A picture that's worth one thousand stolen E-Mails

tell me something essential, Cypress.....let's assume for the sake of argument that human activity will add 1 degree of temperature to the annual average for the next year.....

what is the annual average for next year going to be?......will it be higher than last year or lower.....are we still in a period of warming or have temperatures begun to drop?.....where are we in the global temperature cycle?......if you cannot tell me the answer to those questions (and you can't) then you cannot argue a successful case for global warming....

can you tell me why liberals don't drop the issue they will never be able to prove and simply argue that we ought to stop polluting?.......


Man, I can't deal with scientific illiterates who read rightwing blogs for their science "news. That's why this will be my one and only response to your scientific ignorance.

It's an empirical fact which nobody denies that the earth has been in a warming cycle since about the dawn of the industrial age. Fact. It's an undeniable fact that the past ten years have been the warmest in recorded history. Fact. It's an undeniable fact that something like 9 of the ten warmest years on record have been in the last decade. Fact.

The scientific community, and every reputable scientific organization on the planet has concluded that there is a high degree of certainty that some or much of this warming trend is because of humans putting more green house gases in the atmosphere. Fact. It is known without a shred of doubt from experimental data that CO2 and methane create a greenhouse effect at elevated atmospheric concentrations.


These facts are easily available to any wingnut who can compel themselves to log off Matt Drudge, and get on the National Academy of Sciences website.
 
Last edited:
Dixie's logic on this thread is wonderfully reminiscent of his arguments on the evolution thread from a few weeks back, where he kept asking incredulously where a cerebral cortex could have possibly evolved from...
 
The rest of that is total junk science, btw.

The fact that CO2 is good and necessary for plants doesn't mean that more CO2 is better, for plants or anything.

Simple-minded.

More CO2 IS better for plants, many greenhouses pump CO2 into them, precisely because it is better!

AGW is the only Junk Science here.
 
"LOL... OXYGEN is toxic at a certain level, FOOL! "

That's true.

Are you suggesting that only one element or molecule can be toxic at a certain level?

Onzies... keep track of the conversation! You said that CO2 is toxic at a certain level... I responded that Oxygen is also toxic at a certain level. Anything, at a certain level, is toxic! It means NOTHING to this debate, because the MSHA established guidelines say CO2 would have to be over 5,000ppm to be detrimental to human health.

Jump in with your scientific facts anytime... right now, you're being trounced.
 
Science for Cypress...no fucking Drudge here dork!

BTW for you dork idiots we have been in a cooling pattern for the last 11 years!



PREDICTIONS BASED ON PAST CLIMATE PATTERNS

Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20–100 years. Global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier ‘natural’ climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998.

See web site

Figure 2. Climate changes in the past 17,000 years from the GISP2 Greenland ice core. Red = warming, blue = cooling. (Modified from Cuffy and Clow, 1997)

Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest ~30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling (Figure 3) on a generally rising trend from the Little Ice Age about 500 years ago.

globalcool4.jpg


Figure 3. Alternating warm and cool cycles since 1470 AD. Blue = cool, red = warm. Based on oxygen isotope ratios from the GISP2 Greenland ice core.

Relationships between glacial fluctuations, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and global climate change.

After several decades of studying alpine glacier fluctuations in the North Cascade Range, my research showed a distinct pattern of glacial advances and retreats (the Glacial Decadal Oscillation, GDO) that correlated well with climate records. In 1992, Mantua published the Pacific Decadal Oscillation curve showing warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean that correlated remarkably well with glacial fluctuations. Both the GDA and the PDO matched global temperature records and were obviously related (Fig. 4). All but the latest 30 years of changes occurred prior to significant CO2 emissions so they were clearly unrelated to atmospheric CO2.

globalcool5.jpg


Figure 4. Correspondence of the GDO, PDO, and global temperature variations.

The significance of the correlation between the GDO, PDO, and global temperature is that once this connection has been made, climatic changes during the past century can be understood, and the pattern of glacial and climatic fluctuations over the past millennia can be reconstructed. These patterns can then be used to project climatic changes in the future. Using the pattern established for the past several hundred years, in 1998 I projected the temperature curve for the past century into the next century and came up with curve ‘A’ in Figure 5 as an approximation of what might be in store for the world if the pattern of past climate changes continued. Ironically, that prediction was made in the warmest year of the past three decades and at the acme of the 1977-1998 warm period. At that time, the projected curved indicated global cooling beginning about 2005 ± 3-5 years until about 2030, then renewed warming from about 2030 to about 2060 (unrelated to CO2—just continuation of the natural cycle), then another cool period from about 2060 to about 2090. This was admittedly an approximation, but it was radically different from the 1° F per decade warming called for by the IPCC. Because the prediction was so different from the IPCC prediction, time would obviously show which projection was ultimately correct.

Now a decade later, the global climate has not warmed 1° F as forecast by the IPCC but has cooled slightly until 2007-08 when global temperatures turned sharply downward. In 2008, NASA satellite imagery (Figure 6) confirmed that the Pacific Ocean had switched from the warm mode it had been in since 1977 to its cool mode, similar to that of the 1945-1977 global cooling period. The shift strongly suggests that the next several decades will be cooler, not warmer as predicted by the IPCC.

See web site

Figure 5. Global temperature projection for the coming century, based on warming/cooling cycles of the past several centuries. ‘A’ projection based on assuming next cool phase will be similar to the 1945-1977 cool phase. ‘B’ projection based on assuming next cool phase will be similar to the 1880-1915 cool phase. The predicted warm cycle from 2030 to 2060 is based on projection of the 1977 to 1998 warm phase and the cooling phase from 2060 to 2090 is based on projection of the 1945 to 1977 cool cycle.

Implications of PDO, NAO, GDO, and sun spot cycles for global climate in coming decades

The IPCC prediction of global temperatures, 1° F warmer by 2011 and 2° F by 2038 (Fig. 1), stand little chance of being correct. NASA’s imagery showing that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has shifted to its cool phase is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007). The PDO typically lasts 25-30 years and assures North America of cool, wetter climates during its cool phases and warmer, drier climates during its warm phases. The establishment of the cool PDO, together with similar cooling of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), virtually assures several decades of global cooling and the end of the past 30-year warm phase. It also means that the IPCC predictions of catastrophic global warming this century were highly inaccurate.

The switch of PDO cool mode to warm mode in 1977 initiated several decades of global warming. The PDO has now switched from its warm mode (where it had been since 1977) into its cool mode. As shown on the graph above, each time this had happened in the past century, global temperature has followed. The upper map shows cool ocean temperatures in blue (note the North American west coast). The lower diagram shows how the PDO has switched back and forth from warm to cool modes in the past century, each time causing global temperature to follow. Comparisons of historic global climate warming and cooling over the past century with PDO and NAO oscillations, glacial fluctuations, and sun spot activity show strong correlations and provide a solid data base for future climate change projections.

The Pacific Ocean has a warm temperature mode and a cool temperature mode, and in the past century, has switched back forth between these two modes every 25-30 years (known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO). In 1977 the Pacific abruptly shifted from its cool mode (where it had been since about 1945) into its warm mode, and this initiated global warming from 1977 to 1998. The correlation between the PDO and global climate is well established. The announcement by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) had shifted to its cool phase is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007). The PDO typically lasts 25-30 years and assures North America of cool, wetter climates during its cool phases and warmer, drier climates during its warm phases. The establishment of the cool PDO, together with similar cooling of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), virtually assures several decades of global cooling and the end of the past 30-year warm phase.

globalcool7.gif


Figure 6. Switch of PDO cool mode to warm mode in 1977 initiated several decades of global warming. The PDO has now switched from its warm mode (where it had been since 1977) into its cool mode. As shown on the graph above, each time this has happened in the past century, global temperature has followed. The upper map shows cool ocean temperatures in blue (note the North American west coast). The lower diagram shows how the PDO has switched back and forth from warm to cool modes in the past century, each time causing global temperature to follow. Projection of the past pattern (right end of graph) assures 30 yrs of global cooling

Comparisons of historic global climate warming and cooling over the past century with PDO and NAO oscillations, glacial fluctuations, and sun spot activity show strong correlations and provide a solid data base for future climate change projections. As shown by the historic pattern of GDOs and PDOs over the past century and by corresponding global warming and cooling, the pattern is part of ongoing warm/cool cycles that last 25-30 years. The global cooling phase from 1880 to 1910, characterized by advance of glaciers worldwide, was followed by a shift to the warm-phase PDO for 30 years, global warming and rapid glacier recession. The cool-phase PDO returned in ~1945 accompanied by global cooling and glacial advance for 30 years. Shift to the warm-phase PDO in 1977 initiated global warming and recession of glaciers that persisted until 1998. Recent establishment of the PDO cool phase appeared right on target and assuming that its effect will be similar to past history, global climates can be expected to cool over the next 25-30 years. The global warming of this century is exactly in phase with the normal climatic pattern of cyclic warming and cooling and we have now switched from a warm phase to a cool phase right at the predicted time (Fig. 5)

The ramifications of the global cooling cycle for the next 30 years are far reaching―e.g., failure of crops in critical agricultural areas (it’s already happening this year), increasing energy demands, transportation difficulties, and habitat change. All this during which global population will increase from six billion to about nine billion. The real danger in spending trillions of dollars trying to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that little will be left to deal with the very real problems engendered by global cooling.

CONCLUSIONS

Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.
 
Last edited:
Ice Dancer........do you mean it is possible that the warming/cooling trends are cyclic and aren't really affected by man's contributions? Are you really seriously suggesting this? Wow. Who'd have thunk it?
 
For the message board impaired:

[sarcasm]Ice Dancer........do you mean it is possible that the warming/cooling trends are cyclic and aren't really affected by man's contributions? Are you really seriously suggesting this? Wow. Who'd have thunk it?[/sarcasm]
 
In a thread about science it would be helpful if you use science. Your opinions aren't science. And if you don't give a fuck move on to where you do. :palm:

I will plant my ass whereever I like and in whatever thread I like and if you don't like it, too fucking bad. When you start posting the way others want you to post, then I will listen to the bullshit you've spewed. Until then STFU and STFD.

No science involved. I couldn't care less how long it's been since you've been here, or how long you were here before you left.

I hope this spells it out for you, k hon? :readit:
 
Wow. In 100 years some researcher is going to stumble upon this forum and highlight Dixie's arguments as quintessential embodiments of the ignorance that led to Florida disappearing underwater.

They'll have to dig through that glacier ice, that will have covered N. America, to read it. :cof1:
 
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba256

Read this and educate yourself. Forests NEED carbon dioxide!! CO2 helps all plant life to grow and flourish! Increased carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will cause ALL plant life on the planet to thrive.

We are responsible for about 5% of the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, the rest comes from other natural sources, including our own breath! Every time we exhale, we emit carbon dioxide. Humans convert oxygen and nitrogen into carbon dioxide when they breathe, all mammals do, and they always have, for as long as mammals have existed on the planet!


The site you directed me to was interesting thank you, but it still did not answer a vital question: How will the increased output of CO2 effect the natural equilibrium of the climate?

It is on a junior hi level of knowledge that CO2 is natural...and that plants need it for photosynthesis...I never once claimed it was not.

The fact still remains, whether we have affected it enough to throw it off the natural balance yet or not, should we not put more effort into watching our carbon footprint? What about the fossil fuel problem? They won’t last forever, which is a fact that no one can deny. Petroleum is something we rely on, so when it starts running low it will affect all of us. Extreme measures that some are talking about are overboard but completely ignoring it and acting like nothing is wrong is not the way to go ether.
 
Man, I can't deal with scientific illiterates who read rightwing blogs for their science "news. That's why this will be my one and only response to your scientific ignorance.

well then you need more practice....I've been talking to liberals for twenty years and I can tell you, I'm prepared to deal with all types of illiteracy.....


It's an undeniable fact that the past ten years have been the warmest in recorded history.

no, it's quite deniable......
cherry-pick_fig1_small.JPG

http://masterresource.org/?p=5240
except for a blip in the late 90s, the trend in temperatures has been pretty much constant over the last twenty years....actually, over the last five thousand years....,

and, temperatures are pretty much where we would expect them to be, given the cycles that have been in place on this planet since forever....

earthcht2asm.jpg


so again.....even if human activity is adding to global warming, what will the temperature be next year?.....next decade?......next century?.......will it be warmer or will it be cooler.....

admit it, you don't have a clue, not a single scientist on this planet has a clue.....
 
Last edited:
The site you directed me to was interesting thank you, but it still did not answer a vital question: How will the increased output of CO2 effect the natural equilibrium of the climate?

It is on a junior hi level of knowledge that CO2 is natural...and that plants need it for photosynthesis...I never once claimed it was not.

The fact still remains, whether we have affected it enough to throw it off the natural balance yet or not, should we not put more effort into watching our carbon footprint? What about the fossil fuel problem? They won’t last forever, which is a fact that no one can deny. Petroleum is something we rely on, so when it starts running low it will affect all of us. Extreme measures that some are talking about are overboard but completely ignoring it and acting like nothing is wrong is not the way to go ether.

Yes, it's Junior High level science, I don't know why liberals can't understand it. Carbon dioxide is vital to plant life, and we produce carbon dioxide which the plants 'breathe' and they produce oxygen and nitrogen for us to breathe. It's all a part of our balanced nature, and no... I don't think man's minuscule contributions to residual carbon dioxide is effecting the balance of the climate, nothing in science or historical data supports that belief. There isn't really a "natural balance" of carbon dioxide, there never has been! Early Earth had a much higher concentration of carbon dioxide, and it obviously didn't upset the natural balances, because we are here now! Earth is a pretty resilient place, it has the capacity to compensate and adapt to change, and it's largely self-cleaning.

I am all with you on fossil fuels, if for no other reason than, we need to be energy independent and not in the pocket of the Saudi's! I don't think we have any 'shortage' of fossil fuels, there is enough untapped under America, to provide energy for generations to come. But this has nothing to do with Global Warming, and the alarmist theories that CO2 is somehow destroying the planet. That is a ridiculous and absurd assessment, and we now discover, it is also rooted in fraudulent science.
 
Only a right winger could take the hottest decade on record and call it a cooling trend.

only a liberal would be stupid enough to claim this has been the hottest decade on record.......we're still 1.5 degrees cooler than the peak we reached 125,000 years ago according to the RECORDED ice core data shown above.....
 
Yes, it's Junior High level science, I don't know why liberals can't understand it. Carbon dioxide is vital to plant life, and we produce carbon dioxide which the plants 'breathe' and they produce oxygen and nitrogen for us to breathe. It's all a part of our balanced nature, and no... I don't think man's minuscule contributions to residual carbon dioxide is effecting the balance of the climate, nothing in science or historical data supports that belief. There isn't really a "natural balance" of carbon dioxide, there never has been! Early Earth had a much higher concentration of carbon dioxide, and it obviously didn't upset the natural balances, because we are here now! Earth is a pretty resilient place, it has the capacity to compensate and adapt to change, and it's largely self-cleaning.

I am all with you on fossil fuels, if for no other reason than, we need to be energy independent and not in the pocket of the Saudi's! I don't think we have any 'shortage' of fossil fuels, there is enough untapped under America, to provide energy for generations to come. But this has nothing to do with Global Warming, and the alarmist theories that CO2 is somehow destroying the planet. That is a ridiculous and absurd assessment, and we now discover, it is also rooted in fraudulent science.

I agree that the earth is resilient and self cleaning, and I will not try to deny that you might be right that we really have not had a bad effect on it, but I still do not believe we should ignore it until we are 100% sure one way or the other. I would love it if you are right to be honest, though it would make a very large international community look and certainly feel very, very stupid. (Copenhagen is a good example)

Yes that is one of my thoughts on petroleum. Not only that it would help our economy if we could supply our own power (we have been talking about the economy on another thread so I thought I would put that in), and have another reason for the west to not interfere with the Middle East and vice versa.
 
I agree that the earth is resilient and self cleaning, and I will not try to deny that you might be right that we really have not had a bad effect on it, but I still do not believe we should ignore it until we are 100% sure one way or the other. I would love it if you are right to be honest, though it would make a very large international community look and certainly feel very, very stupid. (Copenhagen is a good example)

Yes that is one of my thoughts on petroleum. Not only that it would help our economy if we could supply our own power (we have been talking about the economy on another thread so I thought I would put that in), and have another reason for the west to not interfere with the Middle East and vice versa.

Probably coming from the opposite end of political spectrum, but I think we should try to implement personal responsibility to recycle, reuse, and reduce. I think as a country we should develop other sources of energy, both economically friendly and just alternatives to foreign sources.

Truth is, the jury really is out about mankind's effect on the environment, but can't see any harm done by making changes that may help clean things up. On the other hand, carbon exchanges and such, well that would have a very bad effect on the economy.
 
Back
Top