Global warming is an issue, too

Global warming is an issue, too

There are 46 comments on the Berkshire Eagle story from Feb 4, 2008, titled Global warming is an issue, too. In it, Berkshire Eagle reports that:

STAMFORD, VT. We've probably listened to more presidential campaign debates than we really wanted to - and it's barely February.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Berkshire Eagle.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
G H Pittsfield

Rensselaer, NY

#1 Feb 4, 2008
No matter how hard the moonbats yell about how global warming is caused by humans, the facts just don't support it. Move on folks...nothing to see here.
Mike

Queensbury, NY

#2 Feb 4, 2008
I love how all of you sheep follow father Algore and say "its dire, we need to reduce all carbon dioxide", "change your lightbulbs!" "buy a hybrid" but you may have to reconsider nuclear power? The most powerful, cleanest energy source we have. Alright hippy I know that wind and solar are clean but they are not practical for mass usage. In fact if Jiminy Peak couldn't market the "green" aspect of the windmill to you herd of sheep, it wouldn't be practical. If you are so sure that you are killing polar bears, buy a horse and stop driving. Hell lets just go back to 1900.
SAL

Lincolnton, NC

#3 Feb 4, 2008
G H Pittsfield wrote:
No matter how hard the moonbats yell about how global warming is caused by humans, the facts just don't support it. Move on folks...nothing to see here.
Well said--
Chris Jury

Wilmington, NC

#4 Feb 4, 2008
SAL wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said--
Awww Sal, how can someone from Asheville hold such a view? Asheville always struck me as such a progressive place, afterall.

“FOR SALE: used sleigh”

Since: Jan 08

West Pittsfield

#5 Feb 4, 2008
I rode my snowmobile threw some Global Warming the other day. In fact I put my I love Global Warming bumper sticker on my sled.
SAL

Lincolnton, NC

#6 Feb 4, 2008
Chris Jury wrote:
<quoted text>
Awww Sal, how can someone from Asheville hold such a view? Asheville always struck me as such a progressive place, afterall.
to bad you have never been there-- I've lived in New England for well over 70 years-- where did you come from??--
GMHeller

United States

#7 Feb 4, 2008
Help! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
More Nuclear Power!
Help Bill get rich!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics...
More Carbon Offset Trading!
Help AlGore's carbon-offsets trading company get rich!
Just remember, it's not about profit.
It's about the environment.
ANI584

Fairbury, NE

#8 Feb 4, 2008
G H Pittsfield wrote:
No matter how hard the moonbats yell about how global warming is caused by humans, the facts just don't support it. Move on folks...nothing to see here.
The facts don't support it???

Where are you getting your facts? Almost all scientific establishment of the industrialized world support the IPCC's finding. Earth's average temperature is rising faster now than at anytime in the last 650,000 years (average as in ALL of the earth, not just China or anywhere else; the whole earth) as a result, the ice caps and almost all glaciers are melting right now. you can't say the earth's ice is not melting because there are satellite photos of ice caps disparaging and countless photos of glaciers that are not only disparaging but also have rivers of liquid water flowing through them.

This warming is the result of vast amounts of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by man(100 times as much as any other natural proses including volcanoes).

it not water vapor because water vapor has a very short atmospheric life time(about 10 days). the amount of water vapor in the the atmosphere is influenced by the temperature of the atmosphere. water vapor concentration levels response to and are amplify by any existing heating or cooling trends such as that cause by CO2.

The sun has been monitors for the last 30 years and has shown NO increase or decrease in output. So it's not the sun. if the sun is not warming, then there is no point in talking about other planets in own solar system.

GMHeller

Since: Jan 08

United States

#9 Feb 5, 2008
ANI584 wrote:
<quoted text>
The sun has been monitors for the last 30 years and has shown NO increase or decrease in output. So it's not the sun. if the sun is not warming, then there is no point in talking about other planets in own solar system.
Wrong Pal,
The sun HAS shown an increase in output.
Where are YOU getting your so-called FACTS?

“The Truth Will Set You Free”

Since: Jun 07

Gainesville, FL

#10 Feb 5, 2008
ANI584 wrote:
<quoted text>
The facts don't support it???
Where are you getting your facts? Almost all scientific establishment of the industrialized world support the IPCC's finding. Earth's average temperature is rising faster now than at anytime in the last 650,000 years (average as in ALL of the earth, not just China or anywhere else; the whole earth) as a result, the ice caps and almost all glaciers are melting right now. you can't say the earth's ice is not melting because there are satellite photos of ice caps disparaging and countless photos of glaciers that are not only disparaging but also have rivers of liquid water flowing through them.
This warming is the result of vast amounts of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by man(100 times as much as any other natural proses including volcanoes).
it not water vapor because water vapor has a very short atmospheric life time(about 10 days). the amount of water vapor in the the atmosphere is influenced by the temperature of the atmosphere. water vapor concentration levels response to and are amplify by any existing heating or cooling trends such as that cause by CO2.
The sun has been monitors for the last 30 years and has shown NO increase or decrease in output. So it's not the sun. if the sun is not warming, then there is no point in talking about other planets in own solar system.
Where are you getting your facts?

How can you even begin to say that this is the fastest warming in the past 650,000 years? You've gone loopy or are deluded. Many examples exist just in this current interglacial of temperatures warming 5-10 C in as little as 10 years while this current warming is just 0.6 - 0.8 C in the past 150 years.

This warming is anything BUT rapid while temperatures for the past 10 years are virtually static [the change is statistically insignificant and actually shows a slight cooling over the last 6 years - especially in the Southern Hemisphere.
Chris Colose

Troy, NY

#11 Feb 5, 2008
He is getting his facts from the peer-reviewed, academic literature. It is probably a good place to go

see for example

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n71...

http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proc...

Secondly, the stratosphere cooling, the decrease in the diurnal range, higher winter compered to summer temperatures, are very strong evidence against solar, but consistent with GHG's.

If you believe the sun is dominant, you need to do two things. 1) Quanitfy it, preferably in the language of a radiative forcing (in units W/m2). This does not mean show a nice graph of lines going up and down together, because that is actually not how you look at it 2) Show why the radiative effects of CO2 are wrong, since it is well known to have the ability to decrease the radiation escape at the top of the atmosphere. In fact, even if the sun was going up, which it has not (since about 1950 actually), CO2 could only amplify that by well known physics.

Try my post here:
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2007/12/25/b...

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#12 Feb 5, 2008
There have been regional variation in temperature on that magnitude due to fresh water influx (see Henirich and Dansgaard-Oeshger oscillations) but if the globe fluctuated by that amount, there would be an abrupt mass extinction. In fact ice ages can be sufficiently given by a reduction of about 4 C.

“The Truth Will Set You Free”

Since: Jun 07

Gainesville, FL

#14 Feb 5, 2008
Chris Colose wrote:
There have been regional variation in temperature on that magnitude due to fresh water influx (see Henirich and Dansgaard-Oeshger oscillations) but if the globe fluctuated by that amount, there would be an abrupt mass extinction. In fact ice ages can be sufficiently given by a reduction of about 4 C.
Agreed. But these large regional, and even hemispheric warming events far exceed any warming currently seen.

One of these events may have been due to large fresh water influxes to the ocean that caused a shut down of deep water overturn [still speculative] resulting in cooling but that mechanism doesn't explain the rapid warming periods.

The Little Ice Age resulted in a 1-2 C decrease in global temperatures [mainly NH but confirmed in multiple SH locations - kind of like what we are seeing now] from which we are now just recovering.

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#15 Feb 5, 2008
GM,if you're going to reject various pieces of academic journals because it does not fit your preconceived notions, then there is no use corresponding with you. Science is not in the business of "proving things." As detectives go through a case, find a bunch of 'circumstantial' pieces of evidence like an alibi to rule someone out, fingerprints and DNA pointing to a suspect, cameras, etc...soon, the evidence gets so overwhelming. The CO2-theory does not need a natural cycle, nor does it need the "lack of" a natural cycle...it needs the fact that CO2 absorbs and emits radiations at Earthlike temperatures, which would cause temperature change, or amplify a natural temperature change. This is shown to be consistent across the paleoclimate record, and the "fingerprints" today are in line with greenhouse gases

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#16 Feb 5, 2008
Truth, this might be good

Richard B. Alley, "Wally Was Right: Predictive
Ability of the North Atlantic “Conveyor Belt” Hypothesis for Abrupt Climate Change." Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2007. 35:241–272

and the NAS report on Abrupt climate change. Actually, the glacial transitions were rather large compared to the Holocene, which has been remarkably stable for ~10,000 years, but the trends today are still quite large when compared to global scale, decadal scale variability...and conditions at 2x CO2 would create a climate much warmer than seen for millions of years.

“Your Own Peace Prize Inside”

Since: Mar 07

Hyannis, Mass

#18 Feb 5, 2008
ANI584 wrote:
<quoted text>
The facts don't support it???
Where are you getting your facts? Almost all scientific establishment of the industrialized world support the IPCC's finding. Earth's average temperature is rising faster now than at anytime in the last 650,000 years (average as in ALL of the earth, not just China or anywhere else; the whole earth) as a result, the ice caps and almost all glaciers are melting right now. you can't say the earth's ice is not melting because there are satellite photos of ice caps disparaging and countless photos of glaciers that are not only disparaging but also have rivers of liquid water flowing through them.
This warming is the result of vast amounts of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by man(100 times as much as any other natural proses including volcanoes).
it not water vapor because water vapor has a very short atmospheric life time(about 10 days). the amount of water vapor in the the atmosphere is influenced by the temperature of the atmosphere. water vapor concentration levels response to and are amplify by any existing heating or cooling trends such as that cause by CO2.
The sun has been monitors for the last 30 years and has shown NO increase or decrease in output. So it's not the sun. if the sun is not warming, then there is no point in talking about other planets in own solar system.

Again - No facts here.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...
Try to realize that more information comes out everyday that conflicts with the AGW theories. The AGW Nazi's need to take their heads out of their collective butts and read the entire report. Not just the summary pages. Read the IPCC report, try this, go to the back read the references page, go to the the supporting documents and guess what... almost every one of them has information that states man has a very insignificant impact (relative to natural events).

Gab

“Surrounded by Libs.”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#19 Feb 5, 2008
It seems like the very people that fear global warming also believe theres not enough oil left cause global warming.
Unless of course they're alternative is coal.
Someboby better come up with a viable fuel source.
Chris Colose

Alstead, NH

#20 Feb 5, 2008
GMHeller wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't?
I am sure microbiologists, physicists, geologists, mathematicians, etc. around the globe would be incredulous at such an absurd statement.
I'm sure they would all agree with me, using a more strict definition of "proof." In fact I recall my geology professor saying "the frustrating thing about science is we can't prove much right, just prove it wrong." Karl Popper would also be "incredulous." This is how creationists and flat earthers get by. Science builds on excessive explanatory and predictive power, consistency and physical plausibility, and all it takes is one scientist to show it wrong.

Since: May 07

Cannock, UK

#21 Feb 5, 2008
Indeed read this (same argument, differnet science)

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.h...

“Your Own Peace Prize Inside”

Since: Mar 07

Hyannis, Mass

#22 Feb 6, 2008
Chris Colose wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure they would all agree with me, using a more strict definition of "proof." In fact I recall my geology professor saying "the frustrating thing about science is we can't prove much right, just prove it wrong." Karl Popper would also be "incredulous." This is how creationists and flat earthers get by. Science builds on excessive explanatory and predictive power, consistency and physical plausibility, and all it takes is one scientist to show it wrong.

Like a house of cards, so to speak...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

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.

Stamford Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll What type of town is Bennington (Sep '13) 14 hr Elmer 331
News Frustrated (Nov '13) May 22 the real Elmer 143
21 Countries May 22 the real Elmer 47
News Route 9 closed after tractor-trailer accident (Nov '08) May 20 Markey Fife 275
Michael Denault should NOT be on the selectmen'... Mar '16 Tom 3
News District Court (Jun '11) Jul '11 Voice of Woodford 26
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in Vermont (D... (Oct '10) Jul '11 Marcy Unaitis 21
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Stamford Mortgages