I guess you want them to bring back the old smokey exhaust pipes and lead gasoline of the past, BF. Lead pain, DDT and the rest of it, too. These changes happened because of people who care about the environment, not people like you.
Printable View
I guess you want them to bring back the old smokey exhaust pipes and lead gasoline of the past, BF. Lead pain, DDT and the rest of it, too. These changes happened because of people who care about the environment, not people like you.
And can you explain why even years ago when petrol was filled with lead the roadsides were still flourishing ? getting rid of lead was a good thing. Trying to reduce co2 is a scam !I'm as against any pollution as the next man but you seem to have missed the whole point. co2 isn't a pollutant and without it we could not live. This is about making out it is and taxing and controlling what people can and cannot do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Radius
If you had been paying attention at the time that lead free petrol was introduced, or you had enough interest in being accurate to actually research what you say. you would have discovered that lead was removed for two reasonsQuote:
Originally Posted by The Big Fella
1. the lead permanently broke catalytic converters necessary to remove car pollutants causing smogs in major urban areas.
2. children are particularly sensitive to brain damage caused by lead. in urban areas around the world, blood lead levels were rising and there was concern about this. there was a lot of argument about how much of this lead came from petrol, much of the doubt coming from the oil industry. that was killed off when it was shown that 90% if the lead in the blood of Swedish children came from lead in petrol.
Now to turn your question round, what does lead in petrol have to do with hedgerows flourishing... well absolutely nothing.
But then it does sound good doesn't it, its whats called a "false analogy" one of the many effective tools of the propagandist and tin foil head both of whom want you to believe something that they cannot prove with evidence because they have none. And as such if you catch someone using one of these you can be fairly certain that they are either a propagandist trying to brainwash you or one of their victims trying the same... And that you should check and verify everything that they say to you.
The problem is that everybody I have ever come across that calls climate change and co2 reduction a scam has been unable to provide evidence, just the tools of the propagandist. The claim of conspiracy without being able to find provide any supporting evidence like funding of astroturf groups etc, cherry picking, misrepresentations or plain ordinary lying. As such we get the same old debunked claims being repeated again and again, just as we do with aids denialists, the pro smoking groups, the flat earth society to name a few.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Big Fella
Co2 isn't a pollutant, This has been discussed at length at this site, but putting it simply a pollutant is any compound that is released into the environment at a rate faster than it can be removed, dispersed, diluted, recycled or rendered inert. now lets be honest here co2 is rising and its rising because uts got nowhere to go... that makes the co2 humans are adding to their environment due to their actions pollution
This is about making out it is and taxing and controlling what people can and cannot do. So how does this invalidate the results of all of the environmental models? including the best model, designed by climent sceptics to address all of their concerns about existing models. well rather like your lead in petrol and hedgrows, the answer is simply government policy does not have anything to do with the validity of the climate models.
now there's an interesting little website called, Plants Need CO2 - First Page which tells us how co2 is good for us and not something we need to worry about, when you take a little look at their about us we get:
well lets have a little look at the backgroundQuote:
"Our mission is to educate the public on the positive effects of additional atmospheric CO2 and help prevent the inadvertent negative impact to human, plant and animal life if we reduce CO2. Plants Need CO2 is a 501 (c)(3) non profit corporation." H. Leighton Steward
Leighton Steward is a geologist, environmentalist, author, and retired energy industry executive. He has written about the reasons for the loss of much of the Mississippi River delta (Louisiana's National Treasure) and has given advice on how the nation can achieve "no net loss" of wetlands in the future; advice that has been accepted by the EPA and U. S. Corps of Engineers. Leighton was lead author on a book about nutrition and health (Sugar Busters) that gave advice on how to lose weight and prevent and or treat diabetes. The book became a #1 New York Times Best seller for sixteen weeks and made a significant contribution to the changes that have occurred regarding the availability of no-sugar-added, higher fiber, and low-glycemic products in the super markets. More recently, he has written a book (Fire, Ice and Paradise) that is an endeavor to educate the non-scientist about the many causes of global climate change so that the reader will be better prepared to understand what they hear, see, and read about in the media and from the politicians. In recognition of his many environmental efforts, Leighton has received numerous environmental awards, including the regional EPA Administrator's Award for environmental excellence.
He is Chairman of the Board of The Institute for the Study of Earth and Man at SMU, was Chairman of the National Wetlands Coalition, and was twice Chairman of the Audubon Nature Institute. Leighton currently serves on the boards or boards of visitors of the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, EOG Resources, The Buffalo Bill Historical Center, the Southwest Research Institute, and is an emeritus member of the Tulane University board.
Leighton's current interest lies in helping to educate the general public and the politicians about the tremendous benefits of carbon dioxide (CO2) as it relates to the plant and animal kingdoms and their related ecosystems and habitats, and the general health of humanity.
looking up Leighton Steward we discover what those executive positions were. well it turns out that he is not that 'retired' since 2004 he has been a director of EOGreasources who state that they are
By the way the company used to be known as Enron Oil and Gas Company....Quote:
EOG Resources, Inc. is one of the largest independent (non-integrated) crude oil and natural gas companies in the United State
And this is what they have to say about their director
Now lets take a look at the website, who's behind that. well whois today showsQuote:
Originally Posted by enron
Registrant Name:Leighton Steward
Registrant Phone:+1.7137517511
Registrant Email:[email protected]
Now quintana minerals is run by Corbin J. Robertson, who owns huge amount of coal in the US, comes from Big Oil family, and has been active together with the lock brothers in financing climate denial woo.
That's an huge amount of big oil and coal behind a website that makes out it a little known geologist just trying to get his message across. And this what you always find when you look into claimant denial, just like with lung cancer and smoking... behind every active denialist was a tobacco industry bagman
This is the curse of america, its how these rich people who represent the richest 1% of america have no only managed to reduce teh income of 99% of americans from 90% of national income to 60% and take it for themselves.... yet still manage to get americans as a whole to back the policies that have done this with a smile.
Personally I would at least verify any of the self interested facts these people give regarding climent change. you would have to be a fucking fool not too.
^
^^
These are facts, Hazz, reasoning, logic, science. Utterly inneffective against the babble of the un-evolved flat earthers who pontificate false analogies punctuated by their greatist and overused insult--the laughing icon. Admirable attempt at education, but a waste of time with some. None are so blind..., and all that.
Late 20th century was warmest in 1,400 years
Earth was cooling until the end of the 19th century and a hundred years later, the planet’s surface was on average warmer than at any time in the previous 1,400 years, according to climate records presented on Sunday.
In a study spanning two millennia published in Nature Geoscience, scientists said a “long-term cooling trend” around the world swung into reverse in the late 19th century.
In the 20th century, the average global temperature was 0.4 degrees Celsius (0.7 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than that of the previous 500 years, with only Antarctica bucking the trend.
From 1971-2000, the planet was warmer than at any other time in nearly 1,400 years.
This measure is a global average, and some regions did experience warmer periods than that — but only for a time. Europe, for instance, was probably warmer in the first century AD than at the end of the 20th century.
The investigation is the first attempt to reconstruct temperatures over the last 2,000 years for individual continents.
It seeks to shed light on a fiercely-contested aspect in the global-warming debate.
Sceptics have claimed bouts of cooling or warming before the Industrial Revolution — including two episodes in Europe called the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age — are proof that climate variations are natural, not man-made.
The new study does not wade into the debate about greenhouse gases, but points to two planetary trends.
The first is a clear, prolonged period of cooling. It may have been caused by a combination of factors, including an increase in volcanic activity, with stratospheric ashes reflecting the sunlight, or a decrease in solar activity or tiny changes in Earth’s orbit, both of which would diminish sunlight falling on the planet.
The cooling — between 0.1-0.3 C (0.2-0.6 F) per thousand years, depending on the region — went into reverse towards the end of the 19th century, and was followed by an intensifying period of warming in the 20th, the paper said.
Beneath this global trend over 2,000 years were episodes of continental cooling or warming, some of which were quite long.
And some continents lagged the overall planetary trend, but with the exception of Antarctica, all followed it.
“Distinctive periods, such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age stand out, but do not show a globally uniform pattern on multi-decadal time scales,” said Heinz Wanner of the University of Bern in Switzerland, one of 78 researchers from 24 countries who took part in the project.
“There are things that are common to all the regions of the planet — long-term cooling, until the 19th century, followed by warming on all continents, except for Antarctica, where it is less clear, but also strong variations from one region to another,” Hugues Goosse, a climatologist at Belgium’s Catholic University of Leuven, told AFP.
Previous research into climate change has pointed to a warming spurt in the 20th century and attributed it to the rise of heat-trapping carbon gases emitted by burning coal, oil and gas.
The warming trend shifted up a gear in the middle of the 1970s, in line with record-breaking levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), according to this past research.
2012 saw the 36th straight year that global temperatures were above average since 1880, when scientifically acceptable records were first kept, and was the ninth or 10th warmest on record, US scientists said in January.
The temperature reconstruction published on Sunday was coordinated by a scientific initiative called the Past Global Changes (PAGES) 2K Network.
It brings together weather data as well as telltales of temperature variation from tree rings, pollen, corals, lake and marine sediments, ice cores and stalagmites garnered at 511 locations across seven continental-scale regions.
Climate records for Africa, though, were sparse, the researchers cautioned.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v.../ngeo1797.html
The sea levels are now rising 60% faster than predicted in 1990. Sea levels rising faster than expected | Environment | DW.DE | 28.11.2012
related,.........Quote:
Originally Posted by S Landreth
Major PAGES 2k Network Paper Confirms the Hockey Stick
PAGES (Past Global Changes) is a scientific network which supports research aimed at understanding the Earth’s past environment in order to make predictions for the future. It's funded by the U.S. and Swiss National Science Foundations, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Over 5,000 scientists from more than 100 countries subscribe to PAGES, which is essentially an organizational group to bring international scientists together.
In 2006, scientists in the PAGES network decided to organize an initiative to reconstruct the climate of the last 2,000 years, which they called The PAGES 2k Network. This network consists of scientists from 9 regional working groups, each of which collects and processes the best paleoclimate (past climate change) data from their respective region. It's a clever approach because it allows the experts in their local proxy data to contribute to a much larger global project.
The 2K Network has just published a major paper in Nature Geoscience (abstract and figures here), with 78 researchers contributing as co-authors from 60 separate scientific institutions around the world. The analysis combines records from tree rings, pollen, corals, lake and marine sediments, ice cores, stalagmites and historical documents from 511 locations across seven continental-scale regions to reconstruct past global surface temperature changes over the past 2,000 years.
Their two main results are a confirmation that current global surface temperatures are hotter than at any time in the past 1,400 years (the general 'hockey stick' shape, as shown in Figure 1), and that while the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) are clearly visible events in their reconstruction, they were not globally synchronized events.
(snip)
Conclusions
Overall, the PAGES 2k paper provides the best overall reconstruction of local and global surface temperature changes over the past 1,000–2,000 years. As illustrated in Figure 1, their overall results are largely consistent with previous millennial temperature reconstructions like those by Mann et al. (2008), Ljungkvist (2010), Moberg et al. (2005), and Hegerl et al. (2006).
They find that over the past 2,000 years, until 100 years ago, the planet underwent a long-term cooling trend. There was a 'Medieval Warm Period', but different regions warmed at different times, and overall global surface temperatures were warmer at the end of the 20th century than during the MWP peak. The 2,000-year cooling trend has been erased by the warming over the past century. And of course more warming is yet to come from continuing human greenhouse gas emissions.
* Second coldest start to Spring in US history
* 79% of US below normal temperature in 2013
* Heavy snow in Spain at the end of April.
* Unprecedented ice conditions in Alaska.
* Arctic ice conditions same as 200 years ago.
All as a result of MMGW we are to believe. :rolleyes:
Only Year When Spring Started Colder Was 1975
Yes, they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
The arctic ice is extremely low, more importantly much of it is one year ice that will likely melt during summer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
For everything else of your claims, how many times do we have to tell you about the difference between climate and weather? Probably futile as you just ignore it like any fact that's in the way of your interpretations.Quote:
Arctic sea ice has passed its annual maximum extent and is beginning its seasonal decline through the spring and summer. While total extent was not at record low, it remained well below average through March. Ice fracturing continued north of Alaska, and the Arctic Oscillation was in a strongly negative phase during the second half of the month, with unusually high sea level pressure over almost all of the Arctic Ocean. Levels of multiyear ice remain extremely low. The ice is thinner, and satellite data suggests that first-year ice may now cover the North Pole area for the first time since winter 2008.
How much Arctic ice is the correct amount then? You seem to have an inside knowledge in these things.
I'm genuinely curious as to what the mechanism is behind these displays of his.Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeovers
He seems to have some kind of internal reset switch which after the end of each thread causes him to forget what was actually said, what was shown to him and what was disproved.
This recurring amnesia (if indeed he's still speaking genuinely and not just pulling our leg, which admittedly is quite possible) looks to be a fascinating phenomenon.
It's like a real-life version of Planescape: Torment except instead of being a story of personal redemption it just ends up with him embarrassing himself on the internet over and over again.
He follows the party line. Everyone else knows that the strange weather this spring was caused by the vast storm that spanned the whole North Atlantic, in turn caused by far warmer than usual ocean waters. Who's ever heared of a Cat 3 hurricane in the bloody North Atlantic in the end of March? That's iceberg season.
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/04/4346.jpg
We also remember this,
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/04/4347.jpg
and this a little later going on, and on, and on.
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/04/4348.jpg
The 'correct' amount is whatever the Gorebots deem to be acceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
Never mind that ice is so thick in the Antarctic for example that tour operators cannot get customers close enough to launch helicopters in order to view the Emperor Penguins etc.
Well, it's almost over for the Climateers:
"That day appears to have arrived. A (recent) issue of The Economist has a long feature on the declining confidence in the high estimates of climate sensitivity."
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
Looks like the Climeteers models are wrong again?
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
"OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.” . . .
Back To You
Doesn't look like a blood & Gore scenario now does it? :)
No, but it doesn't look like it's over for the Climateers, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
Here is some of the text of the article BM referred to. It really puts a whole different slant on the propoganda BM tried to propogate.
More atQuote:
Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise. Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, in Britain, points out that surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models (see chart 1). If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.
The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion. Flat though they are, temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th. But the puzzle does need explaining.
The mismatch might mean that—for some unexplained reason—th
ere has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-10. Or it might be that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period. Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions
So is this a good or a bad thing? If it raises another degree is that getting closer to what the worlds temperature should be? What is the right temperature for the world?Quote:
Flat though they are, temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th. But the puzzle does need explaining.
I doubt that this will matter, and I don't know if this is the absolute standard used by all scientists studying the phenomon, but here is how scientists at NASA determine the "normal" earth temperature. If you want to know more, check out their site. Yes, it's a conspiracy by a cabal of illegal aliens out to make millions by investing in non-fossil dependent fuels and making suckers of us all--I know, I know. But it's linked under the teaser below.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.phpQuote:
A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago.
The maps above show temperature anomalies, or changes, not absolute temperature. They depict how much various regions of the world have warmed or cooled when compared with a base period of 1951-1980. (The global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 14°C (57°F), with an uncertainty of several tenths of a degree.) In other words, the maps show how much warmer or colder a region is compared to the norm for that region from 1951-1980.
The data set begins in 1880 because observations did not have sufficient global coverage prior to that time. The period of 1951-1980 was chosen largely because the U.S. National Weather Service uses a three-decade period to define “normal” or average temperature. The GISS temperature analysis effort began around 1980, so the most recent 30 years was 1951-1980. It is also a period when many of today’s adults grew up, so it is a common reference that many people can remember.
Doesn't sound too scientific to me. Only 30 years of the last 4.5 Billion = the "normal" temp of the earth. Forget science lets just make up a # that represents a time frame that the "average" e.g. "dumb" person can remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG
No such thing as a "right" temperature for the world.
Global temperatures have been fluctuating ever since year dot.
By "right", I'll assume the meaning to be "optimum".
For humans, the optimum air/environmental temperature for healthy life and longevity is between 14C and 22C, aprox. even though the body temperature is on average 35C.
The reason for this is that metabolic rates change as temperature changes, and prolonged heating over 35C causes hyperthermia, and increased metabolism resulting in dehydration.
Temperatures below 14C will result in hypothermia over time.
For other animals and plants the variables can be greater.
Anything higher than 22C becomes uncomfortable for humans as human max. optimum air/environmental temperature is no more than 24C, where one is starting to sweat (dehydrate) profusely.
This all depends on one's ethnic physical constitution, so folk originating from the tropics tolerate higher temperatures than those living in more temperate zones.
If world temperatures rose by another say 5 degrees, humans and all animals would largely migrate to more optimal areas, but plants would either die out or adapt.
It's the plant base dying out that will cause the biggest knock-on effect in global warming, and a higher global temperature would also see an increased CO2 level in the atmosphere and a decreased CO2 level in the seas along with increased salinity at greatest depths contrasting to a reduced salinity at surface levels due to ice-melt.
Also the resulting coriolis effect and El Nino/La Nina cycles would also be altered markedly manifesting in greater changes and extremes of weather patterns.
Increased CO2 levels will see more carbon fixed in plant structure as sugars and less water used by plants, resulting in a greater humidity level in the soil, so effecting water run-off and disrupting other plant and animal life cycles.
Life performance of animals feeding off this increased sugar, low protein, high yield greenery are altered to their detriment, metabolic rates change and reproduction is affected.
Higher salinity levels which have been noted over the last few years (whereas they have been pretty stable for millions of years) occur at depth, while fresher, warmer water at the surface increases. This affects oceanic circulation patterns causing the coriolis effect to also change, resulting in changes in weather patterns.
This higher salinity level and lower CO2 level in oceans causes less calcium carbonate to form and be taklen up by sea animals, resulting in more aragonite rather than calcite shell formation in moluscs etc, so altering the life forms as they adapt to this change. Those that can not adapt become extinct, as occurred during the last extinction phase at the end of the Cretaceous.
Mass extinction events, are linked to unusually rapid global climate changes, warming and cooling cycles and changes in CO2 levels within a general overall cooling trend towards a new ice age, as is occurring now.
As temperatures start to lower again, CO2 is once more increasingly absorbed by the oceans reversing the process to form a calcite sea once more, but a world occupied with a whole diferent set of life forms which again slowly adapt from aragonite to calcite shelled sea creatures and the atmosphere slowly becomes more humid.
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/04/4367.jpg Graph from; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretace...tinction_event
^ Extinction phases over the last 542 million years.
The last one was around 66 million years ago, the cretaceous-paleogene (KPg) extinction phase.
This is my understanding of the process of global climate changes.
Excellent, much better than NASA's explanation of "normal" temp. Although there was too much sciencey stuff in there.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
I thought plant life would be more abundant with more C02, warmth and water in the air. Maybe plants do grow better under snow and ice after all. Is that why the Eskimos only eat meat? because they are bored to death of all the iceberg lettuces they eat?
Silly idea.
Despite the heated rhetoric from the Obama administration and environmental groups about the urgency of global warming, climate scientists have begun to come to terms with the lack of evidence of catastrophic global warming over the last decade.
“While some climate scientists continue to resist the obvious that the climate system is more complex than they assumed, others are starting to accept that the multi-decadal climate projections provide very incomplete simulations has to how the real climate system works,” Roger Pielke, Jr., environmental studies professor at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Establishment media outlets have been reporting about the unexpected stabilizing global surface temperatures over at least the last decade, and even former NASA scientist and environmental activist James Hansen has recognized the decade-long lull.
Read more: Scientists come to terms with the lack of global warming | The Daily Caller