Warming

Quakertown, PA

#21 Feb 12, 2013
Sneakers wrote:
<quoted text>The natural cycle happens roughly every 100,000 years when the Earth’s orbital shifts and we get more sunlight. Also, those changes always happened over a period of several centuries. The last natural warming was about 1,000 years ago, and this warming we have now is much more rapid.
You are referring to the Medieval Warming Period between 800 - 1300AD.

The Earth's axis shifts every 26,000 years. It literally wobbles. Megalithic observatories found in Ethiopia that are approximately 7000 years old pointed to the stars in Orion when they were originally built. The wobble in the Earth's axis has moved these reference points to where they are today. The stones have been dated to appr. 5000BC when they were aligned with the stars in Orion's belt.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#22 Feb 12, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
How about instead of "just for kicks", we come up with evidence? Or is it just another example of how politicians deal with problems or perceived problems -- pass laws and throw tons of other peoples' money at it without any accountability or proof of efficacy. We've seen it with education, healthcare, and any number of govt boondoggles - the assault weapons ban being the latest.
global warming is occurring.
so a problem exists and the science concerning pumping CO2 into the atmosphere has known effects.
so reducing those emissions will reduce the global warming effect.
there are plenty of ways to do such things so that is a different discussion.
ignore science at your peril.
flatly stating that mans activity has nothing to do with global warming has no basis in science.
and as man's activity has effects the question is what is to do about it.
so what is your answer to the global warming problem?
ignore it?
Nope

Quakertown, PA

#23 Feb 12, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
global warming is occurring.
so a problem exists and the science concerning pumping CO2 into the atmosphere has known effects.
so reducing those emissions will reduce the global warming effect.
there are plenty of ways to do such things so that is a different discussion.
ignore science at your peril.
flatly stating that mans activity has nothing to do with global warming has no basis in science.
and as man's activity has effects the question is what is to do about it.
so what is your answer to the global warming problem?
ignore it?
Global warming occurred 1000 years ago and we weren't pumping CO2 into the atmosphere then...unless the Norsemen were using diesel powered longships for their raids on Britain!
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#24 Feb 12, 2013
Nope wrote:
<quoted text>
Global warming occurred 1000 years ago and we weren't pumping CO2 into the atmosphere then...unless the Norsemen were using diesel powered longships for their raids on Britain!
actually there was carbon emissions, just not at industrial levels.
of course accelerating a bad thing like global warming (today)by carbon emissions does not help.
not to mention that global temperatures are a little hard to verify 1000 yrs ago.
pointing out a specific area without a global picture means little.
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#25 Feb 12, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
global warming is occurring.
so a problem exists and the science concerning pumping CO2 into the atmosphere has known effects.
so reducing those emissions will reduce the global warming effect.
there are plenty of ways to do such things so that is a different discussion.
ignore science at your peril.
flatly stating that mans activity has nothing to do with global warming has no basis in science.
and as man's activity has effects the question is what is to do about it.
so what is your answer to the global warming problem?
ignore it?
I have an open mind on whether or not there is global warming. But where's the science that explains why today's CO2 levels are contributing to it but the same pre-industrial levels did not? Your assumption that human activity is responsible for global warming has no basis in science to my knowledge. I never flatly denied anything - I only ask for proof, which is what science demands.

To find the answer, if there is one, to the global warming problem you have to ask the right questions and not go down a path led by political agendas. Unless, of course, you want to sell out to big oil for $100 million while talking out of the other side of your mouth about the evils of hydrocarbons.

Since: Jan 09

Central NJ

#26 Feb 12, 2013
In your zeal to blame the US for everything, you paint a picture that is largely inaccurate. Go back to the era of the big steel companies. No one knew anything about pollution and it was treated as unpleasant byproduct of industry. The same was true of cars, and other forms of transportation. Prior to 1965, cars all had a breather from the crankcase and sitting next to one of these at a traffic light one a hot day could be an ordeal. Since 1965, Cars must have a PCV (Positive Crankcase Ventilation) system that recycles these fumes through the engine. Cars had huge engines then too. A 1930 Ford was 200 Cubic inches, or about 3 liters and 40 HP. Most cars today are about 1.5 to 2.5 liters and at least 100HP. We've come a long way! Gas mileage has climbed from 1930 too. 16-18 MPG was pretty good, today's average is about 30 MPG.
The "smokestack " idustries are gone! Newark, NJ used to have 50 fifty founderies in the fifties, today, All Gone! very little steel
is produced in the US today.. Rivers have come back fropm what they once were. More efficient and cleaner methods are used today.I can't believe we're paying for the sins of the past. They would have happened then. So where's all this CO2 coming from? We've produced much more in the past. Man made global warming is a myth!
My president was elected by dead people!
Regards, Terri
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
actually there was carbon emissions, just not at industrial levels.
of course accelerating a bad thing like global warming (today)by carbon emissions does not help.
not to mention that global temperatures are a little hard to verify 1000 yrs ago.
pointing out a specific area without a global picture means little.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#27 Feb 12, 2013
TerryE wrote:
In your zeal to blame the US for everything, you paint a picture that is largely inaccurate. Go back to the era of the big steel companies. No one knew anything about pollution and it was treated as unpleasant byproduct of industry. The same was true of cars, and other forms of transportation. Prior to 1965, cars all had a breather from the crankcase and sitting next to one of these at a traffic light one a hot day could be an ordeal. Since 1965, Cars must have a PCV (Positive Crankcase Ventilation) system that recycles these fumes through the engine. Cars had huge engines then too. A 1930 Ford was 200 Cubic inches, or about 3 liters and 40 HP. Most cars today are about 1.5 to 2.5 liters and at least 100HP. We've come a long way! Gas mileage has climbed from 1930 too. 16-18 MPG was pretty good, today's average is about 30 MPG.
The "smokestack " idustries are gone! Newark, NJ used to have 50 fifty founderies in the fifties, today, All Gone! very little steel
is produced in the US today.. Rivers have come back fropm what they once were. More efficient and cleaner methods are used today.I can't believe we're paying for the sins of the past. They would have happened then. So where's all this CO2 coming from? We've produced much more in the past. Man made global warming is a myth!
My president was elected by dead people!
Regards, Terri
<quoted text>
when did i blame the US for everything?
you have a global problem.
so where did the carbon from the past go to?
it just vanished?
are today's homes using the same amount of electricity as they used in the 50's?
or air travel or truck traffic?
energy consumption is vastly greater on a national scale then it ever was in the past.
pick any decade you wish.
as to cleaning up rivers the same argument was made-rivers would clean themselves and why worry about it.
as to cars there are a lot more cars then the 1930's.
quite a lot more so the effect is worse.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#28 Feb 12, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
I have an open mind on whether or not there is global warming. But where's the science that explains why today's CO2 levels are contributing to it but the same pre-industrial levels did not? Your assumption that human activity is responsible for global warming has no basis in science to my knowledge. I never flatly denied anything - I only ask for proof, which is what science demands.
To find the answer, if there is one, to the global warming problem you have to ask the right questions and not go down a path led by political agendas. Unless, of course, you want to sell out to big oil for $100 million while talking out of the other side of your mouth about the evils of hydrocarbons.
try

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opini...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_r...

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that "[most] of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."[2] The IPCC defines "very likely" as indicating a probability of greater than 90%, based on expert judgement."

so they give you 90 percent.

but you have

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientis...

"As of August 2012 less than 10 of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The rest are statements from other sources such as interviews, opinion pieces, online essays and presentations. Academic papers almost never reject the view that human impacts have contributed to climate change. In 2004, a review of published abstracts from 928 peer-reviewed papers addressing "global climate change" found that none of them disputed the IPCC's conclusion that "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities" and that "'most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#29 Feb 12, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opini...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_r...
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that "[most] of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."[2] The IPCC defines "very likely" as indicating a probability of greater than 90%, based on expert judgement."
so they give you 90 percent.
but you have
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientis...
"As of August 2012 less than 10 of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The rest are statements from other sources such as interviews, opinion pieces, online essays and presentations. Academic papers almost never reject the view that human impacts have contributed to climate change. In 2004, a review of published abstracts from 928 peer-reviewed papers addressing "global climate change" found that none of them disputed the IPCC's conclusion that "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities" and that "'most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"
The IPCC is hardly a credible source, with its political goal being the Kyoto protocols that punish western nations while waiving requirements for developing ones, and promoting nonsense like carbon tax credits. Their own research states that 2009 was only the fifth hottest year on record and the hottest year on record? 1998! Nice of them to give themselves a "90%" chance of being "very likely" correct. LOL. Like I said before, it may be true but even the "global-warming" alarmists admit that many other non-human factors are contributing to the problem and greenhouse gases cannot be blamed completely. As long as this is political, it's not going to be considered seriously except by the people whose ideology and vision for the new world order it matches.
southpark69

Perkasie, PA

#30 Feb 12, 2013
TerryE wrote:
In your zeal to blame the US for everything, you paint a picture that is largely inaccurate. Go back to the era of the big steel companies. No one knew anything about pollution and it was treated as unpleasant byproduct of industry. The same was true of cars, and other forms of transportation. Prior to 1965, cars all had a breather from the crankcase and sitting next to one of these at a traffic light one a hot day could be an ordeal. Since 1965, Cars must have a PCV (Positive Crankcase Ventilation) system that recycles these fumes through the engine. Cars had huge engines then too. A 1930 Ford was 200 Cubic inches, or about 3 liters and 40 HP. Most cars today are about 1.5 to 2.5 liters and at least 100HP. We've come a long way! Gas mileage has climbed from 1930 too. 16-18 MPG was pretty good, today's average is about 30 MPG.
The "smokestack " idustries are gone! Newark, NJ used to have 50 fifty founderies in the fifties, today, All Gone! very little steel
is produced in the US today.. Rivers have come back fropm what they once were. More efficient and cleaner methods are used today.I can't believe we're paying for the sins of the past. They would have happened then. So where's all this CO2 coming from? We've produced much more in the past. Man made global warming is a myth!
My president was elected by dead people!
Regards, Terri
<quoted text>
Missed you Terry E and all your crazy posts, they are funny!
Anonymous

Quakertown, PA

#31 Feb 12, 2013
TerryE wrote:
In your zeal to blame the US for everything, you paint a picture that is largely inaccurate. Go back to the era of the big steel companies. No one knew anything about pollution and it was treated as unpleasant byproduct of industry. The same was true of cars, and other forms of transportation. Prior to 1965, cars all had a breather from the crankcase and sitting next to one of these at a traffic light one a hot day could be an ordeal. Since 1965, Cars must have a PCV (Positive Crankcase Ventilation) system that recycles these fumes through the engine. Cars had huge engines then too. A 1930 Ford was 200 Cubic inches, or about 3 liters and 40 HP. Most cars today are about 1.5 to 2.5 liters and at least 100HP. We've come a long way! Gas mileage has climbed from 1930 too. 16-18 MPG was pretty good, today's average is about 30 MPG.
The "smokestack " idustries are gone! Newark, NJ used to have 50 fifty founderies in the fifties, today, All Gone! very little steel
is produced in the US today.. Rivers have come back fropm what they once were. More efficient and cleaner methods are used today.I can't believe we're paying for the sins of the past. They would have happened then. So where's all this CO2 coming from? We've produced much more in the past. Man made global warming is a myth!
My president was elected by dead people!
Regards, Terri
<quoted text>
It's all China's fault.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#32 Feb 12, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
The IPCC is hardly a credible source, with its political goal being the Kyoto protocols that punish western nations while waiving requirements for developing ones, and promoting nonsense like carbon tax credits. Their own research states that 2009 was only the fifth hottest year on record and the hottest year on record? 1998! Nice of them to give themselves a "90%" chance of being "very likely" correct. LOL. Like I said before, it may be true but even the "global-warming" alarmists admit that many other non-human factors are contributing to the problem and greenhouse gases cannot be blamed completely. As long as this is political, it's not going to be considered seriously except by the people whose ideology and vision for the new world order it matches.
from all those papers

"none of them disputed the IPCC's conclusion that "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities" and that "'most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#33 Feb 12, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>from all those papers

"none of them disputed the IPCC's conclusion that "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities" and that "'most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"
"Likely" is not a scientific conclusion. The global warming alarmists fudged the facts to support the hypothesis that fit their political agenda. Exposed emails prove it. Opposing points of view from other reputable scientists are shunned from consideration. Hardly objective science.
Jersey Duke

Quakertown, PA

#34 Feb 12, 2013
It must be true cause dumbar found it in wickileake pedia.

Since: Jan 09

Central NJ

#35 Feb 12, 2013
I love the fact that you missed me, but why? I haven't gone anywhere. I can't imagine what I said that was so humorous, but if I made your day, tell your friends. Remember, I lived it! When I was born, Roosevelt was still president. I recall Castro Speaking English in college in NY. I recall Konrad Adenauer, Charles DeGaulle, Stalin, George the 6th,Sputnik, The coronation of ElizabethII, the closing of Berlin with the Berlin wall, The Hungarian Revolution, and many more events of that era and the following eras. I may interpret them a little differently because I think about them and not just parrot what the headlines say.
Remember, Paper doesn't refuse ink!
My president was elected by dead people!
Regards, Terri
southpark69 wrote:
<quoted text>Missed you Terry E and all your crazy posts, they are funny!
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#36 Feb 22, 2013
I don't know if this has anything to do with global warming, but it's pretty amazing.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/hC3VTgIPoGU...

Since: Oct 09

over here <-------->

#37 Feb 22, 2013
Can anyone find a reliable historical chart/graph measuring total atmospheric CO2 and broken into natural vs. man-made contributions? As a scientist,(ret, MS Chem) I believe in data - not hyperbole.
Info

Quakertown, PA

#38 Feb 22, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
The IPCC is hardly a credible source, with its political goal being the Kyoto protocols that punish western nations while waiving requirements for developing ones, and promoting nonsense like carbon tax credits. Their own research states that 2009 was only the fifth hottest year on record and the hottest year on record? 1998! Nice of them to give themselves a "90%" chance of being "very likely" correct. LOL. Like I said before, it may be true but even the "global-warming" alarmists admit that many other non-human factors are contributing to the problem and greenhouse gases cannot be blamed completely. As long as this is political, it's not going to be considered seriously except by the people whose ideology and vision for the new world order it matches.
I'm sure the IPCC is tied imto the UN Agenda 21...
Think

Hatfield, PA

#39 Feb 23, 2013
Captn Morgan wrote:
Can anyone find a reliable historical chart/graph measuring total atmospheric CO2 and broken into natural vs. man-made contributions? As a scientist,(ret, MS Chem) I believe in data - not hyperbole.
I think it's difficult to figure out natural vs. man-made contributions, but it might be possible to show a correlation between population and CO2 levels, or a correlation with the industrial revolution.

Since: Jan 09

Central NJ

#40 Feb 23, 2013
Good Question! In my life time I recall it being far worse.I was born in the 1940s and cover a pretty good span. I lived on a mountain top in Essex Co, NJ, yet it was difficult to get away from industrial smells/pollution even though it was at least ten miles to the nearest sources of that pollution. There was a company called Boonton Chemical to the west. Frequently, I would smell it's output. Much later, I would find out the source. Then there was the Erie-Lackawanna RR that ran through Verona and Caldwell with the last of the steamers (One of the most mournful sounds I ever heard was the blowing of that whistle on a snowy night) All this pollution had to get over the mountains and it did! Like California, It pretty much depended on the wind direction. As I said, there where no real sources within ten miles.
But then, I recall the smog in London was so bad, in 1952,(?) that many people died from it. This was due to the overuse of coal furnaces. Most homes were heated with coal when I was young. This stuff is all gone now. And with it, the pollution. IF There's more CO2 in the atmosphere today, it's from natural sources such as Volcanoes and the oceans.
My President was elected by dead people!
Regards, Terri
Captn Morgan wrote:
Can anyone find a reliable historical chart/graph measuring total atmospheric CO2 and broken into natural vs. man-made contributions? As a scientist,(ret, MS Chem) I believe in data - not hyperbole.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Quakertown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is God Real? (Mar '13) 10 min plausibility 289
News Marino's Stepbrother Questions Police Actions a... (Aug '12) 29 min Neighborhood Watcher 35
Tim Arnold stop posting on Fed. Property 48 min Overtaxed 2
News Funding teacher pensions at forefront of Quaker... 51 min Overtaxed 3
Brickyard status 5 hr Uncle Richard 2
Bucks County News Feed (May '14) Mon Jimmy Johns 130
Quakertown sucks (Dec '09) Mon tommy 22
More from around the web

Quakertown People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]