simple, the outer atmosphere of our planet is not heating up at all but our lower atmosphere and surface is because of the greenhouse effect, you can also replicate the greenhouse effect in a literal greenhouse to see the facts., there have been other high CO2 periods in history and those too were marked by heating it really is that simple but obviously it's all a conspiracy, tell me do you drink only rainwater? tongue





            http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6999731_f248.jpg

            1. tom hellert profile image54
              tom hellertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Josef..
              Your example of the outer vs inner atmosphere like global warming is flawed and ignores general physics and Natural history and general scientific principals.. First off why isnt thwe outer atmosphere heating up ... same reason we put things in a fridge- ... and that is.... you guessed it it colder in the freezer- if we put a heater in the freezer- the freezer  will keep the area cold and I tink near absolute zero is a great freezer for the outer atmosphere that is heated by ... say it with me- the Sun.. thats good Jo- the suns energy heats all the earth and therefore keeps the earth from turning ice cubic. if the sun suddenly got dimmer as it periodically has what happens to the earth does it warm? No it got colder too if notr what caused the ice ages....go ahead try and answer it without saying the sun???? Or saying the earths tilt eliptical orbit or  distance... what are you left withj...thats right "bubkiss"...

      2. Will Apse profile image89
        Will Apseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        A few of the articles from Prisonplanet

        Federally-Funded Street Lights Capable of “Recording Conversations”

        Foundations are in place for martial law in the US

        US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen spies

        Pentagon Developing Tool To Monitor Your Life

        Did Terrorist Pilots Train at U.S. Military Schools?

        I don't think anymore needs to be said, lol.

      3. mikelong profile image74
        mikelongposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So said Muller..........but then he actually did the research...


        Prove him wrong...

    2. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well, just chalk it up to the evidence pile, which is massive.  Not sure people who have predetermined that God will save us will ever change their mind though.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well, I guess we've settled that! The deniers have taken cover.

        1. profile image0
          Sooner28posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Unfortunately, they seem to have taken over the public debate, but the intellectual one has already been won.  Winning though, what does it matter if no action is taken?!?!?!?

          1. tom hellert profile image54
            tom hellertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry- As a geologist and a denier- i ask you global warming -wits to answer me this if CO2 is not a natural global cycle then how were the mid-Cretaceous global warming. CO2 emissions resulting from super-plume tectonics could have easily produced atmospheric CO2 levels from 3.7 to 14.7 times the MODERN  pre-industrial value of 285 ppm (that’s1100 to 4000 ppm). Based on the temperature sensitivity to CO2 increases used in the weathering-rate formulations, this would cause a global warming of from 2.8 to 7.7 degrees Celsius that is 37-44 degrees Fahrenheit (toasty) over today's global mean temperature. SO WARMERS WHAT CAUSED  real global WARMING? OH YEA VOLCANOES ETC.. not man... THEN WE GO TO THE RECENT DATA. So let me tell you guys about a little known "thing" called the Milankovitch cycle.This cycle postulated variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit determined climatic patterns on Earth. Eccentricity being the “ovalness” of the earth’s orbit. Axial tilt is the degree the earth tilts toward and away from the sun averages approximately 23 degrees and precession – it means wobble on the axis wobble of the axial tilt. SO I ask you what do YOU really think will effect the earth? Where and how the earth faces the sun or how many cars are on the road? If you said the sun you’re correct. If you didnt  then there is probably nothing that will convince you what really does the warming on earth. Every hour, enough sunlight energy reaches the Earth to meet the world’s energy demand for a whole year. Shttp://www.makeitsolar.com/solar-energy-information/04-sun-energy.htmource. I got more but i'll wait on it...

            1. Will Apse profile image89
              Will Apseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Is there a translation available for this?

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Unpersuasive gobbledegook.

                1. tom hellert profile image54
                  tom hellertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  ok I'll dumb it down for you since you believers- need help with real science, in the mid cretaceous- (many millions of years ago)- super-plume tectonics could have easily produced atmospheric CO2 levels from 3.7 to 14.7 times the MODERN  pre-industrial value of 285 ppm (that’s1100 to 4000 ppm). translation- alot of volcanoes go "boom "make alot of CO2 fly into the in the air.  so that there was 3.7 to 14% times more  in the air - (thats allot more in the air).... with me so far? Im not going to fast? that rise in CO2 this would cause a global warming of from 2.8 to 7.7 degrees Celsius that is 37-44 degrees Fahrenheit (toasty) over today's global mean temperature.  mean means average... so - there is the history lesson. that boils down to CO2 can rise from NATURAL means since no people were there so long ago... now- on to today/ or more recent stuff...or maybe not since its been going on for a long time.. The Milankovitch cycle, this is a cycle that the earth ( the planet we are on) goes around the Sun (the big bright thing in the sky during the day ( dont look directly into it guys). So the way the sun doe not move but the earth goes around the sun....it does not travel in a perfect circle or even a constant elipse there are variations- in how it becomes more or less circular-the less circular the farther away it will travel from the sun, i have already defined tilt and precession. Doesn't that make sense... If something is farther away it gets less heat if land masses are tilted away from the sun- they get less heat,  And these 3 factors have not been constant forever since the earth was created... So yet again howfar the earth is away from the sun what part gets the most sun. So I guess this goble-de -gook- or as most people call this REAL SCIENCE...REAL SCIENCE i CAN GO ON ONCE YOU HAVE DIGESTED THIS ..yours pal TH

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Why can't you grasp that man made factors affect climate as well as natural forces? The people who worry about climate change agree that natural forces affect climate. Seems to me logical that climate is determined by natural forces AND recent greenhouse gas emissions. It's not an EITHER/OR matter.

                  2. Will Apse profile image89
                    Will Apseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Sorry Tom, this is still pretty much incomprehensible.

                    I will say one thing: geophysical studies of volcanic emissions (or degassing from the earths crust) suggest that these natural additions to atmospheric CO2 have been minimal in the last couple of hundred years.

                    Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.

                    Volcanic eruptions into the atmosphere (as opposed to sub-sea) tend to cause cooling because of the dust and ash particles they emit. These reflect solar energy.

  2. maxoxam41 profile image77
    maxoxam41posted 5 years ago

    Why would we be looking for liveable planets if ours was not in trouble? The Meadow report says a lot as for our future. It is not my future that bothers me but my niece's and nephews' and the rest of the children of the earth that worries me.

    1. lone77star profile image88
      lone77starposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      @maxoxam41, I've been interested in "liveable planets" for the last 57 years (since I was 5 years old) and it has nothing to do with the state of politics, technology, climate or the economy on Earth.

      Certainly, we need to be concerned about the future, but other Earth-like planets are meaningless unless we can get to them. The closest possible Earth-like planet (if one were found in Alpha Centauri system, our closest neighbor) would be an astounding 26 Trillion miles away. If we spent a few trillion dollars, we might be able to build a ship to send a few hundred people to that world in about 25-30 years, but they would have to sleep most of the way. I'm afraid we don't have the technology for suspended animation.

  3. Mitch Alan profile image85
    Mitch Alanposted 5 years ago

    What caused us to come out of the last ice age? You know, the one where there was no industrial revolution yet, no SUVs, no evil Conservatives trying to kiil polar bears...???
    And, why was the SAME arguement, using the same "facts" given in the 70's to support global cooling?

    1. Will Apse profile image89
      Will Apseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The kinds of cycles that cause cooling of the planet have a 20,000 year frequency and are related to shifts in the Earths orbit. So, yes, ices age come and go.

      The science behind this was explored in the seventies and although the scientific community was not expecting an ice age any time soon the popular press picked up on it and came to some strange conclusions.

      Those conclusions are still useful to climate skeptics who enjoy muddying the waters of debate.

      The data on global warming covers a 250 year period when global temperatures have risen by 1.5 C. Most of that rise has happened in the last few decades.

      Why not take a look at Muller's results?: http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/

      Incidentally, you also get cooling of the earth after major volcanic eruptions (dust in the atmosphere). These don't cause ice ages.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Natural forces, naturally.

  4. maxoxam41 profile image77
    maxoxam41posted 5 years ago

    lone77star, then once more where is the point to know if and where those exoplanets exist?

  5. lone77star profile image88
    lone77starposted 5 years ago

    I've always believed in climate change. I know humans are having some effect on the climate. How much is debatable. Natural changes may account for the lion's share. I don't know.

    But a far more worrisome fact is that the globalists (New World Order) want to take advantage of this by adding a carbon tax. It's just a ploy to add more control and to gain more funding for their world takeover.

    If you don't wake up to this pattern soon enough, you may not be able to do anything about it.

    Just look at all of the Jews and other "undesirables" who let Normalcy Bias blind them to the actions of Hitler in 1933 Germany. When they finally woke up, it was too late to do anything about it. A few years later, 70 million people had died because of World War II.

    If the Globalists get their way, they will slaughter 6 Billion people! Monsters? You better believe it. And they sincerely think they're doing humanity a favor. No surprise that they intend to be the ruling class, and those who are left will remain the serfs to their new feudal system.

    Time to get right with God. The signs of Revelation have already started to manifest -- re-establishment of Israel (49), the fall of the great star wormwood (Chernobyl, 86), the assault on the whore of Babylon (2001) and the mark of the beast (embedded microchips, 2013?).

  6. maxoxam41 profile image77
    maxoxam41posted 5 years ago

    lone77star, the introduction of god ruins your rationale! Given that most of the people are idiots, who are you asking to wake up? Aren't they voting against their own interests? Aren't they numerally superior? What is our option? Where is the exit? Please don't refer to god!

  7. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    Here's an article from today's Wall Street Journal which notes that a number of climate change skeptics are changing their views, e.g. Republicans John Kasich and Chris Christie, Rex Tillerson EXXON ceo, Rupert Murdoch and Richard Muller, University of California skeptical scientist financed by the Koch brothers who now says "You should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer." Krupp argues that the time has come for a dialog between conservatives and liberals about what can reasonably be done to deal with climate change.

    http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB1 … reno64-wsj

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Stop using evidence to discredit my imaginary world where humans can pollute with impunity!

    2. tom hellert profile image54
      tom hellertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry until i see a study that is real science  I will not have a reason to believe anyone just because they identify yesterday and today as a trend- I believe in the first Law of models and studies garbage in garbage out. just like a liberal will not trust the Kochs i dont trust any global warming study funded by leftists or Al freakin gore...they have faked and misrepresented data before and i woudn't trust the greenhouse zealots to cheat the numbers again....

  8. Six G Eddie profile image61
    Six G Eddieposted 5 years ago

    When things get hot, I'm cool. cool

    1. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Welcome.
      Hope you stay that way!
      We need cooler heads prevailing.
      MM

 
working