Senate Report: Gore Lies, Media Biased, Advocates Misrepresent

[Solly]

Originally posted by Jack_www


Ned had been claiming that the earth is in a cooling period, and least that is I think he is claiming after reading his posts.

I'm getting bored.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Jack_www


Oil froms as a result of fosils from dead animals, the oil is mostly likely the remains of animals, plants and other organisms that live millions of years ago. I dont buy that theory one bit. Even if the earth is producing oil, it is in so small quanities that it wont make much of a difference.

As a geologist, let's just say that it is highly unorthodoxed thinking. Still, the geochemistry works but the problem would be getting the temperature high enough to start the reaction but low enough not to crack all of the hydrocarbon chains. Speaking of which you would expect any oil produced to be extremely short chains, mostly natural gas, so it would be easy to identify any oil from this since it would be isotopically very light. We haven't seen anything close to this.

The short anwser is this process likely doesn't happen and even if it did we're talking about depths around the Moho so it would be extremely difficult to get to. Personally, I wouldn't put any stock in this theory but my hats off that someone thought outside of the box.

[Ned]

Jack, check out the article I linked with the chart. Surface temperture reading are rising, but these could be affected by local manmade structures and are somewhat unreliable. For example, NYC is showing a rising temp, while a city up the Hudson about 40 miles shows no increase whatsoever. What is the difference? The so-called heat island effect.

That is why the article focuses on measurements from balloons and satellites that are unafected by man made structures. These readings show a slight global cooling.

What is clear, though, is that advocates on one side use only surface data and ignore the other. And, of course, visa versa.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned
Jack, check out the article I linked with the chart. Surface temperture reading are rising, but these could be affected by local manmade structures and are somewhat unreliable.

However, manmade structures cannot account for the retreat of glaciers, for the retreat of the artic and antartic icecaps or for, say, the ever-increasing lateness in the formation of ice in the Hudson Bay.

[Solly]

Zkribbler,

We are re-bounding from the Little Ice Age, so those things you mention (despite not all actually happening, please check your sources) would be consistent with this re-bound.

[Zkribbler]

A source for global warming & glacier melting

So you're saying that greenhouse gases don't cause a greenhouse effect?

And from defenders.org:

The polar bears of Hudson Bay are at the southern extreme of the species’ domain, and that
makes them the first population vulnerable to changing climate. Temperatures in western Hudson Bay have been rising steadily since 1950. Canadian Ice Service satellite photos clearly show that Hudson Bay historically began to melt in late June or early July,
becoming ice-free in late July. On July 1, 1999, the bay was already completely ice free. The warming trend over Hudson Bay is what scientists have predicted will happen with global warming. Computer models predict the region will be three to five degrees warmer within 50 years. Although that sounds insignificant, with every degree, breakup will happen one week earlier.

[Solly]

I've seen enough fraudulent pictures from AGWers thank you. Let's stick to the facts. Antartica is not shrinking. Sea levels are not rising. Greenland is not melting.

Thousands of times more fresh water is put into the oceans by rivers than by any small melt of the Arctic, which is what one would expect after a re-bound from the LIA.

[Solly]

A detailed treeline history has been worked out for the area west of Hudson Bay in northern Canada (Bryson et al, 1965; Sorensen et al 1971, Nichols, 1967)….forests moved northward following deglaciation and lake-draining about 5800 BP. Two separate northward advances, separated by periods of retreat followed, culminating about 2500 BP and 1000 BP respectively.

[Zkribbler]

Let's put it another way.....

The world can be divided into the eco-freakouts (e.g. me) and the eco-hohums (e.g. ParkAvenue & Ned).

I'm running out, pointing to photographic evidence & scentific treatises, and screaming, "My God, the sky is falling! We must run and tell the King!"

The eco-hohums reply, "This is not happening, and if it were, it'd just be a natural cycle. It'll stop and turn around in due course (ho hum)"

Let's say, the eco-hohums are correct; let's say we are seeing just a natural cycle working.

--Nevertheless it remains that our industries, automobiles, etcetera are pouring out greenhouse gases (e.g. carbon dioxide)! Meanwhile, the worldwide plantlife needed to convert carbon dioxide back into oxygen is being reduced by the devastation of the rainforests and the killing of ocean algae via pollution.

Greenhouse gases must natually escasserbate the natural trend towards global warming. Computer models predict that Florida is due to be mostly submerged. There is a danger that the "Atlantic Conveyer" will shut down due to the influx of fresh water, and that, as a result, the North Atlantic will become a frigid lake, while the Equatorial Atlantic becomes hotter and a breading ground of hurricanes.

It only makes sense at this point to reduce as much as possible these greenhouse gases.

Quick, let us run and tell the King!

[Solly]

I have a deep distrust when someone refers to "computer models" but isn't able or willing to disclose the methods, data and assumptions that went into them.

[Zkribbler]

Are you willing to go as far as conceding:

(a) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
(b) An increase in greenhouse gases will lead to an increase in global temperatures, and/or
(c) The amount of carbon dioxide gases is currently increasing?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Are you willing to go as far as conceding:

(a) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
(b) An increase in greenhouse gases will lead to an increase in global temperatures, and/or
(c) The amount of carbon dioxide gases is currently increasing?

I'll bite on this. I agree on all three, but will you accept the fact that CO2 is only a minor contributor as a green house gas ?

[Solly]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Are you willing to go as far as conceding:

(a) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
(b) An increase in greenhouse gases will lead to an increase in global temperatures, and/or
(c) The amount of carbon dioxide gases is currently increasing?

a) Agree
b) I agree, but we don't know the sign or magnitude of any feedbacks
c) Agree

[Zkribbler]

Clarify: Are you asking if CO 2 is only a minor contributor to the effect of greenhouse gases?

Or if greenhouse gases in general are only a minor contributor to climate changes?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Clarify: Are you asking if CO 2 is only a minor contributor to the effect of greenhouse gases?

Or if greenhouse gases in general are only a minor contributor to climate changes?

CO2 is only a minor contributor. Your second question is a bit obsolete since green house gases is ther primary reason that the climate is as it is today. Without green house gases, this planet would be a snowball.