Originally Posted by Jim Richards (Post 3937793)

Let's not. The internet causes Global Warming :(.

Originally Posted by nostatic (Post 3937764)

To me, it isn't an issue of "global warming" or "global cooling" but rather the reality that human industrialized activity is having a negative impact on the environment in a variety of ways. That's where the focus should be, not in trying to predict how we're changing the weather...

Originally Posted by Red Baron (Post 3937756)

It's not breaking news.

How about these 4 talking points to get back on topic?

1) People are going hungry thanks to "alternative" fuel programs sponsored by Al.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005

Law was introduce in 2005 Republican Congress, signed by Bush

2) Fuel costs break new records almost daily thanks to a lack of exploration & new production.

Can't find it now but there was a thread last week regarding the Exxon Mobil Meeting where they announced they weren't interested in increasing production. Besides, my guess is if they did OPEC would simply cut back THEIR production.

3) A lack of production capacity has resulted from refusal to allow new refineries.

Isn't it true that as the oil giants swallowed up the small producers in the early '90s they CLOSED refineries?

4) Halting nuclear power contributes to the picture as does refusal to look at coal liquification.

Originally Posted by nostatic (Post 3937764)

To me, it isn't an issue of "global warming" or "global cooling" but rather the reality that human industrialized activity is having a negative impact on the environment in a variety of ways. That's where the focus should be, not in trying to predict how we're changing the weather...

Originally Posted by Jim Richards (Post 3937823)

Let's put a reactor in every home. :)

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/12/toshibas-home-n.html

Originally Posted by Tobra (Post 3937819)

Yup, gotta look at the big picture. When they paved paradise and put up a parking lot, it adversely impacted drainage, and elevated local temps because asphalt gets a lot hotter and stays a lot hotter than a field of grass.

This is a large part of why you tend to see higher temps in cities than in the country, even on a day when not as many are driving, like on the "Day without an illegal alien" or whatever it was called when all the illegals took the day off to "show the white man how much he needs them"

This is basic physics, common knowledge stuff Mule

Originally Posted by Jim Richards (Post 3937769)

From another "source" in Red Baron's linked article, this time the Hadley Centre:

Climate change and global variability
5 March 2008

A significant drop in global average temperature in January 2008 has led to speculation that the Earth is experiencing a period of sustained cooling.

Why is cooling "speculation" when warming is unmitigated proof of a deadly trend?

A brief look at the graph depicting January global average temperatures reveals large variability in our climate year-on-year, but with an underlying rise over the longer term almost certainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.

What the hell is "almost certainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases?" There's some science for ya'! Let's see, variance in the giant ball of atomic fire that provides the planet with light & heat, inconsequential, my 928, killing the panet. I'm super cereal!

There are a number of natural factors contributing to so-called interannual variability, the single most important being the El Niño Southern Oscillation or ENSO. The global climate is currently being influenced by the cold phase of this oscillation, known as La Niña (see Met Office: Expert speaks on La Niña).

And here, my dumb ass is thinking it's that big ball of atomic fire!

The current La Niña began to develop in early 2007, having a significant cooling effect on the global average temperature. Despite this, 2007 was one of the ten warmest years since global records began in 1850 with a temperature some 0.4 °C above average.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm

The La Niña has strengthened further during early 2008 and is now the strongest since 1988/89, significantly contributing to a lower January temperature in 2008 compared to recent years. In addition, global average temperature has been influenced by very cold land temperatures in parts of the northern hemisphere and extensive snow cover.

However, once La Niña declines, it is very likely that renewed warming will occur as was the case when the Earth emerged from the strong La Niña events of 1989 and 1999.

January 2008 may seem particularly cold compared to January 2007 — the warmest January on record and largely due to the warming phenomenon El Niño — but this merely demonstrates the year-to-year natural variations in our climate.

Best phrase in the article, "this merely demonstrates the year-to-year natural variations in our climate."

In future, while the trend in global temperatures is predicted to remain upwards, we will continue to see inherent variability of this kind.

Not all agree. http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

Some figures are presented here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/cc_global_variability_figures.html#g_a_r_temp

Originally Posted by DaveE (Post 3937832)

Just remember, Jim. When I bury my nuclear waste, the Chesepeake is downstream............

Originally Posted by Tobra (Post 3937819)

Yup, gotta look at the big picture. When they paved paradise and put up a parking lot, it adversely impacted drainage, and elevated local temps because asphalt gets a lot hotter and stays a lot hotter than a field of grass.

This is a large part of why you tend to see higher temps in cities than in the country, even on a day when not as many are driving, like on the "Day without an illegal alien" or whatever it was called when all the illegals took the day off to "show the white man how much he needs them"

This is basic physics, common knowledge stuff Mule

Originally Posted by Mule (Post 3937847)

:eek:

Originally Posted by Jim Richards (Post 3937867)

MuleOxArmadillo, I'm not saying I beleeb in Global Warming :( , nor am I defending the NASA or Hadley Centre. I'm just pointing out that the articles referenced by Red Baron's linked article (from The Austrailian), were not in agreement. So, his linked article is, IMO, just crap journalism, much like the blog articles posted here.

I'm all for debating Global Warming :( , and sticking a fork in both Algore and manbearpig!; however, I'm not gonna get excited by pseudofacts intended to make people get all excitable. Sho' me the science!

Originally Posted by nostatic (Post 3937764)

To me, it isn't an issue of "global warming" or "global cooling" but rather the reality that human industrialized activity is having a negative impact on the environment in a variety of ways. That's where the focus should be, not in trying to predict how we're changing the weather...

Originally Posted by Jim Richards (Post 3937913)

I'm all for ZPG/NPG.