ARIZONA bans Global Warming legislation

[Mazur]

Egh, earth gets warm, earth gets cold. Has been happening for 4.5 billion years. Will continue to happen if we tax it or not. That said, the climate bill is just more government hanky panky designed to get in my wallet.

That is right. For example The Medieval Warm Period which caused migration of Vikings to Greenland.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/...uring_mwp.html


But from the other hand if government officials and such "businessmen" as Gore can make huge profits just by persuading people, why not to do that?. Easy money

[gpp111]

response

Wow. Typical response from the global warming alarmists. I ask one thing and he says another.

Still no response about my questions.

But he talks about smoking, HIV, some other list of 30,000 scientists, conspiracy theory etc. How about climate engineering, well its the Obama administration that wants to consider doing that, painting all buildings white, shooting stuff into the atmosphere to block the light, creating artificial volcanoes. I thought we want to get pollution out of the atmosphere, and now they want to increase it to block the sunlight,

It is true Alan Carlin is an EPA economist, he said there is no reason to control CO2 and that to do so will damage our economy. And he is right about that.

Anyone who reads this, this is how the typical global warming alarmists thinks. no facts, all hype, None based on facts. They are all over the place. Very scary stuff indeed. These are the supporters of cap and trade, and there is absolutely no reason to do it. The sun is what drives our temperature, we have been tracking solar activity for hundreds of years. The sun is not a constant star. A more active sun (more sunspots) in the latter part of the 20th century caused the warming, and the way the sun is now acting, we are headed into a 30 year cooling period. Here is an excellent article that explains it. No need to control of CO2, more CO2 will cause higher crop production. CO2 is less than 4/100ths of one percent of the atmosphere, we could burn all the fossil fuels on earth and CO2 levels will never get dangerously high.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/solarcyclestory.pdf

[Slydel]

I am in a pissy mood, so I ask, what percentage of CO2 is produced by man? How much from vegetation? How much is absorbed and redistributed by oceans? Maybe we should reduce the vegetation of the planet in order to balance out the CO2 being produced by man? Maybe set off a nuke on some island to throw up enough dust to block the sun? OK, probably bad ideas. So climate change has occurred in the past and has most recently up to the new millenium. I believe that our climate has changed because it is based on real data (challenged by the "Urban Effect"). I say big effen deal. We have collected data which shows trends in the past. Trends that do not correlate to these "future models". Data from past changes is concrete compared to "models" of future change. Models are nothing more than theories that can not be substantiated only postulated, yet they are fun to talk about. Shall we destroy our economy only to see other countries increase their CO2 contribution at an alarming rate? Has the EU reduced their CO2 production with Cap and Trade? I think not. I don't give a rat's ass about climate change. Pollution control used to be about stewardship, using the land while keeping it clean for the future. Currently "pollution control" is about controlling human beings, destroying their land rights, and destroying prosperity of the average land owner. Well, we could support Gore and pisslosee, see our energy bills skyrocket, and enjoy the reduction of our property rights in the name of Climate Change. They will definitely prosper. If these people gave a shit, they would not use so much energy themselves. They are gods that use so much more energy than the average person. pisslosee uses her private jet that costs taxpayers over a $1,000,000 a year (lots of jet fuel). Gore and pisslosee are like Catholic Priests that have sex with little boys and place the videos on Youtube for everyone to see. Don't give me all this shit about agendas from scientists that are doubters when these two are the "great crusaders" of "man made" climate change. These heretical pieces of shit are just that, heretics of their own religion, that will profit from it. Gore and pisslosee are worthless mouthpieces of a religion for the non-religious.
In summary: data is what is important, models and theories are just that...possibilities. Even if the earth was to warm again, though it has remained the same temperature for the last decade or so, big deal.

[justintempler]

..The sun is what drives our temperature, we have been tracking solar activity for hundreds of years. The sun is not a constant star. A more active sun (more sunspots) in the latter part of the 20th century caused the warming, and the way the sun is now acting, we are headed into a 30 year cooling period. Here is an excellent article that explains it.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/solarcyclestory.pdf

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l-warming.html

Direct satellite measurements of solar activity show it has been declining since the mid-1980s and cannot account for recent rises in global temperatures, according to new research.

The findings debunk an explanation for climate change that is often cited by people who are not convinced that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are causing the Earth's climate to warm.

http://www.livescience.com/environme...s_warming.html

Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun’s activity is the common thread linking all these baking events.

Others argue that such claims are misleading and create the false impression that rapid global warming, as Earth is experiencing, is a natural phenomenon.

While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm

Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity.

The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature.

The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity.

But UK scientists found there has been no significant link between cosmic rays and cloudiness in the last 20 years.
Presenting their findings in the Institute of Physics journal, Environmental Research Letters, the University of Lancaster team explain that they used three different ways to search for a correlation, and found virtually none.

This is the latest piece of evidence which at the very least puts the cosmic ray theory, developed by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark at the Danish National Space Center (DNSC), under very heavy pressure.

Dr Svensmark's idea formed a centrepiece of the controversial documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Here's a list of your so called global warming alarmists.
• NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
• U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• U.S. National Academy of Sciences
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• American Geophysical Union
• American Meteorological Society
• American Institute of Physics
• National Center for Atmospheric Research
• Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
• Academie des Sciences (France)
• The Royal Society of the UK
• Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
• Royal Irish Academy
• Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
• Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
• Royal Society of Canada
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Royal
• Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
• Indian National Science Academy
• Science Council of Japan
• Russian Academy of Sciences
• Australian Academy of Sciences
• Caribbean Academy of Sciences
• Indonesian Academy of Sciences
• Academy of Sciences Malaysia
• Academy Council of New Zealand
• ChineseAcademyofSciences

It must be a global conspiracy!!!!

[Slydel]

It is a conspiracy!!

[Slydel]

Truthfully,

Is there a reason/rebuttal of some sort with regards to the current stasis of climate change in the last decade? I am referring to the very slight reduction of oceanic temperature. I would find it an interesting read. If I could could understand that portion, the reduction of oceanic temperature while "climate change" is still occuring, I would find it an interesting read. Is the earth still getting warmer while the oceans are staying approximately the same temperature or are the "oceans staying the same temperature" a fallacy? Justintempler I refer to you. Is there anything out there on this?

[Roo]

Justintempler: WORD. I'm with you, pal. I had no intention of getting involved in this thread, but your perserverance (sorry no spell check on my phone, CJ help me out) and your tireless siting of source material, even though this topic is (obviously) hotly debated among the scientific community, is outstanding. Who the F would think that drastic changes caused by man since the industrial revolution would have zero effect on our atmosphere and it's natural ability ("designed" with no foresight as to what we as humans would do to it) to compensate for our actions? It's as simple as the nature versus nurture debate: the most likely scenario is that our current condition is the result of BOTH factors at play. Is this really too much to accept? Not only does the earth's natural cycles affect our atmosphere and our climate, but that billions of tons of CO2 and other emmissions do too? Really. Come on. Just my thoughts on the topic. Thanks for letting me share.

[gpp111]

CO2

Here is some information about CO2 you might consider.

CO2 is a trace gas, it is less than 4/100ths of one percent of the atmosphere. If you have 100,000 molecules in front of your face, only 36 are CO2.

CO2 as a percent of the atmosphere has only grown 1/10,000th since the mid 1700s and the beginning of industrialization (100ppm). This minute amount wont raise temps 10 degrees or the oceans 20 feet, nor would a 1/10,000th reduction cause an ice age.

CO2 is only about 3% of the greenhouse gases. Water vapor is about 95%. Man only contributes 3% of the CO2 that enters the atmosphere, the remainder is from natural sources, rotting vegitation, the oceans, volcanoes etc. Thus man only contributes .09% of all greenhouse gases.
Eliminating this will do nothing.

CO2 concentrations today are among the lowest in earths history.

There were three ice ages with more CO2 than today, one had ten times more. Either there are much stronger natural causes of climate change or CO2 doesnt do very much, or both.

Todays concentration of atmospheric CO2 is about 370ppm. It was thought to be at about 270ppm at the beginning of industrialization. At 200ppm plants stop growing. We were close to extinction due to the lack of CO2, and now we have a bit more margin.

Greenhouses raise CO2 levels to 1,000ppm or more to get plants to grow more quickly. Plants grow today 15% faster because of the higher CO2 concentrations. It is thought if CO2 rises to 500ppm, cereals and other grains will grow up to 45% more quickly, world hunger will be reduced. With higher CO2 concentrations plants also require less water.

Higher concentrations of CO2 will cause some warming, but not more than 2C or so. This has already happened. CO2 can not raise temperatures very much no matter how much there is. Its ability to absorb heat is algorithmic, meaning the more CO2 there is the less it has the ability to absorb heat. For CO2 to cause higher temperatures it must cause more high level clouds that trap in the heat. However, this has not been observed in nature. If it was true this would be caused a positive feedback. However, you can see for yourself, when it gets warm in Summer afternoon days, low level clouds form and thunderstorms that cool. Thus, warmer temperatures cause negative feedbacks or cooling. Do you know it never gets above about 95 degrees in the tropics, it gets hot and then it rains. Thus, CO2 can not cause runaway temperatures. It is impossible.

The oceans have fifty times more CO2 than the atmosphere. They are huge CO2 sinks. Cooler water absorbs CO2, warmer water releases it. Try this for yourself, open two soda cans, put one in the frig and one on the counter. the one in the frig will retain its carbination, the one outside wont. The seas function the same way. It is possible that cooling airtemperatures will cause the oceans to cool, they absorb more CO2, and then the atmospheric level of CO2 will not grow so much or it might actually decline. Higher levels of CO2 can be caused by the oceans releasing CO2 to the atmosphere as the earth warmed in the last 20 years of the 20th century. Ocean acidification is not a problem, we could burn all the fossil fuels on earth and there isnt enough to cause this. Wonder where limestone comes from, it is from CO2 that has dropped out of the ocean water and deposited on the ocean floor.

The Obama administration and others want to reduce CO2 output 85% by the year 2050. The last time the US population emitted this amount of CO2 was 1860. Life expectancy was 42 years, there were no cars, and no electricity. I suspect most dont want to return to this primitive lifestyle.

CO2 is now called a pollutant. It is actually essential for life. If we eliminated CO2 from the air all plants and thus all humans would die. To make CO2 such a bad thing, when it is essential for our existence, shows just how far the global warming alarmists have taken us.

GP

(lets see them try to debunk this)

[gpp111]

IPCC

The IPCC is called the authority on global warming. 80% of the members of this UN body had no prior climate experience, they are political appointees. The chairman is an economist, not a climate scientist. He was originally trained in railroad engineering. Al Gore is not a scientist, but he is chairman an investor in several companies that are in the clean energy business, he will make additional millions if cap and trade passes. Al Gore will not allow questions or participate in debate.

There are political motivations here. However, Mother Nature is weighing in on the matter, global temperatures have been cooling for eight years, according to the most accurate measurement, measurement of atmospheric temperatures by satellite.

[Roo]

Interesting info gpp111. I realize I jumped in on the wrong thread. I am not so much concerned with global warming as with environmental protection and smog/pollution control. As a frequent traveler to China, it's easy to see how the necessity for reducing automotive and coal-burning emmissions is becoming more dire every year. Visibilty and air quality in cities like Beijing and so many others worldwide present huge problems for the health of their human, plant, and animal inhabitants. It's pretty alarming.

As for the topic at hand, I am unqualified to comment, so I should have stayed out of it. I do agree with much of what is said about ulterior motives here -- obviously "being green" is not only good for our environment (to whatever degree you are willing to admit), but also as a cash cow for politicians and businesses alike.

[Roo]

gp111, welcome to snuson by the way. Do you snus? Or do you have a vested interest in the global warming debate and an internet search brought you here?

[gpp111]

visit

I am not a regular visitor. I was doing a search and noticed there was debate about my website, www.isthereglobalcooling.com. I feel I can respond when people unfairly launch ad hominem attacks on me.

I am a private citizen, a third generation in a family business (autos). I dont have an axe to grind, I am for reducing pollution, reducing dependence on oil, better fuel mileage, alternative energy etc. I have studied the subject and find that there is overwhelming and compelling evidence that CO2 does little to cause warming. I am greatly concerned about our nation, our economy, and perhaps the negative impact on our liberties.

China and many other developing nations are an ecological nightmare as you say. The USA could entirely eliminate its CO2 output and China will replace this amount in less than two years based on their economic growth. China will have to become more weatlthy before they combat their pollution unfortunately, I suppose this happened to us also as we developed.

[Slydel]

Please, I would still like to see an explanation for the stasis in temperature for oceanic temperatures. Maybe there is an obvious explanation, like the data is false or there is some other reasonable explanation that I am missing.

[gpp111]

ocean temps

Not quite sure what you are asking but here goes. I am not the expert on this but am learning.

Ocean temperature has a huge effect on global temps. The oceans are very slow to cool or warm. You have heard about El Nino (warming) and La Nina (cooling). I believe they run on about a 30 year cycle. When the earth was cooling (1940s-1970s there was a La Nina). Similarly, when there was warming from the late 70's to 90's we were in El Nino. Trends have been for cooling but some signs of El Nino are now showing up. The PDO is the Pacific, the AMO is the Atlantic. The Atlantic definately has been cooling.

Here is NASA data that shows the cooling trend.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...at_content.jpg

You can see the temperature daily with this site.

http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/hydro/hyd...vhrr_ssta.html

Note the cooling of the Atlantic.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...07/atl_sst.jpg

Solar activity is thought to have a large impact on ocean temperatures. A one percent change in cloud formation can change global temperatures one degree. With the sun less active, more Cosmic Rays hit earth, they are thought to cause cloud formation. More clouds causes global cooling. When the sun was very active in the 1980s and 1990s, there were fewer cosmic rays hitting earth. Fewer clouds allow more solar rays to hit the earth, warming it up.

[Slydel]

gp111,

You were answering exactly about what I was asking. I am waiting for something that refutes the temperature data that is being gathered from the oceans. I was waiting for justintempler to help me out.... to understand why this data is either false or unimportant. I have to give credit to justin for being so vigilant about his information. I figure that if he is so well informed that he would give me something about my request. I have given very little and you have given so much. Well, I do have a PDF with regards to Climate Change but I have not found a link to bring it to the forum. The pdf is labeled ceradelli.pdf from Power-Gen Europe that I recently have reviewed.