Have you ever heard of unintended consequences?

Click to view attachment

Sorry if my posts are long & convoluted.

I noticed that you don't seem to have that problem, but then you're useing the Phar right's talking points too.

Your posts never seem to amount to any more than a few lines @ most.
Typical troll-like behavior.

Very concise.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Well, la ti da.

I have many endorsements

The only variable? How about solar activity. After all, that would explain why Mars is warming too...Story

All of us are human and prone to bias. All of us tend to accept what we already believe or want to believe and are less accepting of ideas that challenge our ways.

But if we are talking about whether man-made global warming is a serious problem, that debate has been settled. It's a problem. We can debate what are the best strategies to deal with global warming, or scientists can try to refine their models of climate change and compare their predictions to the data to continue to improve upon our vital understanding of this grave threat.

I know, there's an enormous temptation to make excuses as to why we don't have to do anything; why we don't need to change our ways. That would be so much easier. People will point to volcanoes or other activity beyond human control and try to imply that what human civilization does is unimportant. People will point to some outlying opinion and try to imply that all opinions are equally valid, as if scientific theories supported by rigorous peer-reviewed scrutiny are no more valid than the unsupported wishful thinking of media pundits.

We don't have a lot of time to waste anymore on this line of argument. It's time to do what America does best, create new ideas to solve this problem and make it happen.

Yes we can do it

Before I would believe something like that I would ask myself how much do we really know about Mars? We have only just started to study it, give us time we'll probably screw that up to, but we can't assume anything about Mars for now.

So true. The train is rolling people better get on board, it's not a theory any longer.

If solar output is increasing, we should see warming not just on Mars but on every planet in the solar system. We don't.

You sound sincere and passionate. But you got the gain turned up too much on "nasty." Take it down a bit.

how old are you; 12?

As if the Martian atmosphere is comparable to Earth's.... Are these people kidding Lib with all this right wing spew or what????

I think most global scientists agree with this.

Isn't it why we should not be spewing tons and tons of chemicals into the air unchecked or unregulated?

WHAT? Every planet IS heating up...where have you been? Please refrain from disinfo until you've really LOOKED for the facts.

GEEEZ

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070...ys_warming.html

Proved: There is no climate crisis
Written by Robert Ferguson
Tuesday, 15 July 2008

WASHINGTON - Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.

Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

LINK

=============================================
The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat
by Richard Harris
NPR
========================================
Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission

Authors: G. V. Chilingar a; L. F. Khilyuk a; O. G. Sorokhtin b
Affiliations:
a) Rudolf W. Gunnerman Energy and Environment Laboratory, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
b)Institute of Oceanology of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Abstract
The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth's atmosphere.

LINK

There's a small industry of global warming deniers. Who cares about protecting the planet earth for our children when the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley thinks he knows better than the IPCC or the Nobel Prize committee?


Climate scepticism: The top 10



Unravelling the sceptics
What are some of the reasons why "climate sceptics" dispute the evidence that human activities such as industrial emissions of greenhouse gases and deforestation are bringing potentially dangerous changes to the Earth's climate?

As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finalises its landmark report for 2007, we look at 10 of the arguments most often made against the IPCC consensus, and some of the counter-arguments made by scientists who agree with the IPCC.

1. EVIDENCE THAT THE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE IS GETTING WARMER IS UNCLEAR
Sceptic Counter
Instruments show there has been some warming of the Earth's surface since 1979, but the actual value is subject to large errors. Most long-term data comes from surface weather stations. Many of these are in urban centres which have expanded in both size and energy use. When these stations observe a temperature rise, they are simply measuring the "urban heat island effect". In addition, coverage is patchy, with some regions of the world almost devoid of instruments. Data going back further than a century or two is derived from "proxy" indicators such as tree-rings and stalactites which, again, are subject to large errors. Warming is unequivocal. Weather stations, ocean measurements, decreases in snow cover, reductions in Arctic sea ice, longer growing seasons, balloon measurements, boreholes and satellites all show results consistent with the surface record of warming. The urban heat island effect is real but small; and it has been studied and corrected for. Analyses by Nasa for example use only rural stations to calculate trends. Recently, work has shown that if you analyse long-term global temperature rise for windy days and calm days separately, there is no difference. If the urban heat island effect were large, you would expect to see a bigger trend for calm days when more of the heat stays in the city. Furthermore, the pattern of warming globally doesn't resemble the pattern of urbanisation, with the greatest warming seen in the Arctic and northern high latitudes. Globally, there is a warming trend of about 0.8C since 1900, more than half of which has occurred since 1979.
2. IF THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WAS RISING, IT HAS NOW STOPPED
Sceptic Counter
Since 1998 - almost a decade - the record, as determined by observations from satellites and balloon radiosondes, shows no warming. 1998 was an exceptionally warm year because of the strong El Nino event. Variability from year to year is expected, and picking a specific warm year to start an analysis is "cherry-picking"; if you picked 1997 or 1999 you would see a sharper rise. Even so, the linear trends since 1998 are still positive.
3. THE EARTH HAS BEEN WARMER IN THE RECENT PAST
Sceptic Counter
The beginning of the last Millennium saw a "Mediaeval Warm Period" when temperatures, certainly in Europe, were higher than they are now. Grapes grew in northern England. Ice-bound mountain passes opened in the Alps. The Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than it is today. There have been many periods in Earth history that were warmer than today - if not the MWP, then maybe the last interglacial (125,000 years ago) or the Pliocene (three million years ago). Whether those variations were caused by solar forcing, the Earth's orbital wobbles or continental configurations, none of those causes apply today. Evidence for a Mediaeval Warm Period outside Europe is patchy at best, and is often not contemporary with the warmth in Europe. As the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) puts it: "The idea of a global or hemispheric Mediaeval Warm Period that was warmer than today has turned out to be incorrect". Additionally, although the Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than in the following few decades, it is now warmer still.
4. COMPUTER MODELS ARE NOT RELIABLE
Sceptic Counter
Computer models are the main way of forecasting future climate change. But despite decades of development they are unable to model all the processes involved; for example, the influence of clouds, the distribution of water vapour, the impact of warm seawater on ice-shelves and the response of plants to changes in water supply. Climate models follow the old maxim of "garbage in, garbage out". Models are simply ways to quantify understanding of climate. They will never be perfect and they will never be able to forecast the future exactly. However, models are tested and validated against all sorts of data. Over the last 20 years they have become able to simulate more physical, chemical and biological processes, and work on smaller spatial scales. The 2007 IPCC report produced regional climate projections in detail that would have been impossible in its 2001 assessment. All of the robust results from modelling have both theoretical and observational support.
5. THE ATMOSPHERE IS NOT BEHAVING AS MODELS WOULD PREDICT
Sceptic Counter
Computer models predict that the lower levels of the atmosphere, the troposphere, should be warming faster than the Earth's surface. Measurements show the opposite. So either this is another failing of the models, or one set of measurements is flawed, or there are holes in our understanding of the science. Lower levels of the troposphere are warming; but measuring the exact rate has been an uncertain process, particularly in the satellite era (since 1979). Readings from different satellites need to be tied together, and each has its own problems with orbital decay and sensor drift. Two separate analyses show consistent warming, one faster than the surface and one slightly less. Within the uncertainties of the data, there is no discrepancy that needs to be dealt with. Information from balloons has its own problems but the IPCC concluded this year: "For the period since 1958, overall global and tropical tropospheric warming estimated from radiosondes has slightly exceeded surface warming".
6. CLIMATE IS MAINLY INFLUENCED BY THE SUN
Sceptic Counter
Earth history shows climate has regularly responded to cyclical changes in the Sun's energy output. Any warming we see can be attributed mainly to variations in the Sun's magnetic field and solar wind. Solar variations do affect climate, but they are not the only factor. As there has been no positive trend in any solar index since the 1960s (and possibly a small negative trend), solar forcing cannot be responsible for the recent temperature trends. The difference between the solar minimum and solar maximum over the 11-year solar cycle is 10 times smaller than the effect of greenhouse gases over the same interval.
7. A CARBON DIOXIDE RISE HAS ALWAYS COME AFTER A TEMPERATURE INCREASE NOT BEFORE
Sceptic Counter
Ice-cores dating back nearly one million years show a pattern of temperature and CO2 rise at roughly 100,000-year intervals. But the CO2 rise has always come after the temperature rise, not before, presumably as warmer temperatures have liberated the gas from oceans. This is largely true, but largely irrelevant. Ancient ice-cores do show CO2 rising after temperature by a few hundred years - a timescale associated with the ocean response to atmospheric changes mainly driven by wobbles in the Earth's orbit. However, the situation today is dramatically different. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere (35% increase over pre-industrial levels) is from human emissions. Levels are higher than have been seen in 650,000 years of ice-core records, and are possibly higher than any time since three million years ago.
8. LONG-TERM DATA ON HURRICANES AND ARCTIC ICE IS TOO POOR TO ASSESS TRENDS
Sceptic Counter
Before the era of satellite observation began in the 1970s, measurements were ad-hoc and haphazard. Hurricanes would be reported only if they hit land or shipping. Arctic ice extent was measured only during expeditions. The satellite record for these phenomena is too short to justify claims that hurricanes are becoming stronger or more frequent, or that there is anything exceptional about the apparent shrinkage in Arctic ice. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment project notes that systematic collection of data in parts of the Arctic began in the late 18th Century. The US National Hurricane Center notes that "organised reconnaissance" for Atlantic storms began in 1944. So although historical data is not as complete as one might like, conclusions can be drawn. And the IPCC does not claim that global warming will make hurricanes more frequent - its 2007 report says that if anything, they are likely to become less frequent, but more intense.
9. WATER VAPOUR IS THE MAJOR GREENHOUSE GAS; CO2 IS RELATIVELY UNIMPORTANT
Sceptic Counter
The natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth's surface about 33C warmer than it would otherwise be. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, accounting for about 98% of all warming. So changes in carbon dioxide or methane concentrations would have a relatively small impact. Water vapour concentrations are rising, but this does not necessarily increase warming - it depends how the water vapour is distributed. Water vapour is essentially in balance with the planet's temperature on annual timescales and longer, whereas trace greenhouse gases such as CO2 stay in the atmosphere on a timescale of decades to centuries. The statement that water vapour is "98% of the greenhouse effect" is simply false. In fact, it does about 50% of the work; clouds add another 25%, with CO2 and the other greenhouse gases contributing the remaining quarter. Water vapour concentrations are increasing in response to rising temperatures, and there is evidence that this is adding to warming, for example in Europe. The fact that water vapour is a feedback is included in all climate models.
10. PROBLEMS SUCH AS HIV/AIDS AND POVERTY ARE MORE PRESSING THAN CLIMATE CHANGE
Sceptic Counter
The Kyoto Protocol will not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases noticeably. The targets were too low, applied only to certain countries, and have been rendered meaningless by loopholes. Many governments that enthuse about the treaty are not going to meet the reduction targets that they signed up to. Even if it is real, man-made climate change is just one problem among many facing the world's rich and poor alike. Governments and societies should respond proportionately, not pretend that climate is a special case. And some economists believe that a warmer climate would, on balance, improve lives. Arguments over the Kyoto Protocol are outside the realms of science, although it certainly will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions as far or as fast as the IPCC indicates is necessary. The latest IPCC Working Group 2 report suggest that the impact of man-made climate change will on balance be deleterious, particular to the poorer countries of the tropics, although colder regions may see benefits such as increased crop yields. Investment in energy efficiency, new energy technologies and renewables are likely to benefit the developing world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm

Click to view attachment



57, & you?

Ok CowboySteve, I have it cranked down now, but I was merely fighting fire w/ fire.

I was attacked 1st.

I've got the volume cranked down.

I had been without sleep for several days racked w/ pain, due to an old injury.

It may not be a valid excuse to anyone who hasn't experienced it, but I apologize to anyone that I've offended

It is all a theory, but you are right we should try to live as green as possible.

off topic what is a person to do with the floresent light when they are finished? I do not want to put them in a landfill, which is where I assume a lot go. Continue on.

Going green has saved me money so there's a reason right there. I recycle my compact florescent lightbulbs at Home Depot.

I called the lowes (which is about 15 min away) and they do not recycle.

I called the closest Home Depot (about 30 min away) and they do not recycle them either.

I called another and they did do the recycling, but they are about 45 minutes away and it would be a special trip for either of the last two. And to make the trip worthwhile, I would have to store several over a long period of time.

You appear to have skipped this sentence in your article.

"In fact, scientists have alternative explanations for the anomalous warming on each of these other planetary bodies."

You're welcome.

P.S. Pluto, Triton, Mars, and Jupiter are not the entire solar system.

Oh, and Morgan, here's a bit more about Mars for you.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

Are you in Nashville or Davidson County? Here is a drop off that operates 6 days per week...

link

If you google "hazardous waste drop off tennessee" I'm sure you will be able to find something.

Here is a good place to start looking. http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_ligh.../disposal.htm#6

Your kidding with this , tell me yes your not quoting this



http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...licy_Institute)


Robert Ferguson are you?

Really? so you write "waaaa waaaa"??

So if you're not a kid, I guess yer just retarded or senile..

ok mr. sensitivity - show me where YOU were attacked FIRST.

If it's valid, I'LL apologize.

about 2 countys away from davidson county. The home depots that I called was in Bellvue and Franklin(which was the only one that recycled the bulbs.)



Which really sucks

I also wanted to add this but I didn't find it until after my edit time was up.
TN Hazardous waste collection Schedule

As far as old batteries (we go thru a bunch car/truck/heavy equipment batteries) I will sell them to the local recycling place. But at least now I know where to dispose of everything else.