^^^ That by itself is still not enough to determine climate change over the long term.

Right now, the most innovative research is in atmospheric and geological chemistry. Knowing more about how the Earth responds to various chemicals we humans release helps to further nail down the mathematics of climate change.

Simple short-term weather patterns are mostly meaningless.

1/18/2008 11:57:53 PM

For the record, this is what I posted:

Quote :

"Global warming protest frosted with snow It snowed, but they still came. A heavy snowfall blanketed a global warming protest outside the State House in Annapolis this morning, but it did not dampen the shouts of about 400 activists who urged lawmakers to pass the nation's toughest greenhouse gas control law. http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bay_environment/blog/2008/01/global_warming_protest_snowed.html You gotta love it. "

Nowhere in the post above did I make any claims about anything. Some of you simply dumped your global warming baggage into this thread--FYI.

1/19/2008 1:14:47 AM

Quote :

"the media is cheating its a new year there is no 2008 drought"

So it's like Board Bucks over the summer and not like Board Bucks over Christmas break? They don't carry over?

1/21/2008 8:43:13 AM

haha ^ good going

hooksaw pwnt

All the stuff on the drought is REALLY just part of the liberal conspiracy to trick the stupid avg. american into believing the whole global warming lie..... [/sarcasm]

1/21/2008 10:22:30 AM

^It is a sad day for reading comprehension.

1/21/2008 11:08:20 AM

Climate changes, plates to blame
Researchers say recent tectonic shifting is source of abnormal weather patterns

http://www.technicianonline.com/media/storage/paper848/news/2008/01/22/News/Climate.Changes.Plates.To.Blame-3160279.shtml

Yet another variable in the global cooling/global warming/climate change/global change debate--the debate that doesn't exist, according to some here and elsewhere.

[Edited on January 22, 2008 at 8:09 PM. Reason : .]

1/22/2008 8:08:31 PM

1/22/2008 8:28:47 PM

Quote :

""If a little bit of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would raise the temperature as much as they say, then every time a volcano would erupt, the earth's climate would change dramatically," Compton said. "Everyone shouldn't listen to Al Gore like he's the Jesus of global warming. He's just had a lot of time on his hands since he lost twice in 2000.""

1/22/2008 9:28:40 PM

When volcanoes erupt, the climate does change. It's one method of calibrating paleoclimatic data.

1/22/2008 11:56:04 PM

^^^ Typically worthless post.

^ Thanks for that trinket. The current topic of discussion, however, is the shifting of tectonic plates. I realize that the facts in the news story at issue don't fit the Gore-style narrative of many here, but try to focus, okay?

BTW, the quotation you referred to read "change dramatically" (emphasis added). Nice try.

[Edited on January 23, 2008 at 12:25 AM. Reason : .]

1/23/2008 12:23:17 AM

BTTT so idiots don't rehash old shit AGAIN in a new thread.

1/31/2008 9:47:33 PM

Eh, bored at work, here's my take:

The discussion lately is about whether cutting pollution, through any number of methods, is worth our trouble.

The Left points to the costs presented by air pollution - public health, wildlife habitat damage, Global Warming.

The Right points to the impact on the free market, the tremendous costs involved, and the inequity of allowing undeveloped nations to "pollute at will."


Here's the problem - Quantifying the impact of air pollution is exceptionally difficult. I agree that pollution to some degree is a necessary evil. You can't run our technology without technologies that are free of environmental impacts. Even Wind energy plants use fans that pose a hazard to migrating birds. The trick is to balance the benefits of energy with the costs.

In my opinion we can debate the numbers until the cows come home. We can bicker and argue about how far pollution restrictions need to go. Quite frankly, this is exactly what's happening on a national and international level. It's clear some middle ground is needed in order to move forward as a nation and as a planet in combating these serious problems.


Bottom line - We need new technology to make alternative energy work. We need more efficient solar panels, more effective wind energy plants, and better means of controlling pollution produced from oil and coal energy consumers. It's clear that energy dependence is expensive and politically problematic (See the Middle East, Russia, etc). We have all the incentive in the world to get away from oil in particular. The health impacts of coal energy provide a similar incentive to phase in alternative energy sources.


My general solution - The Left should hire the Right to fix the problem. In other words, the environmentalists need the business savvy and innovative entrepeneurs to tackle the problem and get to work on solutions. The government should be providing every last incentive imaginable to companies willing to research, experiment, design, and produce technologies that can us out of this mess. I'm talking tax benefits, exemptions, credits, and more. I'm talking significant financial incentives to design cars using less fuel, scrubbers that remove more pollutants, solar panels that can compete on the energy market. Whatever it takes - do it.

This is not a new concept, but it seems to be routinely ignored in this debate.

I understand this solution boils down to "Throw money at the problem." It's true it will cost a lot to this on a large scale. However, that's really what the government's role should be. The government's purpose is to look out of the interests of the general public. The market is influenced by the general public, but it is controlled by money. If the market doesn't demand a service/product in a financially feasible way, then private business doesn't provide it. Hence, the necessity of government.


I do not however support government "controls," like arbitrarily setting fuel standards. Instead, give tax incentives to companies that produce higher efficiency vehicles. So you made a car that get 40 miles/gallon? You pay less taxes. Now it makes financial sense to "think green." Now the best and brightest are working for the environment, not against it.

Right now we're racing toward a cliff - one that represents large scale environmental impacts from which the world may not recover. We don't know when we'll get there, or how big the drop is, but we do know it's there. The free market may not be able to save us in time to avoid it either. It is in this case that government can and should start working with the free market to redirect the technology industry. The new direction? Enviro-friendly energy sources.


We're not going to see progress by pointing fingers at the Left or Right, accusing one another of being ignorant, uncaring, or idiotic. We're going to see progress when we start working TOGETHER. Combine the compassionate, pro-environment Left and the innovative, hard-working Right and then MAYBE we'll see some real progress.


Until then we're all just dicking around until the bottom falls out...

2/1/2008 12:56:43 PM

if only there were actually evidence that there were a problem...

2/1/2008 12:59:01 PM

Quote :

"Right now we're racing toward a cliff - one that represents large scale environmental impacts from which the world may not recover. We don't know when we'll get there, or how big the drop is, but we do know it's there."

I was in agreement with you up till this point.

If our government is serious about becoming clean, why don't they propose new nuclear power plants, things that can be done right now. Thats a better move than taking away more of my freedom through regulations and taxes.

2/1/2008 1:34:15 PM

^ So true.

2/1/2008 1:41:25 PM

I was also in agreement until the last couple lines... I definitely think your heart is in the right place, but let me ask you this...if we ARE approaching an inevitable cliff, and reducing carbon emissions is going to help the United States reduce our impact on approaching that cliff, why wouldn't China and India and their ~2.4 billion people carry the whole world over the cliff anyway? What good would our efforts to develop cleaner energies do if the current amount of anthropogenic carbon emissions is going to be dwarfed soon anyway by the growing industrial aspects of China's and India's societies?

2/1/2008 2:38:41 PM

2/1/2008 2:45:14 PM

And no one bothered to meaningfully address this:

Quote :

"Climate changes, plates to blame Researchers say recent tectonic shifting is source of abnormal weather patterns http://www.technicianonline.com/media/storage/paper848/news/2008/01/22/News/Climate.Changes.Plates.To.Blame-3160279.shtml Yet another variable in the global cooling/global warming/climate change/global change debate--the debate that doesn't exist, according to some here and elsewhere. "

2/1/2008 2:45:22 PM

anyone who sites a sub-par shitty newpaper like the technician as evidence for a debate should be banned from ever posting on TSB.

Maybe thats your problem bro you take everything you read online as legit.

2/1/2008 2:47:34 PM

^^^wow a politician...you can definitely trust anything he says...if theres one thing John McCain knows, its the ins and outs of climate science

2/1/2008 2:47:47 PM

^^^
how the hell does that effect us on such a short time scale?

[Edited on February 1, 2008 at 2:51 PM. Reason : ]

2/1/2008 2:51:26 PM

i'd just ignore hooksaw he merely tries to argue anything against the mainstream consensus of TWW espicially if it provides support for his Neo-Con superheros.

2/1/2008 2:53:47 PM

the mainstream consensus of a lot of things/places are dumb

2/1/2008 2:54:17 PM

this is true but the ideas of hooksaw are usually not anymore logical or better

2/1/2008 2:55:27 PM

the article he posted basically said according to a PHD in MEA at State, global warming is occuring, but he doesnt know how long it will last, and if humans are causing it...mentions some of the other factors that contribute to climate since CO2 levels are obviously not the only thing...but it seemed like you had an agenda against him before even looking at the link

funny too...I have always said that my professors in MEA who taught me about climate change and lots of that science in general told me that

- temperatures were rising
- we may or may not be the cause, it might be accelerated, or might be a natural cycle

this professor pretty much says that in the article...yet I've gotten a perpetual shitstorm for saying that over the past 2 years in TSB, from a bunch of people who didn't take all those classes and instead choose to get their news from TV...cause people don't want to listen...I basically say "yeah time/temp graphs clearly show a couple degrees of warming, but is it human caused or natural" and I get labelled some bush lover with financial stakes in oil companies

2/1/2008 2:58:13 PM

haha the professor quoted in that article is everybody's favorite MEA 101 teacher...

Michael Kimberley!



and that article is pure uneducated technician drivel.

2/1/2008 3:16:42 PM

would it have been more educated if it had said that humans are definitely the cause of inevitably destructive global warming?

2/1/2008 3:18:45 PM

no, i was commenting on the poor quality of the article, regardless of what it was saying.

2/1/2008 3:29:02 PM

well yeah its the technician, but i was looking more at the substance

2/1/2008 3:29:53 PM

but I will say...

tectonic plate activity is one of the SLOWEST cycles to change, on the order of hundreds of millions of years.

2/1/2008 3:30:11 PM

yeah but it would also make sense that when there was a large tectonic event, ie a plate shift that could cause multiple volcanic and seismic activity, an event that big could have a large impact in a short period of time

2/1/2008 3:34:20 PM

I'll grant you guys that the "running off the cliff" picture is somewhat misleading. I'm not a greenpeace enviro-nutjob who thinks we're headed for disaster. I'm simply saying the impacts of anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases are having SOME impact. W've got no clue when the impacts will become significant, or how detrimental they'll be. However, as I've said before, it's naive to think that humans can alter the composition of the atmosphere and not expect some alterations to the environment.

When you assume nature will be ok, you're playing an incredibly elaborate game of chance. Also, none of us have any idea what the odds are for any given magnitude of natural disasters resulting from it.

This is way I suggest we not sacrifice our economy, but also suggest we not ignore the problem altogether.

Quote :

"If our government is serious about becoming clean, why don't they propose new nuclear power plants, things that can be done right now. Thats a better move than taking away more of my freedom through regulations and taxes. "

Reasons we don't have nuclear power plants (Note - not necessarily agreeing with them)

1) Red tape - they're expensive, require a lot of permits, and are politcally unpopular. It's tough to justify raising so much capital with such a high risk of getting the plant shut down due to public outcry.

2) Waste - Nevada residents don't want it in their backyard. No other decent options for handling the waste are currently available.

Quote :

"if we ARE approaching an inevitable cliff, and reducing carbon emissions is going to help the United States reduce our impact on approaching that cliff, why wouldn't China and India and their ~2.4 billion people carry the whole world over the cliff anyway? What good would our efforts to develop cleaner energies do if the current amount of anthropogenic carbon emissions is going to be dwarfed soon anyway by the growing industrial aspects of China's and India's societies?"

True, but we have plenty of other reasons to do it anyway:

1) Ending dependence on foreign energy sources
2) Cleaner environment
3) Get away from finite/non-renewable energy sources

2/1/2008 5:21:06 PM

there was interesting article in the last scientific american about a "grand plan" for solar energy in this country. it was actually pretty illuminating how much more feasible it might be if the gov't and business got behind the idea.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

[Edited on February 1, 2008 at 5:28 PM. Reason : link]

2/1/2008 5:27:21 PM

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Quote :

"Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously [emphasis added]. Meteorologist Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down [emphasis added]."

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

Interesting, don't you think?

2/28/2008 4:25:57 AM

Definitely staying warm here

2/28/2008 8:11:53 AM

Honestly hooksaw if you are going to put together an argument against global warming an article talking about one year with a colder than average winter and lower global temperatures. Anyone with any kind of mathematical background to go along with their knowledge in meteorology is going to laugh at your lack of understanding of chaos theory or oscillations that are a product of multiple time varying climatic cycles with varying frequency components.

I think this past year ranked #3 warmest of the US

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 12:52 PM. Reason : a]

2/28/2008 12:51:54 PM

Quote :

"Honestly hooksaw if you are going to put together an argument against global warming an article talking about one year with a colder than average winter and lower global temperatures. Anyone with any kind of mathematical background to go along with their knowledge in meteorology is going to laugh at your lack of understanding of chaos theory or oscillations that are a product of multiple time varying climatic cycles with varying frequency components."

Why don't you read his post for what it is. Its pretty obvious that he's already addressed whatever counterpoint you're trying to make.

My 2 cents is that it wasn't an abnormally hot summer up here, and this winter hasn't been "that" cold and snowfall is below normal.

2/28/2008 1:46:40 PM

in raleigh June 2007 was slightly below average, july right around average

THEN

August was the HOTTEST on RECORD.

A winter below the 100 year mean while not helping the global warming debate does not disprove it. Statistical variation is expected no matter camp you are in. We could have a 25th percentile year in global temperatures for the whole 2008 but does this does not mean that in the long term trends that global warming is out of the picture.

hooksaw is forgetting that climate is the long term trend of weather here on earth. The global warming fanatics are guilty of the same thing. Just because we have a record warm summer in 2005 does not mean that Armageddon is upon us and we need to shut down the polluting factories, switch our cars to flower power, and hope the global ice caps do not bury manhattan.

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 3:30 PM. Reason : aa]

2/28/2008 3:27:41 PM

Our region is one of the few places that hasn't seen a increase in temperature over the past 50 years

I guess it's fitting that when the world cools, we warm up

2/28/2008 6:00:37 PM

Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud
The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud, hoping a legal debate will settle the global-warming debate once and for all.

Quote :

"John Coleman, who founded the cable network in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits. 'Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question,' Coleman said. 'Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue,' Coleman said. 'I'm confident that the advocates of "no significant effect from carbon dioxide" would win the case.' Coleman says his side of the global-warming debate is being buried in mainstream media circles. 'As you look at the atmosphere over the last 25 years, there's been perhaps a degree of warming, perhaps probably a whole lot less than that, and the last year has been so cold that that's been erased,' he said. 'I think if we continue the cooling trend a couple of more years, the general public will at last begin to realize that they've been scammed on this global-warming thing.' Coleman spoke to FOXNews.com after his appearance last week at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York, where he called global warming a scam and lambasted the cable network he helped create. 'You want to tune to the Weather Channel and have them tell you how to live your life?' Coleman said. 'Come on.' He laments the network's decision to focus on traffic and lifestyle reports over the weather. 'It's very clear that they don't realize that weather is the most significant impact in every human being's daily life, and good, solid, up-to-the-minute weather information and meaningful forecasts presented in such a way that people find them understandable and enjoyable can have a significant impact,' he said. 'The more you cloud that up with other baloney, the weaker the product,' he said. Coleman has long been a skeptic of global warming, and carbon dioxide is the linchpin to his argument. 'Does carbon dioxide cause a warming of the atmosphere? The proponents of global warming pin their whole piece on that,' he said. The compound carbon dioxide makes up only 38 out of every 100,000 particles in the atmosphere, he said. 'That's about twice as what there were in the atmosphere in the time we started burning fossil fuels, so it's gone up, but it's still a tiny compound,' Coleman said. 'So how can that tiny trace compound have such a significant effect on temperature? 'My position is it can't,' he continued. 'It doesn't, and the whole case for global warming is based on a fallacy.'"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html

http://tinyurl.com/3c6qog

3/14/2008 9:20:56 AM

solution:

lets always work to lower the amount of pollution we put into the planet. this will always be a good thing. at the same time, lets not lose our fucking minds over changing patterns in weather. there is no way we can tell if we are the cause because we only have data stretching hundreds of years, no where near the sample needed to draw conclusions.

end of thread.

3/14/2008 9:29:46 AM

^ I can go for the former part of your post. As for the latter, it's nowhere near time to end this thread--the Al Gore saga is far from over.

3/14/2008 9:31:44 AM

^^agreed, but CO2 isn't a pollutant.

3/14/2008 12:21:29 PM

Then maybe you should tell that to the US Supreme Court.

Quote :

"In one of the most important decisions in environmental law, the US Supreme Court has ruled that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant and that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the right to regulate CO2 emissions from new cars."

http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

[Edited on March 14, 2008 at 4:28 PM. Reason : .]

3/14/2008 4:26:45 PM

Quote :

"carbon dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant"

funny that all the endangered species of animals are polluting the atmosphere...what do we do about them?

(and obviously humans exhale CO2 as well)

3/14/2008 4:30:17 PM

Perhaps we should all go so that Mother Earth may live on.

3/14/2008 4:33:52 PM

Well theres a flaw in that proposal hooksaw...you see at night, plants no longer photosynthesize and convert CO2 into food and O2...at night plants switch to respiration, in which they 'breathe' oxygen and emit CO2...so we should also probably destroy all the flora in the world for polluting

3/14/2008 4:36:17 PM

If it must be done--in the name of Gaia!

3/14/2008 4:46:53 PM

I'm not biting, sorry to disappoint.

3/14/2008 4:48:59 PM

you already bit when you posted the owl pic and the retarded classification of CO2 as a pollutant

3/14/2008 4:55:32 PM