Global Warming,eh?

[BigEvil]

Then we went fishing. (Me in the first pic, my buddy in the second.)

<img src= "http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/9323/fishbd.jpg" width=420 height=300><img src= "http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/493/fish2y.jpg" width=420 height=300>

Is that a rainbow trout?

[TwilightG]

It certainly was this year! Thank God for Global Warming!! We recieved 520"+ by closing day, April 24th. (cockerpunk will prob. dispute this somehow. )
A record setting year, and it hasn't stopped snowing yet. Just skied 13" of fresh pow at A-Basin on Sat. Glorious!

Then we went fishing. (Me in the first pic, my buddy in the second.)

that's just awesome. time to start looking for jobs in Colorado

[cockerpunk]

Lies!!!! He got the Noble prize for his studies

the trouble is there are two discussions going on with global warming.

one is the popular culture debate, with mostly the likes of gore, durkins, the great global warming swindle and an inconvienet truth beign cited most often, but also tons of other rumor mill by products. the classic ice age in 1970s, global warming ended in 1996 ... and so many others ...

the other one is the actual scientific discussion. while there is a strong consensous on athoropogenic change, are some alternate hypothesis that are out there, such as the infared iris theory and others.



sadly, most popular culture skepitcs dont even know about these theories or how they work, and then they just regurgitate whatever the rumor mill produces, which is often contrary to something that even the scientific skeptics already understand and agree to. infared absorbision effects have been known and understood for over 100 years for example.

as always, the trick is acutally understanding the science. because science and politics are two very different things.

[Ando]

"Actual scientific discussion" Pfft...Boring!!!

Nobel prize > "Actual scientific discussion"

[sjrtk]

@ Cockerpunk,

Look at sun charts(detailed maps of the face of the sun) during the little ice age, (you know the thing that never happened) Fort the last 150 to nearly 200 years the have been a larger number of sun sports. during the little ice age there were nearly none on the face sunspots are HOTTER than what you would think we have a great number more sunspots now than befor. Thus more heat energy tho our little rock. So if something gets more heat energy than befor it gets hotter, forgive me i don't have my thermodynamic scales with me right now. NASA's study of the sun is how old? It is a Star any amount of time we have been able to study it is WORTHLESS for anything but what it was doing 8 min ago. No exception. It would be like looking at one gene in a person for .0000000001 seconds and declaring you know anything about them. Let alone a Start with mabey 300 years worth of data. The sun is currently hotter.

Have we helped this process yes we have did we do it to the extent that some say no. Ice core samples have shown a rise and fall of temperature for millions of years and a rise and fall greenhouse gasses. Everything is cyclical what will rise must fall. On an other note if global warming was so backed by fact then why did they have to fudge the numbers to show it was true, i know millions of dollars in "research" money was at stake but pushing the numbers so you didn't show a cooling effect for an entire decade? Really not credible.

I know i am just a mechanic and your an engineer But i am the guy that fixes engineering screw up with a sledge hammer and pry bar for the last 10 years.

[Ando]

I know i am just a mechanic and your an engineer But i am the guy that fixes engineering screw up with a sledge hammer and pry bar for the last 10 years.

EPIC!!!

[cockerpunk]

@ Cockerpunk,

Look at sun charts(detailed maps of the face of the sun) during the little ice age, (you know the thing that never happened) Fort the last 150 to nearly 200 years the have been a larger number of sun sports. during the little ice age there were nearly none on the face sunspots are HOTTER than what you would think we have a great number more sunspots now than befor. Thus more heat energy tho our little rock. So if something gets more heat energy than befor it gets hotter, forgive me i don't have my thermodynamic scales with me right now. NASA's study of the sun is how old? It is a Star any amount of time we have been able to study it is WORTHLESS for anything but what it was doing 8 min ago. No exception. It would be like looking at one gene in a person for .0000000001 seconds and declaring you know anything about them. Let alone a Start with mabey 300 years worth of data. The sun is currently hotter.

Have we helped this process yes we have did we do it to the extent that some say no. Ice core samples have shown a rise and fall of temperature for millions of years and a rise and fall greenhouse gasses. Everything is cyclical what will rise must fall. On an other note if global warming was so backed by fact then why did they have to fudge the numbers to show it was true, i know millions of dollars in "research" money was at stake but pushing the numbers so you didn't show a cooling effect for an entire decade? Really not credible.

I know i am just a mechanic and your an engineer But i am the guy that fixes engineering screw up with a sledge hammer and pry bar for the last 10 years.

sunspot counts are an indirect way of measuring solar output.

measuring solar output directly, over the time interval we have seen a temprature trend, is a great way to form a conclusion about if the sun is doing it or not.

since solar output has not changed over the last 100 years, the same hundred years that we have seen the temprature spike - then its pretty easy to conclude that the sun is not the primary cause of it.


the cyclical nature of the earths temprature is the problem, and illistrates exactly why global warming is an issue. the ice data shows us exactly what happens and how things change. we find that a small amount of warming melts more swamps, releases more carbon gases, which warms the earth, which melts mroe swamps, which releases mroe gases .... its a positive feedback mechanism. there is also a positive feedback in the opposite direction, where a small amount of cooling kicks off an iceage. so we know and understand for the most part the ice core data, and that is a KEY part of the global warming model, a small amount of warming kicking off a positive feedback mechanism.

again, since we know the sun's output has not changed, that isn't gonna be our trigger.

our carbon gas output alone can be the trigger to set off the positive feedback loop. this is also why the 800 year lag time isn't a valid counterpoint.

that is the fear, and the ice cores are why we know it.


they didn't have to fudge the numbers to show its true.


it has nothing to with engineering, mechanics, or anything like that. it has to do with looking at the data. its out there - go read the scientific papers.

[pillage]

Actual scientific research by those that don't depend on said research grants is much more credible. Anyone else that slides their research to make sure their results keep their gravy train flowing, is just blowing hot air. Bad research, with flawed models, that gets press is still bad research.

[BigEvil]

then its pretty easy to conclude that the sun is not the primary cause of it.

That sounds nice and all.. but it fails to then explain why there are other planets in our solar system that are getting hotter. Granted Im not all that bright, but last I saw mankind had not yet exported any SUVs to Mars. Yet, that planet is experiencing temperature increases also.

[VailSkibum]

al gore is not a climate expert. as well meaning (or profitable) as he is, like most, he lacks a solid understanding of the physics at work.

NEXT

Then exactly who IS a climate expert? (other than you?)

This man is supposed to be your saviour! Now your throwing him under the bus too? Have you no loyalties man!

There are just as many skeptics as proponets on this issue. Except that the skeptics don't get all the media coverage. The only instance I can recall of media coverage, is the 'scientists' rigging the #'s over in Brussels for IPOCC.

I know you only read 'scientific journals', so I don't reckon you will check these links from the likes of the BBC, Heartland Inst., etc, but this quick YouTube vid means you dont have to read

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IMGiNn9hmc

Fraud from BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12219472

Michael Mann (discredited hockey stick theory) and another supposed "Top Scientist" is suing to keep his cause alive, and SILENCE his critics.
http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/bl...st-top-skeptic Before you poo-poo this page check out the authors' credidentials. I'm sure even you would agree that these men are scientists.
Why would he have to sue to keep people quiet if his conclusions are backed by hard facts? My guess would be he is hiding something. Or his posh lifestyle is threatened.

How about these alarmist photoshop fakes by the AGW scientists? http://www.heartland.org/full/27623/...ake_Photo.html

since solar output has not changed over the last 100 years, the same hundred years that we have seen the temprature spike - then its pretty easy to conclude that the sun is not the primary cause of it.

So does that really mean that man is the culprit? Isn't the Earths core warming too? How did we do that?

You seem like a pretty sharp dude. You will find, as you age, that most things ARE as they seem. When the experts come out preaching death and destruction, it is usually a snow job for $$. (or should it be sun job in this case?)
VSb

[VailSkibum]

melts mroe swamps

Aren't swamps already unfrozen? If they weren't they would not be swamps, but ice

[VailSkibum]

@ BigEvil

Is that a rainbow trout?

Both are a hybrids called Cutt-bows. 1/2 Rainbow, 1/2 Cutthroat Trout. Check out the little red 'slash' under the chin(?) of the second fish. These are about average size for the Yampa River. Pulled a 28" one out of the same spot last year.

@TwilightG
Look me up if you head out this way. Open invite. I'd love to 'rip some lips' w/ some AO'ers out here.
(That goes for everyone BTW.)

And 17' snowdrifts still: http://www.850koa.com/cc-common/news...rticle=8618566

D.

[cockerpunk]

That sounds nice and all.. but it fails to then explain why there are other planets in our solar system that are getting hotter. Granted Im not all that bright, but last I saw mankind had not yet exported any SUVs to Mars. Yet, that planet is experiencing temperature increases also.

already disucssed this. the temprature on another planet is governed by a whole different set of rules then our own planets. also, not all the other planets in the solar system are warming, some are cooling, some we can't even tell what they are doing. its a moot point either way.

[cockerpunk]

Aren't swamps already unfrozen? If they weren't they would not be swamps, but ice

that would be the methane storing permafrost in mostly siberia, but all across the norther latitudes.

methane is roughtly 10 times worse of a greenhouse gas then carbon dioxyide (which is acutally a pretty poor greenhouse gas). the melting of the permafrost turns them into swamps, which release tons and tons of methane.

ergo, a small amount of warming, melts more swamps, which melts more swamps ....



do you guys really not know about even the basics here?

[going_home]

that would be the methane storing permafrost in mostly siberia, but all across the norther latitudes.

methane is roughtly 10 times worse of a greenhouse gas then carbon dioxyide (which is acutally a pretty poor greenhouse gas). the melting of the permafrost turns them into swamps, which release tons and tons of methane.

ergo, a small amount of warming, melts more swamps, which melts more swamps ....



do you guys really not know about even the basics here?

Just a clue, you arent going to win this one buddy.
Its a lose lose situation for you either way.

Just sayin//