Right Wing Anti-Global Warming Crap!

Discussion in 'The Environment' started by skip, Mar 18, 2007.

Page 4 of 4
  1. urmlulu

    urmlulu Member

    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
    The graph showing the last 1,000,000 years of temperature change was the same as a version from a textbook in school, although neither graphs showed the temperatures for the last years. I think its because the book was an old edition, so I'm guessing that the increase in temperature from 1900-2004 shown in your first graph would have been showed in the above if they were updated.
     
    urmlulu, Mar 26, 2007
    #61
  3. urmlulu

    urmlulu Member

    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
    I reckon its probably the build up after the industrial revolutions. I think the American one was from about 1780 to 1860
     
    urmlulu, Mar 26, 2007
    #62
  5. dudenamedrob

    dudenamedrob peace lily

    Messages:
    1,401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Source:www.independent.co.uk
     
    dudenamedrob, Mar 26, 2007
    #63
  7. skip

    skip Founder Administrator

    Messages:
    12,905
    Likes Received:
    1,855
    I found the answer - took a long time too!

    [​IMG]

    source:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_reconsb.html

    This graph is displaying a very strong El Nino during that year!

    As you can see on the temperature graph (previous page), it started a couple of years before and maxed out in 1878.

    BTW, in 1878, there was an outbreak of Yellow Fever in the Mississippi Valley (Memphis in particular was hard hit). Over 5,000 people died. It's a disease spread by tropical mosquitos, who obviously were able to migrate during the El Nino to the US from their home in Central America. Perhaps they came on the Banana Boats as I read that around 1876 or so America fell in love with the Central American banana and they started shipping it in big quantities then.

    That is one thing we definitely can expect soon, vectors from other places down south finding new homes up north. The Malaria mosquito is expected to explode into new territories in the north.

    If you're thinking the current El Ninos are causing this warming trend today, you'd be wrong cause temps are now increasing REGARDLESS of the El Nino situation, although a strong El Nino just makes it worse!
     
    skip, Mar 26, 2007
    #64
  9. skip

    skip Founder Administrator

    Messages:
    12,905
    Likes Received:
    1,855
    Here's an article about a study by the National Academy of Sciences showing how 40% of the land on Earth's surface will have completely new climatic zones by 2100. This is just ONE result of global warming...

    If this don't scare ya, nothing will... It makes you wonder what the "unfamiliar climes" will be...

    The story:

    Many of the world's climate zones will vanish entirely by 2100, or be replaced by new, previously unseen ones, if global warming continues as expected, a study released Monday said.

    Rising temperatures will force existing climate zones toward higher latitudes and higher elevations, squeezing out climates at the colder extremes, and leaving room for unfamiliar climes around the equator, the study predicted.

    The sweeping climatic changes will likely affect huge swaths of land from the Indonesian rainforest to the Peruvian Andes, including many known hotspots of diversity, disrupting local ecological systems and populations.

    "Our findings are a logical outcome of global warming scenarios that are driven by continued emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases," said Jack Williams, a professor of geography at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and author of the paper.

    "The warmest areas get warmer and move outside our current range of experience and the colder areas also get warmer and so those climates disappear."

    Williams and colleagues from the University of Wyoming based their predictions on computer models that translate carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions into climate change. The emissions' estimates were taken from a report issued by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in February.

    The models suggest that the climate zones covering as much as 48 percent of the earth's landmass could disappear by 2100.

    By that point, close to 40 percent of the world's land surface area would also have a "novel" or new climate, according to the climate models.

    Even if emission rates slowed due to mitigation strategies, the changes would still affect up to 20 percent of the earth's landmass in each scenario, the authors said.

    As a geographic phenomenon, the disappearing climates would likely affect tropical highlands and regions near the poles including the Colombian and Peruvian Andes, Central America, African Rift Mountains, the Zambian and Angolan Highlands.

    The trend poses the greatest threat to areas of rich, but threatened, animal and plant life, in regions such as the Himalayas, the Philippines and African and South American mountain ranges. The changes could threaten some species with extinction and also displace or fragment local human populations.

    As for new or novel climate zones, the phenomenon will largely affect the tropics or sub-tropics, such as the Amazonian and Indonesian rainforests, where even subtle temperature variations can have far-reaching effects, Williams said.

    The study is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    source:http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070326220628.uo998sdi&show_article=1
     
    skip, Mar 27, 2007
    #65
  11. gardener

    gardener Realistic Humanist

    Messages:
    10,027
    Likes Received:
    2
    I've never found Mother Nature/Earth to be very predictable or logical.
     
    gardener, Mar 27, 2007
    #66
  13. sentient

    sentient Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    1
    This is a fantastic thread, I am thrilled to read what can only be described as "the greatest laugh I've had this year. Pressed Rat is brilliant and really should write a book about global warming. I have some friends in the academic world who would love to see the results of his years of research in environmental studies. Infact any of you are quite welcome to send in your work to the university of cambridge UK
    http://www.cei.group.cam.ac.uk/facilities/
    where you will recieve a professorial post and a a salary of 86,000 per year

    reading this thread is like watching the beginning of "2001 a space oddessey" where those chimpanzees find the monolith

    well its only been spinning round the sun for 700,000,000,000,000 years and what do you expect - ha ha ha - how less predictable could it be?
     
    sentient, Mar 27, 2007
    #67
  15. lithium

    lithium frogboy

    Messages:
    10,028
    Likes Received:
    14
    I think it's been a really interesting thread, some of the issues raised have prompted me to do some reading I might not otherwise have done, clarify some of the science and I've definitely learnt a few things. These continual rightwing objections (and the "mother nature always knows best" ones which are just as idiotic in my view) to anthropogenic global warming are very useful because they allow you to articulate exactly what we do know.

    Unfortunately the thread has also demostrated that there is something incredibly psychologically appealing in denying what "the establishment" tells us. I think Skip's point about the psychological condition of denial was really interesting too, it's obviously something some of us feel a great need to do, Rat perhaps being a perfect example, though his posts across these boards indicate some kind of obsessional neurosis with the issue so perhaps he shouldn't be taken as representative:D
     
    lithium, Mar 28, 2007
    #68
  17. Bilby

    Bilby Lifetime Supporter and Freerangertarian Super Moderator

    Messages:
    5,625
    Likes Received:
    1,800
    Mature trees. It is suggested that there is a net absorption of CO2.
    It took me some time to find it as I have heaps of pamphlets and leaflets relating to counterculture but here it is.

    http://www.hipgallery.com/photopost2/data/500/greenpeace0006.JPG


    I only quoted from it to exemplify how dumb and generally misleading it was.



    The wood can be turned into furniture or building materials in which case there has been a net reduction in carbon.
    That is ok . I am quite happy to engage in discussion.
    I did Biology at Year Twelve. I still have the text book we used. It explains all about the carbon cycle and photosynthesis

    Have a look at these links on The Lies of Unleaded Petrol.Here
    Here and Here.
     
    Bilby, Mar 28, 2007
    #69
  19. sentient

    sentient Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    1
    Personally I think anyone that believes the consensus in science is just academics misunderstanding the whole situation, is either misguided, nuts, or simply doesnt understand what they are trying to say. I think you will find it has taken 40 years of academic research and political persuasion to force the point home.
    The absolute fact is that scientists are not wrong. I havent seen any research that tries to undermine the consensus of opinion that wasnt written by a scientist with affiliations to either a political party or who go against the grain because a corporation commissioned their work. Those who are arguing against the idea that humans are a huge factor in this are simplt taking the side of corporations with money to spend whose profits will be hit hard if they have to accept the findings and also may end up compensating people along the way - Union Carbide for one !
    Politics and business in europe are for once at each others throats on the issue - with the USA again proving its immoral stance once again is a big "fuck you" - to the world against all reason but to line its pockets at the expense of other people and at the forfeiture of resonable debate
    European politics sides with the scientists - USA politics is siding with business - and acting like idiots in the face of reason

    The ironic thing being that without a planet you cannot conduct business.
    Who would you prefer to believe - people whose interest is greed (corporations)? or people whose interest is truth (scientists)?
     
    sentient, Mar 28, 2007
    #70
  21. skip

    skip Founder Administrator

    Messages:
    12,905
    Likes Received:
    1,855
    VERY GOOD POINT!

    I keep thinking about how businesses will lose money because they'll have to upgrade their pollution controls (if they even have any), seek out alternative energy sources for their businesses to run on, and might even have to cut back production if they can't comply with new regulations.

    BUT- Your point is very important because these business might ALSO be sued for damages which could easily run into the BILLIONS (wouldn't it be great if it was put into a Global Warming fund or returned to the people!).

    Yup, let's open up all these polluting industries to class action suits on behalf of the ENTIRE WORLD for the damages they've inflicted upon the Earth, it's ecosystems, it's lifeforms, and of course US!

    And we should add not only the damages already inflicted, but those that are coming due to the long-term consequences of their irresponsible actions.

    LET'S PUT THESE BUSINESSES OUT OF BUSINESS! Cause that's what will happen. :)

    We should do it soon, because things are going to get much worse if we don't!

    SUE THE BASTARDS!
     
    skip, Mar 29, 2007
    #71
  23. soulfire77

    soulfire77 Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wonder if we will still be arguing about this subject as we take that last step into the yawning pits of hell?


    Of course, it seems perfect reasonable to me that the entire scientific community is in league with those "environmentalist wackos" in order to usher in "the New World Order" and, almost certainly, the antichrist. Let's all follow the advice of our brilliant talk radio hosts (after all, their advice has been just so priceless up till now, right?)... We'll just write this whole thing off as a big hoax, a trick of the devil...

    "Embryonic stem cells, synthetic fuels, global warming and Hillary Rodham Clinton. All liberal Democrat fantasies, pure and simple." - Rush Limbaugh

    Here is something I always wondered: Is the word "dittos" slang for Oxycontin?
     
    soulfire77, Apr 2, 2007
    #72
Page 4 of 4

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Accept Learn More...
    Dismiss Notice