bjcsc
Lieutenant Commander
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,805
Re: US answer to global warming: smoke and mirrors.
CJY: I don't stand on any side of the fence. If anything, I'm on the fence. I think both sides are full of crap, for reasons just like this. Every time we get close to another Presidential election, all of the same crap starts getting turned over and over - the democrats have their pile and the republicans have their pile. I don't play in either one, but I am amazed - every time - that the same demographic fals for it time and time again...
Re.: Global warming, I am no climatologist, but here's a clip from an interview with Dr. Gray (you know, the guy who predicts the hurricanes for TWC and NOAA) He is.
Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.
"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?
"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching."
Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."
Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.
"Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way."
Here are some random scientific observations that I collected in a few minutes of searching for NOAA climate data:
"Global mean temperatures are cyclical with the seasons but also with other normal cycles, as they have been for the entire history of the Earth." (Scientific data from ice cores, tree rings and other indicators of global mean temperatures prove this. )
"The energy output of the Sun is far greater in one second than human activity could produce in a million years. The Earth rotates around the Sun. Its orbit is slightly elliptical. The energy reaching the Earth from the Sun varies slightly as the distance from the Sun to the Earth varies due to its elliptical orbit. The Sun activity increases and decreases with fluctuations in the solar flares emitted by the Sun. Differences in these fluctuation rates cause increases and decreases of solar energy hitting the Earth. This causes fluctuations in the global mean temperature of the Earths atmosphere."
"The oceans are also a major source of greenhouse gases, as are trees. Trees and other vegetation take in carbon dioxide and give off other gases such as methane, a major greenhouse gas, and a host of other compounds, many of which are also greenhouse gases. Decaying vegetation also gives off methane gas. Studies of smog in the Los Angeles basin indicate that over 90% of the smog is generated by the vegetation in the area."
"Studies have shown that greenhouse gases produced by human activity accounts for around 1 percent of the gases in the atmosphere. The total elimination of human generated greenhouse gases would have a negligible effect on Earths global mean atmospheric temperatures. The elimination of all U.S. gasoline powered vehicles would reduce worldwide greenhouse emissions by less than 0.2%. What would be the effect on global mean temperatures? None. Doubling of manmade greenhouse emissions above current levels would increase the global mean temperature by one degree Centigrade, which is within the normal range of temperature swings."
"Satellite data taken over the past 25 years indicate no surface or atmospheric warming. If anything there has been a very slight cooling, on the order of 0.01 degree Centigrade."
Lastly, I find this statement you made very ironic:
"Let us say, for argument sake, it is entirely nature. What makes any of you so sure man will be able to survive it? Arrogant, to say the least."
The real arrogance is in the belief that man is supposed to survive at all! In college, I once attended a lecture by Stephen Jay Gould (look him up - his credentials are beyond reproach). He was talking about the timeline of life, that is, all life that has been scientifically proven. He demonstrated that if this time line were your outstretched arm, from your shoulder to your fingertips, you could take a finger nail file and with the slightest brush against your longest finger's nail, wipe out all of human existence. He was amazed at the arrogance of people who thought all of this earth was for them instead of realizing that they are merely the result of years of favorable evolution. It was a truly fascinating lecture.
There is nothing, CJY, to guarantee that conditions remain favorable, and only one of us is arrogant enough to believe that there is, as evidenced by your statement about the "peanut-brained dinosaurs". Everything has a beginning and everything has an end - including the human race. No matter what you and the democrats believe (noticed you quote Shaw in your sig), no amount of socialism, or who becomes President of the U.S., can change that.
Quack??
CJY: I don't stand on any side of the fence. If anything, I'm on the fence. I think both sides are full of crap, for reasons just like this. Every time we get close to another Presidential election, all of the same crap starts getting turned over and over - the democrats have their pile and the republicans have their pile. I don't play in either one, but I am amazed - every time - that the same demographic fals for it time and time again...
Re.: Global warming, I am no climatologist, but here's a clip from an interview with Dr. Gray (you know, the guy who predicts the hurricanes for TWC and NOAA) He is.
Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.
"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?
"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching."
Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."
Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.
"Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way."
Here are some random scientific observations that I collected in a few minutes of searching for NOAA climate data:
"Global mean temperatures are cyclical with the seasons but also with other normal cycles, as they have been for the entire history of the Earth." (Scientific data from ice cores, tree rings and other indicators of global mean temperatures prove this. )
"The energy output of the Sun is far greater in one second than human activity could produce in a million years. The Earth rotates around the Sun. Its orbit is slightly elliptical. The energy reaching the Earth from the Sun varies slightly as the distance from the Sun to the Earth varies due to its elliptical orbit. The Sun activity increases and decreases with fluctuations in the solar flares emitted by the Sun. Differences in these fluctuation rates cause increases and decreases of solar energy hitting the Earth. This causes fluctuations in the global mean temperature of the Earths atmosphere."
"The oceans are also a major source of greenhouse gases, as are trees. Trees and other vegetation take in carbon dioxide and give off other gases such as methane, a major greenhouse gas, and a host of other compounds, many of which are also greenhouse gases. Decaying vegetation also gives off methane gas. Studies of smog in the Los Angeles basin indicate that over 90% of the smog is generated by the vegetation in the area."
"Studies have shown that greenhouse gases produced by human activity accounts for around 1 percent of the gases in the atmosphere. The total elimination of human generated greenhouse gases would have a negligible effect on Earths global mean atmospheric temperatures. The elimination of all U.S. gasoline powered vehicles would reduce worldwide greenhouse emissions by less than 0.2%. What would be the effect on global mean temperatures? None. Doubling of manmade greenhouse emissions above current levels would increase the global mean temperature by one degree Centigrade, which is within the normal range of temperature swings."
"Satellite data taken over the past 25 years indicate no surface or atmospheric warming. If anything there has been a very slight cooling, on the order of 0.01 degree Centigrade."
Lastly, I find this statement you made very ironic:
"Let us say, for argument sake, it is entirely nature. What makes any of you so sure man will be able to survive it? Arrogant, to say the least."
The real arrogance is in the belief that man is supposed to survive at all! In college, I once attended a lecture by Stephen Jay Gould (look him up - his credentials are beyond reproach). He was talking about the timeline of life, that is, all life that has been scientifically proven. He demonstrated that if this time line were your outstretched arm, from your shoulder to your fingertips, you could take a finger nail file and with the slightest brush against your longest finger's nail, wipe out all of human existence. He was amazed at the arrogance of people who thought all of this earth was for them instead of realizing that they are merely the result of years of favorable evolution. It was a truly fascinating lecture.
There is nothing, CJY, to guarantee that conditions remain favorable, and only one of us is arrogant enough to believe that there is, as evidenced by your statement about the "peanut-brained dinosaurs". Everything has a beginning and everything has an end - including the human race. No matter what you and the democrats believe (noticed you quote Shaw in your sig), no amount of socialism, or who becomes President of the U.S., can change that.
Quack??
