• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Another Blow is dealt to the Global Warming Theory

T

Texmaster

Banned
LOL I love it. Another blow to "the sky is falling" crowd 😀

"Our 14-year continuous weather station record from the shore of Lake Hoare reveals that seasonally averaged surface air temperature has decreased by 0.7C per decade," the authors report.

Previous claims that the Antarctic is warming may have been skewed because the measurements were taken largely on the Antarctic Peninsula, which extends toward South America and which is warming five times more quickly than the rest of the world.

"Averaging the temperature readings from the more numerous stations on the Peninsula has led to the misleading conclusion that there is a net warming continent-wide," said Dr Doran.

Opps! 😀

"If we are going to predict climate change for the next 100 years . . . we need to know what is going to happen to the Antarctic Peninsula, to the Falkland Islands, or to Hampshire. That is the scale that impacts people."
 
I don't think there is any serious denial that the 'globe' is warming, I would be sitting under 25 feet of glacial advance if it weren't, and so would everyone else in Michigan.

The debate, even among critics of 'accepted' global warming theories, is whether or not man is substantially responsible for the warming, and the degree of the warming, not whether the globe is or isn't warming.
 
Keep in mind that 30 years ago, "earth day" was started to stop the global cooling phononima, the next ice age...

Armani
 
LOL! Funny thing is..........when I was in H.S. & College, this whole argument was just beginning................with one minor detail changed, they were then preaching that our pollution was COOLING the Earth and that it would eventually lead to another Iceage..............😉 Who knows what they will say 20 years from now..........😉
 
Yep...your right. The wacko environmental crowd is consistently wrong up to and including the MTBE they forced into our gas which is now polluting our air and water. And ethonol in the gas has it's own problems as well. This is what happens when pseudo scientists with white coats and clip boards are charged with the responsibility of formulating public policy. Just think wht we could do with the money these parasites are squandering. Such a waste. 🙁
 
Considering that the last ice age ended some 10,000 years ago, a slow but definite rise in global temperature is of no surprise. If ice ages follow a cycle it would occure again in some 10-20,000 years.

Accurate climate stats going back maybe 100 years is not enough to base conclusions on. Climate change takes a long time to occure. Blaming humans for climate change is premature and bad science.
 


<< Considering that the last ice age ended some 10,000 years ago, a slow but definite rise in global temperature is of no surprise. If ice ages follow a cycle it would occure again in some 10-20,000 years. >>




True, lets also remember they say the average global temperature BEFORE the last ice age was approx 120*, if that is/was the case then the earth hasn't completely returned to its former high temp for the cycle to begin again.
 


<< The wacko environmental crowd is consistently wrong up to and including the MTBE they forced into our gas which is now polluting our air and water. >>

Actually, the major proponents of MTBE as an additive were the chemical companies that produced them. It was a far 'cheaper' way of obtaining cleaner emissions than some of the reformulations advocated by the 'environut' crowd, which are in fact safer.
 


<< The weather in Europe for the past few weeks are a good hint that something is wrong. >>



I know you would like Europe to be the sign for world change Czar (both enviromentally and politically 😀 ) but scientists agree around the world that the polls are where the future is predicted 🙂

pun intended 😀
 
If there is climate change, there will likely be nothing humans could do about it anyway. Most of the stuff is just naturally-brought on (like when huge volcanos erupt or meteors hit the planet). The only thing we can do is work on conservation of natural resources which are already here and well within our means to do.

Just this weekend I read an article about how a new fungus is attacking the redwood trees in California. They say it could be comparable to "Dutch Elm disease" which wiped out all the American Elm trees this past century. Redwood forests may have to be quarantined the same way farms were quarantined against hoof and mouth disease in Europe to keep people from transporting spores. Environmentalists are up in arms but even they can't fight against mother nature.

 


<< ]Actually, the major proponents of MTBE as an additive were the chemical companies that produced them. It was a far 'cheaper' way of obtaining cleaner emissions than some of the reformulations advocated by the 'environut' crowd, which are in fact safer. >>



If it was so cheap, why was gas higher and why was it so hotly disputed? Aside from the enviromental problems of course LOL
 
The thing is, you can't just deny that pollution is having a negative impact on, not just the environment, but the quality of our lives. I mean, who here wants to live in Mexico City and deal with the perpetual smog? What are we going to do 100 years from now when we don't have a clean place to go fish, hunt, or camp out?
 


<< If it was so cheap, why was gas higher and why was it so hotly disputed? Aside from the enviromental problems of course LOL >>

Cheaper than the reformulations advocated by the environut crowd, which required refinery capacity. MTBE can be added, it doesn't require refinery processes. I'm not sure what the dispute was, except for the chemical companies saying that MTBE was 'safe', and the environuts saying it wasn't.
 


<< The thing is, you can't just deny that pollution is having a negative impact on, not just the environment, but the quality of our lives. I mean, who here wants to live in Mexico City and deal with the perpetual smog? What are we going to do 100 years from now when we don't have a clean place to go fish, hunt, or camp out? >>



agreed, i don't think i care about global warming either way, but i do think it's still important to be mindful of the environment.
 


<< The thing is, you can't just deny that pollution is having a negative impact on, not just the environment, but the quality of our lives. I mean, who here wants to live in Mexico City and deal with the perpetual smog? What are we going to do 100 years from now when we don't have a clean place to go fish, hunt, or camp out? >>



No one is denying pollution is a bad thing. And if you disagree, please show us where someone here said pollution was a good thing.

What this article does tell us however is that pollution and global warming are NOT related.

 
However, there IS evidence that the gulf stream is collasping (decrease of around 20%) and that should bring the average temp in europe down by about 10C which is still catastrophic no matter how you look at it.
 


<< I don't think there is any serious denial that the 'globe' is warming, I would be sitting under 25 feet of glacial advance if it weren't, and so would everyone else in Michigan.

The debate, even among critics of 'accepted' global warming theories, is whether or not man is substantially responsible for the warming, and the degree of the warming, not whether the globe is or isn't warming. >>



There is a huge debate on its existance. I'll point out a basic argument against it.
1) Temperatures in cities are hotter than the surrounding areas. This is a proven fact. You can even see thunderstorms form directly downwind of a city due to the increased temperature of the air above the city. The average large city is about 2°F hotter than the surroundings.
2) As the city becomes larger the city gets even hotter than the surroundings.
3) Almost all land based temperature readings are taken from airports (located in large cities).

Now what is the obvious conclusion? That as cities have grown dramatically over the century, so has the temperature in the city.

People who argue that global warming exists claim that the rise in city temperatures means that the whole world is warming. This is without ever taking temperatures of rural areas.

People who argue that global warming doesn't exist show the fact that the temperatures measured by the orbiting weather stations are in fact slightly declining. These take the temperature of every spot on earth, not just in or near cities. Here is Nasa's website that shows that the average global temperature has slightly declined. Note: this data has been later adjusted to show that the true decline is negligible (but there still has not been any evidence of warming - except directly above a city).
 
There also WAS evidence that we were undergoing catastrophic global cooling...

Yeah, right. Take all of this stuff with a -large- grain of salt...most of it is still in the baby theory stage anyway.

Armani
 


<< However, there IS evidence that the gulf stream is collasping (decrease of around 20%) and that should bring the average temp in europe down by about 10C which is still catastrophic no matter how you look at it. >>



but what is the cause? Thats the question of every enviromental issue
 
Well, we are putting out lots of greenhouse gases. It'd be kinda ignorant to just assume that we're not having any effect on the enviroment.
 


<< No one is denying pollution is a bad thing. And if you disagree, please show us where someone here said pollution was a good thing. >>


I never said anyone thought pollution wasn't bad, nor was I attacking anyone. I was merely stating the fact that despite the seemingly joyous reaction that the Global Warming Theory is slowly being shot down, we need to still be mindful of the effect we have on our environment. It seems to me that this news could possibly make the less educated among us think that pollution isn't bad, or that we haven't done any damage to the environment.
 


<< Well, we are putting out lots of greenhouse gases. It'd be kinda ignorant to just assume that we're not having any effect on the enviroment. >>



Uh, keep in mind that the whole "greenhouse theory" is still unproven, and this report is evidence _against_ it...

Armani
 


<< Well, we are putting out lots of greenhouse gases. It'd be kinda ignorant to just assume that we're not having any effect on the enviroment. >>



No, what's ignorant is to assume it has a direct effect on global warming. And that is what this article is saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top