Global Warming Update

sc42 wrote:

New York, NY (AP). 12 May 2008.

In an announcement almost unprecedented in today's complex scientific world, a cadre of the world's leading climatologists have admitted that they have been mislead by false assumptions and slipshod logic. Several hundred scientists working with the IPCC were abashed to admit "We've been a bunch of parrots, essentially. The burden of providing clear, unbiased data and analysis has fallen on astute internet posters such as "dmb". On our view, 'dmb' has taken the logic to a standard that peer-reviewed science simply cannot achieve. If only we had stopped to think that the earth is thermodynamically an open system. Oh well, back to the drawing board."

In other news, US President George Bush announced new policies widely expected to bring oil back under $100 a barrel in the next few days.

Yawn... I know it's threatening when someone attacks your religion, but really that was lame.

It also doesn't change anything I said, but I figured tools like you can't argue intelligently.

some of you guys are off of your rockers.

Corn prices rising has everything to do with the lowering of the value of the dollar and oil supply. It has very little to do with ethanol production. Corn isn't the staple food used to curb global hunger. Maybe here in america where everything involves high fructose corn syrup and starch yes. In 3rd world countries experiencing famine the main crop is rice, not corn.

Saying that corn production and cost is causing a global food crisis isn't just flat out wrong, it's idiotic.

SC24 is too "I love peeps".

Of course using clean and renewable energy isn't viable right now, otherwise they'd be using it. However, there is no good argument for the continuation of using oil/coal/nuclear energy without trying to develop something that is clean and renewable.

This has nothing to do with global climate or temperatures. It has everything to do with being able to sustain the energy consumption of the human race without polluting the environment around us.

There is no good argument for not developing clean and renewable fuel and finding a way to get around the current issues it has. So people shift the argument to climate change and climate cycles. Irregardless of whether you think the climate and temperature are changing, what is the idea behind using pollution spreading fuel instead of developing a clean fuel?

I'm with you - for both environmental and security issues I hope that we can develop alternative, renewable energy sources. I am concerned about how we implement these strategies, particularly about the economic effects. I don't need to be bludgeoned with alarmist skullduggery in order to act.

There are so many overlapping potential unintended consequences for each of the currently available strategies out there that I really believe that we need to commission a Manhattan-style project to attack the problem. I also think that we should all have solar panels on our houses and geothermal vents just like we have satellite dishes and other appliances. There's no reason why these couldn't be economic additions. I looked into doing this last year and it would cost about $40k for our house. I decided to wait another year or two, but we'll eventually do it...

Agriculture wrote:

The typical corn/soybean rotation with a little wheat at times has not changed significantly. Prices for corn, soybeans and wheat are all at historic highs. Intended acreage reports have roughly the same proportions of crops as we have had in years past.

Wrong again. Do you know anything at all about farming?

USDA: 2007 CORN CROP A RECORD BREAKER. Planted area, at 93.6 million acres, was up 19 percent from 2006 to the highest level since 1944, when farmers planted 95.5 million acres. The 86.5 million acres harvested for grain was the most since 1933, and up 22 percent from 2006.

Next time, do a little research.

Yes it is go look it up, your source is greencarscongress.com... I wonder if that one is bias... also that is old skewed data...

Gator wrote:

Yes it is go look it up, your source is greencarscongress.com... I wonder if that one is bias... also that is old skewed data...

is that even a real website or are you just making things up to discredit someone?

climatechanger wrote:

So, we have Joe from Denver who is cold vs. sophisticated models developed by scientists

Oddly enough, I trust Joe from Denver. He doesn't have funding that will be cut if this whole thing turns out to be a big circle jerk.

Don't worry about global warming anyways. Everyone liberal knows Dick Cheney can just run his Hurricane Machine in reverse and fix it.

dmb wrote:

I'm with you - for both environmental and security issues I hope that we can develop alternative, renewable energy sources.

We did several decades ago: nuclear power.

Also did you by chance see the May 10th article in the Wall Street Journal "Corn production seen dropping, though more to be used for ethanol"... this year 1/3 of all the bushels of corn produced are expected to go toward ethanol production... so next time you accuse someone of false assumption/not doing their research, dont make the assumption he's a stupid prick like you...

ok, how shall we deal with the waste?

Europe and Japan have had methods for dealing with nuclear waste for decades... (TRUEX UREX PUREX etc. also many universities are trying to further refine these methods, unfortunately ignorant democrats in congress often try to block their funding )

Gator wrote:

Yes it is go look it up, your source is greencarscongress.com... I wonder if that one is bias... also that is old skewed data...

No, I was quoting the USDA:

Read it for yourself.

Anon wrote:

dmb wrote:

I'm with you - for both environmental and security issues I hope that we can develop alternative, renewable energy sources.

We did several decades ago: nuclear power.

Thanks you, Anon!

Also, I don't consider solar panels clean energy because wonderful pollutants like arsenic are involved in the manufacturing process. You know, arsenic, unlike carbon dioxide it's a real pollutant.

One week doesn't make a trend but temp reached 90's here today and is expected to be even hotter tomorrow and Friday. Average high here is 77 at this time of year.

You're right. One week doesn't make a trend unless the weather is hotter than average. In that case, man-made global warming is conclusively proven by the hot weather.

ok... wrote:

Agriculture wrote:

The typical corn/soybean rotation with a little wheat at times has not changed significantly. Prices for corn, soybeans and wheat are all at historic highs. Intended acreage reports have roughly the same proportions of crops as we have had in years past.

Wrong again. Do you know anything at all about farming?

USDA: 2007 CORN CROP A RECORD BREAKER. Planted area, at 93.6 million acres, was up 19 percent from 2006 to the highest level since 1944, when farmers planted 95.5 million acres. The 86.5 million acres harvested for grain was the most since 1933, and up 22 percent from 2006.

Next time, do a little research.

Yes dipshit, I do.

Corn acres were up because of several reasons:

Higher commodity prices spurred farmers to bring marginal ground into production. CRP ground that was previously left fallow was broken out and corn was planted.

Natural crop rotation will lend one crop to be heavy in certain years.

My assertion was that high corn prices did not cause the shortage of rice and vegetables.

How much f***ing rice do you see growing in Illinois?

Your 'research' is a perfect example of why statistics, with absolutely no common sense applied to them, are more aptly referred to as 'damn lies.'

Arch Stanton wrote:

You're right. One week doesn't make a trend unless the weather is hotter than average. In that case, man-made global warming is conclusively proven by the hot weather.

Of course, the data on warming trends (underlying short term local variation) span decades, but why let the data get in the way of making your point, right, Arch?

CO2 traps heat, CO2 levels are now more than 100 ppm higher than any measurement for the past 800,000 years (data from ice cores), and CO2 levels match expectations on the basis of CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.

The data speak for themselves. That is why more than 99% of the scientists actually studying this process concur that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, is likely to accelerate over the coming decades, and is likely to have strong impacts on ecological and environmental processes. There are important issues for further study, but these basic points are essentially resolved.

People and organizations who have an economic interest in delaying responses to this problem will continue to argue that we know less than we actually do. This has been going on for decades, and it will obviously continue.

where the fvck is "here"?

Scientists are already backing down and will begin to duck and cover.

- German scientists said temporary climate variations may temporarily offset the long-term global warming trend.

Researchers from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences and the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology said computer simulations and measurements of ocean temperatures suggest that global warming will weaken slightly during the the next decade.

The findings are published in the journal Nature.