Global Warming is a Fraud.....

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-01-26 04:43pm

Snowing yet AGAIN here in Washington DC.......and it's pretty goddamn
heavy snowfall too....

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-26 04:53pm

I suggest you measure the snowfall year by year and see if there's a trend going down.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-01-26 05:39pm

jaeger115 wrote:I suggest you measure the snowfall year by year and see if there's a trend going down.

The problem then is that you don't know if the temperature increase is a result of human activity. Sure, the temperature has gone up in the last 100 years, but how has it changed in the last 1,000 years, or the last 100,000 years?

I say we prevent the polar icecaps from melting with a giant air conditioner. We put a few million gallons of freon in a whale tank, and using the same mechanism behind a household air conditioner, cool the icecap. If you want to know, I was being sarcastic in this paragraph.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-01-26 05:39pm

yeah it is going down. It hasn't snowed that much the year before, or the the year before that. The occasional irregularity is irrelavent. Of course I live in VA, a few miles south of Shep, so he'll just blame it on that.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-01-26 05:42pm

The air conditioner thing would not work since the excess heat has to go somewhere.

I think the trend of less snow is increasing too rapidly though for it to be completely natural, though some component of it probably is.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-01-26 10:50pm

supposedly the reason its colder further south is this: icecaps melt > ocean cools > air cools

in nature this would lead to a rebalance with the air thus not warming and the ice could refreeze and the cycle will repeat, but with human intervention (CFCs, CO2, etc) the ice will continue to melt and stay melted. It is going to get colder before it gets warmer, the same way an icecube in a glass of water turns the water colder even tho the water and ice as a system are heating up.

eventually the water will also warm and the weather will get warmer (and also wetter) and we'll see lots more rain and hot weather in northern climates. the regions with lots of rain will only get more. Another side effect is increased plant growth thanks to more CO2. more plants = less CO2 which would balance out with the production of CO2 leaving only CFCs as the major contributor and the ecosphere will remain in a nice balmy state.

But its going to get colder before it gets warmer (we still have an entire continent of 2 mile thick ice to tackle)

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-01-27 01:35am

Interestinly enough Shep, Global Warming on a large scale would probably mean a cooling of temperatures for much of the US and Canada. Massive runnof from melting glaciers could interrupt or divert the Gulf Stream , a portion of a global thermal conveyor system in the oceans, and cause a dramatic increase in the severity of winters and massive drought for much of the West and Mid-West as the normal infusion of warm water and air that moderates the effects of Arctic Air would slow to a trickle.

Some scientists theorize that this happens on occasion and was responsible for the arctic winters of 1775-1778(When temps regularly dropped to -20 to -30 Farenheit all across the East Coast and Mid-West) and again in 1888 and 1890 when extended blizzard conditions were reported as far south as Mobile Bay, Alabama.

People always assume that Global Warming means the whole planet turns into a desert as we bake under a relenless sun, however the ecosystem is far to complicated for so simplistic an answer. Ask a climatologist and they will shake there head and tell you that the results are competly un-predictable, the variables are simply to huge to ponder. Some say desert and famine while other ay Ice Age, from exactly the same data. This is why there has been no scientific or governmental concensus on the steps needed to combat a problem that no one can agree on whats going to happen.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-01-27 01:37am

If anyone's been paying any attention to the Sun's output, it's cyclical. Hence, Earth warms up and cool down at slightly regular intervals.

I just don't understand what all the panic is about. It's a cycle, we've lived through it before.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-01-27 02:55am

Crayz9000 wrote:If anyone's been paying any attention to the Sun's output, it's cyclical. Hence, Earth warms up and cool down at slightly regular intervals.

I just don't understand what all the panic is about. It's a cycle, we've lived through it before.

You're absolutely correct, and in fact recently several key elements of the global warming theory have been disproved by sound scientific research, as opposed to the pseudoscience used to create them.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-01-27 02:59am

(Jan. [08] - A natural chemical that scrubs pollution from the sky is more abundant than previously believed, leading scientists to wonder if they have been underestimating the atmosphere's ability to cleanse itself.

A new study by European scientists shows levels of the chemical, hydroxyl, are probably steady or even on the rise. Details appear Thursday in the journal Nature.

The report contradicts a U.S. study published in 2001 suggesting hydroxyl levels have dropped dramatically since 1990. The author of that report, Ronald Prinn of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was out of the country and unavailable for comment, his secretary said.

Hydroxyl, or OH, is important because it chemically reacts with a range of polluting gases, including methane and carbon monoxide, and removes them from the atmosphere.

The short-lived chemical is difficult to directly measure. Instead, scientists measure concentrations of chemicals that react with it.

For years, the best proxy has been a banned industrial solvent called methyl chloroform.

Since it was produced and used in known quantities until outlawed in 1987, scientists compared its industrial output with its measurable presence in the atmosphere. The difference between the two allowed the amount removed by hydroxyl - and thus levels of hydroxyl itself - to be deduced.

The Prinn study was based on calculations that methyl chloroform emissions had fallen to near zero.

Instead, measurements made over Europe in 2000 showed emissions of the chemical have persisted, albeit in small amounts, despite the 1987 ban, said Maarten Krol, of the Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research Utrecht, Netherlands.

The source is unknown, but could be waste products buried in European dumps or the continued, illicit use of the solvent, Krol said.

The finding throws into doubt the theory that the cleansing capacity of the atmosphere has been reduced, since hydroxyl concentrations would have been further depleted had methyl chloroform levels fallen to zero.

``Maybe the dramatic stories about the collapse of the oxidizing capacity of the atmosphere are based on false assumptions,'' said Krol, who has debated the subject with Prinn for years.

Steve Montzka, a research chemist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colo., said Krol's paper showed how the emissions assumptions underpinning Prinn's work may be flawed.

``Without any emissions, you would not need as much OH to explain the changes observed in the atmosphere for methyl chloroform,'' Montzka said. ``With more emissions, it means you need more OH.''

01/08/03 15:22 EST

- Originally from AOL's news service.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-01-27 05:13am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Crayz9000 wrote:If anyone's been paying any attention to the Sun's output, it's cyclical. Hence, Earth warms up and cool down at slightly regular intervals.

I just don't understand what all the panic is about. It's a cycle, we've lived through it before.
You're absolutely correct, and in fact recently several key elements of the global warming theory have been disproved by sound scientific research, as opposed to the pseudoscience used to create them.

Pseudoscience > science. That's how it works to the average Layman, if it makes the world better or horrifyingly worse then they'll believe it no matter how mad or bad it is.

We live in an age where some people still believe the Earth is flat...

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-01-27 08:22am

--WTF? This wasn't even a double post, but a partial post, without me even noticing, and continuing to type the rest of it? --

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-01-27 08:23am

s Problem is, the most comon greenhouse gas is CO2, which is produced in vast amounts by burning fuel, keeping cows, etc, as OH reacts with CO abd CHO, to form CO2. Companies seem to think that planting a few trees will make up for it, but neglect the fact that trees provide habitats for numerous animlas, so that the net CO2 flux from any wooded area is about 0 (in modern preindustrial conditions).

Yes, the earth's climate changes naturally, but anthropogenic activity is producing about 50% of the atmosphere's greenhouse gases, and Just because something happens naturally doens't mean it's necessarily ethical to keep adding to it. In an extreme analogy - sick babies die. Should we murder them?

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2003-01-27 12:15pm

The fact that it's snowing does not disprove the GHE. What kojikun was describing was partially what lead to the last iceage. The CO2 and some other gasses look, if you are seeing in infra red, pitch black. They absorb a good deal of heat. The earth has to absorb a certain amount of heat and radiate a certain percent of that heat back. 1/3% less or more means the difference between instant ice age or superhurricanes. We're rapidly reaching the point where we could see a large destruction of the polar ice caps, which, though it will cool the earth a great deal, would shift the Gulf Stream, which would render all of Europe as inhabitable as the northern canadian territories. This shift would also reak havoc with the earth's ecosystems and destroy thousands of species.
According to samples taken from the icecaps, the earth's CO2 levels haven't been this high, in the past 100000+ years.

Also, the cyclic nature of the sun's out put is irrelevant, the earth is CLOSER to the sun during winter in the Northern Hemisphere, but that doesn't mean it's any balmier than the southern winter. The amount of sunlight, depending on the direction of the the earth due to its axis, is what causes the difference between summer and winter.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-01-27 12:21pm

SyntaxVorlon wrote:Also, the cyclic nature of the sun's out put is irrelevant, the earth is CLOSER to the sun during winter in the Northern Hemisphere, but that doesn't mean it's any balmier than the southern winter. The amount of sunlight, depending on the direction of the the earth due to its axis, is what causes the difference between summer and winter.

Are you stupid or something? Yes, the tilt of the Earth's axis is what causes summer and winter, but it's not responsible for the OVERALL AMOUNT of solar output that the Earth gets. Remember, when the Northern Hemisphere is in winter, the Southern Hemisphere is in SUMMER.

If the solar output increases appreciably, then the entire planet is going to warm up. Not catastrophically, but enough to make a slight difference.

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2003-01-27 02:40pm

Mars icecaps have been melting as well as the Earths, which suggests that Mars' tempeture is rising as well.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-01-27 03:06pm

I think the strongest proof for global warming is probably that an entire island nation is now under water. My father put it best..

We are repeatedly told that global warning isn't proven, but that if it were to become a problem, the Invisible Hand of the free markets would ensure that a solution would be forthcoming. Well it's too late. The government of Tuvalu has given up. The islands are being abandoned - with luck all 11,000 inhabitants will be off before they finally disappear below the rising waters of the Pacific. Of course, there is the minor problem of finding new homes for them on an ever more crowded planet. But since global warming isn't a problem it follows that there can be no victims, so there is no need to help - no need to care.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-01-27 06:01pm

Tuvalu is gone? I liked Tuvalu. What a shame. =\

But the truth is, a STORM SURGE could make pacific islands go under

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-01-27 06:36pm

The interesting thing is that in global warming models the northern ice cap would decrease by almost the exact same amount as the southern ice cap would increase. That is because the current antartic temperatures are so low that the air cannot hold any water and thus precipitation is negligible, in fact the antartic is considered a massive desert. With the temperature increasing by an average of 1 or 2 degrees kelvin the southern ice cap will increase in size because there will be greater precipitation and since southern ice is formed by the compression of snow, the southern ice cap will increase in size.

The problem with sea levels rising is that of thermal expansion, the oceans being a few degrees higher in temperature on average will expand because of their increased heat, leading to sea levels rising.

This information is comming from a lecture by both Tony Barnston, director of forecast operations and John Mutter, Associate Vice Provost of the Columbia University Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory.

The basic answer to how to prevent global warming, simple stop eating lobster and crab and shrimp. All three come right out of the ocean and all of them are carbon fixers turning carbon into their shells of calcium carbonate, and those shells eventually will become limestone and marble but in the mean time the carbon will still be fixed.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-01-27 06:57pm

if the northern icecap melted the sea levels would not rise one inch for the same reason that a glass of icewater doesnt rise when icecups melt. if the antartic icecap does indeed increase, then sea levels would drop.

btw napoleon, liquids dont expand with heat the same way gases do (atleast, i dont think they do). if they did, a simmering pot of water would be many times more voluminous then a pot of icewater.

sea levels will rise because Greenlands glaciers will melt. Greenland is about HUGE square miles in area, so all that ice will very severly raise the oceans height.

And its not the CO2 thats doing the heat trapping, its all the CFCs. Chlorofluorocarbons trap more heat then CO2 could ever hope to trap.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-01-27 07:40pm

SirNitram wrote:I think the strongest proof for global warming is probably that an entire island nation is now under water. My father put it best..

According to the BBC, Tuvalu isn't sinking yet--it's just projected to go underwater.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 219001.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 249549.stm

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-01-27 07:45pm

Crayz9000 wrote:
SirNitram wrote:I think the strongest proof for global warming is probably that an entire island nation is now under water. My father put it best..
According to the BBC, Tuvalu isn't sinking yet--it's just projected to go underwater.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 219001.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 249549.stm

I got my dates mixed up then. I'm sorry.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-01-27 07:48pm

Currently the Globe is warming, though Ice core samples show its actually been cooling in the long term. However ice measurements also show that the warming process began 10,000 years ago or more. Whatever is doing it is not related to human activity.

Our best bet is to keep economices strong and use the money to combat the side effects of warming, such as higher sea leves, rather then crippling them in an effort that with have minimal, or morel ikely no effect on the warming process.

As I recall it was esimated that the universal adoption of Kyoto would have bought the Earth 4 years in 1000, so by the year 3000 we'd only be as warm as we would be in 2996 without it.

Better to spend the billions copying the Netherlands.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-01-27 07:51pm

SirNitram wrote:
Crayz9000 wrote:
SirNitram wrote:I think the strongest proof for global warming is probably that an entire island nation is now under water. My father put it best..
According to the BBC, Tuvalu isn't sinking yet--it's just projected to go underwater.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 219001.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 249549.stm
I got my dates mixed up then. I'm sorry.

Do they actually know that the problem is all the rising seas, and not say the island actually sinking, or some combination of the two? After all, many pacific islands are the result of geological uplifting, not adjustments in sea level

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-01-27 09:09pm

kojikun wrote:if the northern icecap melted the sea levels would not rise one inch for the same reason that a glass of icewater doesnt rise when icecups melt. if the antartic icecap does indeed increase, then sea levels would drop.

btw napoleon, liquids dont expand with heat the same way gases do (atleast, i dont think they do). if they did, a simmering pot of water would be many times more voluminous then a pot of icewater.

sea levels will rise because Greenlands glaciers will melt. Greenland is about HUGE square miles in area, so all that ice will very severly raise the oceans height.

And its not the CO2 thats doing the heat trapping, its all the CFCs. Chlorofluorocarbons trap more heat then CO2 could ever hope to trap.

First off CFCs are not the primary greenhouse gasses (im not even sure that they are greenhouse gasses) CO2 is acting as the primary initiator currently, CFC levels arent really going anywhere right now, if anything they are dropping. its the CO2 buddy.

Ok lets review, Ice is less dense than water, the ice on the north pole is floating ON TOP of the water, thus if it were to melt the overall sea level would raise because all this water that was in effect forming an "ice mass" on top of the ocean is now going to be in the water and contributing to sea level rising, likewise the ice covering antartica is on top of a continent, or if you are talking about the ice shelf is on top of the water again, thus making the point real, and the data took into account the greenlandian ice melting.

Furthermore water is subject to thermal expansion, sure it isnt nearly as large a deal was with gases, but when you are talking about a 100meter rise in ocean levels when the oceans go many thousands of meters deep, the actual amount of thermal expansion is necessary, but water is less dense at higher temperatures. In reverse water eventually reaches its most dense at 276 K (or is it 277 i can never remember). then as it approaches 273 it decreases in density until it forms ice which is as you all knwo less dense than liquid water at Standard Pressure