We'll be laughing at this by 2020....

[KABOOKIE]

From CNN


Report to link global warming to humans
POSTED: 1:39 p.m. EST, February 1, 2007
Story Highlights• Climate experts putting final touches on global warming report
• Panel says it is "very likely" that climate change is caused by humans
• Report could influence government and business policy worldwide

Adjust font size:
PARIS, France (AP) -- Officials from 113 countries agreed Thursday that a much-awaited international report will say that global warming was "very likely" caused by human activity, delegates to a climate change conference said.

Dozens of scientists and bureaucrats are editing the new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in closed-door meetings in Paris.

Their report, which must be unanimously approved, is to be released Friday and is considered an authoritative document that could influence government and industrial policy worldwide.

Four participants told The Associated Press that the group approved the term "very likely" in Thursday's sessions. That means they agree that there is a 90 percent chance that global warming is caused by humans.

"That is a big move. I hope it is a powerful statement," said Jan Pretel, head of the department of climate change at the Czech Hydrometeorological Institute.

"I hope that policymakers will be quite convinced by this message," said Riibeta Abeta, a delegate from the island nation of Kiribati, which is worried about being overrun by rising seas. "The purpose is to get them moving."

The last report, in 2001, said global warming was "likely" caused by human activity. There had been speculation that the participants might try to change the wording this time to "virtually certain," which means a 99 percent chance. (Watch climate experts talk about our planet's grim future )

But the Chinese delegation was resistant to strong wording on global warming, said Barbados delegate Leonard Fields and Zimbabwe delegate Washington Zhakata.

China has increasingly turned to fossil fuels, which emit the greenhouse gases blamed for boosting the planet's temperature, to feed its huge and growing energy needs.

Delegates said the Chinese won the removal of the official definition of "very likely" from the text -- although scientists are not changing the definition.

The group also won approval for a footnote qualifying the "very likely" wording by suggesting it could change in the future: "Consideration of remaining uncertainties is based on current methodology."

The U.S. government delegation was not one of the more vocal groups in the debate over the "very likely" statement for man-made warming, said other countries' officials. Several delegates credited the head of the panel session, Susan Solomon, a top U.S. government climate scientist, with pushing through the agreement in just 90 minutes.

U.S. President George W. Bush acknowledged for the first time last month that global warming is occurring, but he remains opposed to mandatory regulations to cap greenhouse gas emissions that many nations favor.

The report will also say that global warming has led to stronger hurricanes, including those on the Atlantic Ocean such as 2005's Katrina, said Fields and other delegates. (Watch a preview of the report )

The panel did note that the increase in stronger storms differs in various parts of the globe, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced.

In 2001, the same panel had said there was not enough evidence to make such a conclusion.

This week's report will also mark a departure from a November 2006 statement by the World Meteorological Organization, which helped found the IPCC. The meteorological organization, after contentious debate, said it could not link past stronger storms to global warming.

Fields -- of Barbados, a country in the path of many hurricanes -- said the new wording was "very important. ... Insurance companies watch the language too."

The delegates, staring at a countdown clock showing how little time they have left before Friday's deadline, went into Thursday's talks well behind schedule and planned a late-night session.

A draft of the report predicts a temperature increase of between 1.5-5.8 Celsius (2.5-10.4 Fahrenheit) by the year 2100, though that could be adjusted. :rolleyes:

Another contentious issue is predictions of sea level rise. Scientists are trying to incorporate concerns that their early drafts underestimate how much the sea level will rise by 2100 because they cannot predict how much ice will melt from Greenland and Antarctica.

In early drafts, scientists predicted a sea level rise of no more than 58 centimeters (23 inches) by 2100, but that does not include the ice sheet melts.

The report is being edited in English, then must be translated into five other languages. It will be a 12- to 15-page summary for policymakers in most of the world's countries. (Watch what would happen to San Francisco if sea levels rose 3 feet )

As the delegates hold their evening session, the Eiffel Tower, other Paris monuments and concerned citizens in several European countries were expected to switch off their lights for five minutes to call attention to energy conservation, heeding a call by French environmental campaigners.

Some experts said that while well-intentioned, the lights-out could actually consume more energy than it would conserve by requiring a power spike when the lights turn back on -- possibly causing brownouts or even blackouts.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[jacru]

pfft! I'm laughing now. :D :D :D :D :D

[Frozen Sooner]

Well, you guys living far from the coasts will be at least.

[KABOOKIE]

Well, you guys living far from the coasts will be at least.

If sea levels rose 3 feet in Alaska would anybody notice? :D

[Harry Beanbag]

I can't believe klatt hasn't made it in here yet.

[Osce0la]

GLOBAL WARMING **** YEAH :D

[Frozen Sooner]

If sea levels rose 3 feet in Alaska would anybody notice? :D

:mad:

I WOULD BE!

I'm at just about sea level.

[Boarder]

Yeah, but don't you have a levee or something?

[jacru]

Yeah, but don't you have a levee or something?
...and didn't you have a butt-load of gov't $ to improve it in case something bad happened? wait... is this NOLA?:D ;)

[Frozen Sooner]

Yeah, but don't you have a levee or something?

Nope, but I do have some handy mountains to run to.

[Widescreen]

Kind of like how we now laugh at the 1970's global ice age hysteria.

[NYSooner1355]

Nope, but I do have some handy mountains to run to.

you'll have a "bridge to nowhere" right?

[OUinFLA]

screw it, Im just getting a bigger air conditioner.

[olevetonahill]

screw it, Im just getting a bigger air conditioner.
If the Sea rises 3 feet , you will then have a House boat so you can just go where its cooler .
Cause see Fla. will disapear

[OUinFLA]

If the Sea rises 3 feet , you will then have a House boat so you can just go where its cooler .
Cause see Fla. will disapear

Heck 3 feet will only put me about 5 miles closer to the boat ramp.
Im needing about 35 feet in order to have nice waterfront property.

[soonervegas]

My bet is that it is nervous laughter.

[Howzit]

I sat by a woman with a PhD in Geo Chemstry on a plane recently. She travels as a consultant on global warming relate issues and gives lectures at various universities. She had me extremely discomfited with the things she said concerning the environment and the world we will live in 50 years from now.

But after hearing all you experts chime in I feel much better.

[olevetonahill]

Heck 3 feet will only put me about 5 miles closer to the boat ramp.
Im needing about 35 feet in order to have nice waterfront property.
Hell I thot ALL of Fla was only like 2 ft or so above sealevel
shows waht I know

[olevetonahill]

I sat by a woman with a PhD in Geo Chemstry on a plane recently. She travels as a consultant on global warming relate issues and give levtures at various universities. She had me extremely discomfited with the things she said concerning the environment and the world we will live in 50 years from.

But after hearing all you experts chime in I feel much better.
Im glad we could be a comfort for you .
WTF is a levtures tho ? that might scare me to .

[OUinFLA]

Im glad we could be a comfort for you .
WTF is a levtures tho ? that might scare me to .

It has to do with being up off the ground.
Heck dude, he told you he was on an airplane.

[olevetonahill]

It has to do with being up off the ground.
Heck dude, he told you he was on an airplane.
Well hell Im flying to Cal at the end of the month , and If im gonna have to endure levtures I wanta know ahead of time .

[picasso]

I still like Glenn Beck's mantra: "They can't even predict the weather right for Wednesday."

Global warming must be real but are we really causing it?

[olevetonahill]

I still like Glenn Beck's mantra: "They can't even predict the weather right for Wednesday."

Global warming must be real but are we really causing it?
Pics the Winner

[OklahomaTuba]

Glenn Beck is awesome.

[Howzit]

Pics the Winner

I wish I'd gotten PhD woman's card so pic could correct her...she's giving out lots of bad information.

[Okla-homey]

Bottomline:

If global warming is real and is the result of human activity, they're now saying there's nothing we can do to reverse it within the foreseeable future. Ergo, party-on!

I think its sketchy science (if not outright junk science, like the dangers of: silicone breastage implants -- debunked, eating food which contains high levels of cholesterol -- debunked, second-hand smoke being a 'killer" -- someday to be debunked.) Even if its true, there ain't no way Comrade Wang Hung Dong in upper Mongolia is gonna shutdown the filfthy bituminous coal fired power plant even if it is.

Like Mrs. Homey says, if it comes down to having the lights on and food on the table today, or a 2" rise in ocean levels in 50 years, WTF do YOU think is gonna win in the minds of most people around the world?

That's my problem with the flippin' Kyoto Accord. It gives a pass to the "developing" nations. Those nations constitute at least 2/3d's of the world's population and their dirty-a$$ed "old school" industries are responsible for most of the problem. Ever been to eastern Europe? Southwest Asia? SubSaharan Africa? Mexico City? India? sheesh.

[landrun]

Those of you who think that global warming is a way for 'scientists' to get government grant money (mucho denario) to study the damaging effects it has on the environment (and thus our own futures) is just a gimmick and pseudo-science, should be ashamed. I bet you deny that the earth is flat too. pfft! :D

[Howzit]

Bottomline:

If global warming is real and is the result of human activity, they're now saying there's nothing we can do to reverse it within the foreseeable future. Ergo, party-on!

I think its sketchy science (if not outright junk science, like the dangers of: silicone breastage implants -- debunked, eating food which contains high levels of cholesterol -- debunked, second-hand smoke being a 'killer" -- someday to be debunked.) Even if its true, there ain't no way Comrade Wang Hung Dong in upper Mongolia is gonna shutdown the filfthy bituminous coal fired power plant even if it is.

Like Mrs. Homey says, if it comes down to having the lights on and food on the table today, or a 2" rise in ocean levels in 50 years, WTF do YOU think is gonna win in the minds of most people around the world?

That's my problem with the flippin' Kyoto Accord. It gives a pass to the "developing" nations. Those nations constitute at least 2/3d's of the world's population and their dirty-a$$ed "old school" industries are responsible for most of the problem. Ever been to eastern Europe? Southwest Asia? SubSaharan Africa? Mexico City? India? sheesh.

I suck at debating, so this is pretty much the end of my involvement in the topic, but I will say this.

It ain't junk science. It's real, and it's coming, and there's really not a whole lot we can do about it because of the worldwide dependency on oil. So, I somewhat agree with your party-on statement.

The interesting thing to me was that PhD woman's attitude was not we've got to do this or we've got to do that to stop it, her attitude was people need to get ready, because it'll be here before we know it.

You know the saying "It doesn't matter if you believe in God, God believes in you?" That's kind of how she responded to me when I asked her what she thought of the global warming non-believers. She laughed. Not a confrontational type laugh, but one of true amusement. She basically said "it really does not matter whether they believe it. Our children and grandchildren will live in a much different world than the one in which we live today."

You're right, the largest offenders today are China, India, and other developing countries. Getting them interested in global warming without an alternative energy source to oil probably isn't going to happen.

She did say there are promising technologies in the pipeline that it is hard to factor into the equation. Technologies that extract CO2 from the atmosphere.

The end.

[Jerk]

I wish I'd gotten PhD woman's card so pic could correct her...she's giving out lots of bad information.

Dude, she is making a comfortable living off of the whole "global warming" scare. Of course she wants you to think you're going to die in 20 years. I mean, she's a consultant... what do you think they pay her for? They don't write a check for her to go to universities and tell the politically correct academics that "global climate patterns do not stay the same and have constantly changed over the ages!"

[Jerk]

I bet you deny that the earth is flat too. pfft! :D

I bet you think that average global temperatures and weather patterns have always been the same and have never changed over the last kajillion years.:D (Until recently, that is, right around the time when America became a super-power- this is when average temperatures started to go up!)

PS- I support global warming.

ETA- I don't pretend to be an expert at all in this subject. It could be true, caused by man, and we have 20 years until we all die for all I know.

I tell you this..scares have come and gone, like the ice age predicted back in the 1970's. Could this be another one? I can't think of a better excuse for government to take more control of our lives and that's what bugs me. If global warming is such a serious threat that it endangers our existance, then why didn't Kyoto apply to ALL countries equally?

What kind of person comes up with the idea to punish the United States, Europe, and Japan, by regulating their economies to death, yet give a free pass for all of the 3rd world sh**holes to keep polluting away? Must be one of them people who reads books and stuff.

[Ike]

I bet you think that average global temperatures and weather patterns have always been the same and have never changed over the last kajillion years.:D (Until recently, that is, right around the time when America became a super-power- this is when average temperatures started to go up!)

PS- I support global warming.

ETA- I don't pretend to be an expert at all in this subject. It could be true, caused by man, and we have 20 years until we all die for all I know.

I tell you this..scares have come and gone, like the ice age predicted back in the 1970's. Could this be another one? I can't think of a better excuse for government to take more control of our lives and that's what bugs me.


Here's the thing. This most recent report....it's not a treaty, or even some standard protocol like Kyoto was that requires anyone to do anything. These are scientists who have spent a long time looking at the data and arriving at these conclusions. They aren't saying we need to do X, Y, Z. They are saying these are the coming effects we can all agree upon. If you think they are in this for the money or to profit off the scare, then I think you are misleading yourself a little. For a scientist, there is no greater achievement than to conclusively demonstrate that the accepted models are flat out wrong. So far, nobody has done this. There have been a few that propose other ideas or look at different data and arise at different conclusions, but none that have conclusively demonstrated that this is all hype. These scientists aren't releasing this report for more funding. They are saying "here are our predictions". After you've done that, all there is to do is wait around and see if they come true. Hell, if I were a climate scientist, I'd honestly be a little torn as to whether or not to alert the public about global warming. I'd wanna see if it really happened or not to test my model. Then again, I'd also want to make sure I'm alive (or my successors are alive) to check my predictions.

BTW, this 90% that some people have harped on...here's how it works: (warning, statistical mumbo jumbo below)
You form a hypothesis, in this case, that global warming mostly due to human activity. You then collect as much data as you can that you think will answer that question. I have no idea what data they used for that, but presumably their data would be expected to have a certain distribution for natural causes, and a different distribution for human causes. Typically in a situation like this, the data you actually collect should look like one or the other, or some combination of the two. So you ask the question "how well does the data fit my expectations?" Due to the fact that it is impossible to gather an infinite data sample, statistical fluctuations arrive, and the data never fit perfectly to what is expected. But you can still draw some conclusions from it. Specifically, you can ask the question "what is the probability that my hypothesis is correct?" and in this case, it turns out to be around 90%. which means that there is a 10% chance that the fact that their data looks somewhat like what they expected may have arisen from natural causes and/or statistical fluctuations.

nb: the 90% confidence level is also sometimes known as a 2-sigma result. many of you are probably familiar with the name 6-sigma, and the meaning there is similar to here. In many branches of science, a 2 sigma result isn't a very strong statement. In my own line of work, a 2-3 sigma result is known as "evidence for", which is pretty way of saying "we think we see something, but we acknowledge that this could be a statistical fluctuation". We require 5-sigma results as the standard for "discovery". Take this to mean whatever you like with respect to global warming.

[Jerk]

Dude, I dig it. I don't have the credentials to argue for or against anything on this issue. I'm a truck driver. I am trying to make the Earth a warmer, happier place.

Gary England said last night that there was a 90% of snow for tis' morning. It didn't happen. Maybe that's a bad analogy, but before we all sign a binding treaty that wrecks our economy (while letting China continue to pollute the earth into oblivioun) and gives government more power over our lives, let us do a few things:

1. If we are to drive electric cars made of balsa wood or peddle bicycles, then this should apply to everyone- Hollywood stars, US Senators, eccentric billionaires, etc. (exception being the POTUS for obvious reasons)

2. If we are to live under strict regulations which hinder our economy, then all nations, especially china, should live under the same rules.

Anything like Kyoto is pure crap as long they say "some nations can pollute, others can not"

[Jerk]

Last thing, and I can't back this up, but I know it's true.

Every time we have a mild winter, someone says "it's global warming"

Then when we have a real hard winter, someone says "it's global warming"

I kid you not. I wish I remember where I read or saw this stuff. I'm like, wtf? Yall need to make up your mind. I'm not saying I heard this over the CB radio on I-40. I know I've heard this from major media sources.

[Ike]

Dude, I dig it. I don't have the credentials to argue for or against anything on this issue. I'm a truck driver. I am trying to make the Earth a warmer, happier place.

Gary England said last night that there was a 90% of snow for tis' morning. It didn't happen. Maybe that's a bad analogy, but before we all sign a binding treaty that wrecks our economy (while letting China continue to pollute the earth into oblivioun) and gives government more power over our lives, let us do a few things:

1. If we are to drive electric cars made of balsa wood or peddle bicycles, then this should apply to everyone- Hollywood stars, US Senators, eccentric billionaires, etc. (exception being the POTUS for obvious reasons)

2. If we are to live under strict regulations which hinder our economy, then all nations, especially china, should live under the same rules.

Anything like Kyoto is pure crap as long they say "some nations can pollute, others can not"

I agree that Kyoto is pure crap. However, this report's intention (as I gather it anyway) is not to force anyone to do anything, but to put the best currently available information in the hands of policymakers around the globe, and let them sort out what to do next. Like I said, 90% is not a very strong statement, and policy makers should treat is as such...In other words, they should have concern, but not to the effect that they throw their nations under a bus due to global warming.

If I were a policy-dude, I would take this report to mean that we should get a little more serious about our alternative energy research funding, and look at what we can do to take the most promising technologies out there and take them to the point that they will be competitive on the market with oil. This is relatively painless compared to forcing a change, and allows a change to happen at a pace dictated by the market. I would pursue such a strategy as aggressively as budgetary constraints would allow.

But that probably won't happen, because it would be a smart thing to do :D

[Jerk]

If I were a policy-dude, I would take this report to mean that we should get a little more serious about our alternative energy research funding, and look at what we can do to take the most promising technologies out there and take them to the point that they will be competitive on the market with oil. This is relatively painless compared to forcing a change, and allows a change to happen at a pace dictated by the market. I would pursue such a strategy as aggressively as budgetary constraints would allow.

:D

I completely agree!

For completely different reasons!

We are a little too reliant on tin-pot dictators like Chavez and "Islamic Republics" of the Middle East for our energy needs.

[Okla-homey]

I'm just glad I live in Oklahoma. The tide would have to be pretty high for salt water to reach us.;)

[Ike]

I completely agree!

For completely different reasons!

We are a little too reliant on tin-pot dictators like Chavez and "Islamic Republics" of the Middle East for our energy needs.

well, thats yet another strong reason in my opinion. As far as I'm concerned, the notion of global warming combined with the fact that most of the worlds oil is buried beneath countries ruled by madmen is quite a compelling argument to ramp up alternative energy research significantly. This is one of those things that, politically, can be win-win for everyone.

If we come out of this with viable technologies that can compete with oil, suddenly we might stand poised to be an energy exporter again. We could use this position to further influence change in the middle east (or to just give up on the middle east), AND we might be comfortable knowing that we are doing our part to maintain the earths environment. Boom. Business pleased, Righties pleased, Lefties Pleased....Everyone is happy.

I doubt we can depend on countries like India and China to do the same, which can be a big advantage to us if we are the first to produce viable alt-energy products. Because then we can sell them to China and India...

But I'm getting ahead of myself here. Currently there are not any alt-energies that compete with oil on price. However, some are getting closer.

[picasso]

I wish I'd gotten PhD woman's card so pic could correct her...she's giving out lots of bad information.
I agree and I think enviornmental science is legit. but they can't prove we're causing it can they?

there's also UFO experts out there.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Buy boat company stocks.

[Howzit]

Land in Canada. North Central Canada.

[Ike]

I agree and I think enviornmental science is legit. but they can't prove we're causing it can they?

there's also UFO experts out there.

Depends on what you mean by prove. As has been noted before, they have qualified their assertion that global warming is man-made with a 90% confidence level. Thats important, because you can really never get 100% confident due to the way statistical analysis of data works...but you can get close. the 90% signifies their level of closeness.

anyhoo, as for how one would go about showing that it is man made, Im not sure exactly what they do or what data they look at, but I don't think it's impossible. Fer instance, (and for the sake of this example, I am just going down the relatively simplistic route of assuming all global warming is caused by CO2, which we know to be a greenhouse gas) I bet it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that we can make a pretty good estimate of the amount of CO2 thats been thrown into the air by people through means other than breathing. I also bet we can make a reasonable estimate of the amount of that excess CO2 thats been eaten by plants and returned as O2. We can take samples of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and perhaps see that to be on the rise. (maybe sharply in the last 10-15 years?) We can ask if the rise in CO2 levels is consistent with the expected excess CO2 from calculations of global output, and thus determine whether a CO2 increase is attributable to human activity (specifically, the burning of fossil fuels). Now, if Global Warming is shown to be correlated to (caused by?) CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere (again, I am mostly assuming here...I have no idea what that correlation/causation is, but I've heard it said that one exists), then we could then say with some degree of certainty that Global Warming is occurring as a result of human activitiy.


Again, this is just an example, but yes, in principle, it is not impossible to determine whether or not it is due to human activity.

[picasso]

ok.

[Howzit]

Fine.

[Jerk]

gah:mad:

[Howzit]

Now, if Global Warming is shown to be correlated to (caused by?) CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere (again, I am mostly assuming here...I have no idea what that correlation/causation is, but I've heard it said that one exists), then we could then say with some degree of certainty that Global Warming is occurring as a result of human activitiy.



It's roughly 1.

[Howzit]

Depends on what you mean by prove. As has been noted before, they have qualified their assertion that global warming is man-made with a 90% confidence level. Thats important, because you can really never get 100% confident due to the way statistical analysis of data works...but you can get close. the 90% signifies their level of closeness.



So, there's a 10% chance pic is right?

:les: THERE'S STILL A CHANCE!!!

[picasso]

So, there's a 10% chance pic is right?

:les: THERE'S STILL A CHANCE!!!
I can always tell when it's gonna rain.

[mdklatt]

It's roughly 1.

It's just a coincidence!

[FaninAma]

I saw a special on NOVA the other night that stated the global warming trend is actually going to dusrupt the warm flow of the Gulf Stream up the North Atlantic leading to another ice age along the upper eastern US seabord as well as most of Europe.

BTW, what other disasters await us from global warming? Wouldn't there possibly be some benefit form global warming like longer crop seasons and being ble to grow oranges in Oklahoma?

[Octavian]

science is junk...science is junk...the sun revolves around our flat earth which rests at the center of the universe...science is junk...

[mdklatt]

BTW, what other disasters await us from global warming? Wouldn't there possibly be some benefit form global warming like longer crop seasons and being ble to grow oranges in Oklahoma?

Some places would benefit, some would get the short end of the stick. Climate change will not cause the world to end, but it might cause the world as we know it to end. Along with a longer growing season we might get a perpetual Dust Bowl climate. Do you like those odds?

[RFH Shakes]

While I agree that the earth is warming I believe that humans have a very small influence on it. There has been global warming (and cooling) long before there was industry and cars otherwise there wouldn't have been MULTIPLE ice ages. IMO, it is part of a nutural earth cycle. I'm no rocket surgeon but that seems like a reasonable explanation to me.

[picasso]

While I agree that the earth is warming I believe that humans have a very small influence on it. There has been global warming (and cooling) long before there was industry and cars otherwise there wouldn't have been MULTIPLE ice ages. IMO, it is part of a nutural earth cycle. I'm no rocket surgeon but that seems like a reasonable explanation to me.
that's kind of where I'm coming from.

and some poor sap had to travel the earth to realize that it wasn't flat. pretty solid proof there.:)

[mdklatt]

While I agree that the earth is warming I believe that humans have a very small influence on it. There has been global warming (and cooling) long before there was industry and cars otherwise there wouldn't have been MULTIPLE ice ages. IMO, it is part of a nutural earth cycle. I'm no rocket surgeon but that seems like a reasonable explanation to me.


Why is murder illegal? We all die anyway, right?

[picasso]

can they give us a time line here? because I still want to see South Dakota before it's all over.

[RFH Shakes]

Why is murder illegal? We all die anyway, right?

With that logic do you think the manufacturers of what ever is used in murder should be held liable for the murder?

[mdklatt]

With that logic do you think the manufacturers of what ever is used in murder should be held liable for the murder?

:confused:

[Ike]

science is junk...science is junk...the sun revolves around our flat earth which rests at the center of the universe...science is junk...
It's turtles all the way down...

[Scott D]

I saw a special on NOVA the other night that stated the global warming trend is actually going to dusrupt the warm flow of the Gulf Stream up the North Atlantic leading to another ice age along the upper eastern US seabord as well as most of Europe.

BTW, what other disasters await us from global warming? Wouldn't there possibly be some benefit form global warming like longer crop seasons and being ble to grow oranges in Oklahoma?

Some of the speculation in terms of disasters would be an increase in type/class 4-5 tornadoes in the case of a place like Oklahoma, in a place like Milwaukee it could turn into longer snowfall seasons, in a place like Sudan it could mean more torrential downpours.

Another part of the trend is that with the exception of those in captivity (ie zoos), either Polar Bears or Penguins could become extinct, I forget which.

[SleestakSooner]

I agree and I think enviornmental science is legit. but they can't prove we're causing it can they?

there's also UFO experts out there.



New proof that man has caused global warming

From Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent, in Washington
http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif
The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world’s oceans.
NI_MPU('middle');The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new research has revealed.
The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday.
"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."
In the study, Dr Barnett’s team examined more than seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are predicted by computer models of various potential causes of climate change.
It found that natural variation in the Earth’s climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely.
"What absolutely nailed it was the greenhouse model," Dr Barnett told the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Washington. Two models, one designed in Britain and one here in the US, got it almost exactly. We were stunned. They did it so well it was almost unbelieveable."
Climate change has affected the seas in different ways in different parts of the world: in the Atlantic, for example, rising temperatures can be observed up to 700 metres below the surface, while in the Pacific the warming is seen only up to 100m down.
Only the greenhouse models replicated the changes that have been observed in practice. "The fact that this has gone on in different ways gives us the chance to figure out who did it," Dr Barnett said.
"All the potential culprits have been ruled out except one.
"This is perhaps the most compelling evidence yet that global warming is happening right now, and it shows that we can successfully simulate its past and its likely future evolution. The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming."
Dr Barnett said the results, which are about to be submitted for publication in a major peer-reviewed journal, should put further pressure on the Bush Administration to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, which came into force on Wednesday. "It is now time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to reevaluate and see if it would be to their advantage to join," he said.
"We have got a serious problem ahead of us. The debate is not have we got a clear global warming signal, the debate is what we are going to do about it."
In a separate study, also presented to the conference, a team led by Ruth Curry of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Connecticut has established that 20,000 square kilometres of freshwater ice melted in the Arctic between 1965 and 1995.
Further melting on this scale could be sufficient to turn off the ocean currents that drive the Gulf Stream, which keeps Britain up to 6C warmer than it would otherwise be. "It is taking the first steps, the system is moving in that direction," Dr Curry said.
"The new ocean study, taken together with the numberous validations of the same models in the atmosphere, portends far broader changes. Other parts of the world will face similar problems to those expected, and being observed now, in the western US.
"The skill demonstrated by the climate models in handling the changing planetary heat budget suggests that these scenarios have a high enough probability of actually happening that they need to be taken seriously by decision-makers."



Time to go search for more UFO's... the truth is out there.

[RFH Shakes]

:confused:


What I am saying is if there was global warming and cooling way before industrialization and automobiles and humans then what is the reasoning behind blaming those things for global warming.

[mdklatt]

What I am saying is if there was global warming and cooling way before industrialization and automobiles and humans then what is the reasoning behind blaming those things for global warming.

Because the warming we're seeing now is not consistent with earlier climate shifts, but it is consistent with what happens in GCMs when you dial up the CO2. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas; that's basic chemistry and physics. We know that less trees and more fossil fuels means more CO2, which something humans are doing. If humans have nothing to do with global warming, it's an incredible coincidence.

[Ike]

What I am saying is if there was global warming and cooling way before industrialization and automobiles and humans then what is the reasoning behind blaming those things for global warming.


Because science hates industrialization. It's a known fact.

[landrun]

I sat by a woman with a PhD in Geo Chemstry on a plane recently. She travels as a consultant on global warming relate issues and gives lectures at various universities. She had me extremely discomfited with the things she said concerning the environment and the world we will live in 50 years from now.

But after hearing all you experts chime in I feel much better.

Wise up dude. Your 'expert' makes money off of the global warming charade. That's the idea with this new scam. Mucho money to the experto who flim-flams the gullible.

When I was young we were indoctrinated into the scientific reality of the coming ice age. News magazines wrote articles. Schools taught it to the children. Today its global warming.

Don't get me wrong. I believe global warming is real. But it will happen immediately after that ice age we were all told about. :rolleyes:

[Howzit]

Thanks, dude.

[mdklatt]

Wise up dude. Your 'expert' makes money off of the global warming charade. That's the idea with this new scam. Mucho money to the experto who flim-flams the gullible.

When I was young we were indoctrinated into the scientific reality of the coming ice age. News magazines wrote articles. Schools taught it to the children. Today its global warming.

Don't get me wrong. I believe global warming is real. But it will happen immediately after that ice age we were all told about. :rolleyes:


It's common knowledge that satellite images of melting sea ice in the Arctic Ocean were produced on a soundstage built in the desert outside of Yuma, AZ.

[Scott D]

wasn't that the same soundstage that Cristobal Colon used when he allegedly sailed west?

[Ike]

wasn't that the same soundstage that Cristobal Colon used when he allegedly sailed west?
no...it was the one that the lunar landing was shot on.

[Scott D]

no...it was the one that the lunar landing was shot on.

oh, so the same one where Magellan allegedly sailed around the world.

[Ike]

oh, so the same one where Magellan allegedly sailed around the world.
yeah, that one.

[Scott D]

yeah, that one.

ok, at least it wasn't the one where Galileo watched the moon.

[sooner_born_1960]

What I'm getting from this is that sometime in the future the landscape will change. Humans might or might not be responsible for the change. Humans will adapt to the change. What's the big deal? It's our planet.

[crawfish]

oh, so the same one where Magellan allegedly sailed around the world.

That's ridiculous. You couldn't sail around the world - you'd fall off the bottom.

[Scott D]

That's ridiculous. You couldn't sail around the world - you'd fall off the bottom.

before or after the gravity well of the earth pulls the sun into it?

[Ike]

That's ridiculous. You couldn't sail around the world - you'd fall off the bottom.

and probably get eaten by a turtle.

[OUinFLA]

science geeks always amaze me
Im off to watch reruns of Happy Days.

[Frozen Sooner]

What I am saying is if there was global warming and cooling way before industrialization and automobiles and humans then what is the reasoning behind blaming those things for global warming.

People have been falling off of cliffs for millions of years. Just because I push someone off a cliff, that's no reason to assume that the dude falling off a cliff is my fault.

[RFH Shakes]

People have been falling off of cliffs for millions of years. Just because I push someone off a cliff, that's no reason to assume that the dude falling off a cliff is my fault.

No, that would be like me stating that you are the main reason why people fall off of cliffs and if we were to remove you then people would no longer fall off of cliffs.

again, i'm not saying I don't believe in global warming, I'm just saying I believe we are in the warming stage of earth's natural warming and cooling cycle.(with or without humans)

[mdklatt]

again, i'm not saying I don't believe in global warming, I'm just saying I believe we are in the warming stage of earth's natural warming and cooling cycle.(with or without humans)

Based on wishful thinking or what?

[RFH Shakes]

Based on wishful thinking or what?

Based on there have MULTIPLE ice ages. Therefore the earth must have warmed and cooled in the past.

[crawfish]

This issue has been so politicized it's hard to know what to believe. Lord knows, there have been people on both sides misleading us and misrepresenting the evidence. I've developed a heavy skepticism towards anybody who claims they know what's going on. It's like any other issue...95% of the people on either side, whether that side is right or wrong, are just idiots who take somebody else's word for it.

[mdklatt]

Based on there have MULTIPLE ice ages. Therefore the earth must have warmed and cooled in the past.

You do realize that there can be more than one cause, right?

[Howzit]

You do realize that there can be more than one cause, right?

:les: YOU TAKE THAT BACK!!!

[Howzit]

science geeks always amaze me


It's my ginormous bran.

Isn't it?

[crawfish]

Personally, I've been skeptical of the global warming crowd ever since Kyoto. You see, if somebody tells me my house is gonna explode, I'll take them seriously enough to check it out. If somebody tells me my house is gonna explode and then offers me some pricey insurance to pay it off, then I'm probably going to pass them off as charlatans.

Kyoto basically told the U.S.A, "sacrifice your global capabilities for the good of the world. By the way, we're not going to hold everybody to this and, as a result, your sacrifice really won't make a difference, and you will probably lose serious economic capability as a result, but you still need to do it". Like the Canadian PM said, I think Kyoto was an attempt to get socialism to take root in capitalist countries.

[Ike]

This issue has been so politicized it's hard to know what to believe. Lord knows, there have been people on both sides misleading us and misrepresenting the evidence. I've developed a heavy skepticism towards anybody who claims they know what's going on. It's like any other issue...95% of the people on either side, whether that side is right or wrong, are just idiots who take somebody else's word for it.

you are absolutely right. I tend to side with the scientific consensus on this one though, because they put their methods and their data out there for anyone to view and attempt to contest.

It's really the people advocating strong policies to combat it that I tend to tune out. In all honesty, a report like this one should be accompanied by a second report outlining all currently known possible solutions, and what would be needed to implement such solutions. In this manner, I want to hear from technology researchers, some climate scientists, and economists, and I want to have them discuss every available option, outline exactly what the effects of implementing such an option would be, and in the cases of options that are not yet economically viable, discuss what is needed in order to get to that point.

I don't want a binding document like kyoto. I want policy makers to have a clear picture of not only the best science with regard to global warming, but also the best science with respect to solutions....and I feel that they really never get that second side of the picture. I think they get the picture now with respect to global warming, but I think the picture they get with alternatives is muddled at best.

[Widescreen]

You do realize that there can be more than one cause, right?
Glad to see you don't fall in with these alarmists. Attention everyone...Klatt just admitted that it may be something other than humans causing it!

;)

[Widescreen]

you are absolutely right. I tend to side with the scientific consensus on this one though, because they put their methods and their data out there for anyone to view and attempt to contest.

It's really the people advocating strong policies to combat it that I tend to tune out. In all honesty, a report like this one should be accompanied by a second report outlining as many available possible solutions, and what would be needed to implement such solutions. In this manner, I want to hear from technology researchers, some climate scientists, and economists, and I want to have them discuss every available option, outline exactly what the effects of implementing such an option would be, and in the cases of options that are not yet economically viable, discuss what is needed in order to get to that point.

I don't want a binding document like kyoto. I want policy makers to have a clear picture of not only the best science with regard to global warming, but also the best science with respect to solutions....and I feel that they really never get that second side of the picture. I think they get the picture now with respect to global warming, but I think the picture they get with alternatives is muddled at best.
Good even-keeled response. I personally think the reason that they never go to the next level is because, first, it's a lot more difficult than waving your arms and screaming that we're all going to die, and second, it may have a negative impact on gubment grants.

[mdklatt]

Glad to see you don't fall in with these alarmists. Attention everyone...Klatt just admitted that it may be something other than humans causing it!

;)

In the past, obviously. This time? Maybe not.

[Ike]

Good even-keeled response. I personally think the reason that they never go to the next level is because, first, it's a lot more difficult than waving your arms and screaming that we're all going to die, and second, it may have a negative impact on gubment grants.


are you kidding? about the gov't grants I mean. There is not a single alternative that will reduce the gov't grants to study the climate, for a couple of reasons. The biggest being that, suppose we implement some solution to combat global warming. Well, now we need to know if it works and how well it works. We still have to make the observations and do the analysis. You can't just say "OK, global warming. Solved." and call it a day. You need to know how well it's been solved. The observations will probably need to continue for several decades in order to determine how well any solution worked, if at all, and then to estimate what the residual effects of the warming that has already happened are. Scientists that are alive today won't see their funding cut if they solve global warming tomorrow.

In other words, we'll still need people to do the same kinds of analysis they are doing today...just hoping that we get different results.

[RFH Shakes]

You do realize that there can be more than one cause, right?
My point exactly. This report states that it is there belief that global warming is caused by humans. ie. this quote:
"Four participants told The Associated Press that the group approved the term "very likely" in Thursday's sessions. That means they agree that there is a 90 percent chance that global warming is caused by humans."

Yet they ignore the fact that the earth has had a pattern of warming and cooling way before there was industry and auto emissions. Humans contribute to it but we are not the cause of it.

[mdklatt]

Yet they ignore the fact that the earth has had a pattern of warming and cooling way before there was industry and auto emissions.


Yes, that's it. I'm sure all those climatologists somehow all ignored the earth's natural climate variability. Oops!



Humans contribute to it but we are not the cause of it.

Nobody is saying humans are the sole cause of all global warming. They're saying that humans are likely the main cause of the global warming we're experiencing right now. Do you see the difference?

[Octavian]

It's the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on the American public. -2003


There is no relationship between manmade gases and global warming. -2005


Now look. God's still up there. We still have these natural changes and this is what's going on right now. -2005


...put simply, man-induced global warming is an article of religious faith. -2005


All of the recent science…it confirms that I was right on this thing. This thing is a hoax.” -2006


It's a hoax. They used one scientist. -referring to a report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which concluded that global warming was real and caused by humans. It involved thousands of scientists from over 120 countries, including so-called “climate skeptics” and industry representatives. -2006


It kind of reminds... I could use the Third Reich, the Big Lie... You say something over and over and over and over again, and people will believe it, and that's their [the environmentalists'] strategy... A hot summer has nothing to do with global warming. Let's keep in mind it was just three weeks ago that people were saying, 'Wait a minute; it is unusually cool..." -2006


Everything on which they [the environmentalists] based their story, in terms of the facts, has been refuted scientifically. -2006


This conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation's top climate scientists. -2006





The above quotes are from Senator James Inhofe.


Under the direction of the Bush Administration, Sen. Inhofe was chosen to head the Senate Committe on Environment and Public Works.


Inhofe's 2005 tax forms show that Capital Advisors, Inc., acting on behalf of the James M. Inhofe Revocable Trust, purchased shares in ConocoPhillips, General Electric and Vintage Petroleum, Inc., all companies involved with the production of hydrocarbons.


Only Texas senator John Cornyn received more campaign donations from the oil and gas industry in the 2004 election cycle.


The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars.

[Widescreen]

The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars.
So it's a small business. Get off his back - he's an entrepreneur.

[Octavian]

Humans contribute to it but we are not the cause of it.


the scientific community emphatically disagrees with you.


of course, they're just a bunch of PhD wielding, socialist wakademics....but in this case, will make an exception to their pinko belief system and act as renegade profiteers

[Octavian]

...he's an entrepreneur.


apparently...

[KABOOKIE]

Yes, that's it. I'm sure all those climatologists somehow all ignored the earth's natural climate variability. Oops!


It's a pretty convenient side step.

[OUinFLA]

It's my ginormous bran.

Isn't it?


It is sad that you only have one bran.
It is encouraging that it is so ginormous.

You're "special".
:D

[Jerk]

apparently...

Why doesn't your side come with a plan that treats ALL nations equally, then we will talk.

(It won't happen, though)

[Octavian]

Why doesn't your side come with a plan that treats ALL nations equally, then we will talk.

(It won't happen, though)


Talk about what? What would we talk about??


There's not a problem....right?


I mean, no need to devise a fair and equitable solution for a "hoax."



I'll skip the fact that this is probably the only time I've ever heard of pubs argue for international equality among nations.....and just say that the absence of a definitive and comprehensive plan seems better than the denial for the need of one.

[KABOOKIE]

Silly me. I thought the Sun and the Earth's relation to it was the primary cause of climates changes.

[mdklatt]

Silly me. I thought the Sun and the Earth's relation to it was the primary cause of climates changes.

Of course you understand climate dynamics better than a vast preponderance of the world's climate experts, right?

[Jerk]

Talk about what? What would we talk about??


There's not a problem....right?


I mean, no need to devise a fair and equitable solution for a "hoax."



I'll skip the fact that this is probably the only time I've ever heard of pubs argue for international equality among nations.....and just say that the absence of a definitive and comprehensive plan seems better than the denial for the need of one.

Don't worry, we won't have to talk, because certain socialists have latched on to this global warming thing in hopes of destroying capitalism...why else would the kyoto treat nations so differently? I can't think of one. Can you? I mean, if the object is not to pollute, then why wouldn't the authors of Kyoto want everyone treated the same? You see, it proves that there is an agenda, and I say don't worry about 'talk,' because they aren't going to come up with a treaty that forces everyone to be the same, even though they believe life on earth is at stake. No, they won't, because life on earth is not the issue. Socialism is. It doesn't matter if man made global warming is true or false, the fact is alot of people are crossing their fingers and hoping that this will force their agenda on everyone.

[Jerk]

Gawdamn, people. If you're so worried about it, then start riding bicycles everywhere you go.

Do any of you actually do that? Or do you just point fingers at other people hoping to change the way they live?

[jacru]

Gawdamn, people. If you're so worried about it, then start riding bicycles everywhere you go.

Do any of you actually do that? Or do you just point fingers at other people hoping to change the way they live?
Ya gots ta luv da jerk.:cool: spot on!

[Octavian]

...socialists have latched on to this global warming thing in hopes of destroying capitalism.


well, ok.


http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/7051/brickwallaw8.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[crawfish]

well, ok.


http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/7051/brickwallaw8.gif (http://imageshack.us)

The fact that the above does not disprove global warming does not make it any less true.

I think the world would be more likely to accept the idea if it hadn't been hijacked by the leftists.

[Jerk]

Exactly, I'm not arguing that global warming is true or false....I'm just saying that the elitist "know better than thou's" have really latched on to this wagon.

What better way to take control of the economy?

"If we don't do such and such, we're all going to die"

I guess they want to take control of ours, but not Chinas.

[SoonerGirl06]

Here's the thing. This most recent report....it's not a treaty, or even some standard protocol like Kyoto was that requires anyone to do anything. These are scientists who have spent a long time looking at the data and arriving at these conclusions. They aren't saying we need to do X, Y, Z. They are saying these are the coming effects we can all agree upon. If you think they are in this for the money or to profit off the scare, then I think you are misleading yourself a little. For a scientist, there is no greater achievement than to conclusively demonstrate that the accepted models are flat out wrong. So far, nobody has done this. There have been a few that propose other ideas or look at different data and arise at different conclusions, but none that have conclusively demonstrated that this is all hype. These scientists aren't releasing this report for more funding. They are saying "here are our predictions". After you've done that, all there is to do is wait around and see if they come true. Hell, if I were a climate scientist, I'd honestly be a little torn as to whether or not to alert the public about global warming. I'd wanna see if it really happened or not to test my model. Then again, I'd also want to make sure I'm alive (or my successors are alive) to check my predictions.

BTW, this 90% that some people have harped on...here's how it works: (warning, statistical mumbo jumbo below)
You form a hypothesis, in this case, that global warming mostly due to human activity. You then collect as much data as you can that you think will answer that question. I have no idea what data they used for that, but presumably their data would be expected to have a certain distribution for natural causes, and a different distribution for human causes. Typically in a situation like this, the data you actually collect should look like one or the other, or some combination of the two. So you ask the question "how well does the data fit my expectations?" Due to the fact that it is impossible to gather an infinite data sample, statistical fluctuations arrive, and the data never fit perfectly to what is expected. But you can still draw some conclusions from it. Specifically, you can ask the question "what is the probability that my hypothesis is correct?" and in this case, it turns out to be around 90%. which means that there is a 10% chance that the fact that their data looks somewhat like what they expected may have arisen from natural causes and/or statistical fluctuations.

nb: the 90% confidence level is also sometimes known as a 2-sigma result. many of you are probably familiar with the name 6-sigma, and the meaning there is similar to here. In many branches of science, a 2 sigma result isn't a very strong statement. In my own line of work, a 2-3 sigma result is known as "evidence for", which is pretty way of saying "we think we see something, but we acknowledge that this could be a statistical fluctuation". We require 5-sigma results as the standard for "discovery". Take this to mean whatever you like with respect to global warming.



Do I get a grade for attending this class? If so, I'd like an A+. :D

[SoonerGirl06]

Fer instance, (and for the sake of this example, I am just going down the relatively simplistic route .....


I don't think anything you've said on this topic has been relatively simplistic. ;)

[Jerk]

I don't think anything you've said on this topic has been relatively simplistic. ;)

Yeah, me reading that is like trying to explain Diesel engine mechanics to Sic'Em.

Just change the spark plugs, buddy!

[SoonerGirl06]

Yeah, me reading that is like trying to explain Diesel engine mechanics to Sic'Em.

Just change the spark plugs, buddy!


Thank God! I thought it was just me! :)

[Octavian]

http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/8090/pukeyzq4.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[OUinFLA]

I don't think anything you've said on this topic has been relatively simplistic. ;)

If you broused around on Ike's brainwave level for a while, you would realize that most of us are simplistic. He is just nice to try to explain things on a level we understand.
Well, not exactly understand, but most of us just nod our heads up and down and say....."Oh, I see".
That way we dont look too dumb.
Well, except for me, I tend to look that way no matter which way my head is nodding. It would help if I remembered to close my mouth.
:D

[Scott D]

you're just laughing at global warming old man because you've already got a boat :P

[Jerk]

Don't throw up, dude. It causes a chain reaction. If I see you throw up, then I'll throw up, then Soonergirl will throw up, then Dean will throw up, then Mike will throw up, then Mongo will throw up, then 1tc will throw up, then olevet will throw up, then bri will throw up, then Brasky will throw up, then TUSooner will throw up, then JohnnyMack will throw up, then Sooneron will throw up, then PG will throw up, then Phil will throw up, then SB68 will throw up, then jk will throw up, then sb93 will throw up, then MommaMia will throw up, then tbl will throw up, then Beef will throw up, then 85Sooner will throw up, then Jacru will throw up, then Crawfish will throw up, then SicEm will throw up, then Scott D will throw up, then TopDawg will throw up, then Royal will throw up, then Oklahomey will throw up, then Mjcpr will throw up, then mdklatt will throw up, then Sleestakesooner will throw up, then Ike will throw up, then OUMartin will throw up, then Widescreen will throw up, then Soonerus will throw up, then Howitz will throw up, then Penguin will throw up, then..you know what will happen? Sanantoniosooner will make a long succession of one-liners that are kind of funny, yet insultious and slanderous, cuz he's a nefarious dude..

[OUinFLA]

you're just laughing at global warming old man because you've already got a boat :P

well, yeah, and Im hoping for waterfront property on a less expensive entry level.

[Mongo]

Don't throw up, dude. It causes a chain reaction. If I see you throw up, then I'll throw up, then Soonergirl will throw up, then Dean will throw up, then Mike will throw up, then Mongo will throw up, then 1tc will throw up, then olevet will throw up, then bri will throw up, then Brasky will throw up, then TUSooner will throw up, then JohnnyMack will throw up, then Sooneron will throw up, then PG will throw up, then Phil will throw up, then SB68 will throw up, then MommaMia will throw up, then Beef will throw up, then 85Sooner will throw up, then Jacru will throw up, then Crawfish will throw up, then SicEm will throw up, then Scott D will throw up, then TopDawg will throw up, then Royal will throw up, then Oklahomey will throw up, then Mjcpr will throw up, then mdklatt will throw up, then Sleestakesooner will throw up, then Ike will throw up, then OUMartin will throw up, then Soonerus will throw up, then Howitz will throw up, then..you know what will happen? Sanantoniosooner will make a long succession of one-liners that are kind of funny, yet insultious and slander.

I got dizzy from reading that and threw up

[SoonerGirl06]

well, yeah, and Im hoping for waterfront property on a less expensive entry level.

LMAO!

[SoonerGirl06]

Don't throw up, dude. It causes a chain reaction. If I see you throw up, then I'll throw up, then Soonergirl will throw up, then Dean will throw up, then Mike will throw up, then Mongo will throw up, then 1tc will throw up, then olevet will throw up, then bri will throw up, then Brasky will throw up, then TUSooner will throw up, then JohnnyMack will throw up, then Sooneron will throw up, then PG will throw up, then Phil will throw up, then SB68 will throw up, then jk will throw up, then sb93 will throw up, then MommaMia will throw up, then tbl will throw up, then Beef will throw up, then 85Sooner will throw up, then Jacru will throw up, then Crawfish will throw up, then SicEm will throw up, then Scott D will throw up, then TopDawg will throw up, then Royal will throw up, then Oklahomey will throw up, then Mjcpr will throw up, then mdklatt will throw up, then Sleestakesooner will throw up, then Ike will throw up, then OUMartin will throw up, then Widescreen will throw up, then Soonerus will throw up, then Howitz will throw up, then Penguin will throw up, then..you know what will happen? Sanantoniosooner will make a long succession of one-liners that are kind of funny, yet insultious and slanderous, cuz he's a nefarious dude..

Yeah.... I just ate Mexican and that's never good coming back up. :eek:

[Scott D]

well, yeah, and Im hoping for waterfront property on a less expensive entry level.

at least you'll have more dominicanos and haitians to hire since their island will be smaller :)

[KABOOKIE]

Of course you understand climate dynamics better than a vast preponderance of the world's climate experts, right?


3.826 Gajillion Watts. Now that's dynamic.

[Frozen Sooner]

Yeah, me reading that is like trying to explain Diesel engine mechanics to Sic'Em.

Just change the spark plugs, buddy!

Jesus, man, that's going to REALLY confuse Sic 'Em when he goes looking for the spark plugs in a diesel.

[Harry Beanbag]

Don't throw up, dude. It causes a chain reaction. If I see you throw up, then I'll throw up, then Soonergirl will throw up, then Dean will throw up, then Mike will throw up, then Mongo will throw up, then 1tc will throw up, then olevet will throw up, then bri will throw up, then Brasky will throw up, then TUSooner will throw up, then JohnnyMack will throw up, then Sooneron will throw up, then PG will throw up, then Phil will throw up, then SB68 will throw up, then jk will throw up, then sb93 will throw up, then MommaMia will throw up, then tbl will throw up, then Beef will throw up, then 85Sooner will throw up, then Jacru will throw up, then Crawfish will throw up, then SicEm will throw up, then Scott D will throw up, then TopDawg will throw up, then Royal will throw up, then Oklahomey will throw up, then Mjcpr will throw up, then mdklatt will throw up, then Sleestakesooner will throw up, then Ike will throw up, then OUMartin will throw up, then Widescreen will throw up, then Soonerus will throw up, then Howitz will throw up, then Penguin will throw up, then..you know what will happen? Sanantoniosooner will make a long succession of one-liners that are kind of funny, yet insultious and slanderous, cuz he's a nefarious dude..


Great, you guys just raised the global temperature another 0.3 Celsius due to all the CO2 you just expelled with your vomit. WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!1!!11!!!

[Frozen Sooner]

No, that would be like me stating that you are the main reason why people fall off of cliffs and if we were to remove you then people would no longer fall off of cliffs.

again, i'm not saying I don't believe in global warming, I'm just saying I believe we are in the warming stage of earth's natural warming and cooling cycle.(with or without humans)

But really, no it's not.

Yes, there have been cycles of warming and cooling in the history of the planet. The overwhelming scientific opinion is that right now the earth is warming and that a significant part of that warming is caused by man.

Postulate that the average temperature of the earth can be plotted as a sine wave. The average value of the wave is 0 over every integral period. The earth warms, the earth cools. The median temperature is still the baseline.

Now consider the effects of moving that wave up two degrees-the median temperature is now baseline +2. Sure, that doesn't sound very frightening, but once the climate gets out of whack, you start running into some positive feedback loops: things like overall planetary albedo being reduced due to shrinking icecaps, which lowers the amount of light radiation being reflected into space, which leads to the non-reflected energy heating the globe, which further melts the caps, which decreases albedo more.

I'm willing to listen to arguments that the effect of humans on the climate is overstated, but in this particular case I tend to believe the people who study it for a living for no other reason than the fact that I simply don't have the science to discuss it intelligently.

Back to my analogy: I don't think that ANY scientist is claiming that global temperature fluctuation wouldn't exist without man. What they're claiming is that man is affecting global temperature and that we should probably start taking some measures to stop doing so. Thus my analogy holds.

[JudgeU]

you are absolutely right. I tend to side with the scientific consensus on this one though, because they put their methods and their data out there for anyone to view and attempt to contest.

Scientific Consensus???

I just found out where I live this was the coldest January in +20 years. Two years ago we had more snow than ever on record going back 125 years. I live in south Texas by the way.


I do believe the Earth is getting warmer though, but I don't believe anything these forecaster are saying. If you want to read dissension in the scientific community it's mostly coming from astronomers and astrophysicists who study other planets and solar flares. My problem with these forecasters is they fail to heed what the astonomers take on the situation is. They don't even acknowledge their data.

Mars global warming:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

Jupiter global warming:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html

Pluto global warming (even though Pluto has entered its winter):
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html


Warming on Neptunes largest moon Triton
http://science.nasa.gov/current/event/mit.htm

A quick search will show you more. Just google a planet or moon + global warming and if they've studied it - it's also warming up. I can't find a single planet that is cooling (maybe I didn't search good enough?)


Do you ever hear about this from the global warming crowd? Why not consider it? It's intellectually dishonest of them to not even let the public know there is another theory out there for why the Earth is heating up.


This is just me, but I'm more inclined to listen to physicists than forecasters. If nothing else I'm willing to give them the time to finish their studies before I make my decision on the matter (most studies won't be finished for a few years.)


I remember reading that a solar flare is what caused the droughts and higher temperatures in the '90's.

Looked for it on wikipedia really quick - I found this about the suns activity. Looks like it's more active now than it has been over the last hundred years - according to highs anyways (maybe not averages):


Two of the largest GOES flares were the X20 events (2 mW/m2) recorded on August 16, 1989 and April 2, 2001. However, these events were outshone by a flare on November 4, 2003 that was the most powerful X-ray flare ever recorded. This flare was originally classified as X28 (2.8 mW/m2). However, the GOES detectors were saturated at the peak of the flare, and it is now thought that the flare was between X40 (4.0 mW/m2) and X45 (4.5 mW/m2), based on the influence of the event on the earth's atmosphere (see [1]). The flare originated in sunspot region 10486, which is shown in the illustration above several days before the flare.


A solar flare on January 20, 2005 released the highest concentration of protons ever directly measured, taking only 15 minutes after observation to reach Earth, indicating a velocity of approximately one-third light speed.

Many more evidence out there, just read about it if you can.

I'll leave with a humorous quote of the situation:

"Oooh, so Mother Nature needs a favor?! Well maybe she should have
thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and
poison monkeys! Nature started the fight for survival, and now she wants to
quit because she's losing. Well I say, hard cheese."
-- C. Montgomery Burns :D

[Ike]

well, I tend to listen to physicists too....I don't really have a choice.


anyway, here is a telling quote from one of those articles.

Jay Pasachoff, an astronomy professor at Williams College, said that Pluto's global warming was "likely not connected with that of the Earth. The major way they could be connected is if the warming was caused by a large increase in sunlight. But the solar constant--the amount of sunlight received each second--is carefully monitored by spacecraft, and we know the sun's output is much too steady to be changing the temperature of Pluto."

The fact of the matter is that for what is being observed on the earth, lots and lots of theories of non-man made global warming are being tested all of the time, and as far as the studies that I have actually read, they have all failed to fit the data....but the models of a CO2 emmisions based global warming have fit the data much better.

[Jerk]

Is there a study that says Chinese CO2 is less damaging than American CO2?

[Ike]

Is there a study that says Chinese CO2 is less damaging than American CO2?
now you are mixing issues.