I want my global warming Al gore
 

Hey gore you promised me it was coming you liar....its late april and the temp is a bitterly cold 12 C outside.....if i start my truck and let it idle all night will that help me get the global warming back online you idiot?

Ya this thread is meant in fun folks, its okay, i have not snapped and lost what little mind i had left.

If you have something to say, just get any life into a BC thread, please chime in.
This chapter is dead lately. :-drink

i hear ya man...

were is this global warmnig thing happening ??? cuz i wanna move there.. im sik the winter we had this year..

in fact im already over my limit for next winter, this one was so long, hahahaah

Ya I feel rather ripped off.

After gore did his retard movie a few years back he had me convinced i would be able to waterski in shuswap lake 12 months a year, and be riding streek bikes year round in shorts also.

Well not even close....Winters are getting longer, colder, and more snow here than ever before.
Its late april and I am freezing on a short bike ride.

Kidding that gore had me convinced about global warming.
Trends have shown for years and years we are cooling.

I just like watching gores myths explode in his face, too bad he is already rich and has many mansions, biz jets etc.

Sigh, the more he lied, the richer he gets.

I want warming dang it:-blah

I am in AB now,this morning when I woke up it was -12. There is still 6 inches of snow in the yard. This sucks!

Global warming my ass.

Winters getting colder and longer. Summers getting hotter and shorter. Hell, in 05, I was wearing shorts at the end of February.

The sun heats the earth differently according to solar flare activity. This year, I have read, has been the quietest year in a hundred, with regards to solar activity.

Al Gore is a flake and is using climate change as a way to get rich with carbon trading. His wealth has doubled since that lying movie of his was produced.

This is also the Al Gore that in the 70's determined that we were in for a new ice age if we did not prevent pollution- blah blah blah

Carbon dioxide accounts for 4% of atmospheric temp control and water vapour accounts for 95%.

Trouble for the environmentalists is that they can't blame human activity for water vapour.

By the way, without carbon dioxide life could not exist on earth.

Hey Al, its still cold here you liar.

Get on with this warming stuff you jerk. :rolleyes:

Where is Al Gore anyway? Haven't seen hide or hair of him in months. Rumor had it he was working on another film that is supposed to be even scarier than the first.

What sucks more than our weather is we are paying a carbon tax on fuels which just bumped up over canada day.

It will never change a thing in the climate, but they shoved it down our throats anyway. Hey, at least we're doing something right?

The facts of the matter are that global temperatures are declining since 1998, despite a continued increase in "GHG emissions", so the so called scientific consensus is defective to say the least.

Severe weather is also not increasing as observed by international statistics. In fact, it seems that hurricanes are less common now than just a few years ago.

Northern sea ice is shrinking, but southern sea ice is expanding, so we don't have to worry about rising sea levels either. Polar bears are also doing just fine with a population of 24000 and rising.

Gee, I'd really need to check out some of the (short term) trends you mention. Can you give me some references? I'm skeptical, to say the least, but will read anything you can send me.
I'm sure you know that many reports on global warming were and are funded by Big Oil and so they need to be studied very carefully before being believed.

Sorry, but I disagree about the carbon tax, I think it is the way to go so long as tons of the collected money is funneled into alternative energy development. If the money is simply absorbed into the government coffers, the intent is subverted.

Let me add some FTE relevant stuff... we drove our '76 with the 460 about 110 kilometers over the last 12 months and that's too much. I can't wait to get rid of the 460...

As you wish...
 

My preferred source of climate data is currently off line (University of Alabama, Huntsville).

But the presentation given here by John Christy has most of the points (including graphs and statistics):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWpH0lmcxA

I'll see if I can find some alternative sources. Give me some time.

Sea ice article:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20010918/

Here we go:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig2a.gif

Its important to note that CO2 emissions have NOT decreased in the last 10 years.

I don't think NASA gets funding from Exxon.

David85: first off- I would expect Exxon would definitely fund NASA, but, I don't know.

Specific comment:
The first two plots for temperature anomalies you displayed seem to be increasing for both Global and Low Latitudes. In classic fashion the change is abrupt starting in the mid '70s. The data would be considered "textbook" on this change.
The third plot seems to have a bigger area over the zero points than under them - again indicating increased temperatyre (I am not familiar with what was measured here)

General comment:
Yes, we all have heard a number of nay-sayers re climate change over the last decades but the number, in the last 5 years has diminished drastically. Are all the people now convinced that there is serious global climate change just sheep who go along with Al Gore and Dave Suzuki? I think not. Many of them have looked at the piles of data - some of it completely contradictory, some of it skewed by incorrect assumptions and null hypotheses. In the end the nay-sayers are fading and everyone has to take a stand and even be willing to be wrong!

I have enough science and maths background to be skepical about most data and statistics I observe in the media. I learned long ago that unless one is willing to look in detail at each set of data... how they were collected; what the biases of the reasearchers were; what the assumptions were; what unknown variables were influencing the data; what calibre of equipment; time of day, month/year etc., etc., one is probably forced accept the mass of data on faith and look for trends in the data over time. We have been cutting down forests, releasing CO2 (and other so-called green house gases including CH4 (too many ungulates) for centuries now). The oceans can only act like a buffer for so long before their ability to absorb disolvable gases slows. There is strong eveidence that the pH of oceans is lowering I think. So how does one assess all this information? IMO. it comes down to a question of risk.

Are you willing to continue with the Industrial Revolutuion no matter what the consequences MIGHT be or are you a person who is willing to make changes in your lifestyle JUST IN CASE the continued uncontrolled burning of Fossil fuels will change the planet too much to be acceptable to our descendants...

There is much evidence that the [CO2] is increasing enough to acidicify the oceans. This will likely lead to ecocollapse in coral reefs and impair the ability of shelled plankton to make their CaCO3 coverings. Then watch how fast things change!

I buy insurance JUST IN CASE something really bad happens to my home or vehicle. It likely won’t happen but I continue to buy insurance. The decrease in CO2 emissions that the G8/G10/G20 countires are trying to come to a concensus about is a form of global insurance.

At 61 years of age I’m willing to change now - if I’m wrong what damage have I done? If I'm right, my conscience is clear and my kids(greatgrand kids?) will think well of me and not piss on my grave.


Sea ice. Yes I understand that the amount of short term (thin) sea ice changes depending on El Nino/La Nina cycle, but what about the thickness of the older (used to be permanent) ice on the Antarctica itself which stretches out into the oceans. It has been breaking off in gigantic chunks over the last decade or so.
And what about the thinning of the thick (not seasonal) ice up at our end of the planet. It is shrinking fast (I read 2.2 feet) over the last few years.

In summary, David, you are free to believe and do what you want for the near future. I enjoy my F250 pickup very much, but in the end it is just a vehicle and therefore really of no importance at all. We almost never drive it and will have it recycled pretty soon - the only question is whether to have it crushed or to just recycle the engine and keep the bulk of the vehicle.

Cheers.

Mr. Fixit

Sorry I'm late. You didn't reply for a while and I lost track of this thread.

I am most certainly very interested in evidence and any potential sources for error. Thats elementary grade science, one of the few things I still believe in.

Your "err on the side of caution" argument is not a scientific one. Its faith based. That doesn't make your opinion wrong or immoral and you are free to believe what ever you want and manage your own life however you see fit based on that belief. But it is not in any way, shape of form, a valid measure of proof or a smoking gun. No one has shown one for anthropogenic climate change yet. It is assumed, but not demonstrated and correlation is not causality. Again, grade school science.

What I posted was a graph that shows how temperatures are leveling off after 1998 and dropping slightly. The steep rise that started in the 70s is over. This despite continued expansion of industrial activity all over the world. What is also not shown quite so clearly here is how temperatures actually dropped off slightly from WW2 to 1979 despite a constant ramp up in industrial activity over the post war economic boom period.

Some one on another forum (an AGW activist, like you in fact) brought this website to my attention. You might find it interesting.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gis...1998/magnitude

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gis...rom:1998/trend

You can plug in any year you like but before 1979, the data is less not as plentiful because there was less satellite tracking before that year.

What is interesting is how surface observed temperature rose during the period I selected, but all the other data sets show a decline. But for the sake of argument, I will call it a flat line. Either way, its not any kind of thermal runaway that the AGW theory calls for according to Suzuki, Gore and the IPCC.

I do find this website even more interesting because it might offer some clues as to why we see such a discrepancy between surface readings and satellite readings.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

NOAA will of course deny this and they are in damage control mode, but thats hardly surprising.

OK, give me a little time to chew on those sites. BTW, thanks for calling me an "Activist" - I haven't been labeled so since my college protest days about the Amchitka nuclear tests. You made me feel young again, thanks!

It wasn't intended as an insult or compliment.

I would generally be called a skeptic, contrarian, or denier depending on who you ask, but neither really fully describes my position on the issue. Much like the original term "global warming" is also an incomplete description, but anyone will know what you are talking about if you say it.

EDIT: Other terms like "believer" and "alarmist" are sometimes thrown around, but I figured those were even less appropriate (if they were ever) so I tried to use the most neutral term as possible to name your position.

If you found the term offensive, I apologize.