Global "Warning"

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

While this may very well be true, I don't think the sun is the main cause of Earth's global warming. Mars may be going through a slight climate change, but Mars is cold, dry and dead. The average surface temperature is below -50C, and often times it can get down below -150C. The atmosphere on Mars is mainly carbon dioxide and is less than 1% as thick as Earth's. Two different planets with two different weather and climate patterns. As I said in an earlier post, and let me add, with the atmosphere being as thick as it is on Earth, I believe the waste matter from the fossil fuels used to power new machinery and create electricity helped trap heat in Earth's atmosphere, which adds to global warming. Also in regards to the southern polar cap on Mars melting, this can't happen with a Martian temperature and thin atmosphere. It's surface would have to be warmed in order for this to happen.

That doesn't make sense. Is the sun pointed more directly at Mars? I'm no astrophysicist, but your explanation sounds like a load of crap. If there's planetary warming on one planet due to the sun, it's going to at least happen on planets which are closer to the sun.

It seems like you're trying to jam the square peg of human activity causing global warming into a round hole.

Another explanation for GW is that in '79, we switched the paint used on monitoring stations. See the following transcript:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/art...icle/196/6727/

Also, the linked blog, presents a general study of temperature monitoring stations. It shows (quite convincingly) that when many were originally placed, they were nowhere near human activity. Now, those same stations are located in parking lots, near air conditioning units and other sources of heat which interfere with their accurate readings. Here are quite a few documented cases.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I'm no astrophysicist

I know, I can tell.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Kevin

That doesn't make sense. Is the sun pointed more directly at Mars? I'm no astrophysicist, but your explanation sounds like a load of crap. If there's planetary warming on one planet due to the sun, it's going to at least happen on planets which are closer to the sun.

Just because a planet is closer to the sun does not necessarily make it warmer.

[Coramoor]

I think that any issue as highly politicized as Global Warming should be suspect.

For the record, I think it is just a gimmick to keep chicken littles occupied.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by Kevin

That doesn't make sense. Is the sun pointed more directly at Mars? I'm no astrophysicist, but your explanation sounds like a load of crap. If there's planetary warming on one planet due to the sun, it's going to at least happen on planets which are closer to the sun.

Not really, depends on atmospheric protection and retention of solar radiation - proximity to the Sun is only one factor. So to point at Mars being warmer and saying "it's the Sun stupid!" is faulty science and logic (particularly since the study dates and times tend to compare 'summer' and 'winter' orbits of Mars).

It seems like you're trying to jam the square peg of human activity causing global warming into a round hole.

Actually I'd argue that it's the dogmatic naysayers that are trying to make hole round so the peg don't fit

Another explanation for GW is that in '79, we switched the paint used on monitoring stations. See the following transcript:
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/art...icle/196/6727/
Also, the linked blog, presents a general study of temperature monitoring stations. It shows (quite convincingly) that when many were originally placed, they were nowhere near human activity. Now, those same stations are located in parking lots, near air conditioning units and other sources of heat which interfere with their accurate readings. Here are quite a few documented cases.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

Talk about useless arguments based on wildly faulty logic

Kevin I'm sure you'd even have to logically admit that A) one, two, or a hundred stations affected this way means squat given the thousands out there; B) there are far, far more stations that just those set-up or monitored by or in America.

It seems to me like Glenn Beck and the blog twit are trying to cite individual regional stations within the thousands of global stations to try and paint a picture discrediting the thousands that only the ardent anti-Climate Change or Global Warming skeptic believes.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

Thank you for posting this Kevin. I'm a fan of Glenn Beck's but somehow missed this interesting piece.


To add on to this- these VOLUNTEERS have not been able to check on every single temperature station yet because they don't have the resources to. Some of you can't possibly believe that the ones they've found so far with are the only stations with problems. Can you?

No problem. As far as I can tell, GW is a myth perpetrated by people who are guilty for living good lives in industrialized nations. They apparently seem to feel that by enjoying ourselves, we must be doing harm.

They're not so different from the flagellant monastic orders of old. It would be nice if they'd stick to the horsehair coats rather than suck us into their fantasies, however.

All they have is a documented (perhaps faultily so) increase in temperature over a century or so of a degree, maybe two? From that, they have one hypothesis -- that man's activities are responsible from this. Without proving that hypothesis, they're onto the next step -- peddling guilt (green offsets).

[bluefish81]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Local events like this are not the same as global climate change, but they do appear to be apart of a larger trend. Since the 70s, ocean surface temperatures worlwide have risen about +1F. Those numbers have moved in sequence with global air temperatures, which have also risen up a degree. I think the warmest year ever recorded may have been in 2006, followed by 2005, with a few previous years close behind. Does this mean more hurricanes? Perhaps. Maybe not, which is why it's so hard to pin down these trends. Infact the past 10 stormy years in the North Atlantic were preceded by many quiet ones. This all happened the same time global temperatures were rising. I'll explain it this way. Worldwide, there's like an equilibrium. When the number of storms in the North Atlantic increases, there's usually a corresponding fall in the number of storms in other regions, but frequency is not the same as intensity. Also, I think I said earlier in a previous post that there have been two recent studies that demonstrate the difference and prove my point.

I understand the difference between frequency and intensity. I wasn't correlating the two to mean the same thing. I was stating that the storms that occured in the early 2000s were stronger (severe) and there were more of them (frequency). That's why I used the word and to include both words. Many people in the industry that I work in find that hurricane patterns operate in ten year cycles - i.e. ten years of active storm years, ten years of quiet, ten years active, ten years quiet. They also still think that we're only about halfway through the current ten year cycle of active storms.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by bluefish81

I understand the difference between frequency and intensity. I wasn't correlating the two to mean the same thing. I was stating that the storms that occured in the early 2000s were stronger (severe) and there were more of them (frequency). That's why I used the word and to include both words. Many people in the industry that I work in find that hurricane patterns operate in ten year cycles - i.e. ten years of active storm years, ten years of quiet, ten years active, ten years quiet. They also still think that we're only about halfway through the current ten year cycle of active storms.

ok

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No problem. As far as I can tell, GW is a myth perpetrated by people who are guilty for living good lives in industrialized nations. They apparently seem to feel that by enjoying ourselves, we must be doing harm.

If thats how you need to justify your skepticism in the face of evidence fine - like I said earlier it makes you no different than those who cling to Creationism or ID in the face of evidence... basically letting blind-belief overrule critical or rational examination of any evidence to draw conclusions (and again I'm still fascinated by the correlation of those opposed to GW and Evolution)

All they have is a documented (perhaps faultily so) increase in temperature over a century or so of a degree, maybe two?

Three centuries for some actually - the Royal Navy and French Navy took reams of atmospheric, oceanic, and weather readings over the centuries all over the globe.

From that, they have one hypothesis -- that man's activities are responsible from this. Without proving that hypothesis, they're onto the next step -- peddling guilt (green offsets).

Like I said what ever you need to keep telling yourself...