Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,663
    Cold, rain cuts short global warming rally
    MARTIN GRIFFITH
    ASSOCIATED PRESS
    Posted: 4/14/2007

    More than two dozen demonstrators braved cold, wet weather Saturday in Reno to attend a rally designed to draw attention to global warming.

    The event was cut short by heavy rain and sleet, said organizer Lisa Stiller of the Northern Nevada Coalition for Climate Change.
    “It’s kind of disappointing that the weather kept people away,” Stiller said. “But we still think it (climate change) is something that people should talk about.”
    The storm prevented the use of solar ovens for a potluck picnic, Stiller said, and caused the planned two-hour demonstration to break up after about an hour...

    FULL STORY
    How many of these stories of global warming summits being cancelled or cut short due to cold weather are we going to see? It seems as if there's one every couple of weeks. You'd think that the global warming knuckleheads would eventually catch on...

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    12,855
    All I can say is that Gore's global warming has been freezing my ass off for months!

    I'm sitting in ICE as we speak.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,663
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis
    All I can say is that Gore's global warming has been freezing my ass off for months!

    I'm sitting in ICE as we speak.
    Believe it or not, it was snowing in Dallas just a week ago. Global warming my arse!

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    12,855
    Quote Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis
    All I can say is that Gore's global warming has been freezing my ass off for months!

    I'm sitting in ICE as we speak.
    Believe it or not, it was snowing in Dallas just a week ago. Global warming my arse!
    I KNOW!!

    And NY state is due for another foot or two today!

    Damn, but I'm sweating in this heat

    Everybody up here has their fireplaces going 24/7
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  5. #25
    Senior Member Hylander_1314's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Grant Township Mi
    Posts
    3,473
    One theory is, is that if the worlds temperature rises enough to melt the polar caps, and remember, this is fresh water in the ice and snow, not salt water.

    But there is a possibility that it can de-salinate the oceans around the world to the point that it could possibly shut down the ocean's convection, where warm air and ocean currents from the Gulf of Mexico right now keep places like Europe temperate, along with the eastern portions of N. America, which could result in another iceage, as there would be nothing to stop the cold and snow from advancing.

    This is only in theory though, as there are no hard facts yet to support it. But the most recent reseach on the ice cores show that it only took about ten years of a drastic temperature increase of around seven degrees fahrenheit globally to bring forth the onset of an iceage. Again this is a recent discovery that needs more study to verify, but it is a possibility that "could" happen. Not that it "will" happen, but a possibility.

    Which means that the Northern border of Illinois would be on the edge of a glacier that could grow to being a mile thick. The English Channel would disappear, and you could with enough provisions, walk from America to Europe, or from America to to Asia, as the sea level would drop around 400 feet.

    So what I think these activsts forgot is the one simple rule of physics, for every action, there is an equal reaction.

    Also, it takes on average, around 3,000 years for the ice to advance, then around 50,000 to 100,000 years for the earth to stabilize, and the around 3,000 years for the ice sheets to recede again. These are all from studies conducted over the last five to ten tears, and reseach is still continueing to try and understand these global events.

    So I wouldn't worry too much about the temperature rising as much as the backlash of a prolonged cold spell. Whether man induces it, or it's the work of nature without man's involvement.

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Hylander_1314
    One theory is, is that if the worlds temperature rises enough to melt the polar caps, and remember, this is fresh water in the ice and snow, not salt water.

    But there is a possibility that it can de-salinate the oceans around the world to the point that it could possibly shut down the ocean's convection, where warm air and ocean currents from the Gulf of Mexico right now keep places like Europe temperate, along with the eastern portions of N. America, which could result in another iceage, as there would be nothing to stop the cold and snow from advancing.

    This is only in theory though, as there are no hard facts yet to support it. But the most recent reseach on the ice cores show that it only took about ten years of a drastic temperature increase of around seven degrees fahrenheit globally to bring forth the onset of an iceage. Again this is a recent discovery that needs more study to verify, but it is a possibility that "could" happen. Not that it "will" happen, but a possibility.

    Which means that the Northern border of Illinois would be on the edge of a glacier that could grow to being a mile thick. The English Channel would disappear, and you could with enough provisions, walk from America to Europe, or from America to to Asia, as the sea level would drop around 400 feet.

    So what I think these activsts forgot is the one simple rule of physics, for every action, there is an equal reaction.

    Also, it takes on average, around 3,000 years for the ice to advance, then around 50,000 to 100,000 years for the earth to stabilize, and the around 3,000 years for the ice sheets to recede again. These are all from studies conducted over the last five to ten tears, and reseach is still continueing to try and understand these global events.

    So I wouldn't worry too much about the temperature rising as much as the backlash of a prolonged cold spell. Whether man induces it, or it's the work of nature without man's involvement.
    There was no "ice age." It's just another of those outmoded theories predicated on incomplete or misunderstood data.

    The theory of the ice age was predicated on the appearance of glaciers in what are now temperate zones. The problem is that the theory presumed that everything was located exactly where it is now with respect to the poles. A more complete study revealed that the vastly more likely scenario is that the earth's crust slipped during a pole shift. Regions that had been located at the poles accumulating glaciers for ages suddently rotated down to temperate zones and temperate regions, such as the continent of Antarctica, slipped to the frigid polar regions. There is much evidence of this pole shift, ranging from ice core samples at the poles to flash-frozen mammoths whose bodies had been somehow slammed into evergreen trees with crushing force. The latter phenomenon is what was responsible for the goofy theory that the jet stream had somehow descended to ground level, resulting in 600 mph winds. What probably happened instead, given that the area in which these mammoths were found was at the circumference of the rotation (and therefore repsrented the most rapid crust movement during the pole shift), is that the ground literally moved beneath their feet, slamming the large trees which were anchored fast into the moving earth into the beasts.

    The pole shift theory solves an endless array of otherwise inexplicable riddles associated with the supposed "ice age." Another Victorian era theory has bitten the dust, but the increasingly dogmatic nature of the dominant scientific community refuses to let it die.

  7. #27
    Senior Member patbrunz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,590
    Here's some more information about the CO2 - temperature relationship:

    http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Sc ... 8/EDIT.jsp

    New Antarctic Ice Core CO2 and Proxy Temperature Data

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A climate record stretching back in time nearly three-quarters of a million years and encompassing eight glacial cycles was obtained a couple of years ago from the Dome Concordia (Dome C: 75°06'S, 123°21'E) ice core in East Antarctica by Augustin et al. (2004); and now, CO2 and proxy temperature (δD, the ratio of deuterium to hydrogen) data derived from that core have been published by Siegenthaler et al. (2005). We here explore what those data tell us about the CO2-climate connection, which is perhaps the most pressing environmental issue of our day.

    First of all, and constituting the centerpiece of the important new paper, plots of δD vs. CO2 derived from the earlier and latter portions of the Dome C ice core (comprising, respectively, marine isotope stages 1-11 and 12-16) and a similar plot from the well-known Vostok ice core are all seen to have essentially the same slope, which suggests, in the words of Siegenthaler et al., "that the coupling of Antarctic temperature and CO2 did not change substantially during the last 650 ky [thousand years]," or as Brook (2005) puts it in his Perspective about the new work, "that climate and greenhouse gas cycles are intimately related."

    We agree with both of these assessments. However, the more important question to be resolved is which parameter is doing the major forcing and which is simply following the other's lead.

    In investigating this question, Siegenthaler et al. say they obtained the best correlation between CO2 and temperature "for a lag of CO2 of 1900 years." Specifically, over the course of glacial terminations V to VII, they indicate that "the highest correlation of CO2 and deuterium, with use of a 20-ky window for each termination, yields a lag of CO2 to deuterium of 800, 1600, and 2800 years, respectively." In addition, they note that "this value is consistent with estimates based on data from the past four glacial cycles," citing in this regard the work of Fischer et al. (1999), Monnin et al. (2001) and Caillon et al. (2003). Clearly, therefore, it is temperature that is the robust leader in this tightly-coupled relationship, while CO2 is but the humble follower, providing only a fraction (which could well be miniscule) - of the total glacial-to-interglacial temperature change.

    This observation does little to inspire confidence in climate-alarmist claims that the CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels will lead to catastrophic temperature increases, which predicted warmings, in some of their scenarios, rival those experienced in glacial-to-interglacial transitions. Nevertheless, Siegenthaler et al. stubbornly state that the new findings "do not cast doubt ... on the importance of CO2 as a key amplification factor [our italics] of the large observed temperature variations of glacial cycles."

    In vivid contrast to this unsupported contention, it is our opinion that when temperature leads CO2 by thousands of years, during both glacial terminations and inceptions (Genthon et al., 1987; Fischer et al., 1999; Petit et al., 1999; Clark and Mix, 2000; Indermuhle et al., 2000; Monnin et al., 2001; Mudelsee, 2001; Caillon et al., 2003), there is plenty of reason to believe that CO2 plays but a minor role in enhancing temperature changes that are clearly induced by something else, which latter italicized point is an undisputed fact that is clearly born out by the new ice core data.

    Consequently, whereas Thomas Stocker (the second and corresponding author of the Siegenthaler et al. paper) is quoted by the BBC's Richard Black (BBC News, 24 Nov 2005) as saying of the tight and time-invariant relationship between δD and CO2, without any additional evidence, that it is "a very strong indication of the important role of CO2 in climate regulation," we say it is "a very strong indication of the important role of climate in CO2 regulation." Why? Because like Mary's little lamb, and as evidenced by 650,000 years of real-world data, wherever temperature went over this period, CO2 was sure to follow, which by definition is "a very strong indication of the important role of climate in CO2 regulation" and not the opposite.
    All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. -Edmund Burke

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •