Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cem_devecioglu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcVwLrAavyA
 
its a long video please check those
 
 8:28
14:17
23:18
23:50
24:28 effects are irreversible!
 
a shorter one with an explanation of graph
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pYA_wvpT80&playnext=1&list=PL4009DDC72ABDE042&feature=results_main
 
and NASA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROZJmX73FF4

[05omegav6]

The Environmentalists lobby their cause to raise money with which to line their own pockects using tax breaks and incentives to further their goal. This is simply to make themselves richer.

Governments are quite happy to feed this approach to the population as a whole for a variety of reasons:

1. The more expensive 'green' products we buy, the more VAT the government earns.

2. The more demand for 'green' products, the more people are employed in designing/producing/selling/installing and maintaining these products, the more income tax revenue the government earns.

3. The more we are forcefed dubious climate claims, the guiltier we feel. This allows taxes to be increased on things such as fuel and food, as their production and use are 'un green'. It also conspires us to force ourselves to spend more money on 'green' products and services. The net result of this is that the government earns yet more revenue.

Anyone spot a pattern yet?

Climate change has happened, is happening and will continue to happen whether we buy into it or not. Time and time again, playing with nature only bites us on the yaris. Everytime we try to influence the natural world, nature  always compensates. Better off letting it take its course and adapting our way of life to the changes as they occur

As for snow storms... Bring them on much prefer -5, clear skies and snow on the ground than +10 and grey drizzly crap

[Nickbat]

The key question is how an increase in a non-toxic gas (which is actually essential for life on earth) in the atmosphere, from .00035% to .00039%, is supposed to affect the jetstreams and ocean currents. And of course that gas has been at far higher concentrations in the past. The latest data shows that there is now an increase in average global temperature which is below even the best IPCC projections. How can that possibly be so, if CO2 is supposedly the great demon? Of course, it may not be any such thing, but there is so much money tied up in it all now, facts are disregarded.

Incidentally, Cem, this is the sort of video you should spend your time watching. REAL, yes real, scientists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

[05omegav6]

From what I remember of A level Geography:

Jetstream over the North Atlantic is further south that it has been traditionally, having been influenced by several significant weather systems in recent years. It has settled in its current track, and will take a series of further significant weather systems to push it north again.

Whether these weather systems are caused by man or not is anyones guess, (just don't pay for it). The Environment is a fluid machine with several variable influences, all balanced. Change one little detail, and the whole system adapts automatically. Interfere with it and expect it to change.

Interfering by guess work and assumption is alot more dangerous than letting the system regulate itself.

[cem_devecioglu]

The key question is how an increase in a non-toxic gas (which is actually essential for life on earth) in the atmosphere, from .00035% to .00039%, is supposed to affect the jetstreams and ocean currents. And of course that gas has been at far higher concentrations in the past. The latest data shows that there is now an increase in average global temperature which is below even the best IPCC projections. How can that possibly be so, if CO2 is supposedly the great demon? Of course, it may not be any such thing, but there is so much money tied up in it all now, facts are disregarded.

Incidentally, Cem, this is the sort of video you should spend your time watching. REAL, yes real, scientists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

 
 
 ‘What about mid-century cooling?’–No one said CO2 is the only climate influence  By Coby Beck (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)
Objection: There was global cooling in the ’40s, ’50s, and ’60s, even while human greenhouse-gas emissions were rising. Clearly, temperature is not being driven by CO2.
Answer: None of the advocates of the theory of anthropogenic global warming claim that CO2 is the only factor controlling temperature in the ocean-atmosphere climate system. It is a large and complex system, responsive on many different timescales, subject to numerous forcings. AGW only makes the claim that CO2 is the primary driver of the warming trend seen over the last 100 years. This rise has not been smooth and steady — nor would it be expected to be.

If you look at the temperature record for the 1990s, you’ll notice a sharp drop in ’92, ’93, and ’94. This is the effect of massive amounts of SO2 ejected into the stratosphere by Mount Pinatubo’s eruption. That doesn’t mean CO2 took a holiday and stopped influencing global temperatures; it only means that the CO2 forcing was temporarily overwhelmed by another, opposite forcing.
The situation is similar to the cooling seen in the ’40s and ’50s. During this period, the CO2 warming (a smaller forcing at the time) was temporarily overwhelmed by by other factors, perhaps foremost among them an increase in human particulates and aerosol pollution. Pollution regulations and improved technology saw a decrease in this latter kind of emissions over the ’60s and ’70s, and as the air cleared, the CO2 signal again emerged and took over. Below, courtesy of Global Warming Art, is an image of the current understanding of the factors and their influence for the climate of the past century.

As the graph shows, in addition to aerosol pollution (the sulphate line), volcanic influences were increasingly negative during the period of global cooling, and solar forcing slightly declined. All forcings taken together and run through the model are a very good match for the observations. (Please see the source page for details of what model and what study this image is derived from.)
Rather than confounding the climate consensus, mid-century cooling is actually a good test for the climate models, one they are passing quite convincingly.
Addendum: The opposing effect of cooling from airborne pollutants is often referred to as “Global Dimming“, and Real Climate has a couple of articles on it:
 

• Global Dimming?
• Global Dimming II

One emerging concern is that as the pollution causing this effect is gradually cleaned up, we may see even greater greenhouse gas warming.

[05omegav6]

The problem is Cem, that all the data to which you refer is no more than a hundred and fifty years old, a mere gnats fart in the context of a billion year old planet.

Being this far out of context makes it irrelevant. Trying to understand climatic evolution using such a limited window of understanding is, quite simply pissing in the wind.

To predict change one needs to have a reasonable idea of the original composition of the atmosphere, and also a knowledge of every atmospherically influencing event since the dawn of time. Only then could we even begin to hazard a guess as to what might happen next. This would still be a guess.

But seeing how this depth of detailed data doesn't exist, nature should be left to run its course. All our energies should be spent adapting rather than trying to influence that which we cannot possibly.

Not sceptical, or doom mongering, merely realistic

[cem_devecioglu]

The problem is Cem, that all the data to which you refer is no more than a hundred and fifty years old, a mere gnats fart in the context of a billion year old planet.

Being this far out of context makes it irrelevant. Trying to understand climatic evolution using such a limited window of understanding is, quite simply pissing in the wind.

To predict change one needs to have a reasonable idea of the original composition of the atmosphere, and also a knowledge of every atmospherically influencing event since the dawn of time. Only then could we even begin to hazard a guess as to what might happen next. This would still be a guess.

But seeing how this depth of detailed data doesn't exist, nature should be left to run its course. All our energies should be spent adapting rather than trying to influence that which we cannot possibly.

Not sceptical, or doom mongering, merely realistic

how about this one ? (first graph)
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[05omegav6]

Nice try Cem still a billion years light though

The climate is as old as the planet and you simply cannot guess what it will do next based on propeganda.

Imagine a warehouse with every surface covered by electrical sockets which switched on truly randomly one at a time, and a kettle plugged into one of them.

Would you assume that that particular socket worked just because the kettle was plugged into it and happened to boil water at the precise moment you turned it on.

Without knowing which socket was working before, and which one will work next, all you can say for certain is that, at that given moment that one socket was working.

You would just fire up a generator and plug the kettle into that.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

The problem is Cem, that all the data to which you refer is no more than a hundred and fifty years old, a mere gnats fart in the context of a billion year old planet.

Being this far out of context makes it irrelevant. Trying to understand climatic evolution using such a limited window of understanding is, quite simply pissing in the wind.

To predict change one needs to have a reasonable idea of the original composition of the atmosphere, and also a knowledge of every atmospherically influencing event since the dawn of time. Only then could we even begin to hazard a guess as to what might happen next. This would still be a guess.

But seeing how this depth of detailed data doesn't exist, nature should be left to run its course. All our energies should be spent adapting rather than trying to influence that which we cannot possibly.

Not sceptical, or doom mongering, merely realistic

how about this one ? (first graph)
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Oh, Cem, I know you are working hard to convince us all, but you are quoting that graph again which I have deeply questioned during my earlier posts, that clearly shows a flaw, and high peaks of C02 ppm when man could have had no affect.  You, or no one else can so far answer my queries. 

Then of course there is those 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts questioning NASA's stance and their ignoring of empirical evidence that argues another case.

[cem_devecioglu]

The problem is Cem, that all the data to which you refer is no more than a hundred and fifty years old, a mere gnats fart in the context of a billion year old planet.

Being this far out of context makes it irrelevant. Trying to understand climatic evolution using such a limited window of understanding is, quite simply pissing in the wind.

To predict change one needs to have a reasonable idea of the original composition of the atmosphere, and also a knowledge of every atmospherically influencing event since the dawn of time. Only then could we even begin to hazard a guess as to what might happen next. This would still be a guess.

But seeing how this depth of detailed data doesn't exist, nature should be left to run its course. All our energies should be spent adapting rather than trying to influence that which we cannot possibly.

Not sceptical, or doom mongering, merely realistic

how about this one ? (first graph)
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Oh, Cem, I know you are working hard to convince us all, but you are quoting that graph again which I have deeply questioned during my earlier posts, that clearly shows a flaw, and high peaks of C02 ppm when man could have had no affect.  You, or no one else can so far answer my queries. 

Then of course there is those 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts questioning NASA's stance and their ignoring of empirical evidence that argues another case.

I'm not working hard Lizzie.. May be using some spare time     and besides I found interesting things about the subject.. but more interesting than that I'm watching members responses and behavour type..
But to say the least , the group denying the evidences are desperate to say the least..    
 
as an engineer , I have spent long time on graphs, curves.. there are logarithmic ones, as much as linears..
And I wish I could see your comments on a logarithmic one   trust me (or not!) there is nothing wrong with it..

[Lizzie_Zoom]

The problem is Cem, that all the data to which you refer is no more than a hundred and fifty years old, a mere gnats fart in the context of a billion year old planet.

Being this far out of context makes it irrelevant. Trying to understand climatic evolution using such a limited window of understanding is, quite simply pissing in the wind.

To predict change one needs to have a reasonable idea of the original composition of the atmosphere, and also a knowledge of every atmospherically influencing event since the dawn of time. Only then could we even begin to hazard a guess as to what might happen next. This would still be a guess.

But seeing how this depth of detailed data doesn't exist, nature should be left to run its course. All our energies should be spent adapting rather than trying to influence that which we cannot possibly.

Not sceptical, or doom mongering, merely realistic

how about this one ? (first graph)
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Oh, Cem, I know you are working hard to convince us all, but you are quoting that graph again which I have deeply questioned during my earlier posts, that clearly shows a flaw, and high peaks of C02 ppm when man could have had no affect.  You, or no one else can so far answer my queries. 

Then of course there is those 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts questioning NASA's stance and their ignoring of empirical evidence that argues another case.

I'm not working hard Lizzie.. May be using some spare time     and besides I found interesting things about the subject.. but more interesting than that I'm watching members responses and behavour type..
But to say the least , the group denying the evidences are desperate to say the least..    
 
as an engineer , I have spent long time on graphs, curves.. there are logarithmic ones, as much as lineers..
And I wish I could see your comments on a logarithmic one   trust me (or not!) there is nothing wrong with it..

Stop swearing at me Cem!   Logarithms!  I hated them at school and could never understand their purpose

However, as a senior business manager give me balance sheets, P&L accounts, and graphs and I will show you how to manipulate the so called facts to give your company the best result as far as paying tax and showing the right level of profits to third parties as required, but not the true levels!

Therefore all data and statistics can, and is, manipulated to suit a certain parties argument

[cem_devecioglu]

The problem is Cem, that all the data to which you refer is no more than a hundred and fifty years old, a mere gnats fart in the context of a billion year old planet.

Being this far out of context makes it irrelevant. Trying to understand climatic evolution using such a limited window of understanding is, quite simply pissing in the wind.

To predict change one needs to have a reasonable idea of the original composition of the atmosphere, and also a knowledge of every atmospherically influencing event since the dawn of time. Only then could we even begin to hazard a guess as to what might happen next. This would still be a guess.

But seeing how this depth of detailed data doesn't exist, nature should be left to run its course. All our energies should be spent adapting rather than trying to influence that which we cannot possibly.

Not sceptical, or doom mongering, merely realistic

how about this one ? (first graph)
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Oh, Cem, I know you are working hard to convince us all, but you are quoting that graph again which I have deeply questioned during my earlier posts, that clearly shows a flaw, and high peaks of C02 ppm when man could have had no affect.  You, or no one else can so far answer my queries. 

Then of course there is those 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts questioning NASA's stance and their ignoring of empirical evidence that argues another case.

I'm not working hard Lizzie.. May be using some spare time     and besides I found interesting things about the subject.. but more interesting than that I'm watching members responses and behavour type..
But to say the least , the group denying the evidences are desperate to say the least..    
 
as an engineer , I have spent long time on graphs, curves.. there are logarithmic ones, as much as lineers..
And I wish I could see your comments on a logarithmic one   trust me (or not!) there is nothing wrong with it..

Stop swearing at me Cem!   Logarithms!  I hated them at school and could never understand their purpose

However, as a senior business manager give me balance sheets, P&L accounts, and graphs and I will show you how to manipulate the so called facts to give your company the best result as far as paying tax and showing the right level of profits to third parties as required, but not the true levels!

Therefore all data and statistics can, and is, manipulated to suit a certain parties argument

Lizzie, that may be valid sor some particular cases.. but for NASA no.. remember, comrades are also watching their data and they wont excuse any mistake

[Lizzie_Zoom]

The problem is Cem, that all the data to which you refer is no more than a hundred and fifty years old, a mere gnats fart in the context of a billion year old planet.

Being this far out of context makes it irrelevant. Trying to understand climatic evolution using such a limited window of understanding is, quite simply pissing in the wind.

To predict change one needs to have a reasonable idea of the original composition of the atmosphere, and also a knowledge of every atmospherically influencing event since the dawn of time. Only then could we even begin to hazard a guess as to what might happen next. This would still be a guess.

But seeing how this depth of detailed data doesn't exist, nature should be left to run its course. All our energies should be spent adapting rather than trying to influence that which we cannot possibly.

Not sceptical, or doom mongering, merely realistic

how about this one ? (first graph)
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Oh, Cem, I know you are working hard to convince us all, but you are quoting that graph again which I have deeply questioned during my earlier posts, that clearly shows a flaw, and high peaks of C02 ppm when man could have had no affect.  You, or no one else can so far answer my queries. 

Then of course there is those 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts questioning NASA's stance and their ignoring of empirical evidence that argues another case.

I'm not working hard Lizzie.. May be using some spare time     and besides I found interesting things about the subject.. but more interesting than that I'm watching members responses and behavour type..
But to say the least , the group denying the evidences are desperate to say the least..    
 
as an engineer , I have spent long time on graphs, curves.. there are logarithmic ones, as much as lineers..
And I wish I could see your comments on a logarithmic one   trust me (or not!) there is nothing wrong with it..

Stop swearing at me Cem!   Logarithms!  I hated them at school and could never understand their purpose

However, as a senior business manager give me balance sheets, P&L accounts, and graphs and I will show you how to manipulate the so called facts to give your company the best result as far as paying tax and showing the right level of profits to third parties as required, but not the true levels!

Therefore all data and statistics can, and is, manipulated to suit a certain parties argument

Lizzie, that may be valid sor some particular cases.. but for NASA no.. remember, comrades are also watching their data and they wont excuse any mistake

So what about the 49 who have questioned NASA's case then?

[STMO123]

This is all Nick's fault. Again.

[cem_devecioglu]

The problem is Cem, that all the data to which you refer is no more than a hundred and fifty years old, a mere gnats fart in the context of a billion year old planet.

Being this far out of context makes it irrelevant. Trying to understand climatic evolution using such a limited window of understanding is, quite simply pissing in the wind.

To predict change one needs to have a reasonable idea of the original composition of the atmosphere, and also a knowledge of every atmospherically influencing event since the dawn of time. Only then could we even begin to hazard a guess as to what might happen next. This would still be a guess.

But seeing how this depth of detailed data doesn't exist, nature should be left to run its course. All our energies should be spent adapting rather than trying to influence that which we cannot possibly.

Not sceptical, or doom mongering, merely realistic

how about this one ? (first graph)
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Oh, Cem, I know you are working hard to convince us all, but you are quoting that graph again which I have deeply questioned during my earlier posts, that clearly shows a flaw, and high peaks of C02 ppm when man could have had no affect.  You, or no one else can so far answer my queries. 

Then of course there is those 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts questioning NASA's stance and their ignoring of empirical evidence that argues another case.

I'm not working hard Lizzie.. May be using some spare time     and besides I found interesting things about the subject.. but more interesting than that I'm watching members responses and behavour type..
But to say the least , the group denying the evidences are desperate to say the least..    
 
as an engineer , I have spent long time on graphs, curves.. there are logarithmic ones, as much as lineers..
And I wish I could see your comments on a logarithmic one   trust me (or not!) there is nothing wrong with it..

Stop swearing at me Cem!   Logarithms!  I hated them at school and could never understand their purpose

However, as a senior business manager give me balance sheets, P&L accounts, and graphs and I will show you how to manipulate the so called facts to give your company the best result as far as paying tax and showing the right level of profits to third parties as required, but not the true levels!

Therefore all data and statistics can, and is, manipulated to suit a certain parties argument

Lizzie, that may be valid sor some particular cases.. but for NASA no.. remember, comrades are also watching their data and they wont excuse any mistake

So what about the 49 who have questioned NASA's case then?

they are the man from cold war era    and definitely dont represent NASA..
 
seriously Nasa is one of the most reputable organizations in that subject.. they have lots of satellites.. please watch my 3rd video..