de rail . . alert
de rail . . alert
Now let us look at this. Beenthere, firstly I can understand your feelings about being presented with something you know to be true being portrayed as false (or vice versa). I know how that sort of thing sticks in one's craw (love that term). I can see that you may see that this is a perfect and oportune place to finish off that argument but that argument is not with me. I am not willing yet to believe that you are using this issue in order to avoid the issue of CO2. I do have another question about it though - could you tell me where you got the notion that vulcanism dwarfs human activity with respect to co2?
And in answer to your question, no, I do not believe that someone making 28k would be forced to pay 25 percent or 7,000 dollars given all of the preferences offered to lower income folk.
"In the past several weeks as much of the nation suffered under a massive heatwave, global warming-obsessed media depicted the high temperatures as evidence of Nobel laureate Al Gore's favorite money-making scam.
A new study published in the journal Nature Sunday completely debunks all previous claims that temperatures in recent decades are in any way historic demonstrating instead that things were much hotter on this planet during Roman times:
For the first time, researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years. Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.Professor Dr. Jan Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC. In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling. "We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low," says Esper. "Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today's climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods." [...]
"This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant," says Esper. "However, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C. Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia."
The UK Register observed Tuesday:
This thoroughly debunks the claim that temperatures on the planet today are in any way historic or unprecedented.Americans sweltering in the recent record-breaking heatwave may not believe it - but it seems that our ancestors suffered through much hotter summers in times gone by, several of them within the last 2,000 years.
A new study measuring temperatures over the past two millennia has concluded that in fact the temperatures seen in the last decade are far from being the hottest in history.
The Register continued:
Just as many climate realists have been saying for years."In the IPCC view, the planet was cooler during Roman times and the medieval warm spell. Overall the temperature is headed up - perhaps wildly up, according to the famous/infamous "hockey stick" graph.
The new study indicates that that's quite wrong, with the current warming less serious than the Romans and others since have seen - and the overall trend actually down by a noticeable 0.3°C per millennium, which the scientists believe is probably down to gradual long-term shifts in the position of the Sun and the Earth's path around it.
Face buried in the MSM? You probably didn't even hear about this, did you?
REMEMBER THE SPOTTED OWL
OBAMA 2012 CLINTON 2016
I note that canndo met beenthere more than halfway and answered his derail question. it is now beenthere's clear moral duty to answer canndo's vulcanism question directly and to point. cn
"My god ... it's full of stars!" - David Bowman neerGreen 2: Soilless grow
4 posts and you have yet to:
Admit that the numbers reflect realtiy
Admit that you were wrong in your assertion
state that you will not use that particular assertion again
explain where you got the notion that vulcanism produced less carbon than man
This sort of discussion is not new to me, I have seen those more conservative folk go dozens of posts without every accomplishing the simple act of admitting that they were arguing using false or misleading information. After they finally admit that they "made a mistake", after they squirmed and kicked, most left, some in a huff, many simply ignored the posts, a number, as you did, changed subjects or made their acknowlegement conditional on some non related topic and in many cases, they simply called me a name - homosexual is a favorite.
All this goes to. show what you are saying, it will never be possible to prove to you anything that does not align with your ideology. We are not in this instance talking about global warming but CO2 changes in our current atmosphere and to an even more specific item, vulcanism produced carbon vs human produced carbon.
You have, knowingly or otherwise avoided that plain, simple and obvious point in our discussion. the other vulcanism is king representer has failed even to show up so I give you credit for having done so.
As for your thanks for my being honest - I am always honest on a website where there is no real advantage for me to lie.
I said earlier that there may well be an agenda on both sides - but the agenda is simple - one one side, the agenda is truth and a warning of the consequences of our continuing down our present path.
the other agenda, if the motivation of money is any indicator - is to delay any attmepts at correcting or compensating for the problem for as long as possible.
What concerns me and what I have already spoken over is your statement "for the average person global warming is just another ideological issue...". The point here is that truth, science and scientific evidence is not ideological and it was made so by those who feel that their situations are in danger. I can even trace this conversion from the dispasionate and non-political (at least outside of the scientific community) to the vehiment and partisan and I have been describing this for the last few months here - again, check out the GCC to start.
Now what have you done in the last sentence - you have attempted to indicate that it is obvious that we don't know our facts - and yet we have been presenting facts - the FACT is that CO2 rates have risen, and the FACT is that Vulcanism.... well I've typed that a dozen times already. Now why would you place that there except to somehow either escape responsibility for your having promulgated an incorrect statement or, you will admit that you are wrong, but none of us know anything anyway so it won't make much difference, you are still "right" in principle. One more time, this is not an ideological issue, it is an issue of fact, it is an issue of evidence and in this case it is an issue of the ability of those on the right to deal with facts, something you are demonstrating quite clearly.
big problem with that article in my mind, the data it say it disproves," "We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low," says Esper." are based on what?, tree rings, artic core samples or computer models of our time and our CO2 levels in relation to the temps and Co2 levels back then?
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...#ixzz20cmdCoAu,
and Co2 levels have a much different way of cooling warming the earth then just developing in our atmosphere, heavy CO2 levels in our oceans also lead to a heating and cool effect in worldwide water temps . .. . . the thing these scietnist need to prove is that our C02 output is not effecting the world any different, and its plain to see as our output rises and the co2 toxicity of the worlds oceans rises that there is a problem and we are a part of it
has anyone brought up the acidification of our oceans in conjunction to another Co2 rise effect "However, there is growing evidence that the gravest peril for ocean species may be posed by what Victoria Fabry of the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory has termed “the other CO2 problem”—acidification of the world’s oceans as a consequence of the influx of carbon dioxide generated by human activities."
Last edited by Samwell Seed Well; 07-14-2012 at 12:53 PM.
I found some things as well, but I don't understand how evidence of cooling has any bearing on our present warming so it makes sense what you are asking - did this study find correlations between co2 content, polar conditions and the like to be wrong? I don't understand.