Global Warming Over? - Page 3 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 31 (permalink) Old 04-12-2006, 09:49 PM
BenzWorld Elitist
Marsden's Avatar
Date registered: Dec 2005
Vehicle: Mercedes-Benz
Location: United States
Posts: 11,440
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 469 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
RE: Global Warming Over?

deathrattle - 4/12/2006 11:09 PM

You mean premium gas using,frequently oil changing,poorly spelling gay Nazis?
Yeah. Hate 'em.

Also disco dancin', Oscar Wilde readin', Streisand ticket holdin' friends of Dorothy.

My God that flick is a Mother Lode

There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on price alone is this man's lawful prey. --John Ruskin
Marsden is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #22 of 31 (permalink) Old 04-13-2006, 12:52 AM
BenzWorld Elite
shrimpton's Avatar
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: '90 560SEL, V8 Landcruiser, Toyota S/Wagon
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
RE: Global Warming Over?

Naomilla#2: Getting it up? - not a problem [;)]
Getting up? - Hell no, I pre-fart the sparrows every morning [:D].
shrimpton is offline  
post #23 of 31 (permalink) Old 04-13-2006, 01:25 AM
Lifetime Premium Member
Shane's Avatar
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: Taking my time on my ride
Location: north American continent
Posts: 41,805
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1801 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
RE: Global Warming Over?

430 - 4/11/2006 7:20 AM

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
Ok, we are passed the stage of blinders, shouldn't seat of the fucking pants clue you in just a little?
Shane is offline  
post #24 of 31 (permalink) Old 04-13-2006, 05:04 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
Date registered: Oct 2002
Vehicle: SLK32, ML430
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 6,349
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: Global Warming Over?

azimuth - 4/12/2006 11:49 PM

Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.
Thanks Azimuth. I kind of screwed the pooch in posting the link.
430 is offline  
post #25 of 31 (permalink) Old 04-13-2006, 05:58 AM
BenzWorld Member
Date registered: Oct 2005
Vehicle: w140 500 sel
Location: London
Posts: 96
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Global Warming Over?

If you scroll up and down real fast you can see Iraq , Nazi', and Gay !!!! where will it all end [:0]
Attached Images

Die Krankensalbung
BUD SKINNA is offline  
post #26 of 31 (permalink) Old 04-13-2006, 07:02 AM
BenzWorld Senior Member
Date registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Global Warming Over?

Some things to ponder about, the world burns about 50,000,000 barrels of oil per day, doing a quick calculation, if we place a barrel of oil in a 24x 24 inch surface or 4 square feet X 50,000,000 we come up with 200,000,000 square feet, divided by 43560 feet2 we come with 4,592 acres divided by 640 we come up with 7,2 square miles aprox or a plot of land that is 2,7 miles on each side, it would take a few hours to walk the perimeter of almost 11 miles, a huge tract of land, that is what would take to contain all the oil that is burnt in one day, if we set that on fire it would make flame clearly visible from the moon, it would make the 500 oil wells that were set on fire on Kuwait look like a candle in comparison, the black sooth would make a volcano little by comparison.
But that is not bad enough, the world burns a greater amount than that in coal and an equal amount in other fuels like wood, gas and garbage.
One would think the Oxygen will run out one day just like to a candle inside an inverted glass, marine shell fish locks the carbon of CO and CO2 in their shells with calcium making the sea shells, calcium carbonate, but now their numbers are also declining.
More and more beaches and rivers and estuaries the world over have to be closed because of bacteria from raw sewage and "brown" water, at one time raw oysters were an instant delicacy, now eat at your own risk. For a few years by now the fisheries supplies are on the negative supply as the amount fished surpasses what the oceans can re-supply.

Rain forests covered once 14% of the world, now only 6% and it is estimated that in the next 40 years they all will be gone, the Amazon jungle was as big at the US, but tracts of land for logging are given for as little as 2 per acre, averaged out the Amazon jungle is being cleared at the rate of 1,5 acres per second or 90 acres per minute or 5,400 acres per hours or 130,000 acres by the next day at the same hour, the Amazon forest is described at the lung of the world because 20% of the oxygen on the earth is generated there while the carbon of the air is being locked into the wood of trees by photosynthesis, but that is only part of the equation, you have to almost double the figures of the damage if you include the rest of the tropical rainforests in Africa, Central America, Asia, South Pacific regions etc.
The huge amounts of cattle needed to supply the ever increasing population made it an almost necessity to feed the feces of the millions of animals raised in feet lots

In other words while more pollutants are spewed into the air the more trees are taken out, all over the world, most probably in your neighborhood too, to make more room for progress and a healthy economy, at this rate one day humans will be too sick to enjoy all this wonderful progress.

Hardly any virgin forest remains in North America and now the Russians are eagerly jumping into the logging business with the Siberian forests rapidly being felled, the largest temperate forest.

Allocating 3,000 square feet to each US resident for living space, city streets, factories, shopping centers, industrial areas, schools, RR tracks, airports, office space, etc and etc we come up with (280,000,000 X 3,000) almost 20,000,000 acres of lifeless asphalt or other.
Roads and highways take almost 18,000,000 acres. In the name of progress and growth, a healthy economy, and growing .Can't wait for more, come to think about those unsightly trees are bothering my eyes, nothing like a gulp of air with road dust, exhaust fumes, tire particles, brake linings.

It is estimated that in the times of Christ the world population was about 20 - 40,000,000 the first billion was reached in the late 1800's, the last billion was reached in 9 years, a good example of geometrical growth, the more are there the faster more will be added, what took almost 2,000 years was accomplished in about a decade. At this rate Isaac Asimov calculated that in the same time it took humans to evolve if projected into the future, humans beings would be more numerous than stars in the universe and then a few generations more humans will have more mass than the whole universe. China implemented 1 child per couple, even with the iron hand of communism they saw their population grow more than 100,000,000.

The average smoker during his smoking time will dedicate close to 15,000 hours to smoking during a 35 year period and contrary to popular belief the majority will quit during their 50's and lead a normal life, while breathing directly the exhaust of a small car can kill a human in as little as 3,7 minutes or cause irreversible damage.
In 1997 there were 600,000,000 vehicles in the world, at this rate there will be 1,200,000,000 by the year 2030. The latest vogue is to ban smoking even in the parking lot of establishments and outside grounds, ah, a breath of fresh air!

In a study done in the 80's the petrochemical and refineries in the Houston and south east areas spewed all kinds of chemicals, the wind would take those chemicals in the air to the next refinery where they would mix in the next chimney stack and form chemical compounds and then mix some more at the next stack, more than 2,000 traces of compounds were found, chemist don't even have a name for them and hardly anything is known about this new compounds.

The pristine forests in the highest peak of the East coast, mount Mitchell were killed by acid rain whose culprits were formed hundreds or thousands of miles away, same with the Black forest in Germany which is in danger from acid rain formed in other parts of Europe.

A Houston man who was very liked by advertisers kept track of all the junk mail he received during a whole year, 400 lbs! I hate to do the math at even a third of that, that is a whole bunch of trees, the average reader reads les than 2% of the news paper, a whole bunch of trees have to die for something so mundane, like inform the apathy of the pathetic.

Sweden is slightly larger than California and has a population of 9 million, (actually their native population is in a small decline, immigration puts the country in the growth side), if the whole world had only the population of Sweden, oil, pollution even with the worst cars of the 60's, running a thermostat in the 60's during the summer and 90's in the winter, discarding copious amounts of paper, trash, and cans it would not make a dent on the world resources or ambient degradation, clearly the problem is way too many people and the rest of the problems are nothing but a consequence.
Now we need 50 mile per gallon cars, in the future that will be a crime, they will need 100 mile per gallon cars and one gallon toilets, 10W light bulbs, in other words the pie will have to be cut in ever thinner slices as the population grows, an ugly future that you can only wish to your enemies. Packed like rats or the movie Zoilant Green comes to mind.

But who is ultimately responsible for all this degradation, hunger, famine, filth, overcrowding and much worst to come?

Well, the two cojones hanging on half of the world population!.
Andrew is offline  
post #27 of 31 (permalink) Old 04-14-2006, 12:42 AM
BenzWorld Elite
shrimpton's Avatar
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: '90 560SEL, V8 Landcruiser, Toyota S/Wagon
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
RE: Global Warming Over?

Andrew: that's a great compilation of interesting material - and very thought provoking reading.
I do think that the younger generations are growing up with a greater awarness of global conservation issues than has previously been the case (ie: vs. localised).
Here's hoping anyway! - for it will be their adult (in control of?) world for a similarly short time as it is currently ours.
shrimpton is offline  
post #28 of 31 (permalink) Old 04-14-2006, 08:40 AM
BenzWorld Elite
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: Global Warming Over?

Recent trends.

Attached Images
Botnst is offline  
post #29 of 31 (permalink) Old 01-05-2007, 08:11 PM
BenzWorld Elite
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Ancient global warming was jarring, not subtle, study finds

By Robert Lee Hotz
Times Staff Writer
Posted January 5 2007

Foreshadowing potential climate chaos to come, early global warming caused unexpectedly severe and erratic temperature swings as rising levels of greenhouse gases helped transform Earth, a team led by researchers at UC Davis said Thursday.

The global transition from ice age to greenhouse 300 million years ago was marked by repeated dips and rises in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and wild swings in temperature, with drastic effects on forests and vegetation, the researchers reported in the journal Science.

"It was a real yo-yo," said UC Davis geochemist Isabel Montanez, who led researchers from five universities and the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History in a project funded by the National Science Foundation. "Should we expect similar but faster climate behavior in the future? One has to question whether that is where we are headed."

The provocative insight into planetary climate change counters the traditional view that global warming could be gradual and its regional effects easily anticipated.

Over several million years, carbon dioxide in the ancient atmosphere increased from about 280 parts per million to 2,000 ppm, the same increase that experts expect by the end of this century as remaining reserves of fossil fuels are burned.

No one knows the reason for so much variation in carbon dioxide levels 300 million years ago, but as modern industrial activity continues to pump greenhouse gases into the air at rapid rates, the unpredictable climate changes that took millions of years to unfold naturally could be compressed into a few centuries or less today, several experts said.

Carbon dioxide levels last year reached 380 ppm, rising at almost twice the rate of a decade ago, experts said. Average global temperatures have been rising about 0.36 of a degree Fahrenheit per decade for the last 30 years.

Still, the transformation of ancient Earth documented by Montanez and her colleagues makes the current spate of extreme weather events — extended droughts, killing heat waves and powerful hurricane seasons — appear mild by comparison.

From a planet whose landscape was buried in ice miles thick, the Earth convulsed into an ice-free world covered in drifts of wind-blown dust and sparse vegetation, in spasm after spasm of temperature shifts that rose and fell 7 to 18 degrees at a time, Montanez said.

The scientists studied the late Paleozoic period, between 305 million and 265 million years ago, when Earth was far different.

Land masses were gridlocked in a single super-continent largely sheathed in ice. Shallow seas regularly rose and fell. The sun was weaker. The atmosphere's chemistry was different. And, in this single epoch, life experienced its greatest expansion in diversity of forms, followed abruptly by its largest mass extinction.

Just as during the modern era, however, the Earth of the late Paleozoic was shifting from an ice age to a warmer greenhouse world — the only other era in the planet's history to experience such a transition, said Yale University geochemist Robert Berner, an expert on climate and evolution who was not involved in the research.

"This is the closest thing we have to a direct analogue to the future," said geoscientist Lee Kump at Pennsylvania State University, who also was not a member of the research team. "If we want to better understand the [contemporary] climate response, we have to go back to this late Paleozoic period."

Like diggers after dinosaur fossils, the researchers attacked ancient sediments in gullies, road cuts and stream beds with picks, shovels and bulldozers in Oklahoma, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona and Texas.

After five years, they had compiled the first carefully dated and cross-referenced archive of the period's primeval soils and fossil plant matter, they reported.

Geochemical analysis of iron oxides and isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen revealed telling evidence of temperature variation, rainfall patterns and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels through 40 million years of the Paleozoic, covering the period of major climate warming. They correlated those findings with an analysis of shellfish fossil remains, to compare those findings against marine carbon levels.

"It is an extraordinary improvement on past estimates," said Yale paleoclimate expert Mark Pagani, who was not involved in the research.

Instead of a relatively gradual transition from a cold world to a warm one, as many scientists had believed occurred, Montanez and her colleagues found fever spikes of climate change correlated with fluctuating levels of carbon dioxide, like a seismometer graph of the myriad tremors before and after a major earthquake.

"CO2 goes up and temperature goes up. It drops and temperature drops," Montanez said.

"It suggests," she said, "that the normal behavior in major climate transitions is instability, erratic temperature behavior and carbon dioxide changes."
Botnst is offline  
post #30 of 31 (permalink) Old 01-06-2007, 02:06 AM
deathrattle's Avatar
Date registered: Jan 2005
Vehicle: 1992 W126 300 SE
Location: Head in the clouds
Posts: 11,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

I hope so. We have such generally boring weather in the UK now. It would be great to have some blizzards, rainstorms, and more than 10 hot days in the summer.
deathrattle is offline  
Sponsored Links

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Title goes here

video goes here
description goes here. Read Full Story
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome