• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Global Warming: A debate that I will win.

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
The only definitive proof that I need for global warming is the dramatic increase in threads about weather on TRIBE in the past five years. It's a very clear hockey stick pattern.
 

jebac

TRIBE Member
are there any industries that are targeted by federal govt and ontario govt policy for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions? im actually more interested in specific policies since i cant think of any! does kyoto count or is that a more international GHG emission reduction initiative?

for some strange reason im having trouble finding both a federal and a provincial policy, and environment canada isnt helping me either...

-jebac
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

bacerdata

TRIBE Member
GLOBAL WARMING IS BOGUS!!!

But let's all buy hybrid cars with batteries full of acid and toxins that will need to be replaced in 5 years...JUST IN CASE!

Oh, oh...those cars can also be made of plastic, a bi product of an un-renewable resource! Yeah see cause plastic is light weight and batteries are really heavy. And in order to make cars more efficient they have to be made lightweight. You know what though, it sure helps those car manufacturers get richer and richer. I wonder who's making all those donations to global warming activists too.

FEAR WILL EAT YOUR MONEY ALIVE!
 

Puma

TRIBE Member
Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age
Lorne Gunter, National Post
Published: Monday, February 25, 2008

More On This Story
Carbon report says tax could save Canadians money

Climate change could be the next subprime meltdown

Most of country coping with winter storms



Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.

The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."

China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.

There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.

In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.

And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

The ice is back.

Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.

But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.

And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma.

According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.

"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.

But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.

Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."

He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.

The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.

It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.
 

bacerdata

TRIBE Member
Can you explain the retreat of Glaciers the disintegration of the Larson Ice shelf and the Ross Ice Stream Gaining mass?

I'm having this argument elsewhere and would like to back up everything with some facts.

That Larson Ice Shelf is killing my argument right now.

GO!
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

bacerdata

TRIBE Member
oddmyth said:
Can you explain how the Larson Ice Shelf is killing your argument?

Here's some initial google findings of (search: larsen ice shelf global warming arguments)
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002752.html
Well I don't know too many details, but I am aware that in different area's of the Antarctic the ice is gaining in size by some crazy amount. Or at least it was in 2002 when that Ice Shelf was "Melting due to global warming".

I mentioned the gaining of ice and dude just posted pictures of the Larson B area disintegrating. This link has proven useful though. Thank you.
 

atbell

TRIBE Member
bacerdata said:
Well I don't know too many details, but I am aware that in different area's of the Antarctic the ice is gaining in size by some crazy amount. Or at least it was in 2002 when that Ice Shelf was "Melting due to global warming".

I mentioned the gaining of ice and dude just posted pictures of the Larson B area disintegrating. This link has proven useful though. Thank you.
Check out this:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

or if you don't read in English, check out these:

Aribic:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/climate-changes-2007-ar4-ar.htm

Chinese:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/climate-changes-2007-ar4-cn.htm

Russian:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/climate-changes-2007-ar4-ru.htm


If you can find a proof that there is no global warming in this paper I'd like to see it.

I've done a fair amount of reading on the subject and I'm rather convinced that:

1. the globe is warming

and

2. that the extreme increase in temperature began at about the same time as the industrial revolution, some 200 odd years ago.


I am NOT convinced about the science of green house gases but I have not done enough reading to say if it is right, wrong, or over played.
 

bacerdata

TRIBE Member
atbell said:
Check out this:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

or if you don't read in English, check out these:

Aribic:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/climate-changes-2007-ar4-ar.htm

Chinese:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/climate-changes-2007-ar4-cn.htm

Russian:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/climate-changes-2007-ar4-ru.htm


If you can find a proof that there is no global warming in this paper I'd like to see it.

I've done a fair amount of reading on the subject and I'm rather convinced that:

1. the globe is warming

and

2. that the extreme increase in temperature began at about the same time as the industrial revolution, some 200 odd years ago.


I am NOT convinced about the science of green house gases but I have not done enough reading to say if it is right, wrong, or over played.
From my understanding all weather data is completely compromised because they're taking off degree's willy nilly to account for urban heat factors. There are deserts that are cooling right now. There are places all over the world that are cooling. The data that they've collected doesn't make good science. If the earth is warming it may not be from Co2 emissions. It may be a whole slew of other shit.
 

Colm

TRIBE Member
bacerdata said:
From my understanding all weather data is completely compromised because they're taking off degree's willy nilly to account for urban heat factors. There are deserts that are cooling right now. There are places all over the world that are cooling. The data that they've collected doesn't make good science.
Shh! Al Gore is listening!
 

atbell

TRIBE Member
bacerdata said:
From my understanding all weather data is completely compromised because they're taking off degree's willy nilly to account for urban heat factors. There are deserts that are cooling right now. There are places all over the world that are cooling. The data that they've collected doesn't make good science. If the earth is warming it may not be from Co2 emissions. It may be a whole slew of other shit.
I'm glad you "feel" that the data is wrong.

Now if you could just point out where the degrees have been cut in the stated paper, along with maybe a few academic peer reviewed papers supporting your argument, I'd be very interested in takeing a look at it.

From what I've read I'm not convinced CO2 is the problem either, but I can't say until I've seen the science myself.
 
Last edited:
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

oddmyth

TRIBE Member
Hey atbell I've been reading over the IPCC stuff you posted. My only problem with it thus far, and I'm not all that far in but very curious about a certain aspect that I feel should have been addressed thus far.

They mention the research being done on clouds and how they affect both heating and cooling of the planet via reflection of heat from either direction, however they have yet to mention greenhouse gases doing anything but reflecting back heat radiation from the earth.

This is only an assumption on my part as I am sure there may be any number of factors involved including wavelength/amplitude of the radiation etc. but I have yet to come across them speaking of how greenhouse gases scatter solar radiation.

Have you come across anything?
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
atbell said:
I'm glad you "feel" that the data is wrong.

Now if you could just point out where the degrees have been cut in the stated paper, along with maybe a few academic peer reviewed papers supporting your argument, I'd be very interested in takeing a look at it.

From what I've read I'm not convinced CO2 is the problem either, but I can't say until I've seen the science myself.
He's actually correct. I have active accounts to a variety of online databases, including AAAS (Science mag) and a few others, many of which point to this ... in fact, I've pointed to it in a previous post in this thread (I think I was engaging you at the time) ... my post quoted a professor, James Voogt PhD from UWO ... he also provided me with a peer paper that analyzes this topic. It's a huge area of interest and of great concern for those who are trying to establish a sanitized and reliable atmospheric mean temperature.
 

atbell

TRIBE Member
~atp~ said:
He's actually correct. I have active accounts to a variety of online databases, including AAAS (Science mag) and a few others, many of which point to this ... in fact, I've pointed to it in a previous post in this thread (I think I was engaging you at the time) ... my post quoted a professor, James Voogt PhD from UWO ... he also provided me with a peer paper that analyzes this topic. It's a huge area of interest and of great concern for those who are trying to establish a sanitized and reliable atmospheric mean temperature.

Can you re-post the link / paper?

I'm interested in reading it.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
atbell, I have a copy of the paper here, it's only a summary paper and not exactly what I thought it was. I can host it, or you can PM me and I'll send it to you directly.

In other news (and of no surprise at all):

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril. Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."
Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."
Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"
Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.
"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."
Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"
Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."
Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"
Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."
Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."
Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
Experts close in on culprit of Earth's mass extinction
Scientists say massacre can offer lessons for world
By ROBERT S. BOYD McClatchy-Tribune
Aug. 30, 2008, 5:26PM

WASHINGTON — It was the greatest mass murder of all time — poison everywhere, billions slain — but the killer or killers have never been positively identified.

An estimated 95 percent of all marine species and up to 85 percent of land creatures perished, according to Peter Ward, a paleobiologist at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Scientists call it "The Great Dying." Life took millions of years to recover.

Scientific sleuths, however, now think they're making progress toward pinning down what caused the extinction of most plants and animals on Earth some 251 million years ago.

The perpetrator wasn't an asteroid or comet, like the impact that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago and inspired movies such as Deep Impact and Armageddon.

Instead, it was a cascade of events that began with a monstrous outpouring of hot, reeking lava in Siberia. Repeated floods of lava released massive amounts of carbon dioxide, which produced a runaway greenhouse effect, oxygen-starved oceans and a poisoned atmosphere.


Studying the puzzle
The slaughter is formally known as the Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction because it marked the end of a multimillion-year geologic period, the Permian, and the beginning of another, the Triassic.

To further unravel the mystery, the National Science Foundation has launched an international project to study the Siberian lava, led by Linda Elkins-Tanton, a geologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

"We have 28 scientists from seven countries and five years' worth of funding," Elkins-Tanton said. "I'm very excited about it."

Besides being a puzzling detective story, the Permian-Triassic extinction is also a cautionary tale for our time.

"The end-Permian catastrophe is an extreme version of the consequences of global warming," said Lee Kump, a geoscientist at Pennsylvania State University. "It reminds us that there are unexpected consequences of CO2 buildup, and these can be quite dire, indeed."

The lessons of the Permian-Triassic massacre are "directly applicable to the present," said John Isbell, a geoscientist at the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. He said the world today is in danger of exceeding a CO2 "threshold" that could set off an environmental upheaval as great as the one 251 million years ago.


Dangerous levels
Isbell said CO2 levels in the atmosphere at the time of the Permian-Triassic catastrophe reached 1,000 to 1,500 parts per million, far higher than today's level of 385 ppm. That means there are 385 carbon dioxide molecules for every 1 million total molecules in the atmosphere.

CO2 levels are now rising by 2 ppm a year, and that's expected to accelerate to 3 ppm a year. If carbon emissions aren't reduced, some researchers fear that by the end of the next century, the CO2 level could approach what it was during the Permian-Triassic period.

Exactly what caused the ancient mass extinction is still unclear, but here's how many researchers think it may have unfolded:

Over a period of about a million years, an enormous quantity of lava from deep in the Earth's interior oozed up through giant cracks in Siberia's crust. The molten mass "froze" into steplike slabs of flood basalts, volcanic rocks known as the Siberian Traps. Enough lava gushed out to cover an area almost as large as the continental U.S.

Russian geoscientist Alexei Ivanov estimates the lava flow at 2.8 million square miles and the volume of the basalt at 960,000 cubic miles, enough to cover the entire Earth with a layer 10 or more feet thick. In comparison, the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens unleashed about a quarter of a cubic mile of lava.

The lava from the Siberian Traps sent huge quantities of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. These greenhouse gases caused an epic spell of global warming. Acid rain drizzled from the sky, and the ozone shield in the atmosphere thinned, letting ultraviolet radiation pass through.

As is happening now, the Earth warmed more near the poles than it did at the equator. The smaller temperature difference slowed the great ocean currents that keep the waters circulating. The oceans stagnated and lost most of their oxygen. Marine life suffocated.

Some researchers believe that bacteria in the ocean, living on sulfur instead of oxygen, churned out vast quantities of hydrogen sulfide. As the hydrogen sulfide gas emerged from the sea, it choked half of all land creatures.

While the evidence points to natural processes on Earth as the culprits in the Permian-Triassic mass extinction, scientists warn that humans may now be contributing to a repeat.

"In the late Permian, Earth itself was the villain, but today we've stepped in as the villain," Kump said.


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/5974698.html
 

Flashy_McFlash

Well-Known TRIBEr
So what I get from that article is that pollution is, in 200 years, maybe going to trigger something that's going to inevitably happen at some point in the future anyway?
 

PosTMOd

Well-Known TRIBEr
The human brain is a result of evolution. All of life, in its intricacy, is a product of evolution, and the ecology of life is more complex therefore than, say, the human brain.

The human brain is incapable of causing the destruction of the planet, as much as we'd like to think we "control nature".

There are stages of intelligence, and I've come to appreciate (in an amused and bemused fashion) that many people are stuck at a neo-hippie "we're destroying the planet, man, pass the joint" stage... actually, scratch amused and bemused and replace with annoyed and frustrated.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top