anyone know where all the hurricaines went? why isnt Al Gore standing in front of a map showing how few hurricaines there are this year? How come a lot of hurricaines in one year is proof of global warming but few hurricaines in one year is just part of the natural cycle?

Supposedly sandstorms in Africa are screwing up the hurricanes. Of course the lack of sandstorms last year was never given as the excuse for why there were so many hurricanes.

LOL, are you serious? they actually said sandstorms in africa are messing up the global warming caused hurricaines?

The environmentalist wackos and liberals everywhere are going to very quietly bury this year's hurricane season, seeing as how they'd have a very tough time using a quiet storm season as "proof" that there is global warming and you'd better have your congressman stand for the Kyoto treaty, get rid of the SUV and stop eating KFC or else the earth will begin out of control warming and cook the inhabitants of earth.

The thing with the global warming folk is that all they've got to do is wait for a spate of bad weather and start up the frenzied global warming ruckus. You can imagine the hoopla if the the Midwest had a Dustbowl style drought that happened in 1930s. Good weather, they'll be quiet and not answer questions, dammit.

Rather early on in Hurricane season I read some article about El Nino being again detected and how that had the potential to impact upon upcoming storms.

LOL, are you serious? they actually said sandstorms in africa are messing up the global warming caused hurricaines?

Supposedly. I haven't seen the article myself, so take it with a grain of salt.

I seem to remember the experts saying this would be one of the worst hurricaine seasons on record. if they cant predict the weather 6 months in advance how can they tell us what the weather will be like in 100 years? Its dumb. I would tend to believe more of what climate experts like Al Gore and Brad Pitt had to say if they didnt treat us like morons and only use the wather that supports their arguments as proof of their claims.

I seem to remember the experts saying this would be one of the worst hurricaine seasons on record. if they cant predict the weather 6 months in advance how can they tell us what the weather will be like in 100 years? Its dumb. I would tend to believe more of what climate experts like Al Gore and Brad Pitt had to say if they didnt treat us like morons and only use the wather that supports their arguments as proof of their claims.


Anybody read State of Fear by Michael Crichton? Supposedly fiction, but reflects his view on the whole fantasy issue of global warming. Good book.

LOL @ climate experts Al Gore and Brad Pitt. Wonder if either has sense enough to come in outta the rain?

:)
SMW

Once again, Travh demonstrates his utter lack of understanding of global warming, as well as his lack of ability to spell the word "hurricane."

For one, H-U-R-R-I-C-A-N-E-S seem to be hitting the Pacific side this year....I think Baja has been hit by 3 Class 3+ hurricanes this year. I believe that's still above the average amount of hurricanes. It just dosn't seem like much since last year was so prolific.

Either way, no one ever made any predictions about weather in one particular area for one particular year. It's always been acknowledged that global warming is a global problem that affects AVERAGE temperatures and AVERAGE storm strength and frequency.

Just in case, if you're STILL in denial, low lying pacific islands are being evacuated already because of small rises in the ocean level.

LOL @ climate experts Al Gore and Brad Pitt. Wonder if either has sense enough to come in outta the rain?


The reason you're hearing from Al Gore and Brad Pitt is because you're ignoring the EPA, the dissappearance of glaciers from every sector of the planet, the International Panel on Climate Change, and pretty much the ENTIRE scientific community that studies the issue, as well as pretty much the entire world except the U.S. and Australia.

Apparently you people have to have Al Gore and Brad Pitt throwing it your faces to recognize that there is a problem.

P.S. Have you seen Al Gore's movie? It's full of very simple explanations of global warming for you people to understand it. Yes, there's some touchy/feely stuff that could be interpreted as "politically-motivated" but there's a lot of good, simple facts in the film.

Once again, Travh demonstrates his utter lack of understanding of global warming.

For one, hurricanes seem to be hitting the Pacific side this year....I think Baja has been hit by 3 Class 3+ hurricanes this year. I believe that's still above the average amount of hurricanes. It just dosn't seem like much since last year was so prolific.

Either way, no one ever made any predictions about weather in one particular area for one particular year. It's always been acknowledged that global warming is a global problem that affects AVERAGE temperatures and AVERAGE storm strength and frequency.

Just in case, if you're STILL in denial, low lying pacific islands are being evacuated already because of small rises in the ocean level.

what are we idiots? are you saying it has not been discussed in length both here and in the media at large that hurricanes are getting worse because of global warming? WTF? did I slip into the twilight zone or something? I remember saying last year around this time that the number of hurricanes every year was based on natural cycles, and I remember people like you saying how clueless I was for not understanding the correlation between global warming and the increase in hurricanes. This is unbelievable.

and please, give us some of these low lying pacific islands that are being evacuated becasue of global warming.

yea there were tons of hurricanes back in the 1930's.. worse than the ones we have now, and more of them..

how come it didnt keep getting worse?

I mean, if global warming is supposedly getting worse and worse.. then shouldnt the hurricanes become more numerous and worse every year??? They havn't.. the only time hurricanes are brought up is during a bad season, and people like Al Gore use it as a political Jack off to say "oh my god global warming!!!".. but then on the seasons like we have now when there arent any hurricanes.. they are nowhere to be found with an explanation.

Why don't you make a movie on THIS hurricane season Al?

And how come you didnt make a movie when Clinton was in office? Hurricane Andrew was pretty bad as was that 1995 season, and alot of people were stranded. But they were mostly white, I guess Katrina is the gold mine.

what are we idiots? speak for yourself...

+++++++++++++++++++++++
Greenland Ice Sheet Is Melting Faster, Study Says
John Roach
for National Geographic News

August 10, 2006

The Greenland ice sheet is melting three times faster today than it was five years ago, according to a new study.

The finding adds to evidence of increased global warming in recent years and indicates that melting polar ice sheets are pushing sea levels higher, the authors report.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-greenland.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

OMGWTF teh Enviro-GoreClone-Whaka-fascists are in control of National Geographic!!1!11!11

speak for yourself...


why don't you speak on the subject.. while glaciers are melting and everyone knows it(actually evidence that another ice age is coming)... The idiots are the ones who associate hurricanes with global warming...

we were led to believe that this hurricane season was going to be brutally destructive.. and environmental hacks like Al Gore claimed the two were connected.. well hey Me, Trav, and i bet some other people are wondering where the hell are these things? I thought global warming was upon us, and it was going to get worse and worse every year?

I guess ol Al is keeping his mouth shut on the subject now.. and for good reason.

And if you weren't so infatuated with 'disproving' things and self-glorification and actually stopped to think about things for a second you would realize that EVERYTHING runs in cycles. Sometimes high and sometimes low but an average appears depending on how far back you look at something.

I've made no claims about global warming and hurricanes because I haven't the slightest if there is a connection. But if you think that you can raise to global temperature over a very (geologically) short span of time without causeing havoc you got another thing coming.

Take the melting ice sheet story. You can't say "oh the ice sheet barely melted at all today. Guess global warming was a croc.." You have to look at long term trends. I don't believe that last years season was proof. I would ask to see a trend of many decades.

You right now are doing the EXACT same thing that Gore did last year only you are on the other side. Welcome to the real world Decka, you're the dueche bag you despise.

and please, give us some of these low lying pacific islands that are being evacuated becasue of global warming.


The island nation of Tuvalu, I believe they have begun evacuating to New Zealand. Also, look to the Marshall Islands, Vanuatu, and other low lying islands are preparing for the same situation.

Now you can tell me when Al Gore said that 2006 was going to be a particularly bad hurricane season, right?

[QUOTE=Decka]I thought global warming was upon us, and it was going to get worse and worse every year?
[QUOTE]

Wrong. The AVERAGE is going to get worse and worse every year. The problem here is that you and Travh don't understand the difference between a single, isolated measurement and an AVERAGE of many measurements.

Try to pass a statistics test sometime and THEN try to disagree with every climatologist on the planet.

Wrong. The AVERAGE is going to get worse and worse every year. The problem here is that you and Travh don't understand the difference between a single, isolated measurement and an AVERAGE of many measurements.

Try to pass a statistics test sometime and THEN try to disagree with every climatologist on the planet.

Let me humour you a moment, leper, and say that you're right absolutely right. The earth IS getting warmer and fossil fuels are to blame. Okay, what to do? I was reading in one of the local papers (such as they are) about The Plan. Which basically comes down to a Kyoto Treaty type emissions deal, taxes and "carbon trading."

Now, there are several problems with this little idea they're trying to float. First off, the idea of a Kyoto Treaty style protocol. Which basically adds a tax to fossil fuels. This isn't going to "reduce" carbon dioxide emissions, it's just going to increase the cost of living. Make it more expensive for people to commute to work and to buy things. THAT includes EVERYTHING, from food and medicine to any kind of goods one wishes to purchase. Remember, that I-Pod you just bought came to you by truck, which uses fossil fuels. Also keep in mind that when people have to dole out their hard earned money for taxes, they're not going to be able to spend it on other things, which is going to slow down the economy, a lot. So, you're going to have people losing their jobs.

Okay, the American economy is going to go the way of the French economy, so what? Right? WELL, it gets even more complicated. India and China are becoming more and more wealthy. Their economies are booming and they're starting to like that Western lifestyle, which includes driving around and using electricity to power their homes. (Coal powers electrical plants in those countries) These guys KNOW what a Kyoto treaty style will do to their economy, and they will NOT allow that to happen to their economies. The Indians will whine that Kyoto is going to crush their new economy and the Chi-Coms will tell the collective world to take their Kyoto Treaty and stick it where the sun don't shine. You ever meet a POLITE commie? And the Euroweenies, for one, will do just that. They're not about to lose trade with China, I'll guarantee you that, dammit. What it comes down to, is that rising Asian governments aren't going to pay attention to environmentalist wackos and will laugh at the U.S. and it's self emasculation of its own economy. Not good to put Commies in a position of strength, dammit. So, all Kyoto will do is sap the American economy of its strength and not reduce carbon emmissions at all because the Chi-coms and the Indians will continue to expand their economies and use fossil fuels without restraint, dammit.

Now, trying to curb people's use of carbon fuels through taxation is an overall bad idea because you've just ALLOWED your government to take a very hefty portion of your paycheck and giving those guys a brand new stream of revenue. Two things are going to happen. First off, you've just handed the politicians a "moral" reason to keep taxes high. The first person to open their mouths and say that charging two or three dollars a gallon for gas is going to smeared as someone out to "ruin the environment." So that ain't going to happen. Secondly, say that someone does perfect the use of moonbeams and granola to power cars. No emmissions, no taxes, everybody is free from Kyoto, right? Well no, try to seperate a politician from his taxes, is akin to splitting the atom in a nuclear bomb, you're going to get an explosion. Those guys aren't going to give up that lucrative stream of tax money and they WILL do their very best to kill any new proposals that would get America off its fossil fuel "addiction." Not nice, is it?

OH, and if the earth is getting warmer, how come it snowed out west and around the Buffalo New York area?

anyone know where all the hurricaines went? why isnt Al Gore standing in front of a map showing how few hurricaines there are this year? How come a lot of hurricaines in one year is proof of global warming but few hurricaines in one year is just part of the natural cycle?

I agree with you on the eastern storms a really quiet year. What was odd was the number of west coast storms there were. No one predicted that.

Let me humour you a moment, leper, and say that you're right absolutely right. The earth IS getting warmer and fossil fuels are to blame. Okay, what to do? I was reading in one of the local papers (such as they are) about The Plan. Which basically comes down to a Kyoto Treaty type emissions deal, taxes and "carbon trading."

Now, there are several problems with this little idea they're trying to float. First off, the idea of a Kyoto Treaty style protocol. Which basically adds a tax to fossil fuels. This isn't going to "reduce" carbon dioxide emissions, it's just going to increase the cost of living. Make it more expensive for people to commute to work and to buy things. THAT includes EVERYTHING, from food and medicine to any kind of goods one wishes to purchase. Remember, that I-Pod you just bought came to you by truck, which uses fossil fuels. Also keep in mind that when people have to dole out their hard earned money for taxes, they're not going to be able to spend it on other things, which is going to slow down the economy, a lot. So, you're going to have people losing their jobs.


A) I would argue we have a moral obligation to curb global warming, so I don't think economics is really relevant. It's a matter of what's right and wrong. I mean, making slavery illegal wasn't good for the economy but we, as a country, have since concluded that it's just not right to make people into slaves.

B) Assuming that I'm a materialistic person isn't going to get you anywhere because it's a false assumption. Nevertheless, I'm not fighting against materialism as much as I'm fighting against how our society obtains material possessions. Making some things more expensive is not going to cause our economy to collapse. If you look around, most people eat more than is even good for them, many people own things that have no positive impact on their lives.

C) Besides, I resent the assumption that removing fossil fuels as our source of energy would make everything more expensive. We've already spent half a trillion dollars on a war, put thousands of young people in this country on permanent medical treatment by the government, and buried thousands more....on a war that would not ever be an issue if we weren't dependant on the fossil fuel resources of the Middle East. There are plenty of other examples of how fossil fuels cost us, but I don't have time to list them...

I personally get my electricity from a company (Green Mountain Energy) that doesn't use fossil fuels and I don't find my electric bill to be especially burdensome.


Okay, the American economy is going to go the way of the French economy, so what? Right? WELL, it gets even more complicated. India and China are becoming more and more wealthy. Their economies are booming and they're starting to like that Western lifestyle, which includes driving around and using electricity to power their homes. (Coal powers electrical plants in those countries) These guys KNOW what a Kyoto treaty style will do to their economy, and they will NOT allow that to happen to their economies. The Indians will whine that Kyoto is going to crush their new economy and the Chi-Coms will tell the collective world to take their Kyoto Treaty and stick it where the sun don't shine. You ever meet a POLITE commie? And the Euroweenies, for one, will do just that. They're not about to lose trade with China, I'll guarantee you that, dammit. What it comes down to, is that rising Asian governments aren't going to pay attention to environmentalist wackos and will laugh at the U.S. and it's self emasculation of its own economy. Not good to put Commies in a position of strength, dammit. So, all Kyoto will do is sap the American economy of its strength and not reduce carbon emmissions at all because the Chi-coms and the Indians will continue to expand their economies and use fossil fuels without restraint, dammit.


I agree. It's hard to be ethical. Corrupt/poor nations as well as corrupt people often have an advantage in life. That doesn't mean you have to become one of them.


Now, trying to curb people's use of carbon fuels through taxation is an overall bad idea because you've just ALLOWED your government to take a very hefty portion of your paycheck and giving those guys a brand new stream of revenue. Two things are going to happen. First off, you've just handed the politicians a "moral" reason to keep taxes high. The first person to open their mouths and say that charging two or three dollars a gallon for gas is going to smeared as someone out to "ruin the environment." So that ain't going to happen. Secondly, say that someone does perfect the use of moonbeams and granola to power cars. No emmissions, no taxes, everybody is free from Kyoto, right?


(A) You can always replace a proportionate existing tax and impose a fossil fuel tax without increasing the overall tax burden.

(B) Your exagerrations about granola and moonbeams belittle your position. There are lots of competative renewable energy sources. We already use them. They're called wind power, hydroelectric power, solar power, etc. Electric cars have been established as a viable alternative, and they haven't even been thoroughly developed.


Well no, try to seperate a politician from his taxes, is akin to splitting the atom in a nuclear bomb, you're going to get an explosion. Those guys aren't going to give up that lucrative stream of tax money and they WILL do their very best to kill any new proposals that would get America off its fossil fuel "addiction." Not nice, is it?


Yep, it's a porblem. But politicians still have to answer to voters, and the first step is to stamp out the public's ignorance, much of which has been demonstrated in this thread.

P.S. Travh, I'm still waiting for a reference to verify all of the allegations you've made about what Al Gore has said....

We have experienced average hurricane activity through September. August was inactive, but September had above-average activity. We expect October to have below-average activity largely due to developing El Niño conditions in the central and eastern Pacific. November activity in El Niño years is very rare. (as of 3 October 2006)

Read on, Mc Duff (http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/2006/oct2006/)

At the risk of being called ignorant (in which case I will call in the 'sticks & stone' clause), allow me to add my $.02... and I welcome proof that I'm wrong.

To all the Chicken Littles who believe in global warming... and that it's all due to humans acting irresponsibly, I say :lolhit:

Fact 1: There is the same amount of WATER on this planet that there has always been... no more, no less. Some is in the form of ice; some in liquid form... same as it's been since the dinosaur days. No matter how smart we are, we can't get rid of water.

Fact 2: No matter how powerful we THINK we are, we're not strong enough to single-handedly pollute the planet's atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. Humans occupy about 5% of the earth's landmass. All one has to do is look out the window of a 737 flying at 35,000 feet to get a feel for the amount of pollution even a whole traffic jam of gas-guzzlers is capable of producing... especially as compared to the miles and miles and miles of pristine, uninhabited land.

Fact 3: Since the beginning of recorded time, the earth has always gone thru periods of change. Including ice ages, great floods, droughts, volcanos, hurricanes, tornados, glaciers, earthquakes and other surface-altering natural events that change the planet's surface. Are we either smart enough to prevent them or strong enough to cause them? I think not.

What we are smart enough to do (at least some of us), is learn to make $$$$ off it. Whether it's landing a huge grant to 'study' which islands are losing ground or designing and marketing a piece of equipment to measure the so-called dwindling ice mass. Or coming up with alternative fuel sources and hybrid cars. Or how about taking advantage of people's fears to actually run for public office or star in a new movie with global warming at the heart of your campaign??

I'm not saying the planet's not getting warmer... or islands aren't sinking or ice isn't melting on the polar cap. But what I am saying is it's all part of the natural sequence of events and, other than capitalizing on it, there's not much any of us can do about it. When someone wakes up 1000 years from now and complains about the heat, they'll just have to turn down the a/c and blame us, their ancestors, for not seeing Al Gore's movie.

:)
SMW

P.S. Here's some facts you might be interested in. (WARNING: CONTAINS POSITIVE STATISTICS ABOUT THE STATE OF THE UNION!)

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/issues/more/land_envstatistics.htm

the FCC banned them

At the risk of being called ignorant (in which case I will call in the 'sticks & stone' clause), allow me to add my $.02... and I welcome proof that I'm wrong.

To all the Chicken Littles who believe in global warming... and that it's all due to humans acting irresponsibly, I say :lolhit:

That includes your own government you know (see www.epa.gov).


Fact 1: There is the same amount of WATER on this planet that there has always been... no more, no less. Some is in the form of ice; some in liquid form... same as it's been since the dinosaur days. No matter how smart we are, we can't get rid of water.


We can make water non-potable, but I wouldn't dispute this fact.


Fact 2: No matter how powerful we THINK we are, we're not strong enough to single-handedly pollute the planet's atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. Humans occupy about 5% of the earth's landmass. All one has to do is look out the window of a 737 flying at 35,000 feet to get a feel for the amount of pollution even a whole traffic jam of gas-guzzlers is capable of producing... especially as compared to the miles and miles and miles of pristine, uninhabited land.

Okay, this is the part where you're off. There used to be people who didn't think we could possibly kill nearly every buffalo and passenger pigeon in the country but we did.

I wish I could rely on the observations I've made in an hour of total plane flight where I could actually see the ground, but I think its smarter to listen to the qualified people who have spent their lives studying the topic.

Your 5% statistic may be true but its misleading. We also use about 30% of the land mass for agriculture, although we don't technically "occupy" that land mass. Another 30+% is uninhabitable, leaving about a third of the land in a non-devastated condition. Have you ever seen the picture of the planet at night and how much of it is lit up? That's probably a more reliable view if you insist on sticking with your personal observations.


Fact 3: Since the beginning of recorded time, the earth has always gone thru periods of change. Including ice ages, great floods, droughts, volcanos, hurricanes, tornados, glaciers, earthquakes and other surface-altering natural events that change the planet's surface. Are we either smart enough to prevent them or strong enough to cause them? I think not.

Since the beginning of recorded time, humanity has never had to monitor how many fish we harvest from the oceans for fear of exhausting the ocean's edible wildlife. Now we do.

I don't dispute earthquakes and volcanos. Neither of those is affected by atmospheric change. However, we ARE changing the composition of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is relatively small compared to the size of the earth, and humans have more of an impact on the atmosphere than we know. Granted, there are places where you can actually see the impact, like L.A. or Mexico City, but the reality is that most of the impact is invisible to the naked eye...i.e. You cannot see carbon dioxide.



What we are smart enough to do (at least some of us), is learn to make $$$$ off it. Whether it's landing a huge grant to 'study' which islands are losing ground or designing and marketing a piece of equipment to measure the so-called dwindling ice mass. Or coming up with alternative fuel sources and hybrid cars. Or how about taking advantage of people's fears to actually run for public office or star in a new movie with global warming at the heart of your campaign??


I think this is a jab at Al Gore, but I don't think he's running in any "campaigns" these days...I mean, I have my criticisms of Al Gore but I don't think its right to make false statements about him.

Have you even seen his movie? It's weird how people criticize a film without even seeing it. It's a really good film (read the reviews) and he manages to keep partisan politics out of it.

I'm not saying the planet's not getting warmer... or islands aren't sinking or ice isn't melting on the polar cap. But what I am saying is it's all part of the natural sequence of events and, other than capitalizing on it, there's not much any of us can do about it. When someone wakes up 1000 years from now and complains about the heat, they'll just have to turn down the a/c and blame us, their ancestors, for not seeing Al Gore's movie.


It's not "natural." Try taking a look at the EPA's website again. If you believe all of the "positive statistics" you linked us to, then there is no reason you shouldn't believe the EPA.

Thanks for your civil response. We're all entitled to our opinions and while I respect yours, you do tend to parrot alot of what the media reports and we all know how they love those sensational headlines... like the one in today's paper, "WORLD MAY RUN OUT OF FISH!" There's a segment of our society who are running to fill their freezers with Chilean Bass - just in case - as we speak.

On a more serious note, I do believe we need to be prudent of our responsibility to not cause harm to this planet. History shows (as recorded in the link I offered) that we are better about that kind of thing now than we were in the past. Our govt (including the EPA) created stringent guidelines to make sure we no longer raped the earth of trees without replanting, dumped hazardous chemicals into our waterways or allowed cancer-causing elements to be buried in our soil. If they hadn't stepped in, I shudder to think of what shape our country would be in right now. And I wish there was an international EPA so the rest of the world wouldn't have to suffer from uncontrolled pollution.

But none of that changes the fact that there are hundreds, even thousands of people who are on the global-warming payroll. If there was no such thing, they wouldn't have a job. Or a platform. Or a subject for a movie. And I'm sorry if my little jokes at the expense of Al Gore offend you. Personally, I think he IS a joke... looking for a punchline.

Like I said... we're all entitled to our opinions.

:)
SMW

But none of that changes the fact that there are hundreds, even thousands of people who are on the global-warming payroll. yes yes. Theres just hundreds of people 'faking' global warming to get a pay check (totalling possibly a million total)...thats the problem.

It's certainly not that hundreds of corporations are raking in billions in profits by polluting the commons. Its not like they've ever done anything like that before or that they have a revolving door for favorable legislation with members of government...sigh...

The government always does the right thing and never lets industy buy legislation....

I believe global warming is a cycle of the earth that occurs from time to time.
At the same time, I believe it is prudent to try to limit those things that we know contribute to this natural occurance, when we can. :drive:

Fact 1: There is the same amount of WATER on this planet that there has always been... no more, no less. Some is in the form of ice; some in liquid form... same as it's been since the dinosaur days. No matter how smart we are, we can't get rid of water.
It's not a question of how much water there is on Earth; it's a question of what form the water is in. The concern is that it is changing from solid to liquid form at too fast a rate.

Fact 2: No matter how powerful we THINK we are, we're not strong enough to single-handedly pollute the planet's atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. Humans occupy about 5% of the earth's landmass. All one has to do is look out the window of a 737 flying at 35,000 feet to get a feel for the amount of pollution even a whole traffic jam of gas-guzzlers is capable of producing... especially as compared to the miles and miles and miles of pristine, uninhabited land.The change in concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the years suggests otherwise. It has disproportionately increased since the Industrial Revolution and skyrocketed during the 20th century. This cannot be accounted for by natural causes, such as more land surfaces being exposed to the atmosphere.

Fact 3: Since the beginning of recorded time, the earth has always gone thru periods of change. Including ice ages, great floods, droughts, volcanos, hurricanes, tornados, glaciers, earthquakes and other surface-altering natural events that change the planet's surface. Are we either smart enough to prevent them or strong enough to cause them? I think not.Yes, the Earth goes through periodic changes in climate that are completely natural and have nothing to do with human activity. However, when those changes happen at a rate greater than what is natural we must conclude that there are other factors coming into play. And that is precisely what is happening now.

I believe global warming is a cycle of the earth that occurs from time to time.
At the same time, I believe it is prudent to try to limit those things that we know contribute to this natural occurance, when we can. :drive:

It is true that the earth goes through cycles in which temperatures will become warmer or colder, the reason for this is the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Here's a graph that illustrates this and the current CO2 level:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

The blue lines being CO2 levels and the red lines representing temperature. As you can tell, there is an obvious correlation. This data has gone back 650,000 years, and the CO2 level has never even been close to as high as it is currently. For those who don't accept that humans are the cause for global warming: what else could it be?

Many scientists criticize the accuracy of the curves that you have linked.
The critiques are based primarily on the facts that the variations in CO2 can be explained as due to a variation in pressure, rather than temp, and the extrapolation of the data to modern days is arbitrary.

http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/gw_index.html is well worth reading, if you are interested in both sides of the debate. The chapter "CO2 the real story" is pertinent to your graphs.

It is true that the earth goes through cycles in which temperatures will become warmer or colder, the reason for this is the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Here's a graph that illustrates this and the current CO2 level:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

The blue lines being CO2 levels and the red lines representing temperature. As you can tell, there is an obvious correlation. This data has gone back 650,000 years, and the CO2 level has never even been close to as high as it is currently. For those who don't accept that humans are the cause for global warming: what else could it be?

I'll be the first to admit, I don't know what else could it be. Perhaps we should ask the dinosaurs who managed to become extinct without human assistance. (Or... maybe it was man's discovery of FIRE that was responsible for their demise?)

:confused:
SMW

"A report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern suggests that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%.
But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product, the 700-page study says. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096084.stm

"Already, 29% of edible fish and seafood species have declined by 90% — a drop that means the collapse of these fisheries. But the issue isn't just having seafood on our plates. Ocean species filter toxins from the water. They protect shorelines. And they reduce the risks of algae blooms such as the red tide. 'A large and increasing proportion of our population lives close to the coast; thus the loss of services such as flood control and waste detoxification can have disastrous consequences,' Worm and colleagues say."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/02/health/webmd/main2147223.shtml

"Global warming could cause polar bears to go extinct by the end of the century by eroding the sea ice that sustains them, according to the most comprehensive international assessment ever done of Arctic climate change."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35233-2004Nov8.html

"One of the findings from this collaboration is that the Western Equatorial Pacific and Indian Oceans are now as warm as, or warmer than, at any prior time in the Holocene. The Holocene is the relatively warm period that has existed for almost 12,000 years, since the end of the last major ice age. The Western Pacific and Indian Oceans are important because, as these researchers show, temperature change there is indicative of global temperature change. Therefore, by inference, the world as a whole is now as warm as, or warmer than, at any time in the Holocene. According to Lea, 'The Western Pacific is important for another reason, too: it is a major source of heat for the world's oceans and for the global atmosphere.'"
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20060925/?print=1&1=1&2=2&3=3

"A recent study published in Nature documents the accelerating release of methane from melting permafrost. Methane is a greenhouse gas 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide, so this may signal more rapid warming in the near future."
Summary: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1869000,00.html

"Scientists doing climate research for the federal government say the Bush administration has made it hard for them to speak forthrightly to the public about global warming. The result, the researchers say, is a danger that Americans are not getting the full story on how the climate is changing."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/05/AR2006040502150_pf.html

"Since the 1970s, ocean surface temperatures around the globe have been on the rise--from one half to one degree Fahrenheit, depending on the region. Last summer, two studies linked this temperature rise to stronger and more frequent hurricanes. Skeptics called other factors into account, such as natural variability, but a new statistical analysis shows that only this sea surface temperature increase explains this trend."
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000051A6-DE14-1419-9E1483414B7F0000

"A recently released NASA study has shown that the Antarctic ice shelf is shrinking at an alarming rate of 36 cubic miles per year. The study, run from April 2002 to August 2005, indicates that the melting accounted for 1.2 millimeters of global sea level rise for the period. From the article: 'That is about how much water the United States consumes in three months and represents a change of about 0.4 millimeter (0.01575 inch) per year to global sea level rise, the study concluded. The study claims the majority of the melting to have occurred in the West Antarctic ice sheet.'"
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-03-03T053817Z_01_N02437593_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-ANTARCTIC.xml

Lastly, how temperatures are measured:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years#General_ techniques


Scientific studies speak for themselves. HOWEVER, note that all *wooing*Dooooomssssdaaaayy predictions are based on "IF CURRENT TRENDS CONTINUE". ANYTHING could cause trends to change, from volcanoes erupting and meteorites hitting the Earth to an alien invasion. Trends may just mystically change unable to be explained until a later date. Current trends though do in fact mean current trends, and they also may stay that way and we may be *wooing*DOOOOOOMEEED!

It is true that the earth goes through cycles in which temperatures will become warmer or colder, the reason for this is the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Here's a graph that illustrates this and the current CO2 level:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

The blue lines being CO2 levels and the red lines representing temperature. As you can tell, there is an obvious correlation. This data has gone back 650,000 years, and the CO2 level has never even been close to as high as it is currently. For those who don't accept that humans are the cause for global warming: what else could it be?

so at what PPM CO2 will the earth be destroyed?

http://www.climatecrisis.net/aboutthedvd/images/boxart.jpgYa, Al Gore never said anything about hurricanes and global warming :rolleyes:

so at what PPM CO2 will the earth be destroyed?
Trav, your just not to bright are you? But you make a good conservative!

Trav, your just not to bright are you? But you make a good conservative!

hey, someone posted a graph showing an increase in PPM of CO2. To have any relevance we must know at what PPM things start going south. You dont know much about graphs do you? I work with graphs and charts for a living, and I know how they can be manipulated. An example is with "spikes". Its easy to make anything into a spike if you shrink the scale enough. Now tell me Einstein, at what PPM of CO2 will the earth be beyond hope? Certainly some scientist somewhere has figured that out. How close are we to that? How quickly are we increasing? Just putting up some number saying ther is more CO2 now then there was 10,000 years ago doesnt mean shit on its own, we need some context.

http://www.climatecrisis.net/aboutthedvd/images/boxart.jpgYa, Al Gore never said anything about hurricanes and global warming :rolleyes:

You were telling us that Al Gore and other environmentalists predicted THIS year to be a bad hurricane season. I'm still waiting for that quote you're referencing.

Or are you telling us you can magically divulge thoughts from Al gore's brain from the cover of a dvd?

dont know much about graphs do you? I work with graphs and charts for a living.


I used to work with graphs and charts myself and the CO2 trends are hard to ignore. If you can't see them, then you must be a pretty incompetent employee.

so at what PPM CO2 will the earth be destroyed?

At the rate we're going, we're definitely going to find out.

I used to work with graphs and charts myself and the CO2 trends are hard to ignore. If you can't see them, then you must be a pretty incompetent employee.

be that as it may, I still would like to know at what PPM of CO2 scientists theorize life on earth will end, or at leaset take a bad hit.

At the rate we're going, we're definitely going to find out.

oh ya, the trends. There is a trend of me making more money every year too but that doesnt mean I am going to be rich any time soon

FORT COLLINS, Colo. (AP) - A late El Nino this year confounded hurricane forecasters' predictions for the Atlantic storm season, which turned out to be much quieter than normal, hurricane expert William Gray's team said Friday.
Gray and fellow Colorado State University researcher Philip Klotzbach had predicted a well-above-average season in their forecasts issued in December, early April and late May.
In late the May forecast, they still expected 17 named storms, including nine hurricanes.
Instead, there have been nine named storms, five of them hurricanes, since the Atlantic storm season started on June 1. The season ends Nov. 30.
"A variety of factors interact with each other to cause year-to-year and month-to-month hurricane variability," Klotzbach said in the statement. "It is impossible to understand how all these processes interact with each other to 100 percent certainty." The 2006 Atlantic season had the fewest named storms since 1997, the fewest hurricanes since 2002 and the fewest named storms to make U.S. landfall since 2001.

Hurricane Central (http://www.localnewswatch.com/benton/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=26936)

Trav, your just not to bright are you? But you make a good conservative! How rude...you don't walk up to crippled people and say "don't walk much do you?"

Let our 'special' friend Trav believe he is mentally equal...it makes him smile a lot.

Trav, your just not to bright are you? But you make a good conservative!
Ahem...it's "too bright", genius, and typically, you should avoid starting a sentence with a preposition. Given your criticism (or for lack of a better way to put it - unintentional irony), I’m given to thinking that you make a pretty stellar liberal yourself.

hey, someone posted a graph showing an increase in PPM of CO2. To have any relevance we must know at what PPM things start going south. You dont know much about graphs do you? I work with graphs and charts for a living, and I know how they can be manipulated. An example is with "spikes". Its easy to make anything into a spike if you shrink the scale enough. Now tell me Einstein, at what PPM of CO2 will the earth be beyond hope? Certainly some scientist somewhere has figured that out. How close are we to that? How quickly are we increasing? Just putting up some number saying ther is more CO2 now then there was 10,000 years ago doesnt mean shit on its own, we need some context.

Thanks for the compliment:p But I am certain that at 100% it will be pretty lethal.:D
What you seem to not able to see is our effect on the earth. Clearly our presence is not a positive one. When people like you try and hide the consequences of our actions, saying all is well it really shows your stupidity.
Clearly if for no other reason than for future generations we should err on the side of caution and look at this issue as valid. To do nothing and be wrong clearly leaves my children and grandchildren in a mess.
If it costs me a few hundred dollars a year so be it! At least it will show to my children and future generations that I cared about them.
As for youself and other Conservatives who do not care about their childrens future, save a couple of hundred bucks. Thats all that's important...right?

I assume that a similiar conversation was carried out before.
There are lots of Passenger Pigeons, look there are no way they are ever going to be gone, it's all bad statistics, the numbers are wrong and I see lots of them...how can they be in trouble!
Fucking Idiots!!!!

Ahem...it's "too bright", genius, and typically, you should avoid starting a sentence with a preposition. Given your criticism (or for lack of a better way to put it - unintentional irony), I’m given to thinking that you make a pretty stellar liberal yourself.

I think he got the point...me, I'm right in the center Mister Grammer Nazi;)
We really need a thread on spelling and grammer, to show off our grasp of the english language. You'd shine there!
FEEL FREE TO(or is it too) SPELL CHECK THIS POST

Or are you telling us you can magically divulge thoughts from Al gore's brain from the cover of a dvd?

Don't need to Leper.. that DVD cover is "saying" that the humans are causing the hurricanes... its pretty obvious to anyone who looks at it..

So yea Al Gore thought he had the trend at the beginning... too bad this year was a dud, huh Al?

Don't need to Leper.. that DVD cover is "saying" that the humans are causing the hurricanes... its pretty obvious to anyone who looks at it..

So yea Al Gore thought he had the trend at the beginning... too bad this year was a dud, huh Al?
Here is the key word! It's not going to happen all at once.

Key Word what?

That hurricanes happen?

Back in the 1930's there were more hurricanes than there were now.. so how are you going to tell me that global warming is "causing" these hurricanes of today? Or that WE are the "cause" of this "global warming"...

Don't tell me you buy Al Gore's pathetic attempt at being a weatherman...

Key Word what?

That hurricanes happen?

Back in the 1930's there were more hurricanes than there were now.. so how are you going to tell me that global warming is "causing" these hurricanes of today? Or that WE are the "cause" of this "global warming"...

Don't tell me you buy Al Gore's pathetic attempt at being a weatherman...
I do believe that our actions are having an adverse effect on the earth.

Warm water gives strength to hurricanes.

Global warming causes rises in ocean tempuratures.

But no, don't let science or faccts and anything liek that get in the way of your partisan agenda...

Warm water gives strength to hurricanes.

Global warming causes rises in ocean tempuratures.


Thats not what i argue 500...

I just wonder if it can be PROVEN that WE cause the "global warming"?

And i wonder if Al Gore is going to continue his "fight" reguardless of who is in office.

Key Word what?

That hurricanes happen?

Back in the 1930's there were more hurricanes than there were now.. so how are you going to tell me that global warming is "causing" these hurricanes of today? Or that WE are the "cause" of this "global warming"...

Don't tell me you buy Al Gore's pathetic attempt at being a weatherman...

The concern has always been about the average number of hurricanes per year, and those concerns have been around long before Al Gore lended his name to the cause. Your insistance on focusing on isolated years and ignoring trends demonstrates your complete failure to understand the topic.

500lbguerilla is correct. Waters are getting warmer (unless you think thermometers are hocus-pocus too) and hurricanes tend to develop in warm water, that's the short of it. If you want to ignore that fact and insist no such thing occurs, you're welcome to join the crowds along with Holocaust deniers, creationists, and flat earth enthusiasts, but that doesn't keep you from being a stubborn as well as ignorant individual who lets political agendas determine your scientific knowledge.

Thats not what i argue 500...

I just wonder if it can be PROVEN that WE cause the "global warming"?

And i wonder if Al Gore is going to continue his "fight" reguardless of who is in office.

Then why are you debating whether more hurricanes are occuring? That's not an argument over causation.

Face it, your views on science are the product of a political agenda.

Then why are you debating whether more hurricanes are occuring? That's not an argument over causation.

Face it, your views on science are the product of a political agenda.

Actually.. i seem to be ARGUING AGAINST a "science" that is the "product of a political agenda"...

Al Gore says that humans are causing hurricanes... he says that the reason the earth is getting warmer is because of humans. I disagree, i think the earth IS getting warmer, but its just a natural cycle...

I dont deny that perhaps a small percentage of of warming can be blamed on humans, but that would be a VERY MINUTE percentage... in my opinion.

So stop labeling me... swan

Key Word what?

That hurricanes happen?

Back in the 1930's there were more hurricanes than there were now.. so how are you going to tell me that global warming is "causing" these hurricanes of today? Or that WE are the "cause" of this "global warming"...

Don't tell me you buy Al Gore's pathetic attempt at being a weatherman...
TREND has ups and downs, this years lack of hurricanes is part of the ups/downs but overall the trend has or will be more if global warming has it's influence.

I just wonder if it can be PROVEN that WE cause the "global warming"?
doesn't matter if we "cause" it. We are heavily contributing to it.

CO2 and Methane increase gloabal warming. FACT

Humans have dramatically increased the amount of CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere to unprecidented levels. FACT

Humans have dramatically increased the amount of CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere to unprecidented levels. FACT
Well, the solution is simple then - we should all stop breathing and farting, and we'll be fine, right?

Nation

Scientists say pollution may be helpful

03:24 PM EST on Thursday, November 16, 2006
By CHARLES J. HANLEY / Associated Press

NAIROBI, Kenya – If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to draw the shade. The "shade" would be a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the planet. This over-the-top idea comes from prominent scientists, among them a Nobel laureate. The reaction here at the U.N. conference on climate change is a mix of caution, curiosity and some resignation to such "massive and drastic" operations, as the chief U.N. climatologist describes them.

The Nobel Prize-winning scientist who first made the proposal is himself "not enthusiastic about it."

Also Online

U.N. climate change conference

NASA Ames Research Center
"It was meant to startle the policy makers," said Paul J. Crutzen, of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. "If they don't take action much more strongly than they have in the past, then in the end we have to do experiments like this."

Serious people are taking Crutzen's idea seriously. This weekend, NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., hosts a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global haze proposal and other "geoengineering" ideas for fending off climate change.

In Nairobi, meanwhile, hundreds of delegates were wrapping up a two-week conference expected to only slowly advance efforts to rein in greenhouse gases blamed for much of the 1-degree rise in global temperatures in the past century.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol requires modest emission cutbacks by industrial countries – but not the United States, the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, because it rejected the deal. Talks on what to do after Kyoto expires in 2012 are all but bogged down.

When he published his proposal in the journal Climatic Change in August, Crutzen cited a "grossly disappointing international political response" to warming.

The Dutch climatologist, awarded a 1995 Nobel in chemistry for his work uncovering the threat to Earth's atmospheric ozone layer, suggested that balloons bearing heavy guns be used to carry sulfates high aloft and fire them into the stratosphere.

While carbon dioxide keeps heat from escaping Earth, substances such as sulfur dioxide, a common air pollutant, reflect solar radiation, helping cool the planet.

Tom Wigley, a senior U.S. government climatologist, followed Crutzen's article with a paper of his own on Oct. 20 in the leading U.S. journal Science. Like Crutzen, Wigley cited the precedent of the huge volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991.

Pinatubo shot so much sulfurous debris into the stratosphere that it is believed it cooled the Earth by .9 degrees for about a year.

Wigley ran scenarios of stratospheric sulfate injection – on the scale of Pinatubo's estimated 10 million tons of sulfur – through supercomputer models of the climate, and reported that Crutzen's idea would, indeed, seem to work. Even half that amount per year would help, he wrote.

A massive dissemination of pollutants would be needed every year or two, as the sulfates precipitate from the atmosphere in acid rain.

Wigley said a temporary shield would give political leaders more time to reduce human dependence on fossil fuels – the main source of greenhouse gases. He said experts must more closely study the feasibility of the idea and its possible effects on stratospheric chemistry.

Nairobi conference participants agreed.

"Yes, by all means, do all the research," Indian climatologist Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the 2,000-scientist U.N. network on climate change, told The Associated Press.

But "if human beings take it upon themselves to carry out something as massive and drastic as this, we need to be absolutely sure there are no side effects," Pachauri said.

Philip Clapp, a veteran campaigner for emissions controls to curb warming, also sounded a nervous note, saying, "We are already engaged in an uncontrolled experiment by injecting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."

But Clapp, president of the U.S. group National Environmental Trust, said, "I certainly don't disagree with the urgency."

In past years scientists have scoffed at the idea of air pollution as a solution for global warming, saying that the kind of sulfate haze that would be needed is deadly to people. Last month, the World Heath Organization said air pollution kills about 2 million people worldwide each year and that reducing large soot-like particles from sulfates in cities could save 300,000 lives annually.

American geophysicist Jonathan Pershing, of Washington's World Resources Institute, is among those wary of unforeseen consequences, but said the idea might be worth considering "if down the road 25 years, it becomes more and more severe because we didn't deal with the problem."

By telephone from Germany, Crutzen said that's what he envisioned: global haze as a component for long-range planning. "The reception on the whole is more positive than I thought," he said.

Pershing added, however, that reaction may hinge on who pushes the idea. "If it's the U.S., it might be perceived as an effort to avoid the problem," he said.

NASA said this weekend's conference will examine "methods to ameliorate the likelihood of progressively rising temperatures over the next decades." Other such U.S. government-sponsored events are scheduled to follow.

©2006 The Associated Press.

This year no major hurricanes.

GLOBAL COOLING IS AT WORK NO LESS !!

I DEMAND ACTION ON GLOBAL COOLING !!

Well, the solution is simple then - we should all stop breathing and farting, and we'll be fine, right? Yup. You first. :D

"A variety of factors interact with each other to cause year-to-year and month-to-month hurricane variability," Klotzbach said in the statement. "It is impossible to understand how all these processes interact with each other to 100 percent certainty."

but not for the big brains at allforums! they read something on the internet!

Today, in New Jersey (Jan 6) it was 70 degress outside, we have every window in the house open and I worked outside all day in shorts. Who cares if Florida is going to be six feet under water in 10 years. This is suh-weet! Warmest weather since.....2001.

I saw a study the other day, pointing out 2 things:

1. The ice caps on Mars are getting smaller... I bet that's because there are humans on the planet NEXT to it... and that is happening because....

2. The sun is burning the brightest it ever has in the last 1000 years right now....

I'll try to find the link..

I saw a study the other day, pointing out 2 things:

1. The ice caps on Mars are getting smaller... I bet that's because there are humans on the planet NEXT to it... and that is happening because....

2. The sun is burning the brightest it ever has in the last 1000 years right now....

I'll try to find the link..

While you're at it, do you mind investigating who the source of your information is? I would bet there's an oil company behind it.