Extremely Cold Temps across the midwest and mountain west.

[Slew Foot]

6 degrees warmer in the summer
5 degrees colder in the winter
=
Overall 1 degree warmer on average

The wide temperature variation is what causes erractic weather in the spring and fall

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Just some more food for thought...

Magnetic pole is shifting

Previous studies have shown that the strength of the Earth's magnetic shield has decreased 10 percent over the past 150 years. During the same period, the north magnetic pole wandered about 685 miles out into the Arctic, according to a new analysis by Stoner.

Down 10% in 150 years eh? When did industrialization/global warming start again? Wasn't it about 150 years ago? How about the Little Ice Age? I think that was about 150 years ago too IIRC.

It's an interesting coincidence if nothing else.

Exactly. I read about the magnetic field a few days ago and wondered why it wasn't a huge issue like global warming. We have seen evidence that critical elements of the earth can change significantly over a very short amount of time without human interference. There are so many factors to consider, that anyone who takes a strong position on the GW issue is stupid. There is not enough evidence to make an informed decision, so why do people do it?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Just some more food for thought...

Magnetic pole is shifting

Previous studies have shown that the strength of the Earth's magnetic shield has decreased 10 percent over the past 150 years. During the same period, the north magnetic pole wandered about 685 miles out into the Arctic, according to a new analysis by Stoner.

Down 10% in 150 years eh? When did industrialization/global warming start again? Wasn't it about 150 years ago? How about the Little Ice Age? I think that was about 150 years ago too IIRC.

It's an interesting coincidence if nothing else.

Exactly. I read about the magnetic field a few days ago and wondered why it wasn't a huge issue like global warming. We have seen evidence that critical elements of the earth can change significantly over a very short amount of time without human interference. There are so many factors to consider, that anyone who takes a strong position on the GW issue is stupid. There is not enough evidence to make an informed decision, so why do people do it?

..because your assumption that there's a lack of evidence is incorrect.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Just some more food for thought...

Magnetic pole is shifting

Previous studies have shown that the strength of the Earth's magnetic shield has decreased 10 percent over the past 150 years. During the same period, the north magnetic pole wandered about 685 miles out into the Arctic, according to a new analysis by Stoner.

Down 10% in 150 years eh? When did industrialization/global warming start again? Wasn't it about 150 years ago? How about the Little Ice Age? I think that was about 150 years ago too IIRC.

It's an interesting coincidence if nothing else.

Exactly. I read about the magnetic field a few days ago and wondered why it wasn't a huge issue like global warming. We have seen evidence that critical elements of the earth can change significantly over a very short amount of time without human interference. There are so many factors to consider, that anyone who takes a strong position on the GW issue is stupid. There is not enough evidence to make an informed decision, so why do people do it?

..because your assumption that there's a lack of evidence is incorrect.

They have yet to prove that increasing CO2 emissions is causing the warming...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Just some more food for thought...

Magnetic pole is shifting

Previous studies have shown that the strength of the Earth's magnetic shield has decreased 10 percent over the past 150 years. During the same period, the north magnetic pole wandered about 685 miles out into the Arctic, according to a new analysis by Stoner.

Down 10% in 150 years eh? When did industrialization/global warming start again? Wasn't it about 150 years ago? How about the Little Ice Age? I think that was about 150 years ago too IIRC.

It's an interesting coincidence if nothing else.

Exactly. I read about the magnetic field a few days ago and wondered why it wasn't a huge issue like global warming. We have seen evidence that critical elements of the earth can change significantly over a very short amount of time without human interference. There are so many factors to consider, that anyone who takes a strong position on the GW issue is stupid. There is not enough evidence to make an informed decision, so why do people do it?

..because your assumption that there's a lack of evidence is incorrect.

They have yet to prove that increasing CO2 emissions is causing the warming...

They have proved that increasing CO2 causes warming. They also proved that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Just some more food for thought...

Magnetic pole is shifting

Previous studies have shown that the strength of the Earth's magnetic shield has decreased 10 percent over the past 150 years. During the same period, the north magnetic pole wandered about 685 miles out into the Arctic, according to a new analysis by Stoner.

Down 10% in 150 years eh? When did industrialization/global warming start again? Wasn't it about 150 years ago? How about the Little Ice Age? I think that was about 150 years ago too IIRC.

It's an interesting coincidence if nothing else.

the poles switch every some number of lots of years, and its time for a switch

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Just some more food for thought...

Magnetic pole is shifting

Previous studies have shown that the strength of the Earth's magnetic shield has decreased 10 percent over the past 150 years. During the same period, the north magnetic pole wandered about 685 miles out into the Arctic, according to a new analysis by Stoner.

Down 10% in 150 years eh? When did industrialization/global warming start again? Wasn't it about 150 years ago? How about the Little Ice Age? I think that was about 150 years ago too IIRC.

It's an interesting coincidence if nothing else.

Exactly. I read about the magnetic field a few days ago and wondered why it wasn't a huge issue like global warming. We have seen evidence that critical elements of the earth can change significantly over a very short amount of time without human interference. There are so many factors to consider, that anyone who takes a strong position on the GW issue is stupid. There is not enough evidence to make an informed decision, so why do people do it?

..because your assumption that there's a lack of evidence is incorrect.

They have yet to prove that increasing CO2 emissions is causing the warming...

They have proved that increasing CO2 causes warming. They also proved that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere.

Mathematical properties do not work in the real world. Of course we can look at Venus and say that CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) causes warming, but the CO2 content of Venus' atmosphere is immense compared to ours. The CO2 content in our atmosphere has gone up by less than a fraction of a percent. A volcano spews out more CO2 and greenhouse gasses per eruption than we put out in a year.

As I have said many times, I am not saying that it isn't happening, but facts != conclusions. There is too much conflicting evidence to suggest that global warming on a measurable scale is a direct result of human activity. Let's definatly try to control polution and such. I don't want to breath that crap in. But let's not do it for the wrong reasons and screw things up worse like we always do.

 

[conjur]

<ahem>

2005 warmest ever year in north
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4532344.stm

This year has been the warmest on record in the northern hemisphere, say scientists in Britain.

It is the second warmest globally since the 1860s, when reliable records began, they say.

Ocean temperatures recorded in the northern hemisphere Atlantic Ocean have also been the hottest on record.

The researchers, from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia, say this is more evidence for the reality of human-induced global warming.

Their data show that the average temperature during 2005 in the northern hemisphere is 0.65 Celsius above the average for 1961-1990, a conventional baseline against which scientists compare temperatures.

Click here to see northern hemisphere temperature record

The global increase is 0.48 Celsius, making 2005 the second warmest year on record behind 1998, though the 1998 figure was inflated by strong El Nino conditions.

The northern hemisphere is warming faster than the south, scientists believe, because a greater proportion of it is land, which responds faster to atmospheric conditions than ocean.

Northern hemisphere temperatures are now about 0.4 Celsius higher than a decade ago.

"The data also show that the sea surface temperature in the northern hemisphere Atlantic is the highest since 1880," said Dr David Viner from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

Error bar

No measurements of average temperature can be completely accurate, and David Viner believes the team's calculations are subject to an error of about plus or minus 0.1 Celsius.

However, he says, the long-term trend is clearly upwards - rapidly over the last decade - indicating the reality of human-induced global warming.

"We're right, the sceptics are wrong," he told the BBC News website.

"It's simple physics; more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, emissions growing on a global basis, and consequently increasing temperatures."

However, Fred Singer from the Science & Environmental Policy Project in Washington DC, a centre of the "climate sceptics" community, disputed this interpretation.

"If indeed 2005 is the warmest northern hemisphere year since 1860, all this proves is that 2005 is the warmest northern hemisphere year since 1860," he told the BBC News website.

"It doesn't prove anything else, and certainly cannot be used by itself to prove that the cause of warming is the emission of greenhouse gases.

"It requires a more subtle examination to know how much of warming is due to man-made causes - there must be some - and how much is down to natural causes."

Eight of the 10 warmest years since 1860 have occurred within the last decade.

Yes, Virginia. There *is* global warming.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: conjur

<ahem>

2005 warmest ever year in north
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4532344.stm

This year has been the warmest on record in the northern hemisphere, say scientists in Britain.

It is the second warmest globally since the 1860s, when reliable records began, they say.

Ocean temperatures recorded in the northern hemisphere Atlantic Ocean have also been the hottest on record.

The researchers, from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia, say this is more evidence for the reality of human-induced global warming.

Their data show that the average temperature during 2005 in the northern hemisphere is 0.65 Celsius above the average for 1961-1990, a conventional baseline against which scientists compare temperatures.

Click here to see northern hemisphere temperature record

The global increase is 0.48 Celsius, making 2005 the second warmest year on record behind 1998, though the 1998 figure was inflated by strong El Nino conditions.

The northern hemisphere is warming faster than the south, scientists believe, because a greater proportion of it is land, which responds faster to atmospheric conditions than ocean.

Northern hemisphere temperatures are now about 0.4 Celsius higher than a decade ago.

"The data also show that the sea surface temperature in the northern hemisphere Atlantic is the highest since 1880," said Dr David Viner from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

Error bar

No measurements of average temperature can be completely accurate, and David Viner believes the team's calculations are subject to an error of about plus or minus 0.1 Celsius.

However, he says, the long-term trend is clearly upwards - rapidly over the last decade - indicating the reality of human-induced global warming.

"We're right, the sceptics are wrong," he told the BBC News website.

"It's simple physics; more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, emissions growing on a global basis, and consequently increasing temperatures."

However, Fred Singer from the Science & Environmental Policy Project in Washington DC, a centre of the "climate sceptics" community, disputed this interpretation.

"If indeed 2005 is the warmest northern hemisphere year since 1860, all this proves is that 2005 is the warmest northern hemisphere year since 1860," he told the BBC News website.

"It doesn't prove anything else, and certainly cannot be used by itself to prove that the cause of warming is the emission of greenhouse gases.

"It requires a more subtle examination to know how much of warming is due to man-made causes - there must be some - and how much is down to natural causes."

Eight of the 10 warmest years since 1860 have occurred within the last decade.

Yes, Virginia. There *is* global warming.

Why don't you read the last 3 quotes?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: conjur

<ahem>

2005 warmest ever year in north
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4532344.stm

This year has been the warmest on record in the northern hemisphere, say scientists in Britain.

It is the second warmest globally since the 1860s, when reliable records began, they say.

Ocean temperatures recorded in the northern hemisphere Atlantic Ocean have also been the hottest on record.

The researchers, from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia, say this is more evidence for the reality of human-induced global warming.

Their data show that the average temperature during 2005 in the northern hemisphere is 0.65 Celsius above the average for 1961-1990, a conventional baseline against which scientists compare temperatures.

Click here to see northern hemisphere temperature record

The global increase is 0.48 Celsius, making 2005 the second warmest year on record behind 1998, though the 1998 figure was inflated by strong El Nino conditions.

The northern hemisphere is warming faster than the south, scientists believe, because a greater proportion of it is land, which responds faster to atmospheric conditions than ocean.

Northern hemisphere temperatures are now about 0.4 Celsius higher than a decade ago.

"The data also show that the sea surface temperature in the northern hemisphere Atlantic is the highest since 1880," said Dr David Viner from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

Error bar

No measurements of average temperature can be completely accurate, and David Viner believes the team's calculations are subject to an error of about plus or minus 0.1 Celsius.

However, he says, the long-term trend is clearly upwards - rapidly over the last decade - indicating the reality of human-induced global warming.

"We're right, the sceptics are wrong," he told the BBC News website.

"It's simple physics; more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, emissions growing on a global basis, and consequently increasing temperatures."

However, Fred Singer from the Science & Environmental Policy Project in Washington DC, a centre of the "climate sceptics" community, disputed this interpretation.

"If indeed 2005 is the warmest northern hemisphere year since 1860, all this proves is that 2005 is the warmest northern hemisphere year since 1860," he told the BBC News website.

"It doesn't prove anything else, and certainly cannot be used by itself to prove that the cause of warming is the emission of greenhouse gases.

"It requires a more subtle examination to know how much of warming is due to man-made causes - there must be some - and how much is down to natural causes."

Eight of the 10 warmest years since 1860 have occurred within the last decade.

Yes, Virginia. There *is* global warming.

Why don't you read the last 3 quotes?

The ones where a guy who is paid to dismiss global warming does what he's paid for? I suppose you believe the paid tobacco shills who insist there is no proof smoking causes cancer too.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Just some more food for thought...

Magnetic pole is shifting

Previous studies have shown that the strength of the Earth's magnetic shield has decreased 10 percent over the past 150 years. During the same period, the north magnetic pole wandered about 685 miles out into the Arctic, according to a new analysis by Stoner.

Down 10% in 150 years eh? When did industrialization/global warming start again? Wasn't it about 150 years ago? How about the Little Ice Age? I think that was about 150 years ago too IIRC.

It's an interesting coincidence if nothing else.

the poles switch every some number of lots of years, and its time for a switch

And what happens when they do?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Why don't you read the last 3 quotes?

I did and I summarily ignored them.

You don't know of ol' Fred?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1480279,00.html

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: conjur

<ahem>

2005 warmest ever year in north
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4532344.stm

This year has been the warmest on record in the northern hemisphere, say scientists in Britain.

It is the second warmest globally since the 1860s, when reliable records began, they say.

Ocean temperatures recorded in the northern hemisphere Atlantic Ocean have also been the hottest on record.

The researchers, from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia, say this is more evidence for the reality of human-induced global warming.

Their data show that the average temperature during 2005 in the northern hemisphere is 0.65 Celsius above the average for 1961-1990, a conventional baseline against which scientists compare temperatures.

Click here to see northern hemisphere temperature record

The global increase is 0.48 Celsius, making 2005 the second warmest year on record behind 1998, though the 1998 figure was inflated by strong El Nino conditions.

The northern hemisphere is warming faster than the south, scientists believe, because a greater proportion of it is land, which responds faster to atmospheric conditions than ocean.

Northern hemisphere temperatures are now about 0.4 Celsius higher than a decade ago.

"The data also show that the sea surface temperature in the northern hemisphere Atlantic is the highest since 1880," said Dr David Viner from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

Error bar

No measurements of average temperature can be completely accurate, and David Viner believes the team's calculations are subject to an error of about plus or minus 0.1 Celsius.

However, he says, the long-term trend is clearly upwards - rapidly over the last decade - indicating the reality of human-induced global warming.

"We're right, the sceptics are wrong," he told the BBC News website.

"It's simple physics; more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, emissions growing on a global basis, and consequently increasing temperatures."

However, Fred Singer from the Science & Environmental Policy Project in Washington DC, a centre of the "climate sceptics" community, disputed this interpretation.

"If indeed 2005 is the warmest northern hemisphere year since 1860, all this proves is that 2005 is the warmest northern hemisphere year since 1860," he told the BBC News website.

"It doesn't prove anything else, and certainly cannot be used by itself to prove that the cause of warming is the emission of greenhouse gases.

"It requires a more subtle examination to know how much of warming is due to man-made causes - there must be some - and how much is down to natural causes."

Eight of the 10 warmest years since 1860 have occurred within the last decade.

Yes, Virginia. There *is* global warming.

Why don't you read the last 3 quotes?

The ones where a guy who is paid to dismiss global warming does what he's paid for? I suppose you believe the paid tobacco shills who insist there is no proof smoking causes cancer too.

So you believe the paid enviromental shills quoted in the article?

However, he says, the long-term trend is clearly upwards - rapidly over the last decade - indicating the reality of human-induced global warming.

No other explaination - its a factor cause by people. Sounds like he as already made up his mind.

The data also show that the sea surface temperature in the northern hemisphere Atlantic is the highest since 1880

records have been kept since 1860 - yet the previous hottest surface tempaerature was in 1880. Was there a massive reducation in made man pollutatess between 1881 and 1991?

I"m curious what the data would look like graphed out for the last hundred years same places, and does the data take in for heat-island effect.....

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: conjur

<ahem>

2005 warmest ever year in north
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4532344.stm

This year has been the warmest on record in the northern hemisphere, say scientists in Britain.

It is the second warmest globally since the 1860s, when reliable records began, they say.

Ocean temperatures recorded in the northern hemisphere Atlantic Ocean have also been the hottest on record.

The researchers, from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia, say this is more evidence for the reality of human-induced global warming.

Their data show that the average temperature during 2005 in the northern hemisphere is 0.65 Celsius above the average for 1961-1990, a conventional baseline against which scientists compare temperatures.

Click here to see northern hemisphere temperature record

The global increase is 0.48 Celsius, making 2005 the second warmest year on record behind 1998, though the 1998 figure was inflated by strong El Nino conditions.

The northern hemisphere is warming faster than the south, scientists believe, because a greater proportion of it is land, which responds faster to atmospheric conditions than ocean.

Northern hemisphere temperatures are now about 0.4 Celsius higher than a decade ago.

"The data also show that the sea surface temperature in the northern hemisphere Atlantic is the highest since 1880," said Dr David Viner from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

Error bar

No measurements of average temperature can be completely accurate, and David Viner believes the team's calculations are subject to an error of about plus or minus 0.1 Celsius.

However, he says, the long-term trend is clearly upwards - rapidly over the last decade - indicating the reality of human-induced global warming.

"We're right, the sceptics are wrong," he told the BBC News website.

"It's simple physics; more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, emissions growing on a global basis, and consequently increasing temperatures."

However, Fred Singer from the Science & Environmental Policy Project in Washington DC, a centre of the "climate sceptics" community, disputed this interpretation.

"If indeed 2005 is the warmest northern hemisphere year since 1860, all this proves is that 2005 is the warmest northern hemisphere year since 1860," he told the BBC News website.

"It doesn't prove anything else, and certainly cannot be used by itself to prove that the cause of warming is the emission of greenhouse gases.

"It requires a more subtle examination to know how much of warming is due to man-made causes - there must be some - and how much is down to natural causes."

Eight of the 10 warmest years since 1860 have occurred within the last decade.

Yes, Virginia. There *is* global warming.

Why don't you read the last 3 quotes?

The ones where a guy who is paid to dismiss global warming does what he's paid for? I suppose you believe the paid tobacco shills who insist there is no proof smoking causes cancer too.

So you believe the paid enviromental shills quoted in the article?

However, he says, the long-term trend is clearly upwards - rapidly over the last decade - indicating the reality of human-induced global warming.

No other explaination - its a factor cause by people. Sounds like he as already made up his mind.

The data also show that the sea surface temperature in the northern hemisphere Atlantic is the highest since 1880

records have been kept since 1860 - yet the previous hottest surface tempaerature was in 1880. Was there a massive reducation in made man pollutatess between 1881 and 1991?

I"m curious what the data would look like graphed out for the last hundred years same places, and does the data take in for heat-island effect.....

You're arguing that the Earth is flat.

 

[arsbanned]

Bush told him it's flat. duh.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Just some more food for thought...

Magnetic pole is shifting

Previous studies have shown that the strength of the Earth's magnetic shield has decreased 10 percent over the past 150 years. During the same period, the north magnetic pole wandered about 685 miles out into the Arctic, according to a new analysis by Stoner.

Down 10% in 150 years eh? When did industrialization/global warming start again? Wasn't it about 150 years ago? How about the Little Ice Age? I think that was about 150 years ago too IIRC.

It's an interesting coincidence if nothing else.

the poles switch every some number of lots of years, and its time for a switch

And what happens when they do?

ohhhh its scary, saw an episode on discovery about this, aparently the ozone layer will start to diminish, less and less atmospheric protection from solar rays around the equator

the magnetic field warps around the planet so it looks like an apple, so on the top and bottom of the planet there is way less protection, when the poles are changing these holes wont just be on the top and bottom, they will be all over

Also volcanic activities will increase by alot. They even showed one lava flow some 700 million years old which during the time it was flowing the magnetic poles switched. So they can switch very fast, but sadly during the change the poles are very erratic.

Whats absolutely worst is that this change can take a few thousand years which during that time all above will be happening.


Good news is that the arora's will be visible all around the globe

 

[EagleKeeper]

Entertaining book just out by Clive Clusser on the subject of the magnetic poles and some of the problems. Polar Shift

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: sandorski
You're arguing that the Earth is flat.

No i'm not - I'm pointing out basis of the scientist involved. I also had some questions about the data. But since you brought it up flat earth:


2000 years ago, everyone knew the eath was flat....

1000 years ago, everyone knew that the earth was the center of the univesre...

200 years ago leeches were accepted medical pracitice...

100 years ago radition was not dangerous....

80 years ago eugentics was valid....

30 years ago the ice caps are were going to melt by 2000....

20 years ago AIDs was going to be and epidemic and iinfect 1 in 6 people....

I would just like to avoid knee-jerk reactions to things we don't full understand.

 

[mect]

So since the scientific community are in agreement over human influence on global warming, please explain this. The author is a professor at MIT who helped write the scientific portion of the IPCC report for the UN.
The press gets it wrong

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: sandorski
You're arguing that the Earth is flat.

No i'm not - I'm pointing out basis of the scientist involved. I also had some questions about the data. But since you brought it up flat earth:


2000 years ago, everyone knew the eath was flat....

1000 years ago, everyone knew that the earth was the center of the univesre...

200 years ago leeches were accepted medical pracitice...

100 years ago radition was not dangerous....

80 years ago eugentics was valid....

30 years ago the ice caps are were going to melt by 2000....

20 years ago AIDs was going to be and epidemic and iinfect 1 in 6 people....

I would just like to avoid knee-jerk reactions to things we don't full understand.

Icecaps were going to melt by 2000? Haven't heard that one, but even though it's not reality, Icecaps are melting at an alarming rate. So whoever stated that may have been incorrect on the date, but they seem to have been corect on the melting.

Leeches are making a comeback or at least are being considered as useful for some medical procedures.

Left unchecked, AIDs probably would have spread as predicted. The reason it didn't was that someone calculated the rate of spread then told everyone else raising alarm. Alarmed, people began doing things to prevent it from becoming reality.

The knee-jerk reactions are coming from those who continue feigning "lack of evidence" when the evidence keeps piling up around them. The problem is very real and the sooner we reverse our emissions the sooner we can stop the Warming. Then we'll have to wait out decades if not centuries of elevated Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

 

[TurtleBlue]

Strange that most of the signatories of "Kyoto" are having a very HARD time in meeting their own CO2 gas emmision reductions.

Hi, Conjur! Glad to see a fellow cruncher in this cesspool of a forum. This is a very strange place.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Why don't you read the last 3 quotes?

I did and I summarily ignored them.

You don't know of ol' Fred?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1480279,00.html

And I just dismiss all of your arguments too. Why? Because they don't coincide with what I already believe.

See how stupid that is? I'll start doing that too. I'll post an article and just dismiss anything in there that I don't agree with for no good reason. Sound good?

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: sandorski
You're arguing that the Earth is flat.

No i'm not - I'm pointing out basis of the scientist involved. I also had some questions about the data. But since you brought it up flat earth:


2000 years ago, everyone knew the eath was flat....

1000 years ago, everyone knew that the earth was the center of the univesre...

200 years ago leeches were accepted medical pracitice...

100 years ago radition was not dangerous....

80 years ago eugentics was valid....

30 years ago the ice caps are were going to melt by 2000....

20 years ago AIDs was going to be and epidemic and iinfect 1 in 6 people....

I would just like to avoid knee-jerk reactions to things we don't full understand.

Icecaps were going to melt by 2000? Haven't heard that one, but even though it's not reality, Icecaps are melting at an alarming rate. So whoever stated that may have been incorrect on the date, but they seem to have been corect on the melting.

Leeches are making a comeback or at least are being considered as useful for some medical procedures.

Left unchecked, AIDs probably would have spread as predicted. The reason it didn't was that someone calculated the rate of spread then told everyone else raising alarm. Alarmed, people began doing things to prevent it from becoming reality.

The knee-jerk reactions are coming from those who continue feigning "lack of evidence" when the evidence keeps piling up around them. The problem is very real and the sooner we reverse our emissions the sooner we can stop the Warming. Then we'll have to wait out decades if not centuries of elevated Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Leeches are making a comeback???!! You actually believe that people are sick because their blood is bad and that draining their blood will make them better????
Of course not! So quit trying to bring in irrelevant information. There is a huge difference between using leeches to stimulate blood flow and draining blood.

AIDs PROBABLY would have spread as predicted. How convenient that we can now just guess that things would have happened differently and use that to justify our positions!


All the while, you avoid shrumpage's main point (you never even address it). Great follow up!

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Just some more food for thought...

Magnetic pole is shifting

Previous studies have shown that the strength of the Earth's magnetic shield has decreased 10 percent over the past 150 years. During the same period, the north magnetic pole wandered about 685 miles out into the Arctic, according to a new analysis by Stoner.

Down 10% in 150 years eh? When did industrialization/global warming start again? Wasn't it about 150 years ago? How about the Little Ice Age? I think that was about 150 years ago too IIRC.

It's an interesting coincidence if nothing else.

the poles switch every some number of lots of years, and its time for a switch

And what happens when they do?

That was exactly my point.

In the last ~150 years Global temps have risen. (Really over the last 15,000 years... but that is a different argument)

Also in the last ~150 years:
The Little Ice Age ended... One of the coldest periods since the last Big Ice Age.
The Earth's magnetic field has reduced in intensity by 10%
Sun spot activity has risen
Atmospheric CO2 has increased
The magnetic north pole has shifted about 650 miles

We don't know why the average global temperature goes up or down. There are lots of theories about both. It's probably some combination of a bunch of factors. The CO2 crowd wants to ignore all the other potential factors and focus solely on man-made causes. I've seen some sun spot guys completely dismiss atmospheric CO2 as a factor all together stating a clear correlation between sun spot and flare activity and average global temperature. Are they both right? Are they both wrong? Could rising levels of CO2 be responsible for our observed change in global climate? Maybe. But it's pretty easy to point out that ice ages have occurred with much higher rates of atmospheric CO2 and that temperatures have been warmer with less. Could a weaker magnetic field combined with greater solar flare activity (thus bathing the earth in greater amounts of radiation) have anything to with it? Maybe. But there is no specific proof of this either.

The point is we don't know why it's happening. That's not to say we should do nothing. Increasing energy efficiency is a good thing (ala the Wal-Mart truck thread). And I'm not dismissing the possibility that we are, in fact, at least partially responsible for the increase. But that's all it is... a possibility. And while we're on the subject of things we don't know about... we also don't know that temps won't start trending down in the near future either.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: sandorski
You're arguing that the Earth is flat.

No i'm not - I'm pointing out basis of the scientist involved. I also had some questions about the data. But since you brought it up flat earth:


2000 years ago, everyone knew the eath was flat....

1000 years ago, everyone knew that the earth was the center of the univesre...

200 years ago leeches were accepted medical pracitice...

100 years ago radition was not dangerous....

80 years ago eugentics was valid....

30 years ago the ice caps are were going to melt by 2000....

20 years ago AIDs was going to be and epidemic and iinfect 1 in 6 people....

I would just like to avoid knee-jerk reactions to things we don't full understand.

Icecaps were going to melt by 2000? Haven't heard that one, but even though it's not reality, Icecaps are melting at an alarming rate. So whoever stated that may have been incorrect on the date, but they seem to have been corect on the melting.

Leeches are making a comeback or at least are being considered as useful for some medical procedures.

Left unchecked, AIDs probably would have spread as predicted. The reason it didn't was that someone calculated the rate of spread then told everyone else raising alarm. Alarmed, people began doing things to prevent it from becoming reality.

The knee-jerk reactions are coming from those who continue feigning "lack of evidence" when the evidence keeps piling up around them. The problem is very real and the sooner we reverse our emissions the sooner we can stop the Warming. Then we'll have to wait out decades if not centuries of elevated Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Leeches are making a comeback???!! You actually believe that people are sick because their blood is bad and that draining their blood will make them better????
Of course not! So quit trying to bring in irrelevant information. There is a huge difference between using leeches to stimulate blood flow and draining blood.

AIDs PROBABLY would have spread as predicted. How convenient that we can now just guess that things would have happened differently and use that to justify our positions!


All the while, you avoid shrumpage's main point (you never even address it). Great follow up!

Yes, Leeches are making a comeback. No, not because "blood is bad" which was the reason they were used centuries ago. Modern Medical science has found that they are useful for other reasons. Whether they get used or not is another question, but they have been found to have merit in medical treatment.

If AIDS had not been alarming, little would have been done about. We did something because it was a serious threat.

He really doesn't have a point, just like the naysayer at the end of the original article. The Science on the subject is quite clear. Obfuscation is not a contrary arguement, it's merely spin in order to maintain doubt.