You would think that Global Warming would actually be happening Globally, wouldn't you?

CO2 levels have increased the same amount everywhere in the World (Source http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm). The same increases have been recorded at the South Pole, Seychelles and Mauna Loa for instance.

New York, NY 1822-2000 recorded a rise of 5 degrees Fahrenheit in a hundred and seventy-eight years (Source United Stats Historical Climatology Network)

Albany, NY 1820-2000 has recorded a decline of half a degree in a hundred eighty years (Source United States Historical CLimatology Network).

Conclusion: While CO2 levels have raised uniformly, two cities merely a hudred and forty miles apart have experienced different heating/cooling effects. One has gotten hotter while another has gotten colder. How does this fit your theory of green house gasses?

no, I am saying that you're an idiot.

Got to be that pk - can't believe anyone is so silly (but hey, it's possible!) :winkwink:

They won't be for long though. China is creeping up and will soon take us over in that area. They just manufacture way too much stuff.

+1 more time you say something completly stupid. You really should shut up, however at this point you have made yourself out to be so fucking stupid i don't think a few more of your comments will make a difference.

How many hurricanes that will form next year really has nothing to do with how many formed last year. It's a PREDICTION.

They can however determine how much carbon was in the atmosphere for millions of years as well as the average temps back then. If you see a fucking trend in temp rise over time and it keep rising and rising, do you think it takes a fucking rocket scientist to see that it will be warmer in the next 10 years.

yes millions of years of data on temp and carbon levels can be very helpful to predicting what will happen in the next couple of years. Carbon high temps up, carbon low ice age, over and over and over for millions of years.

Trying to predict a hurricane. Well maybe if we had millions of years of data they might be a little more accurate.

oh and you are still a moron.

While we're at it, let's talk about some of the people that argue global warming is at best unproven at at worst pure fantasy. The group includes Full professors from MIT, Harvard, Columbia, Duke, Virgina, Colorado, UC Berkley and other prestigous schools. The Formet president of the National Academ of Sciences and even some Nobel Prize winners.

I'll say it again. It's almost like we don't really know.

Agree.. they still have a way to go tho - and are trying to counter their contamination problems by trading "oxygen shares", but little chance of that being maintained in the longer term. Another country which has rising enironmental issues is India..

BTW... Was just chatting earlier today about "oxygen shares" and it's prob that these will end up on the markets within 10 years or so. We have two guys who want to buy ... can't remember.. around 230,000 oxygen shares for clients, but the hard part is finding (approx) 230K hectares of land which reaches the required oxygen level.

Ok you are right Ill just work on my quest to kill manbearpig.... So you are saying its EASIER to predict global warming then it is to predict what the weather will be like 1 year from now??? Im just asking, you know cause Im so fuckin stupid and what not. I must of ate some zango or something. I used to have respect for you will, to be frank its slowly evaporating. :2 cents:

your poblem is that you think polution = industrial plants. How many more cars are driving today then where on the road back in the 50s :1orglaugh polution is a lot worse now then back then.

CO2 is the problem, not just industrial plants :upsidedow

Let's look at some actual Hurricane data, shall we?

http://www.youhavesales.com/hurricanes.jpg

So there you have actual hurricane strikes by decade. Does it appear that they're increasing with "global warming" to you?

Actually it makes 100% sense.

Its like you are saying we don't know how many pieces a window will break into when we hit it with a bat muchless will it break.


Using data over millions of years it is a lot easier to predict what will happen in the next 10 - 100 years opposed to trying to predict if it will rain 3 weeks from thursday.

I hope i explained that well, it makes a lot of sense.

polar bears rely on heavily frozen seas to hunt. further - fat floats... skin and bones do not. does someone really need to break it down further for you?

polar bear populations are declining. thats an accepted and well studied fact. argue about the reasons... but good god man! try to incorporate a little reason into your arguments.

dude... really... you tend to just babble on with dumb remarks that tend to make a lot less sense than those you think you are making fun of.

But the track record for predictions for the last 10 years varies by as much as 500%. Would you accept a 500% margin of error in any other area of science?

what chart are you looking at ?

http://www.youhavesales.com/co2.jpg

Also please see my post at the very top of this page.

That's not exactly an accurate stat as it only shows strikes on the US. I'd be more interested to know the number of hurricanes that have occured in total as well as the severity of them. Not sure if those stats are avaliable.

Okay I'll give you that it's not a complete data set by any means. But if we're to believe this is a global phenomenon, couldn't we expect to see it globally (including the USA)?

I guess Al Gore really should be accepted as the absolute authority. I mean, if not for him we wouldn't even be arguing this on the Internet he invented. :)

PS, Stickyfingerz is still a fucking retard.

Al Gore didn't make the information, he's just the one taking the time to give the information to those who want it.

Al's taking the time to give us the information that supports his position.

My overall point in this thread is that plenty of data also falls on the other side of the argument. Al won't tell us about that though, will he?

+21 stupid things you have said.

So are you going to try to tell me that since a polar bear can swim 6 mph that that must mean he can swim 6 miles ? :1orglaugh

I said how far can they swim dumb ass not how fast. If they can swim 20 feet (for example) they could have still done it at a speed of 6 miles per hour.

Yes they can eat fish. Let me stick you on a sheet of ice with no shelter. no FUCKING DRINKING WATER and a pile of fish. Last i checked they needed to drink fresh water and they couldn't survive on salt water from the ocean.

A polar bear didn't go out sheet of ice and die. The polar bear went out on ice and fucking chunck the size of a football field floated away. The point being this is just an early sign of how the warming of the earth is having drastic effects. Who gives a shit about the polar bears but if you can't see that something wrong is happening here and shit like this is making one " not so smart " species go extent then don't be so dumb to think people like you wont be too far behind the polar bears.

Well, Warchild,

I'm sitting in vancouver, there is snow everywhere. I have upwards of, oh, 10 million dollars in damage to a city/province/national park in the middle of the city. We like to call it Stanley Park. THis park has trees over 500 years old. A lot of those trees are dead to teh hurricane (border) force winds that took them out. It's fucking cold outside. It's a LOT more snowy than it should be, and to top it off, TORONTO has better weather than us.

This isn't mickey mouse shit we're talking about here. The ice caps don't merely "melt".

Shit will hit the fan.

Having an atmoshpere like venus is a really serious issue. When it starts going really really bad, weird shit happens. The ice caps melt, people whom never really see snow see snow. People who always do, don't. Winds pick up, massive storms start forming, go talk to people in florida. I'm sure htey will have plenty of colourful "everything will be ok" language for you.

this isn't "OUR THEORY". This is common fucking sense.

R

How much of the earth does the US land mass actually take up? It's a fairly small sample size. It'd be like saying the precipitation levels in the US are up because it rained a lot in New York.

You may be right, I just think seeing stats on total hurricanes reported would be nice. Although I'm not sure if they were able to track them well back in the day.

some people don't like AL Gore so that means everything he says is wrong. :2 cents: that and they can't get their head out of their ass long enough to listen to logic.

are you a propagandist warchild?

where did you get your source?

Did you NOT notice that records were broken in 2005?

Records set in the Atlantic Hurricane Season of 2005
Seasonal Records Set in 2005:

Most tropical storms: 28. Old record: 21 in 1933.
Most hurricanes: 15. Old record: 12 in 1969.
Most Category 5 hurricanes: 4 (Emily, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma). Emily was upgraded to Category 5 upon re-analysis. Old record: 2 in 1960 and 1961.
Most hurricane names to be retired: 5 (Dennis, Katrina, Rita, Stan, Wilma, and possibly others). Previous record: 4 in 1955, 1995, and 2004.
Most major hurricanes to hit the U.S.: 4 (Dennis, Katrina, Rita, Wilma). Previous record: 3 in 1893, 1909, 1933, 1954, and 2004.
Most damage ever recorded in a hurricane season: $150 billion. Previous record: approximately $50 billion dollars (normalized to 2005 dollars) set in 1992 and 2004.
Highest Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) index: 245. Previous record: 243 (1950). Average for a season is 93.
Latest end to a hurricane season: January 6 Previous record: January 5, for the 1954-55 hurricane season.

i lost the link.. info is available on the internet

R

That graph is US hurricane hits WC - there is definately a decrease in hurricane activity globally, but a dramatic increase in the strength of hurricanes.

Overall, there is more opinion voiced that the cause of the power increase in hurricanes is due to a global increase of sea surface temperatures. The US and Caribbean hurricane hits are generally up around 50% in strength since the 1970's.

Hell knows what this means or the logic of it - there are prob several other factors involved.

it's weird.. but all the info on hurricanes are different.

That gov says 1940-1949, mine says 1933 and a couple others state 12 in 1969

Bingo. You said it. There are probably other factors.

I'm not saying the theory og Global Warming is necessarily wrong. I'm saying it's incomplete and the science behind is not advanced enough to really understand WHAT'S causing changes on the Earth.

Personally, I suspect it's a combination of urban sprawl and green house gasses. The NY example from the top of the page really illustrates how incomplete the theory that CO2 is going to kill us all really is.

At least we can all agree Sticky's an idiot though, right?

Polar bears make shelters now? Polar bears swim half their lives. They float from their extra fat.

But just to put the topper on it

http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/Po...aptations.html

A. Swimming.

1. Polar bears are strong swimmers; they swim across bays or wide leads without hesitation. They can swim for several hours at a time over long distances. They've been tracked swimming continuously for 100 km (62 mi.) (Stirling, 1988).

2. A polar bear's front paws propel them through the water dog-paddle style. The hind feet and legs are held flat and are used as rudders.

3. A thick layer of blubber (fat), up to 11 cm (4.3 in.) thick, keeps the polar bear warm while swimming in cold water (Stirling, 1988).

4. Polar bears can obtain a swimming speed of 10 kph (6.2 mph) (Stirling, 1988).

5. The hair of a polar bear easily shakes free of water and any ice that may form after swimming.

6. A polar bear's nostrils close when under water.

Now shut the fuck up about your poor bears lost floating on an ice sheet... jesus jumped up and knocked granny out of the rocking chair...

Sorry to let you down.

I am not saying this reflects on how you handle your business but you are off your rocker on this issue. Maybe if I was the only one pointing out all of the stuff that you are saying is wrong, then I would say it's just me. You post one article of bullshit and act like you have some concrete proof, while lots of people explain to you how everything you are saying is wrong.

So lets say I bring up Michael Crichton's book "State of Fear"? I bet I would get ripped a new one for that. Yet Al Gore can spurt off whatever he likes facts be damned. lol :1orglaugh

Read above about your poor stranded bears. So you are saying the bears floated more than 60 miles from the shore?

exactly. i dont know why so many can't seem to grasp this. both sides are so ignorant in their arguments... its like watching 3rd graders argue pontificate on the meaning of life. everyone is so sure that "kermit the frog" or "pokemon cards" are the answer.

i dont have strong opinions on this issue. of course i believe its something to be concerned about. but it has always seemed to me that in this argument, alarmists go so far in their hysteria that they detract attention away from meaningful and useful discussion and debate.

i think we should care about the environment. i think we should do what we can to reduce our footprint on the planet. but you just can't reach people on a wide scale with scare tactics, rhetoric and easily disputed arguments.

the fact that these things are debated to the extent they are, to me... is only piece of conclusive evidence in the whole discussion - that not enough is even understood to draw scientifically sound conclusions.

dude... stop being an idiot and trying to deny the obvious.


here-----

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) telling you that polar bears are dying off as the result in reductions in sea ice.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_schliebe.html

whats so hard to understand about that? jesus. you come off like the typical republican that everyone accuses you of being.

Please stop. I am getting tired of replying, lol.

As i said earlier. Global warming has caused global sea water temp to increase. Makes sense ? Hurricanes need 80 degrees to form. If the water is warmer a few more days a year because of this that will make hurricance producing condition *possible* for a few more days.

Sea temps do NOT equal hurricanes. There are several other factors that can cause them to no form. It is FACT on average, warmer water stronger hurricanes. It is fact about 80 degrees, huricanes can form. below 80 they don't. All global warming does is allow the conditions for hurricanes to form be more favorable for more of them and for stronger ones.

Also, your fucking graph doesn;t mean shit. If you want to talk about hurricanes don't use a chart that shows " stricks" . BTW, global warming doesn't direct hurricanes where to make landfall. you might want to use a chart that shows # of hurricanes that year not that made landfall. But even then like i said, other factors could cause it to be a slow year while WATER TEMPS where still high.

LOL Put 2005 on there and see what happens too.... you think cause = exact percise effects. it doesnt happen that way. shit even goes up and down while over all its consistantly going up.....

No we were told there were poor stranded polar bears that cant swim floating on a broken iceshelf. Yet somehow polar bears are incredible swimmers able to swim as far as 60 miles at a time. They get in the ocean to cool off even. Yet somehow we were told that some poor bears were stranded starving and cold. This was all caused by global warming... :uhoh

Im suprised hippies dont want polar bears dead, they kill baby seals you know....

Agree... there is prob a very wide range of influencing factors - from what appears to be total trivial to the more obvious events.

Also agree on urbanisation and emissions. There are other elements, like aircraft, which usually account for the highish emissions. Think it was Virgin Atlantic who tested out running their fleet engines for only 10 mins before takeoff - that saved 120K tonnes of carbon emissions alone and they only have around 25-35 aircraft.

That part is not gonna tax my brain too much :1orglaugh

Do you ever think of something stupid and not say it?

you are one of those people sticky is talking about how you try to twist things around. you keep saying WOW 500% they can't know anthing.

First I don't know which scientist said this, where you got the info from, how credible it is etc... have a link ?

Secondly even if all of the scientist in the world agreed that they thought it would be 1 degree and it was .02 degree I would still be very alarmed. So they would have over estimated by .08 degress. But you would rather say they were 500% off they know nothing... there is no problem. .02 is still a huge problem. Do the people at MIT think the earth would have to warm 50 degrees before we had problems or do they also agree 2 - 3+ degrees could fuck it up bad for us.

:1orglaugh

So obvious that I didn't think it needed a reply ...

I didn't argue with ShittyFingerz because I had my 7 years old nephew at home today .... and he sounded way smarter :1orglaugh

I don't actually have a link handy on that figure, I just know it from reading I've been doing on the subject.

I'm not trying to say that they know nothing. What I'm trying to say is that when your margin of error is so high, you must go back and re-examine the process by which you made the prediction.

Again my argument is simply that we don't know enough to say for sure.

Your nephew would prob be embarassed watching you engage in chat about Sticky's obsessions over the finer points of polar bears and Al Gore :1orglaugh

AHH finally. I see you come from the same school of thought that sticky went to, you don't like Gore and nothing he says could be right. Jesus why didn't you tell us this 6 pages ago ?

You guys just have to look to Australia to see how bad is Global Warming in the present time.

Man it was a joke. You should try it some time.

In reality, I actually think Al Gore is a pretty smart guy. I don't agree with all his political views, but he's a smart man none the less.

That's enough for me tonight. I'm turning my brain off now.

You might want to not forget the ones that happened in the pacific as well. Global warming does not just affect the us. nor does it just affect the over all water temp rise in the atlantic and gom.

Hurricanes are more of a bi product then an exact cause and effect, too many other things can cause them to not form, all global warming does is make the water warmer, which means it gives them more potential to be stronger and to have more per year IF other factors come together as well.

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.u...Comparison.png

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.u...rsCO2small.png

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.u...yearssmall.jpg

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/18.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...redictions.png

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/Stoft..._warming-S.gif

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/GLOB_CHA..._figs/fig3.gif

http://www.shrani.si/pics/slika2rkv62.jpg

http://www.shrani.si/pics/slika1eip67.png

http://www.brainworker.ch/r-evolutio...al_warming.gif

http://www.diskussionsforen.ch/WAP/energi1.jpg

http://environment.newscientist.com/...6334-1_370.jpg