Global temperatures drop sharply, what will the global warming alarmist say?

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by imind

the reason its not being discussed is becuase its nonsense. this author first grabbed data from anthony watts blog listing weather data and then proceeded to discern for himself what this data meant, mis-attributing it to watts. watts then called to correct them and ask WTF and for whatever reason it took some eight hours for the author to amend his article, long after it was sent along the intertubes.




no. from the watts blog...

the 'erasure' was conjured by the author of the dailytech piece. furthermore, john christy, the one contrarians love to quote as being he who turned down the nobel prize, has also commented...

even he agrees and, as is the consensus view, this warming, the global mean temperature, not your fucking local weather (throws up in mouth), continues to rise. and yes, the consensus opinion is that humans are largely responsible for it.

I'd now like to take the time to point out that it has been FIVE MONTHS since imind posted this post, and the thread starter has not seen fit to counter it or even acknowledge it. I think I'll post here every month , and give imind's post a little birthday party next year because it's done so much to prove how completely hollow the arguments of climate change skeptics are.

This whole thread was based on a bullshit interpretation of science, and this bullshit interpretation was dragged in here with a taunting headline trying to get the alarmists to respond. But when the bullshit was proven to be what it was, not one single climate change "skeptic" has either the balls or the intellectual honesty to respond. They just run off like scared mice.

You wanted to see what the "alarmists" would say to this information? They responded. They proved it was a bullshit interpretation A: by the scientist who gathered the information, and by B: the scientist that skeptics love to trot out as the one who turned down his part of the Nobel Prize.

In my opinion, the skeptics should either counter it or admit it. Either way, each and every scientific claim that they make on climate change should be doubted and questioned.

When the evidence is interpreted as being supporting of their predetermined world view, they accept it unquestioningly. There's no skepticism at all. That's why they should be referred to as "skeptics."

[Sir John]

Ok, so just for the sake of argument, let's take a neutral stance. If there's even a 50% that it's true, wouldn't you want to do a little bit to make life better for your kids or grand kids? Humans may or may not be consequential to the warming, but
isn't an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure. I'd rather a an alarmist than
a reactionary.

[C4Casey]

Originally Posted by Sir John

Ok, so just for the sake of argument, let's take a neutral stance. If there's even a 50% that it's true, wouldn't you want to do a little bit to make life better for your kids or grand kids? Humans may or may not be consequential to the warming, but
isn't an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure. I'd rather a an alarmist than
a reactionary.

That's a ridiculous argument. If we try to fix a problem that may not exist, we stand a good chance of creating even larger problems. Case in point: ethanol. Ethanol has long been touted as a clean alternative to gasoline. The main problem with ethanol is that it is mainly produced from food crops like corn and sugar. With governments rushing to promote ethanol production, it became more profitable for farmers to grow corn for ethanol production than corn for food. This has had two major effects. One is the skyrocketing costs of farm produce, and the other is the massive clearing of Amazon rain forest to make way for sugar plantations. Corn is the most produced food crop in the world, and it's rise in price has greatly impacted third world nations. A decade ago, the disappearing Amazon was one of the enviromentalist's main rallying points. Now a blind eye is being turned towards its destruction since it's all in the name of cleaner fuel. Now new research is emerging suggesting that ethanol is worse for the enviroment than gas, and data is beginning to show that the Earth has been in a cooling trend for more than a decade, with 2008 being the coldest year in the new century. If this is true, then we will have cleared thousands of acres of rainforest and starved milllions of people for nothing.

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by C4Casey

That's a ridiculous argument. If we try to fix a problem that may not exist, we stand a good chance of creating even larger problems. Case in point: ethanol. Ethanol has long been touted as a clean alternative to gasoline. The main problem with ethanol is that it is mainly produced from food crops like corn and sugar. With governments rushing to promote ethanol production, it became more profitable for farmers to grow corn for ethanol production than corn for food. This has had two major effects. One is the skyrocketing costs of farm produce, and the other is the massive clearing of Amazon rain forest to make way for sugar plantations. Corn is the most produced food crop in the world, and it's rise in price has greatly impacted third world nations. A decade ago, the disappearing Amazon was one of the enviromentalist's main rallying points. Now a blind eye is being turned towards its destruction since it's all in the name of cleaner fuel. Now new research is emerging suggesting that ethanol is worse for the enviroment than gas, and data is beginning to show that the Earth has been in a cooling trend for more than a decade, with 2008 being the coldest year in the new century. If this is true, then we will have cleared thousands of acres of rainforest and starved milllions of people for nothing.

I guess you're right. We should do the alternative, and that is wait until we know for SURE that Global Climate Shift is a reality (despite the 30 years of scientific evidence theorizing, testing, then proving it's existence), and then put our resources to fixing it.

Oh, to corroborate your points (I love sarcasm):
1. there hasn't been any clearing of the rain forest for the production of ethanol.

2. Yeah, it lead to skyrocketing food prices (just, kind of forget about the following:

1. A sluggish U.S. economy. If the President and company doesn’t want to admit it, that’s fine. But facts speak for themselves. People are buying less.
2. Record setting crude oil prices and peak U.S. gas prices.
3. A larger than normal demand for biofuels and a decline in corn inventories.
4. Drought reduced harvests.
5. Commodities speculators.
6. Rising demand for food supplies in massive countries like China and India

)


3. Ethanol isn't the word that ends all sentences for alternative fuels. It was postulated, then researched, then found to still have bad emissions. That's why it went just as quickly as it came. That's also why other fuel alternatives are being researched (i.e. Natural Gas).


Wasn't a bad try, though.

[Sir John]

Originally Posted by C4Casey

That's a ridiculous argument. If we try to fix a problem that may not exist, we stand a good chance of creating even larger problems. Case in point: ethanol. Ethanol has long been touted as a clean alternative to gasoline. The main problem with ethanol is that it is mainly produced from food crops like corn and sugar. With governments rushing to promote ethanol production, it became more profitable for farmers to grow corn for ethanol production than corn for food. This has had two major effects. One is the skyrocketing costs of farm produce, and the other is the massive clearing of Amazon rain forest to make way for sugar plantations. Corn is the most produced food crop in the world, and it's rise in price has greatly impacted third world nations. A decade ago, the disappearing Amazon was one of the enviromentalist's main rallying points. Now a blind eye is being turned towards its destruction since it's all in the name of cleaner fuel. Now new research is emerging suggesting that ethanol is worse for the enviroment than gas, and data is beginning to show that the Earth has been in a cooling trend for more than a decade, with 2008 being the coldest year in the new century. If this is true, then we will have cleared thousands of acres of rainforest and starved milllions of people for nothing.

Yeah, I guess you have a point about fixing a problem that may not exist causing skyrocketing costs. Kinda like the war we are in. No good will come of it. Only a breeding ground for more sophisticated terrorism and alianation from the rest of world. Here's the problem, we cannot overlook what's happening at the polar ice caps. There is far to much research to suggest that we are screwing things up. National Geographic, National Wildlife federation, and too many other valid sources suggest this is true.
Ethanol, diesel, and coal... none of them sound good in the long run, so
have to atleast research. Bio-degradable Fuel Cell, advances in
solar cells, even bio-chips are being considered instead of CMOS. They aren't cost effective yet, but they're sure getting there. Check out
what Lotus has been able to do with electric cars, It's really cool.

[C4Casey]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

1. there hasn't been any clearing of the rain forest for the production of ethanol.

Really?

Biofuels Are Bad for Feeding People and Combating Climate Change: Scientific American
U.S. ethanol may drive Amazon deforestation
Brazil fines 24 ethanol producers for illegal forest clearing

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by C4Casey

Really?

Biofuels Are Bad for Feeding People and Combating Climate Change: Scientific American
U.S. ethanol may drive Amazon deforestation
Brazil fines 24 ethanol producers for illegal forest clearing

Yes, really.

First source:

Diverting food crops into fuel production leads to ever more land clearing as well. Ethanol demand in the U.S., for example, has caused some farmers to plant more corn and less soy. This has driven up soy prices causing farmers in Brazil to clear more Amazon rainforest land to plant valuable soy

So, Brazilian farmers are planting more soy... so they're clearing the rainforest to plant soy plants, though they don't produce ethanol?

Second source:

U.S. ethanol may drive Amazon deforestation

Since when does a qualifier such as "may" = "is happening"

Third source:

Brazil fined two dozen ethanol producers accused of illegal clearing the country's endangered Mata Atlântica or Atlantic rainforest, reports The Associated Press.

That's fine and dandy, yet, when I searched up and down in the AP archives, I couldn't find any news source, story, or anything of the like related to this.
If you could find the actual AP article, then I would acknowledge its validity. But since I couldn't, I can't see a reason to accept it.


Do you have any evidence refuting the other 2 points that I made?

[C4Casey]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

Yes, really.

First source:

So, Brazilian farmers are planting more soy... so they're clearing the rainforest to plant soy plants, though they don't produce ethanol?

Second source:
Since when does a qualifier such as "may" = "is happening"

Third source:
That's fine and dandy, yet, when I searched up and down in the AP archives, I couldn't find any news source, story, or anything of the like related to this.
If you could find the actual AP article, then I would acknowledge its validity. But since I couldn't, I can't see a reason to accept it.
[/size][/font]

Do you have any evidence refuting the other 2 points that I made?

Brazilian farmers are clearing forests to produce soy as a direct result of U.S farmers abandoning soy to grow corn for ethanol. So yeah, maybe they aren't clearing forest to plant ethanol, but they are clearing forest as a direct result of ethanol production in the U.S.

And here's an article linking ethanol production in the U.S to hunger in thrid world countries, and it's AP.

The Buffalo News: Associated Press Interactives

[C4Casey]

And here's an article from the smithsonian, linking ethanol production to deforestation.

http://www.stri.org/english/about_st...cle.php?id=736

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by C4Casey

Brazilian farmers are clearing forests to produce soy as a direct result of U.S farmers abandoning soy to grow corn for ethanol. So yeah, maybe they aren't clearing forest to plant ethanol, but they are clearing forest as a direct result of ethanol production in the U.S.

And here's an article linking ethanol production in the U.S to hunger in thrid world countries, and it's AP.

The Buffalo News: Associated Press Interactives

Although, it's not the AP source I requested (and would then acknowledge). As for the Smithsonian, if I may quote:

a recent spike in Amazonian fires is being promoted by massive US subsidies that promote American corn production for ethanol. The ethanol is being blended with gasoline as an automobile fuel.

Although, it doesn't necessarily say WHO set the fires (if anybody), nor does it mention that the croppers are deforesting at all. In fact, it says that the promoters are having farmers grow soy and corn on the already burnt land.

And you still haven't addressed my other points.

If amazonian forests were being cleared for corn production (which, honestly, I wouldn't doubt), and it was happening in huge numbers, then your original argument would have appeal. But, the evidence for deforestation in accordance to ethanol production just isn't solid enough (if there at all).
EVEN IF IT WAS, the other points still stand, esp. #3, and that is, ethanol isn't the final say in alternative fuel methods. As does the argumentative statement of my post, and that was

We should do the alternative, and that is wait until we know for SURE that Global Climate Shift is a reality (despite the 30 years of scientific evidence theorizing, testing, then proving it's existence), and then put our resources to fixing it.

The fact remains (and to bring our tangent back into germane territory), we cannot wait until Global Climate Shift is acknowledge by every one of its detractors before we begin exploring alternative sources of energy (for both power and mode of transportation).

In this case, preemption is the only way to be safe.

[Sir John]

Originally Posted by Sir John

Yeah, I guess you have a point about fixing a problem that may not exist causing skyrocketing costs. Kinda like the war we are in. No good will come of it. Only a breeding ground for more sophisticated terrorism and alianation from the rest of world. Here's the problem, we cannot overlook what's happening at the polar ice caps. There is far to much research to suggest that we are screwing things up. National Geographic, National Wildlife federation, and too many other valid sources suggest this is true.
Ethanol, diesel, and coal... none of them sound good in the long run, so
have to atleast research. Bio-degradable Fuel Cell, advances in
solar cells, even bio-chips are being considered instead of CMOS. They aren't cost effective yet, but they're sure getting there. Check out
what Lotus has been able to do with electric cars, It's really cool.

Lets move on to debate the alternatives towards the bottom of the paragraph. Huge success is being generated in these areas. These could, and probably will, be the alternatives of the future. It's just being discouraged by old school, blue chip type of investors. The EV1 by
General motor was an early, albiet primative example of the possibilities.
They were all ordered to be crushed.

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by C4Casey

That's a ridiculous argument. If we try to fix a problem that may not exist, we stand a good chance of creating even larger problems. Case in point: ethanol. Ethanol has long been touted as a clean alternative to gasoline. The main problem with ethanol is that it is mainly produced from food crops like corn and sugar. With governments rushing to promote ethanol production, it became more profitable for farmers to grow corn for ethanol production than corn for food.

Of course, farmers don't care much WHY the corn is being sold. It's a commodity going to the market. It's sold for it's going price. That's like saying "it became more profitable for gas stations to sell gas for home standby generators than for automobile motivation".

[BubbaTech]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Its interesting but it doesn't really address the overall warming trend that we have observed. there will always be anomolies like this where something else changed drastically and it has an effect. I don't think we can count on the sun continuing to reduce it's output to offset everything we are doing.

It is people like you that ignore evidence because it is inconvenient, the sun's output cannot be the cause, it must be us?? even though every planet in the solar system has experienced warming??

When you are proved Wrong, make excuses, the Ice age and Millions of deaths loom from reduced food production if the output of the sun does not increase, and there is a historic president that this will continue for at least 1-5 years. Because the SUN is not constant, it is varying it's output all the time. so what do you scientists do, average all the activity out to make a constant, and that constant can't cause the warming, but unlike a any real system, the peaks do matter, and if you ignore the peaks of sun output, you ignore where a lot of energy(warming) comes into the system. The Trend can be explained, if you stop ignoring data.

[Scrum]

I don't think Lou is a scientist.

[BubbaTech]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

So you are saying that because the sun might continue to decline in output forever... we should not worry about the effect we are having on the planet. We don't have to worry about warming because god will make sure the sun gets cooler to offset what we are doing.

I don't really understand the point you are trying to make.

The Point is the POINT. What effect do we really have over Climate?

If the Sun is the Driving Force, we cannot control that, so no matter what we do, we can't even predict the output of the sun correctly, so how can you say with any reliability, that we as the people of the world can control the climate of the earth?

and we never said it would decline forever, but there is evidence that it could at least last for 1-5 years minimum, and it has already wiped out what it took 100 years to warm to. in one year, so we could have 1-5 years of reduced output, for every 100 years of increased output, and the end result would be No significant warming. Regardless of what we do. Get it?

[Photon1001]

The sun's output is not actually decreasing, it is the amount of sunlight able to penetrate the clouds of soot, greenhouse gases, carbon ash and accumulated moisture that we put there.

Global dimming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia