Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you outraged when politicians get all hyper and tell us that Hurricane Sandi was caused by Man Made Global Warming?
No, I'm not going to get outraged like you do. I'm also probably not going to consider anything a politician says with regards to science, because it's likely perverted by an agenda. I WILL, however, consider what climate scientists say. There was an unusual (for October) high pressure system over Greenland that caused Sandy to veer westward when even some American forecast models thought it would go out to sea. The high pressure block might be related to the melting of Greenland's ice cap. No scientists said that climate change "caused" Sandy. There may a link, however, in its course and in the intensity.
You're right, CO2 was more concentrated at other times in past epochs. The thing is, I have no agenda. I don't make a profit if CO2 falls or if it rises. I don't own stock in Exxon or in any green energy company. I look at a chart and see that CO2 was flat for centuries, then it started rising around the time of the industrial revolution, and it's increased on a predictable curve since then. We started belching out CO2 as a waste product right around the time the curve began moving upwards. Why this is such a hostile concept is beyond me.
Yeah and tell me just how old your chart is Does it go allllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the wayyyyyyyyy back to say 1852? The first weather records were made by Sailors a lot further back that 1852, but you chart won't date to 1852 if my guess is right....
But hey bring back tall ships that ran on wood and cloth if you want too. I know how to ride a horse and drive a wagon. Still a tad messy in the concrete jungle.
The size of a golf course, the Vatican City [wiki | official website] is the smallest country in the world.
2. Monaco:Size: 0.8 sq. mi. (1.96 km²)
Population: 35,657 (2006 estimate)
Location: French Riviera on the Mediterranean
Monaco [wiki | official website] is the second smallest country on Earth (it's roughly the size of New York's Central Park), yet it's the most densely populated (23,660 people per km²). Actually, Monaco used to be much smaller than it is now - about 100 acres were reclaimed from the sea and added to its land size.
3. Nauru:Size: 8 sq. mi (21 km²)
Population: 13,005 (2005 estimate)
Location: Western Pacific Ocean
Nauru [wiki] is the world's smallest island nation, the smallest independent republic, and the only republic in the world without an official capital.
Nauru only has one significant source of income: phosphates from thousands of years' worth of guano or bird droppings. This proved to be both a boon and a bane for Nauruans - for a long time, its residents enjoyed a relatively high level of income as the country exported its phosphate like there's no tomorrow.
Tuvalu [wiki] is basically a chain of low-lying coral islands, with its highest elevation being 16 feet or 5 meters above seal level. With total land area of just 9 square miles, Tuvalu is not only a teeny tiny island in the Pacific Ocean, it may not even exist in the next 50 years
(get ready to see this place soon if you planned to, bring wadda wings)
5. San Marino: Size: 24 sq. mi. (61 km²)
Population: 28,117 (2005 estimate)
Location: North-central Italy near the Adriatic coast.
San Marino takes its government seriously: for such a tiny country, San Marino has a very complex government structure, based on a constitution written in 1600. The country is ruled by an elected Council of 60, who appoints 2 captain regents (from opposing political parties, no less) to administer governmental affairs for six-month term. Talk about preserving liberties through division of authority!
No, I'm not going to get outraged like you do. I'm also probably not going to consider anything a politician says with regards to science, because it's likely perverted by an agenda. I WILL, however, consider what climate scientists say. There was an unusual (for October) high pressure system over Greenland that caused Sandy to veer westward when even some American forecast models thought it would go out to sea. The high pressure block might be related to the melting of Greenland's ice cap. No scientists said that climate change "caused" Sandy. There may a link, however, in its course and in the intensity.
Question is, do you understand that there are scientists who also have an agenda? If not, well... your attempt to show you do not worship at the feet of authority has failed.
A big part of the problem with this issue is that scientists who are promoting CAGW aren't using "science" to achieve it. It is kind of why climategate was such a huge thing. You remember that right? When they were going on in the emails about how they couldn't establish their "cause" via science and so had to involve politics to get results?
BTW, I am all for considering what "climate scientists" have to say, but when I say consider, it is only in passing, I am far more interested in what they can establish through proper scientific evaluation. If they can't, well... they are just guys who know a lot about the field making guesses and the fact remains that a guess is just an assumption without verification. Sorry, but title is not even remotely sufficient to establish a position as it concerns science. To attempt to submit to such defies the entire purpose of science.
Oh and here is an interesting fact. There was a recent study (peer reviewed and all) that showed "empirically" that the models used changed in their results based on running them on different systems. Here is the kicker... the amount to which they often deviated, well... it was within the range of discrepancy to which the results showed a given result. That is, their results of increase in temps could be entirely attributed to the error in hardware they are running on.
Kind of makes you think twice about models eh? Just incase you don't understand what that means... well... it means the models are absolutely worthless. Roll some bones, throw darts at a graph, or have monkeys do your prediction schemes, it is basically the same. Not really "scientific" you think?
No, I'm not going to get outraged like you do. I'm also probably not going to consider anything a politician says with regards to science, because it's likely perverted by an agenda. I WILL, however, consider what climate scientists say. There was an unusual (for October) high pressure system over Greenland that caused Sandy to veer westward when even some American forecast models thought it would go out to sea. The high pressure block might be related to the melting of Greenland's ice cap. No scientists said that climate change "caused" Sandy. There may a link, however, in its course and in the intensity.
See folks when a storm hits some place, the warmists get to cry GLOBAL WARMING.
when a storm doesnt hit, we get fussed out for crying NO GLOBAL WARMING.
it really is sad you arguing both sides of the coin here.
You're right, CO2 was more concentrated at other times in past epochs. The thing is, I have no agenda. I don't make a profit if CO2 falls or if it rises. I don't own stock in Exxon or in any green energy company. I look at a chart and see that CO2 was flat for centuries, then it started rising around the time of the industrial revolution, and it's increased on a predictable curve since then. We started belching out CO2 as a waste product right around the time the curve began moving upwards. Why this is such a hostile concept is beyond me.
It's not a hostile concept. It's just correlation. And as I'm sure you know, correlation does not prove causation.
In May, Marc Morano, publisher of ClimateDepot.com and a former member of the staff of the U.S. Senate Environmental & Public Works Committee submitted written testimony to the committee.
“The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim—from A-Z—the claims of the promoters of man-made climate fears are failing,” wrote Morano, “and in many instances the claims are moving in the opposite direction. The global warming movement is suffering the scientific death of a thousand cuts.”
“There is no evidence,” wrote Morano, “we are currently having any unusual weather.” Weather events such as the Moore, Oklahoma tornado and the sub-tropical storm Sandy that hit the northeast are normal occurrences despite the damage they inflicted
In The Wall Street Journal in May, Princeton University physicist Dr. William Happer and NASA moonwalker and geologist, Dr. Harrison H. Schmitt wrote that “Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That’s simply not the case.”
Literally thousands of scientists around the world have disputed the IPCC “science” and many former “warmists” have reversed their former beliefs. Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, a top Swedish climate scientist, formerly affiliated with the IPCC, said in February “We are creating great anxiety without it being justified…there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic…
“The warming we have had the last 100 years is so small that, if we didn’t have meteorologists and climatologists to measure it, we wouldn't have noticed it at all.”
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does it go allllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the wayyyyyyyyy back to say 1852? The first weather records were made by Sailors a lot further back that 1852, but you chart won't date to 1852 if my guess is right....
