• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Global Warming in the 20s

Cal

Well-known member
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnMcCaslin/2007/08/14/global_warming_in_the_20s


Before Gore

D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."



The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

"This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s," says Mr. Lockwood. "I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all."

Worth pondering

Reacting yesterday to word that certain European governments and officials are suddenly trying to abandon their costly "global warming" policies, Royal Astronomical Society fellow Benny Peiser, of the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University in Great Britain, recalls the teachings of Marcus Aurelius: "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
We know the world is warming - that isn't even up for debate. The question is whether it is natural or man-made. I have a hard time understanding why some folks just poo-poo the notion that man is causing it. If you live in filth, you're going to get sick. You then consider the billions and billions of tons of crap we've pumped into the atmosphere and some think that there are no consequences? I'm not saying that man is the cause, but I will say that bad consequences of pollution makes more sense than no consequences.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
We know the world is warming - that isn't even up for debate. The question is whether it is natural or man-made. I have a hard time understanding why some folks just poo-poo the notion that man is causing it. If you live in filth, you're going to get sick. You then consider the billions and billions of tons of crap we've pumped into the atmosphere and some think that there are no consequences? I'm not saying that man is the cause, but I will say that bad consequences of pollution makes more sense than no consequences.


Well said sandhusker....
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
We know the world is warming - that isn't even up for debate. .

Actually there is a debate over it, you just have to look for it, Katie Couric is not going to tell you about it!

Data from satellite and weather balloons show basically no readable change in air temp. If the earth was warming as we are told obviously the air would warm also.

But many of the reporting stations that have reported temps from around the world for since 1900 have either changed location, the area changed around them or they no longer exist.

Of the 2907 stations in the [GISS] database, only 161 (or 5.5%) have complete temporal coverage from 1900 to 1990. All but 19 of these stations are in the United States. The US, with the most complete record anywhere, has no trend in temperatures during this century [that is, the temperature trend is neither increasing nor decreasing with time —WHS]. In 1989 and 1990 about 30% of the stations ceased reporting. This may account for the difference in global temperature trends derived from surface observations when compared to balloon and satellite observations. Support for this idea comes from the fact that 135 stations in the USSR ceased observing at the end of 1989. Subsequently there appeared to be a warming in the USSR but this warming is not supported by pressure observations. Thus, it appears half or more of the reported global warming from ground observations is arising from this change in station coverage. It is possible that as much as 0.2 C of the 0.25 C warming for 1979-1999 can be explained by this change in stations, although more study is required to refine this number. Other locations where the surface network has notable problems include South Africa, Nigeria, Timbuktu, Algeria, Peru, central and coastal Brazil, the Seychelles, Diego Garcia, New Guinea, and several Polynesian islands.

http://www.fathersforlife.org/REA/warming6.htm

When averaging out anything if you take away 30% of the data the averages will obviously change. And then when you throw in that in 1900 a reporting station might have been in a wheat field but now it is at an airport then you really change the outcome of the data.

There is plenty of debate as to rather Global Warming even exist at all, let alone be caused by man.

And yea I know about the melting ice and glaciers, but I have a challenge, you list one location on the earth that has ice melting and I will list two places that have increased ice mass and glaciers that have grown. Al Gore wont show you those growing glaciers in other parts of the world.

Who knows maybe Alaska one day will be tropical paradise, but if it is most likely then Hawaii will have 3 feet of snow. The earth shifts and has been doing so for thousands of years.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
aplusmnt said:
Sandhusker said:
We know the world is warming - that isn't even up for debate. .

Actually there is a debate over it, you just have to look for it,



Yeah...try stepping out the back door!!!

I tried that, but then my great grandpa pointed out to me that 60 years ago he had the same type of temperature fluctuations that I experienced out my back door. I remember it well because we were sitting on the back porch, talking about Hurricane Katrina and how everyone blamed it on Global warming and said it was going to get worse. And he pointed out to me that he lived through 2 of the worse decades of Hurricanes recorded. 1911 to 1920 and 1941 to 1950. I believe he mentioned how those two decades had almost twice the number of hurricanes recorded as we did in 1991 to 2000.

I believe that is when he then read me the book about Chicken little and explained to me how the fictional Chicken character resembled a real life character called a Liberal. I will never forget that talk, a cold chill came down my back as he explained these evil Liberal characters to me and how I should run and hide if I ever see one, and never talk to them or accept candy from them. :wink:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
The planet is a living breathing creature that goes thru cycles all by itself.

BUT...when we ( man) add our clutter into the scheme of things we'll exacerbate the natural changes.


The more we clutter....the greater the swings!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Aplusmnt, "And yea I know about the melting ice and glaciers, but I have a challenge, you list one location on the earth that has ice melting and I will list two places that have increased ice mass and glaciers that have grown."

Glacier National Park
Alaska
Greenland
Polar Ice Cap

You know of 8 places where ice is building?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Aplusmnt, "And yea I know about the melting ice and glaciers, but I have a challenge, you list one location on the earth that has ice melting and I will list two places that have increased ice mass and glaciers that have grown."

Glacier National Park
Alaska
Greenland
Polar Ice Cap

You know of 8 places where ice is building?

South America

The Pio XI Glacier
Perito Moreno Glacier

United States

Mount St. Helens’ Crater Glacier
Washington's Nisqually Glacier
Colorado's Rocky Mountain Park
California's Mount Shasta
Hubbard Glacier in Alaska

Misc

East Antarctic Ice Sheet
Engabreen glacier in Norway

I threw in an extra one for good measure. Actually I included more than that, since Colorado Rocky Mountain Park has multiple individual growing glaciers as well as new ones they just found. If you thought finding 8 growing glaciers would be hard, that really shows how much you truly know about this subject and Global Warming in general.

If you want to challenge me and make it interesting you will need to list say 100 melting glaciers so I have to respond with 200 growing ones. I can find them but it would take some time to list them all individually.

There is hundreds of glaciers, ice caps, Ice sheets growing around the world. Heck I might be able to find 100 just on U.S. soil, without going to Russia, Norway etc.....

It kind of works like this, if the sky is falling then we will give tax money to Washington to save us. And if Washington gets tax money they will give grant money to Scientist to study it. And then the Liberal Media, if it bleeds it leads mentality will get you to watch Katie Couric on the evening news showing you how unsafe you are and how something has to be done about global warming! And what is the #1 thing that needs to be done about this subject? Spend some money to save planet, and the cycle starts all over!
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
It kind of works like this, if the sky is falling then we will give tax money to Washington to save us. And if Washington gets tax money they will give grant money to Scientist to study it. And then the Liberal Media, if it bleeds it leads mentality will get you to watch Katie Couric on the evening news showing you how unsafe you are and how something has to be done about global warming! And what is the #1 thing that needs to be done about this subject? Spend some money to save planet, and the cycle starts all over![/b]

Ain't no "kind of" to it, that is exactly how and why it works!

At church the other day, the sermon was about all the "woe is me the world is ending and we shouldn't raise kids in this time of crisis".

Made me thinbk about all them people who claim how terrible everything is. Yiup, sure to bad we can't go back to the good old days like during the black plauge in Europe and WWI and WWII! :roll:

I guess I will just put my trust and faith in the good Lord as he has done pretty good by me and mine. Hell, we ain't any of us going to get out of this world alive! :wink:

Not to say we should be prudent , but most problems will solve themselves in time.

Too many trees, fire.

Too much grass, fire.

Too many cows, Drought.

Too many people, pestilence, plauge and war.

We can not hardly control anything about our lives. We can try and treat Mother Nature and this old world with respect and each other the same and them as don't will cause problems.

We need to try getting along, instead of changing everybody and everything.

Ain't nothing going to happen without the Lord, folks.

The thing about all them folks who are whining and complaining about global warming that I don't understand, is why don't they quit driving cars and burning coal and oil and building huge mansions? They want all the rest of us to change our lives, but they won't change theirs! Lead by example. Don't check into what Al Gore does to help contribute to global warming, or it will really scare you.

What about all them famous people who flew planes from all over the world for their rally? Suppose that helped cool the earth down?

Yeah, put up or shut up!

Okay, I'm off my soapbox now. :wink:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Absplmt, I don't believe everything I hear, so I thought I would check up on your claims. In short, you haven't convinced me. Sure, there are generally a few exceptions to the rule, but globally, it looks to me like we're losing glacial mass. The whole thing makes sense. You can't pollute and not expect any consequences, and we've done a lot of polluting.

Pio XI ; The biggest glacier in South America. Only glacier that keeps growing every year.

Perito Moreno; The Perito Moreno Glacier is one of only three Patagonian glaciers that are not retreating.

Nisqualley Glacier; Figure 1 - The lower portion of Nisqually Glacier, July 2001. The white outline shows the current location of the glacier terminus. The red area shows the terminus of the glacier in 1912 (based on a photograph taken by Aashel Curtis). The estimated retreat is 1.5 kilometers (0.9 miles).

Hubbard Glacier; Hubbard Glacier is the largest tidewater glacier on the North American continent. It has been thickening and advancing toward the Gulf of Alaska since it was first mapped by the International Boundary Commission in 1895 (Davidson, 1903). This is in stark contrast with most glaciers, which have thinned and retreated during the last century. This atypical behavior is an important example of the calving glacier cycle in which glacier advance and retreat is controlled more by the mechanics of terminus calving than by climate fluctuations.

While I was reasearching others, I ran across this link;
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/7/175429/444
 

Steve

Well-known member
but globally, it looks to me like we're losing glacial mass.

not like it just started happening....

The last major glacial period began about 2,000,000 years B.P. and is commonly known as the Pleistocene or Ice Age. During this glacial period, large glacial ice sheets covered much of North America, Europe, and Asia for long periods of time. The extent of the glacier ice during the Pleistocene, however, was not static. The Pleistocene had periods when the glaciers retreated (interglacial) because of mild temperatures, and advanced because of colder temperatures (glacial). Average global temperatures were probably 4 to 5° Celsius colder than they are today at the peak of the Pleistocene. The most recent glacial retreat began about 14,000 years B.P. and is still going on. We call this period the Holocene epoch. In the aftermath of the Little Ice Age, around 1850, the glaciers of the Earth have retreated substantially.
 

Steve

Well-known member
I don't believe everything I hear, so I thought I would check up on your claims. In short, you haven't convinced me.

Why is it that if two factors are needed for a glacier to retreat or advance yet global warming alarmist keep only citing temperature?

snow fall or accumulation is one part,...melting or temperature is the other...

if snow fall is down in one year....the effect is seen later...by the glacier retreating....

are we not in a drought?

why is that fact ignored?

,..In addition, the records of glacial recession indicate rapid retreat and ablation during periods of high summer drought. For instance, the Grinnell, Sperry, Jackson and Agassiz glaciers decreased to 50-68% of their original sizes between 1917-1945, at rates of up to 100 m/yr. During this same period, our reconstructions indicate the most extreme drought, in both duration and severity,...
The great Sperry Glacier retreated 1.88 km2 between 1913 and 1945, and only 0.10 km2 in between 1979 and 2003. You do the math, but the rate of retreat was much greater 75 years ago than what we have witnessed in the 1979 to 2003 golden age of global warming!
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Absplmt, I don't believe everything I hear, so I thought I would check up on your claims. In short, you haven't convinced me. Sure, there are generally a few exceptions to the rule, but globally, it looks to me like we're losing glacial mass. The whole thing makes sense. You can't pollute and not expect any consequences, and we've done a lot of polluting.

Pio XI ; The biggest glacier in South America. Only glacier that keeps growing every year.

Perito Moreno; The Perito Moreno Glacier is one of only three Patagonian glaciers that are not retreating.

Nisqualley Glacier; Figure 1 - The lower portion of Nisqually Glacier, July 2001. The white outline shows the current location of the glacier terminus. The red area shows the terminus of the glacier in 1912 (based on a photograph taken by Aashel Curtis). The estimated retreat is 1.5 kilometers (0.9 miles).

Hubbard Glacier; Hubbard Glacier is the largest tidewater glacier on the North American continent. It has been thickening and advancing toward the Gulf of Alaska since it was first mapped by the International Boundary Commission in 1895 (Davidson, 1903). This is in stark contrast with most glaciers, which have thinned and retreated during the last century. This atypical behavior is an important example of the calving glacier cycle in which glacier advance and retreat is controlled more by the mechanics of terminus calving than by climate fluctuations.

While I was reasearching others, I ran across this link;
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/7/175429/444

Did not really follow the theme of your copy and pasting? Do you not believe them glaciers I listed have grown in size?

Or is it that even though you saw proof that some glaciers are growing you still want to hang on the fact that others are melting?

We only touched on the surface of Ice, snow, glaciers, Ice caps etc... or even cold weather that is increasing in areas of the world.

Yes there is areas, were glaciers have melted. They been melting for hundreds of years while others grow. Just like you have years of drought and years of floods and years of just the right amount of rain fall. But when you look at weather in general eventually it all comes back around.

You ever notice when they talk about Global warming they will mention things like this is the hottest, driest, longest drought in 70, 30, 10, 100 years. They never say this is the hottest day ever in history. There has always been weather changes!

Problem is no one ask the hard questions. When weather scientist say we are having growing numbers of hurricanes due to global warming, then I want them to explain what caused those record hurricanes back in 1911 then? Or why is it since Katrina we have had mild hurricane seasons the last two years? Is the earth getting better or worse?

A person has to decide if Chicken Little cries global warming are we going to be Henny Penny or Foxy Woxy :wink:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
The theme of my pasting was that, while what you said was true, the information shows that your examples are not the norm. They are exceptions.

A, "You ever notice when they talk about Global warming they will mention things like this is the hottest, driest, longest drought in 70, 30, 10, 100 years. They never say this is the hottest day ever in history. There has always been weather changes! "

Thats generally because they have only been keeping records for the number of years they quote.

Here's the deal; Those of us in agriculture and gardening know very well what cloud cover will do when there is danger of frost - it holds in heat. All those gases that we've been pumping into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution are, in effect, providing cloud cover. With that in mind, how can global warming not occur? It all just makes sense.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Here's the deal; Those of us in agriculture and gardening know very well what cloud cover will do when there is danger of frost - it holds in heat. All those gases that we've been pumping into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution are, in effect, providing cloud cover. With that in mind, how can global warming not occur? It all just makes sense.

Think about it if this causes permanent damage then all that smog from the industrial revolution would still be floating around.

Much like when you cut yourself and your body forms a scab and then regenerates itself to heal. So does the earth.

God has set in motion a system to break down the smog of the industrial revolution. The hydrocarbons are either broken down through rain drops in the clouds or energy from the sun breaks them apart or there is a chemical break down of them.

My point is God made the earth with a super powered filter system and it will take a whole lot more than anything that has occurred in past 30 years to upset mother nature.
 

Mike

Well-known member
When CO2 was designated a harmful gas I was flabbergasted.

Plant life must have Carbon Dioxide to live. The more CO2 there is, the better plant life does, thus producing more Oxygen.

Everything I learned in biology went up in smoke :???:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Sandhusker said:
Here's the deal; Those of us in agriculture and gardening know very well what cloud cover will do when there is danger of frost - it holds in heat. All those gases that we've been pumping into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution are, in effect, providing cloud cover. With that in mind, how can global warming not occur? It all just makes sense.

Think about it if this causes permanent damage then all that smog from the industrial revolution would still be floating around.

Much like when you cut yourself and your body forms a scab and then regenerates itself to heal. So does the earth.

God has set in motion a system to break down the smog of the industrial revolution. The hydrocarbons are either broken down through rain drops in the clouds or energy from the sun breaks them apart or there is a chemical break down of them.

My point is God made the earth with a super powered filter system and it will take a whole lot more than anything that has occurred in past 30 years to upset mother nature.

I hope you're right, but I don't think so.
 

Maple Leaf Angus

Well-known member
Mike said:
When CO2 was designated a harmful gas I was flabbergasted.

Plant life must have Carbon Dioxide to live. The more CO2 there is, the better plant life does, thus producing more Oxygen.

Everything I learned in biology went up in smoke :???:

That was funny Mike.
 

Mike

Well-known member
KYOTO PROTOCOL DESTROYED THE OZONE

We now learn that the biggest emissions-cutting projects instituted under the Kyoto Protocol have contributed greatly to destroying our ozone layer. Oh great ... here we go with that ozone layer stuff again. This report, by the way, from the U.N.

The emissions projects directly increased production of gases, which destroy the ozone layer. The report also says that with these projects developing countries deliberately raised their emissions of greenhouse gases just to give them some greenhouse gasses to destroy. Why? So they could claim more carbon offset credits, and get paid big bucks from rich nations.

The plan, under Kyoto, is called the Clean Development Mechanism. Basically what happens is that rich countries pay poor countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions on their behalf. This little scheme is worth over $5 billion a year.

The most popular Clean Development project is to destroy a potent greenhouse gas called HFC 23 ... a hydrofluotocarbon. This HFC 23 is a waste product of the manufacturing of refrigerant gas (HCFC 22), which damages the ozone as well. In India and China, chemical plants have used to money they get from offsetting the HFC 23 to ramp up production, therefore increasing the level of HCFC 22 produced.

These projects to destroy HFC 23 bring in the big bucks because it is 12,000 times more potent than CO2.

Even worse, the chemical plants in China have deliberately set their factories to produce more "waste" (HFC 23) in order to make more money from rich nations.

Those participating in the Clean Development Mechanism produce twice as much HFC 23 then the actual end product – the refrigerant fluid, which also destroys the ozone. Countries not participating in the project produce an equal proportion of waste to fluid.

We're being scammed ... in the name of global warming.

We deserve it for signing on to that absurd cultist mania.
 
Top