Okay, so it's environmentally bad, but it sure was glorious! Amazing what they can do with fireworks these days; the variety was as neat as the volume:..."/>

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Sydney did it up royally this year!

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Friday, January 7, 2011 07:47
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3994
PAGE 1 of 2

Saturday, January 1, 2011 11:40 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...



Okay, so it's environmentally bad, but it sure was glorious! Amazing what they can do with fireworks these days; the variety was as neat as the volume:



Less professional views:




Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 1, 2011 12:51 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


One of these years, I'm heading up there for NYE.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 1, 2011 1:32 PM

CANTTAKESKY


This is from 2010 NYE.

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/NYE/Home.asp?utm_source=sydneyhomep
age&utm_content=NYE&utm_campaign=Sydney-homepage


Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 1, 2011 5:43 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


How are fireworks environmentally bad ?



" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 1, 2011 7:19 PM

DREAMTROVE


rap

they might cause gasps of onlooking australians, who then might breathe out co2. logically, this would lead to the earth being converted into venus, minus the tinfoil bikinis.

actually, i have to give fox.kudos for nailing this one: global warming theory isnt science, its religion. in fact its the very same religion that we saw from the fringe right under the last admin. its end times apocalyptic panic.

this religion has two purposes

1) to the followers, they are suddenly important because they live at an important time: the end

2) the followers are willing to accept any radical agenda proposed because of the oncoming certain destruction.

these combine to give the faithful both a sense of self importance. and purpose, while luring them into a messianic cult which heralds the potential salvation when the newly self annointed prophets.take the radical action that they wanted to take anyway, and claim that this averted the catastrophe that was never coming in the first place.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 1, 2011 9:24 PM

RIGHTEOUS9


Dreamtrove, I can't speak for everybody who believes global warming could quite possibly be a partly man-made disaster,

but I can at least say that you don't have me pegged in that description.

From my perspective, there are three choices...

1.choose to accept man-made global warming as a real possibility, essentially deferring to the experts in the respective sciences. They have been doing the testing and the research after all.

2. choose to disent with the majority of experts in the field, and to trust instead with the small community of experts and obscenely large community of internet genies who concoct whole "pages" of circumstancial evidence as proof that global warming isn't happening.

3. Get my own degree(or equivalent schooling) and do my own research.

If these are the options for those of us without science degrees, would you seriously have me choose option 2 over option 1, as the less dogmatic, less "religious" option?

I mean yes, I understand your deeply seeded distrust for authority on any matter, and yes, I appreciate that there is reason to distrust our own epa(((which as you know was doctoring things to play down man's impact on climate change))), and there is reason to distrust our own government, and there is reason to distrust any given scientist at any given time, because there can always be something in it for him, even if that something is just clouding his or her judgement...

but the whole scientific community? Given that I'm not a scientist, and climate change is such a broad and technical and interpretive field, I have not spent much time on the science of it. I have instead, spent some time researching who it was that was saying man-made climate change, or climate change in general in some cases, was a hoax. At that time, almost every name I ran into had money ties. Big money, to big industries.

I absolutely don't dispute that there is money to be made for jumping on the climate change band-wagon as well...but given the competitive nature of universities, and the value of notoriety, you don't think that as many prestigeoius institutions in the field of science would find it not just lucrative, but bold and jet-setting to come out against man-made climate change, especially if powerful evidence could be found to shred the going consensus? This question isn't meant to be proof of anything, i'm just interested in your take on it.

I just find it ironic that "choosing" science over certainty, is the world-view that you find dogmatic and cult-like. I mean, science hedges...the figures are high, but there's no 100 percent certainty being declared by most. it might be 99 % certainty or something insane like that, but there is always a possiblity that the answers we must work with today will not be the answers we have tomorrow. Just because I think its the safer bet to operate as if climate change is being cuased by us, doesn't mean I know for certain that it is.

But if that's the best information we have today, and if other people are more qualified than I am to interpret the current data, and those people are not all part of some shadow agency, but range from all across the globe in both private and public sector,wouldn't I be more insane to not take what they were saying seriously? Should I really just listen to whatever Inhoff has to say on the subject?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 1, 2011 10:46 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Good points. Additionally, I think that the most money to be made would be from those industries that support climate change skeptics, such as the mining industries.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 2, 2011 1:19 AM

KANEMAN


See how grand life can be when you have a culture with narry a negroid.....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 2, 2011 1:21 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Good points. Additionally, I think that the most money to be made would be from those industries that support climate change skeptics, such as the mining industries.




I think you meant...global warming idiot.



------------------------------------------------
Kwicko, I formally condemn your mother for not aborting you. Yeah, I'm sure her brother was happy to have a son, but you are inexcusable....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 2, 2011 1:23 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
How are fireworks environmentally bad ?



" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "




They aren't......Why ask an idiot a dumb question?






-----------------------------------------------
Kwicko, I formally condemn your mother for not aborting you. Yeah, I'm sure her brother was happy to have a son, but you are inexcusable....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 2, 2011 3:40 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:
1.choose to accept man-made global warming as a real possibility, essentially deferring to the experts in the respective sciences. They have been doing the testing and the research after all.

2. choose to disent with the majority of experts in the field, and to trust instead with the small community of experts and obscenely large community of internet genies who concoct whole "pages" of circumstancial evidence as proof that global warming isn't happening.

3. Get my own degree(or equivalent schooling) and do my own research.

Excellent summary, Righteous. Excellent.

This is something I have wanted to point out for a long time. That ultimately, subscribing to GW/CC is about faith in "scientific authority." It is an appeal to authority argument for most people. Scientists are the modern "prophets," if you will.

My husband is a full-time scientist at a research lab. So we know a lot of PhD research scientists personally. They are people with conflicts of interest and biases just like everyone else. Getting a lot of education doesn't automatically make their characters taller and their thoughts purer. They all put on pants one leg at a time. My husband included.

For example, look at our DOE budget.

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/aboutus/budget/10/FY_2010_Budget.html

If you throw this kind of money at a scientist to pay his mortgage and feed his kids, in order to invent a way to capture and sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, is he going to say, "I don't see the point in this research"? No, he says, "Hey, as long as you pay me, I'll do the job no matter whether I think it is an irrelevant technology or not." It is not malicious or dishonest. It is simply making a living. As long as they get to keep doing what they love, there is not going to be a lot of dissent.

I love science more than anything else. So does my husband. Between us, we talk about science a lot. So what I am about to say is not to disparage science.

Take the idea of "scientific consensus" with a grain of salt. Science + People = worldview that has been filtered through biases that may not be as close to the Truth as one might imagine. It's still the best we got, but skepticism is the name of the Science game. This is not just for climate science, but for all scientific fields.

On your #3, you don't have to get a degree to do your own research. You just need to dedicate the time. A "degree" is mostly about learning the vocabulary. Read and look things up until you understand the terms. Then read arguments on both sides. One side will start making more sense than the other. You don't have to simply take the side with the largest number of people. You will start to understand WHY you side them, no matter which side is in the minority.

Finally, I leave you with this letter from a climate scientist (Petr Chylek) about his concerns regarding GW/CC conclusions of the climate science community and the revelations of ClimateGate.

http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/12/13/understanding-the-flaw/

Quote:

Open Letter to the Climate Research Community



...For me, science is the search for truth, the never-ending path towards finding out how things are arranged in this world so that they can work as they do. That search is never finished.

It seems that the climate research community has betrayed that mighty goal in science. They have substituted the search for truth with an attempt at proving one point of view. It seems that some of the most prominent leaders of the climate research community, like prophets of Old Israel, believed that they could see the future of humankind and that the only remaining task was to convince or force all others to accept and follow. They have almost succeeded in that effort.

Yes, there have been cases of misbehavior and direct fraud committed by scientists in other fields: physics, medicine, and biology to name a few. However, it was misbehavior of individuals, not of a considerable part of the scientific community.

Climate research made significant advancements during the last few decades, thanks to your diligent work. This includes the construction of the HadCRUT and NASA GISS datasets documenting the rise of globally averaged temperature during the last century. I do not believe that this work can be affected in any way by the recent email revelations. Thus, the first of the three pillars supporting the hypothesis of manmade global warming seems to be solid.

However, the two other pillars are much more controversial. To blame the current warming on humans, there was a perceived need to “prove” that the current global average temperature is higher than it was at any other time in recent history (the last few thousand years). This task is one of the main topics of the released CRU emails. Some people were so eager to prove this point that it became more important than scientific integrity.

The next step was to show that this “unprecedented high current temperature” has to be a result of the increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. The fact that the Atmosphere Ocean General Circulation Models are not able to explain the post-1970 temperature increase by natural forcing was interpreted as proof that it was caused by humans. It is more logical to admit that the models are not yet good enough to capture natural climate variability (how much or how little do we understand aerosol and clouds, and ocean circulation?), even though we can all agree that part of the observed post-1970 warming is due to the increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Thus, two of the three pillars of the global warming and carbon dioxide paradigm are open to reinvestigation.

The damage has been done. The public trust in climate science has been eroded. At least a part of the IPCC 2007 report has been put in question. We cannot blame it on a few irresponsible individuals. The entire esteemed climate research community has to take responsibility. Yes, there always will be a few deniers and obstructionists.

So what comes next? Let us stop making unjustified claims and exaggerated projections about the future even if the editors of some eminent journals are just waiting to publish them. Let us admit that our understanding of the climate is less perfect than we have tried to make the public believe. Let us drastically modify or temporarily discontinue the IPCC. Let us get back to work....






Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 2, 2011 6:54 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

How are fireworks environmentally bad ?




No answer yet,huh?


Niki made this statement as if it was accepted fact.

Why ?




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 2, 2011 8:10 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:

From my perspective, there are three choices...

1.choose to accept man-made global warming as a real possibility, essentially deferring to the experts in the respective sciences. They have been doing the testing and the research after all.

2. choose to disent with the majority of experts in the field, and to trust instead with the small community of experts and obscenely large community of internet genies who concoct whole "pages" of circumstancial evidence as proof that global warming isn't happening.

3. Get my own degree(or equivalent schooling) and do my own research.




Hello,

I enjoy option FOUR.

4) Realize that the existence or nonexistence of global warming (aka 'Climate Change,' a nice ambiguous term) matters not at all.

If the Global Warming people are correct, we've tossed things up hardcore for a long time, and things will be excremental for decades or centuries even if we become saints tomorrow.

If the skeptics are correct, things are tossed up for reasons outside of our control. Who knows how long they'll be tossed up? What can we do other than buy sweaters or buy bikinis?

Theorizing about 'climate change' has as much practical impact on my life as does theorizing about whether atomic particles have a clockwise or counterclockwise spin.

Virtually everything advocated by climate change experts to combat global warming or 'climate change' is commendable for reasons that have no correlation with a thermometer.

The only negative aspect of 'climate change' politics is the creation of carbon as a commodity which can be traded. This makes as much sense to me as bundling up bad loans and selling them around the world as though they were an asset. But this is an economic/political problem, not a scientific one.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 2, 2011 8:35 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Thank you, Righteous, for making all your good arguments, which stand for me too althought there is NO way I could have put it so succinctly or so well.

This debate will continue; it seems to creep into so many threads, or be started by so many who want to snark about extreme weather, I'll not get into it again.

I'll just answer the question; fireworks create a huge amount of smoke, which equals smog, which people breathe for a few days afterward at least. That's all. It's a short-term thing and has no global effects, obviously, it's all a matter of scale. My smoking a cigarette is environmentally bad, too, as is car pollution, etc. It was just a remark, reminiscent of how the Bay Area looks the day after Fourth of July or New Years. Luckily this year it's not so bad; it's been raining steadily today and yesterday, so that brought a lot of the residual material down to earth...where it's not particularly healthy either, but it's a SMALL THING. Just a remark.

I only put this up because it was a gorgeous show and I thought others might enjoy it, not to start yet ANOTHER debate on global warming/climate change.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 2, 2011 8:52 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
I only put this up because it was a gorgeous show and I thought others might enjoy it, not to start yet ANOTHER debate on global warming/climate change.




Thank you for sharing the post of the show.

A brief amount of firework smoke, once a year, really can't be all that detrimental to the environment, can it ? I'm guessing not.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 2, 2011 11:03 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Okay: remember, you DID ask.

It's an individual decision, in my opinion. There are "environmentally safe" fireworks out there now, simply BECAUSE their negative aspects have become more recognized. You probably won't read this, but someone else might find it interesting:
Quote:

Fireworks can unleash a shower of toxins into soil and water, and scientists are only beginning to figure out what that means for human health.

The rockets' red glare during a fireworks show can fill onlookers with patriotism and awe. Unfortunately, it can also fill them with particulates and aluminum.

Fireworks get their flamboyance from a variety of chemicals, many of which are toxic to humans. From the gunpowder that fuels their flight to the metallic compounds that color their explosions, fireworks often contain carcinogenic or hormone-disrupting substances that can seep into soil and water, not to mention the lung-clogging smoke they release and plastic debris they scatter.

But fireworks shows are woven into the fabric of the United States — they were popular here even before the country won its independence — and it's not like they happen every day. Is an occasional peppering of perchlorates really a big deal compared with all the industrial pollution U.S. waterways have been dealt over the years?

Maybe not, but it's still not entirely clear how fireworks affect environmental or human health. While they haven't been linked to any widespread outbreaks of disease, it's not always easy to pin down why someone developed hypothyroidism, anemia or cancer.

What we do know is that, although they're fleeting and infrequent, fireworks shows spray out a toxic concoction that rains down quietly into lakes, rivers and bays throughout the country. Many of the chemicals in fireworks are also persistent in the environment, meaning they stubbornly sit there instead of breaking down. That's how mercury from coal emissions winds up in fish, and it's how DDT thinned bald eagles' eggshells in the '70s. There's scant evidence that fireworks are having similar effects, but the possibility has been enough to raise concern in many communities.

Here's a look at what's in fireworks, how they might affect people, and what kinds of alternatives exist:

Perchlorates and particulates

For fireworks and other pyrotechnics to blow up, they need to blow up something — usually a blend of charcoal and sulfur fuel. They also need an ingredient that can inject oxygen to speed up the explosion, historically relying on potassium nitrate. These three chemicals are mixed together into a sooty substance known as gunpowder.

When a spark hits gunpowder, the potassium nitrate feeds oxygen to the fire, helping it quickly burn the charcoal-sulfur fuel. This produces volumes of hot, rapidly expanding solids and gases that can be used to fire a bullet, explode an artillery shell or launch a Roman candle.

The original blends of black powder can be a bit too unstable and messy for some uses, though, so the potassium nitrate is often replaced by perchlorates, a family of chemicals all featuring a central chlorine atom bonded by four oxygen atoms. Two types in particular — potassium perchlorate and ammonium perchlorate — have become the go-to oxidizers of the pyrotechnics industry.

Perchlorates may have introduced a new problem, though: In high enough doses, they limit the human thyroid gland's ability to take iodine from the bloodstream, potentially resulting in hypothyroidism. The thyroid needs iodine to make hormones that control a variety of body functions, and people running too low on these hormones can develop a wide range of disorders. Children, infants and especially fetuses suffer the worst from hypothyroidism, since thyroid hormones are crucial for normal growth. Perchlorates have also been shown to cause thyroid cancer in rats and mice, but scientists believe humans are less vulnerable to this effect.

Low doses of perchlorates don't seem to hurt healthy adults — volunteers who took 35 milligrams for 14 days or 3 milligrams for six months showed no thyroid-related problems, and studies of workers exposed to similar amounts for years also failed to uncover any major side effects. Plus, perchlorate advocates often point out that it should theoretically all be incinerated in the sky before any can fall down to contaminate the ground.

But a 2007 study of an Oklahoma lake following fireworks displays overhead found that perchlorate levels spiked more than 1,000 times above the baseline level for 14 hours after a show. While the maximum concentration detected was 44.2 micrograms — less than 1 milligram — per liter, the study was still the most concrete evidence yet that fireworks release perchlorates into waterways.

Another study by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection found perchlorate levels up to 62 micrograms per liter at eight groundwater-monitoring wells on the Dartmouth campus, near where fireworks are regularly fired.

EPA spokesman Skip Anderson cautions that these weren't health-effects studies, and points out that more data are needed to determine how great a risk perchlorates pose in surface water around the country. Still, he says, their results "suggest that some perchlorate in fireworks is not combusted and therefore can wind up in the environment."

The smoke from fireworks' burned charcoal and sulfur fuel also contains particulate matter that can get lodged in people's lungs, an immediate danger for those with asthma or chemical sensitivities. Prolonged exposure to similar airborne particles from diesel exhaust has also been shown to cause lung cancer. Air-quality monitors reportedly spike for about three hours after a fireworks show.

One positive of both perchlorates and particulates is that they most likely don't pose a long-term threat. Particulates fade away after a few hours, and perchlorates dissipate days or weeks after being released. Unfortunately, the same can't be said about some other chemicals that help light up the sky.

Metallic compounds

In addition to gunpowder, fireworks are packed with heavy metals and other toxins that produce their sparkling shower of colors. Like perchlorates, the exact effect of fireworks' heavy-metal fallout is still mainly a mystery, but scientists do know that the metals themselves can wreak havoc in the human body.

• Strontium (red):

This soft, silvery-yellow metal turns red when it burns, is extremely reactive with both air and water, and can be radioactive. Some strontium compounds dissolve in water, and others move deep into soil and groundwater; radioactive strontium has a half-life of 29 years. While low levels of stable and radioactive strontium haven't been shown to affect human health, they both can be dangerous at high doses. Radioactive strontium can damage bone marrow, cause anemia and prevent blood from clotting correctly, and lab studies have shown it can lead to birth defects in animals. Stable strontium is mainly a threat to children because it can impair their bone growth.


• Aluminum (white):

Since aluminum is the most abundant metal in Earth's crust — and one of humanity's most widely used — avoiding exposure is almost impossible. Virtually all food, water, air and soil contain some amount of aluminum — the average adult eats about 7 to 9 milligrams of the silvery-white metal every day in food. It's generally safe at these levels, but it can affect the brain and lungs at higher concentrations. People and animals exposed to large amounts of aluminum have performed poorly on mental and physical tests, and some studies suggest aluminum exposure may lead to Alzheimer's disease, although that connection has yet to be proven.

• Copper (blue):

Fireworks' blue hues are produced by copper compounds. These aren't very toxic on their own, but the copper jump-starts the formation of dioxins when perchlorates in the fireworks burn. Dioxins are vicious chemicals that don't occur naturally and aren't intentionally produced anywhere; they only exist as unwelcome byproducts of certain chemical reactions, one of which happens in blue fireworks. The most noted health effect of dioxin exposure is chloracne, a severe skin disease with acne-like lesions mostly on the face and upper body. Dioxin doesn't stop there, though — the World Health Organization has identified it as a human carcinogen, and it's also been shown to disrupt hormone production and glucose metabolism.

• Barium (green):

Fish and other aquatic organisms can accumulate barium, which means it can move up the food chain. The silvery-white metal naturally bonds with other elements to form a variety of compounds that all have different effects — none are known to be carcinogenic, but they can cause gastrointestinal problems and muscular weakness when exposure exceeds EPA drinking water standards. Symptoms may include vomiting, diarrhea, breathing trouble, changes in blood pressure, numbness around the face, general muscle weakness and cramps. High levels of barium exposure can lead to changes in heart rhythm, paralysis or death.

• Cadmium (various): Used to produce a wide range of fireworks colors, this mineral is also a known human carcinogen. Breathing high levels of cadmium can seriously damage the lungs, and consuming it can fluster the stomach, often resulting in vomiting and diarrhea. Long-term exposure can lead to kidney disease, lung damage and fragile bones. Plants, fish and other animals take up cadmium from the environment, meaning that any released into waterways from a fireworks show can be passed up the food chain.

In 2004, Disney began using compressed air to launch fireworks at Disneyland in Anaheim, Calif., reducing at least the issues of smoky particulates in the air and perchlorates in the water. Researchers have also been fine-tuning alternative propellants that use nitrogen-rich materials in place of perchlorates, but those are still likely several years away from hitting the market.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/translating-uncle-sam/stories/are-fir
eworks-bad-for-the-environment


There is also the caveat that
Quote:

Several readers have commented that toxins in fireworks are insignificant, or are combusted before they can contaminate the ground. Both are valid arguments — this article doesn't claim that fireworks are definitively dangerous to environmental health; it simply highlights the concern that known toxins are unnaturally entering the environment and scientists don't know exactly what ecological effects they have. The potential dangers alone have been enough to spur Disneyland and some communities to explore other options, and researchers are pursuing alternatives to perchlorates due to the possibility of health effects. As for combustion, the article cites two studies that found perchlorates can still make it into lakes, either from shells being overstuffed or from duds that fail to combust. Only a small amount was found, but only two lakes were studied. Again, this article aims simply to point out the potential dangers since scientific understanding is still limited.

The explanations of the chemicals that give fireworks their colors have also drawn some fire from commenters. The environmental impact of these hasn't been studied well enough for anyone to know their ecological effects; rather than speculating how they might affect ecological health, the article summarizes the toxicological profiles of these chemicals, primarily using information from the CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The article makes clear at several points that it's merely presenting the potential dangers inherent to the materials in question. While common chemicals like table salt that contain otherwise dangerous components are known to be safe, the effects of fireworks' toxins in the environment are much less understood.

Same cite

There are links at the cite for more information on environmental impacts and "eco-tips" at the same cite, s well.

Like I said, it's a personal decision.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 2, 2011 12:08 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

The only negative aspect of 'climate change' politics is the creation of carbon as a commodity which can be traded.


There is more than that, Anthony. There are billions of dollars of taxpayer money funding carbon sequestration research: how to capture CO2 from the atmosphere and channel it into the ground or other container.

In addition, implementing said technology will require additional fuel, the costs of which will no doubt be passed onto the consumer.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 2, 2011 1:50 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Niki

One sentence of your opinion on the matter and a link to the information given would have served the same purpose.


Thanks.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 2, 2011 2:10 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Niki

One sentence of your opinion on the matter and a link to the information given would have served the same purpose.


Thanks.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "





Hello,

I am dismayed to find you at first complaining about the lack of information from Niki to back-up her statement...

Only to complain again about the large quantity of information she provided in backing up her statement.

I'm sure you can see how your position might be frustrating to people who try to accommodate you.

One wonders if there is a pre-screening facility or editor that people can send their submissions to, in order to ensure it meets your standards of 'quantity of evidence and information' before it is posted in the forum.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 2, 2011 2:33 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:


Hello,

I am dismayed to find you at first complaining about the lack of information from Niki to back-up her statement...



You shouldn't be. My simple question on the matter did not require a full blown dissertation on the evils of fireworks and their impact on the environment. As I said, a link or two with the information would have served the same purpose.

It was overkill.

Quote:



Only to complain again about the large quantity of information she provided in backing up her statement.

I'm sure you can see how your position might be frustrating to people who try to accommodate you.



It was a simple question which required only a simple reply. Any additional supporting citation on the matter could have been given via a link. The thread, Sydney's cool firework display, didn't need to be morphed into a drawn out snipe fest on global warming. We already have a thread or two about that.

Quote:

One wonders if there is a pre-screening facility or editor that people can send their submissions to, in order to ensure it meets your standards of 'quantity of evidence and information' before it is posted in the forum.

--Anthony.



Yes, there is. It's called basic common sense.

You're welcome, and have a happy new year !




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 2, 2011 3:34 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:


"How are fireworks environmentally bad ?"

"No answer yet,huh?


Niki made this statement as if it was accepted fact.

Why ?"




Hello,

Having made not one, but two entire posts about it, one would think that you might appreciate a detailed response.

But that would just be common sense.

Happy New Year.

--Anthony


Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 2, 2011 3:41 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Anyway, it was pretty

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 2, 2011 3:42 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Anyway, it was pretty

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 2, 2011 8:10 PM

DREAMTROVE



re global warming via human output of co2, not only am i very familiar with all of the science involved, but i posted the whole thing filled with stats and calculations basically proving my point, and there was not a peep from the GW crowd. even though theycontinued to post on the same thread. So i dutifully once again drew attention to the above posted math. Still, i heard nothing but crickets. they wanted to trust scientific authority rather than do the rather simple math themselves. the main human output of co2 is because we breathe.

But humans do have a radical effect on our environment through deforestation, desertification and overfishing. These all effect co2 levels and also temperature. though mainly through changes in convection cycles.

i would support such arguments if i thought it would help, just as i would use the bible as a basis for environmental argument if i thought it would help.

but this distraction into reducing our carbon footprint is aside from the point, and to this end, we have supported disasters like ethanol and natural gas.

I suspect that the only solution is for humans to become radically environmentalist, religious if you will, but in the direction of understanding, scientifically, exactly what it is that we are doing that endangers each of us.

If the earth dies, we all die. If those things on the earth that are resistant to each disease die, then we lose our best chance at curing that disease.

if we destroy the transpiration cycle, there is less rainfall. less biomass. less food and fewer products and hence there will be fewer humans.

global temp or co2 levels are unlikely to have a prfound effect on human survival. however, water pollution, air pollution and loss of rainfall will, as will loss of biodiversity.

the genetic library that exists within biodiversity hotspots contains more applicable information towards the treatment of human conditions that science could produce in between now and the extinction of the species, even if every one of us was a trained scientist.

im fairly certain that if we lose this, we will all die. sadly, so many of us have already either accepted their fate, or are waiting for some sort of savior.

heres a statistic i just read. the majority of amazon rainforest destruction is being done by 500 individuals

heres another: the majority of all life on earth lives in the amazon

heres another

90% of all medicine is derived from plants found in rainforests. this is true even when the product is genetically engineered, as the genes have to be copied from somewhere.

chances.are that your death will come from something that is done by reckless humans, and would have been curable had not a small handful of ignorant boors destroyed what was left of life on earth.

while im at it, anyone looking for intelligent alien life, its right here on earth being killed right now by small numbers of petty self serving morons.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 3, 2011 8:11 AM

RIGHTEOUS9



dreamtrove...I haven't looked at your numbers, but even if I did, how would I know that they didn't leave out important factors? How would I know that your numbers were right? Math can be manipulated, and formulas can be incomplete or contain inherant biases, as you well know.

I could read what you posted, and it could make perfect sense to a lamen, but I'm aware that I'm a lamen. I'm not going to tap that all too common "common sense" and say..."ayep, that sounds right to me," because in my experience, common sense is entirely derived from the ammount of information I have to work with at any given time. I don't think your page or pages of refutation would or should convince me that it is more valuable or trustworthy than the mountains of data and thousands and thousands of people who have worked on mining the data and refining their theories,and stress testing them against competing theories and interpretations...etc.

I will say that I agree with you, everything else you mentioned as a possible or even likely threat to our survival on this planet sounds really really bad. That doesn't make the effects of global warming a cake-walk...I thought the issue with that was just the time frame that is being predicted...

and I thought that things like the destruction of rain forests were certainly not being left out of the equation of climate change "advocates"...

As to the standard abuses of government, and the ability of big lobbies to use these sorts of scares for financial gain....well what a surprise. That people supported ethanol for political reasons and financial backing is pretty despicable, which includes a now repentant(and I agree, so fucking what) Al Gore, and the dissapointment John Edwards. Any issue will always be exploited though. That it is being exploited doesn't make the preponderance of the science behind the theory wrong, and most scientists seem to agree that the science is still right. ((it is a call to get money and lobbying out of the election system though, since nobody feels they can win honestly))

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 3, 2011 10:54 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


DT,
Quote:

But humans do have a radical effect on our environment through deforestation, desertification and overfishing. These all effect co2 levels and also temperature. though mainly through changes in convection cycles.

i would support such arguments if i thought it would help, just as i would use the bible as a basis for environmental argument if i thought it would help.

but this distraction into reducing our carbon footprint is aside from the point, and to this end, we have supported disasters like ethanol and natural gas.

I suspect that the only solution is for humans to become radically environmentalist, religious if you will, but in the direction of understanding, scientifically, exactly what it is that we are doing that endangers each of us.

If the earth dies, we all die. If those things on the earth that are resistant to each disease die, then we lose our best chance at curing that disease.

if we destroy the transpiration cycle, there is less rainfall. less biomass. less food and fewer products and hence there will be fewer humans.

I wholeheartedly agree. We've always been a short-sighted species in general, and now our short sightedness is endangering our own survival, in my estimation.

Ethanol and natural gas, absolutely--you forgot "clean coal", , which I was absolutely astonished Obama backed. I have my own reservations about nuclear, as well.

You're entitled to your opinion about climate change endangering us, but I beg to differ:
Quote:

As virtually all types of plants, animals and environmental ecosystems will be affected by warmer climate in some way or another, so will the human society in all its complexity be affected by often unpredictable, wide-ranging and far-reaching global warming consequences.

By far the most important areas from the point of view of human well-being affected will be:

• Water supplies
• Food supplies, and
• Human health

Water makes up 70% of the human body’s chemical composition. It is therefore a resource without which we cannot exist. By the middle of the 21 st century, water availability is projected to [temporarily] increase in higher latitudes and in certain wet tropical regions [due to melting of mountain glaciers], and decrease in drier parts of the tropics and subtropics, especially during the summer period.

The water quality will also be negatively affected by heavy precipitation events which may contaminate drinking water supplies. Energy generation will also affected by water scarcity. Reduced water supplies will have a negative impact on the power plants depending on water for their functioning, for example, dams, nuclear plants etc. Agricultural productivity for food supplies is, in general, projected to decrease as the temperatures rise. Agricultural food production will be further affected by extreme weather events such as droughts and floods. The warming of oceans will have a negative impact on commercial fisheries.

Among other things, a number of infectious diseases is certainly expected to rise. It’s a well known fact that disease-carrying insects breed well in wet hot conditions, hence, the result. That will be especially true for tropical countries. Many millions will suffer from malnutrition because of shortages in food supply. This will lead to weakened immune systems and general health deterioration.

(Excerpts from http://www.tropical-rainforest-animals.com/Global-Warming-Effects.html )

Whether we’re causing it or not, climate change is, in my opinion, unquestionably happening. It will affect biodiversity, is already affecting seasonal processes of plants and animals, migration patterns, will affect marine ecosystems and habitats (already happening with the polar bear, which they’re calling the “canary in the mine shaft” of climate change), and more. I have no doubt those things will affect US, sooner or later.

Whether one believes in global warming or not, it’s hard to imagine anyone NOT believing in climate change, of which there is considerable evidence. Our lives will change, whether we change how we are or not, I believe, because what’s been set in motion will be difficult, if not impossible, to “fix”.

As to the financial gain in hollering "global warming is caused by humans!", someone else mentioned, and it's a valid point to me, that those most vociferous in DENYING global warming are by far those with the most to gain by our NOT changing the way we live. Yes, there's money to be made in alternative energy, etc., but nothing like as much as there is to be made in continuing the way we are. That goes into the equation for me.

As to Raptor’s complaint, it’s completely irrelevant. I don’t put up information for him, Kane, Wulf or Whozit 99% of the time, and they're not under any requirement to read anything I put up; I provide facts for the others here. Regardless of the fact that he whines that we don’t back up our statements (despite the fact neither he nor they virtually EVER do so), it’s how I operate, and his opinion on that carries absolutely no weight with me.

There is also the fact that if he read as far as my first comments and the first SENTENCE of what I posted, that would be sufficient answer to his question and he needed to read no further. But that’s as unimportant as his bitching. I "grok" Raptor and his ilk, and my expectations are so rarely surprised that it doesn't concern me.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 3, 2011 11:20 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Anyway, it was pretty



Yes. It sure was.




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 3, 2011 12:17 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER


Hey Rightous, I mean no disrespect in this, and correct me if I am wrong, but are you essenially saying if more people agree on one thing they must be right? I guess that seems logical, but I do recall many major scientific discoveries made by those in the minority, or those who thought diferently than most of their colleagues. (please forgive itouch spelling)

I'm not telling you what to believe, my own reasons for trusting DT's numbers is because they line up with most of the research I have done on my own and my what my Geology Professor taught us. Apparently (if this forums conclusions are accurate) my teacher is in the minority concerning climate change, but as I know this scientist personally, I'm more confident that his conclusions are based off of science and not politics. It's not like he's got much to gain by convincing me one way or the other.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 3, 2011 12:57 PM

DREAMTROVE


R9

we can't base our arguments on hypotheticals which can neither be known nor proven, so we have to deal with what we have.

The raw numbers are obvious and available everywhere. About 60% of the co2 produced by humans is because we breathe, not because we have industry.

Furthermore, humans make up around 0.5% of the biomass of animals that breathe, so our co2 pollution is even more minor.

However, humans have a huge impact on life on earth, having killed about 1/2 of it since we showed up. Additionally, we are killing life, especially plant life, at an alarmingly accelerated rate.

The total co2 consumption and production of the lifeforms of the planet is somewhere around 50 teratons per annum, which is vastly higher than the extant amount of co2 in either the atmosphere or the biomass of the earth, each of which is about 3 teratons, leading to a rather logical conclusion that each molecule of co2 is consumed and released many times during the year.

Such a system of constant consumption and production must exist in a very delicate balance. The Earth has shown some ability to adjust to changes to restore this balance by increases and decreases in the annual production of plant matter, dependent on the amount of available co2. The biomass growth of forests alters with the change in carbon levels accordingly.

Unfortunately, we have a rapidly accelerating problem: As we destroy the remaining carbon sink forests, we lose this ability. The radically accelerating atmospheric co2 I can assure you has nothing to do with our co2 production, and everything to do with a global decrease in consumption. The fact is that we simply have not burned enough co2 to account for the change. In fact, if we were to burn all fossil fuels known or even theorized to exist we could not account for the size of change which has already occurred.

This means that the cause is the result of an upset in the balance, and is likely to continue for some time. We are looking at an increase of 0.3 ppm per year forever or at least until the forest cover of the Earth is restored to its natural state.

The comforting side of this is that it will take between 10,000-20,000 years before this has any radically negative effects on humans, or life on earth in general, by which time it will likely self correct if we have not destroyed the world's topsoil, which is another possibility, since we're a pretty destructive species.

Still, there will be changes in the interim that would make our lives less comfortable. The best solution is to begin reforesting deforested areas, and primarily, to stop deforestion. This is the most important part because second growth forest only consumes about 10% of what old growth forest consumes in terms of co2.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 3, 2011 1:11 PM

DREAMTROVE


Niki

I'm not even sure I grok Rap, but I don't think he means ill by it. He's more or less on target on this one. I disagree with him on a number of issues, and owe him a better explanation of the problems with Nat. Gas. re: property rights but I don't have the time at the moment.

The main point on global warming is that it's an end times panic. The left made so much fun of the Christians for the whole Rapture thing, and backing bad policy based on it, and then they fall for the same damn trick themselves! I'm sorry, I have to laugh at it.

The purpose of the panic is to get you guys to support radical policy changes which will do nothing for the Earth, but hand more power to the ruling elites of TPTB.

Want to understand the climate of the Earth? Do the math. There are a number of manmade threats, some of them very serious.

Quote:


I was absolutely astonished Obama backed.



I wasn't. He's a chicago school CFR globalist, a card carrying neolib, which is the same thing as a neocon, mostly. He didn't really deceive anyone about which side he was on. He said in an interview as posted by me, here, during the election season, July of 2008, that his administration would represent no real policy change over that of George W. Bush. He added that he thought he could bring more competence to what Bush was trying to do, and that was why we should vote for him.

What he wasn't getting was that we didn't want to do what Bush was trying to, and we didn't want it done well, or better, we didn't want it done at all.

The real problem with the election was that no one was paying any attention to what Obama actually said, they saw what they wanted to see. Everyone was so angry at Bush that they were willing to back anyone who opposed him, even if that candidate was someone who said he really wasn't any different. I had more than one Obama voter say to me at the time "He's just saying that because he has to, he doesn't mean it." To which I said "Has to why? Is it worth votes? Bush's approval rating was down in the 20s, supporting those policies can't be worth any votes, opposing them would be a no-brainer."

Quote:

I have my own reservations about nuclear, as well.


I do too, but for large scale power production it's our best option. As a society, we should move towards small scale local power production, like solar roofs, etc.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 3, 2011 4:00 PM

RIGHTEOUS9


Hi happytrader,

I am definitely not saying that. I was concerned that somebody might come away with that interpretation so I tried not to be too terse in my wording.

I'm saying that in leu of doing my own research, and my own testing, (which would require a greater understanding of the subject than I currently have, I must instead use my understanding of people and their motivations, history, etc. to determine who to "trust" on this matter. Its nice that you trust your teacher, and that you feel you have enough background in science to interpret the numbers, and that you have found corroboration in what Dreamtrove has posted.

I don't have any of those things to go by. I do have a sense that money and academic competitiveness is bountiful enough in the current climate to make a near universal opinion of man-made global-warming extremely unlikely, unless of course the evidence all points that way.

But I am absolutely aware that scientists do falter, and that just because the whole of academia believes one thing doesn't make it true. There was the case of pildown man as an example, which appealed to western scientists as evidence of a eurocentric evolution, and which blinded them to some pretty fucking blatant and simple contradictions, as just one example.

So I'm not saying climate scientists are right because they all agree...only that its pretty impressive that they all agree, from everywhere. I like conspiracies and all, but I can't figure a way in which Dreamtrove's data that disproves man's impact on climate change, has slipped through the able clutches of just about everybody in the field, when they can't possibly all have the same agenda.

I'm just saying that my decision to go with the expert community on this one is because I believe that expert commmunity to be quite diverse, not because I am particularly enamoured with authority.

But if I were to choose the other hand, I would have to take the opposing view on the word of a few people, and maybe my own math(hopefully I still know how to carry the 1). They could be right, but if I were a betting man, I'd put my money on black over green.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 7:12 AM

HARDWARE


In other news too much water has been proven to be fatal to humans, other mammals, and even plants. OMGWTFLOLBBQ!!!111!!! The gubmint has got to do something!!! We need to outlaw rain right now!!!

Since we only have the one biosphere, I'm going to vote we not use it to experiment on. Some of these same scientists that are championing global warming, err, sorry, climate change, were predicting that the earth was cooling back in the 70's. They wanted to coat both ice caps in coal dust to promote heating the earth. Where would we be if they had been taken seriously?

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 7:23 AM

RIGHTEOUS9




In other news, specificicity and facts determined tedious; empty rhetoric cool


Hi Hardware, can you link me to those specific scientists that were touting global cooling? I've heard that claim and tried to find said scientists, but must have done a crappy job searching. would have thought some right wing blogs would have sent some of these guys up by name, but no luck...I did find the talking point repeated over and over, wihtout any specifics.

That said, I also found something on a couple of scientists from way back that did some theorizing that man could and probably would have an effect on the temperature of the earth at some point, and they were uncertain as to whether or not the issue would be greenhouse gasses, which would cause warming, or smog, and the subsequent reduction of sunlight, which would cause cooling. I think they were leaning towards the smog winning out at the time, and thus, a possible global winter...but I don't think they were screaming about global cooling as a certainty...and I don't think there was anything contradictory about what they were trying to determine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 7:27 AM

KANEMAN


I don't know dream...I believe in darwinism. I see nothing wrong with 1/2 of the species disappearing since the arrival of man...we are a part of life that follows the natural order of survival...the species that have gone extinct had no right to live with humans they could not adapt and have rightfully parished....I don't apoligize for their ineptness

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 7:37 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:


In other news, specificicity and facts determined tedious; empty rhetoric cool


Hi Hardware, can you link me to those specific scientists that were touting global cooling? I've heard that claim and tried to find said scientists, but must have done a crappy job searching. would have thought some right wing blogs would have sent some of these guys up by name, but no luck...I did find the talking point repeated over and over, wihtout any specifics.

That said, I also found something on a couple of scientists from way back that did some theorizing that man could and probably would have an effect on the temperature of the earth at some point, and they were uncertain as to whether or not the issue would be greenhouse gasses, which would cause warming, or smog, and the subsequent reduction of sunlight, which would cause cooling. I think they were leaning towards the smog winning out at the time, and thus, a possible global winter...but I don't think they were screaming about global cooling as a certainty...and I don't think there was anything contradictory about what they were trying to determine.





Here I'll help you do a simple search numbnutz....

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html




Articules from your beloved Newsweek and Time



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 7:44 AM

KANEMAN



1. Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University.

Setting up of the PDO cold phase assures global cooling for next approx. 30 years. Global warming is over. Expect 30 years of global cooling, perhaps severe 2-5°F.”

He predicts several possible cooling scenarios: The first is similar to 1945-1977 trends, the second is similar to 1880-1915 trends and the third is similar to 1790-1820 trends. His latest article states:

Expect global cooling for the next 2-3 decades that will be far more damaging than global warming would have been.”

Read here, here and here.



2. Syun Akasofu, Professor of Geophysics, Emeritus, University of Alaska, also founding director of ARC
He predicts the current pattern of temperature increase of 0.5C /100 years resulting from natural causes will continue with alternating cooling as well as warming phases. He shows cooling for the next cycle until about 2030/ 2040.

And again a new paper ON THE RECOVERY FROM LITTLE ICE AGE – Read here.



3. Prof. Mojib Latif, Professor, Kiel University, Germany
He makes a prediction for one decade only, namely the next decade [2009-2019] and he basically shows the global average temperatures will decline to a range of about 14.18 C to 14.28 C from 14.39 C [eyeballing his graphs].

He also said that “you may well enter a decade or two of cooling relative to the present temperature level”, however he did not indicate when any two decades of cooling would happen or whether the second decade after the next decade will also be cooling. Read here and here.



4. Dr. Noel Keenlyside from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University. The BBC writes:

The Earth’s temperature may stay roughly the same for a decade, as natural climate cycles enter a cooling phase, scientists have predicted.”

A new computer model developed by German researchers, reported in the journal Nature, suggests the cooling will counter greenhouse warming.”

Read here news.bbc.



5. Professor Anastasios Tsonis, Head of Atmospheric Sciences Group University of Wisconsin, and Dr. Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. msnbc writes:

We have such a change now and can therefore expect 20 -30 years of cooler temperatures”

This is nothing like anything we’ve seen since 1950,”

Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. “Cooling events since then had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This current cooling doesn’t have one.”

Swanson thinks the trend could continue for up to 30 years.”

Also read The mini ice age starts here at dailymail.co.uk/.



6. William M Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept of Atmospheric Sciences, Colorado State University

A weak global cooling began from the mid-1940’s and lasted until mid-1970’s. I predict this is what we will see in the next few decades.”

Read colostate.edu.



7. Henrik Svensmark , Professor DTU, Copenhagen. Henrik Svensmark writes:

Indeed, global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth, on the contrary. This means that projections of future climate is unpredictable.”

Read here.



8. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, D.Sc., AboAkademi University, Finland

Therefore, prolonged low solar activity periods in the future may cause the domination of a strongly negative AO and extremely cold winters in North America, Europe and Russia.”

Read here.



9. Dr. Alexander Frolov, Head of Russia’s state meteorological service Rosgidromet. The Daily Mail.co.uk quotes Frolov:

‘From the scientific point of view, in terms of large scale climate cycles, we are in a period of cooling.

‘The last three years of low temperatures in Siberia, the Arctic and number of Russia mountainous regions prove that, as does the recovery of ice in the Arctic Ocean and the absence of warming signs in Siberia.”

And writes:

Mr. Tishkov, deputy head of the Geography Institute at Russian Academy of Science, said: ‘What we have been watching recently is comparatively fast changes of climate to warming, but within the framework of an overall long-term period of cooling. This is a proven scientific fact’.”



10. Mike Lockwood, Professor of Space Environmental Physics, University of Reading, UK. Read BBC News here:

The UK and continental Europe could be gripped by more frequent cold winters in the future as a result of low solar activity, say researchers.”



11. Dr. Oleg Pokrovsky, Voeikov Main Geophysical Observatory: Ria Novosti writes:

There isn’t going to be an ice age, but temperatures will drop to levels last seen in the 1950s and 1960s.

Right now all components of the climate system are entering a negative phase. The cooling will reach it’s peak in 15 years. Politicians who have geared up for warming are sitting on the wrong horse.

The Northeast Passage will freeze over and will be passable only with icebreakers.”

Pokrovsky also claims that the IPCC, which has prophesized global warming, has ignored many factors. He also noted that most American weather stations are located in cities where temperatures are always higher.

We don’t know everything that’s happening. The climate system is very complex and the IPCC is not the final truth on the matter.”

Read here .

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 7:45 AM

KANEMAN




12. Girma Orssengo, b.Tech, MASc, PhD

These cool and warm PDO regimes correlate well with the cooling and warming phases of GMTA shown in Figure 3.

The model in Figure 3 predicts global cooling until 2030. This result is also supported by shifts in PDO that occurred at the end of the last century, which is expected to result in global cooling until about 2030 [7].”

Read WUWT and read here, and

In this article, a mathematical model was developed that agrees with observed Global Mean Temperature Anomaly(GMTA), and its prediction shows global cooling by about 0.42 deg C until 2030. Also, comparison of observed increase in human emission of CO2 with increase in GMTA during the 20th century shows no relationship between the two. As a result, the claim by the IPCC of climate catastrophe is not supported by the data.”

‘Fossil fuels allowed man to live his life as a proud human, but the IPCC asserts its use causes catastrophic.’ “

Read here at WUWT.



13. Nicola Scafetta, PhD.
Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications

The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030-2040.”

Read here



14. Dr William Livingston, astronomer & solar physicist; and 15. Dr Matthew Penn – astronomer & solar physicist

Astronomers Dr. William Livingston and Dr. Matthew Penn and a large number of solar physicists would say that now the likelihood of the Earth being seized by Maunder Minimum is now greater than the Earth being seized by a period of global warming.”

Read here: http://algorelied.com/?p=2706.

16. Joe d’Aleo – Executive Director of Certified Consultant Meteorologists. Read here: Intellicast.com

Longer term the sun is behaving like it did in the last 1700s and early 1800s, leading many to believe we are likely to experience conditions more like the early 1800s (called the Dalton Minimum) in the next few decades. That was a time of cold and snow. It was the time of Charles Dickens and his novels with snow and cold in London.”

Also see various other articles about Global Cooling under ICE AGE at Ice Cap



17. Harry van Loon, Emeritus at NCAR and CORA, 18. Roland Madden, Senior scientist at NOAA, Deputy Head of Climate analysis, 19. Dave Melita, Head Meteorologist at Melita Weather Associates, and 20. William M Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept of Atmospheric Sciences, Colorado State University
These scientists came to the same conclusions— the global warming trend is done, and a cooling trend is about to kick in.

Read here!



21. Dr. David Archibald, Australia, environmental scientist:

In this presentation, I will demonstrate that the Sun drives climate, and use that demonstrated relationship to predict the Earth’s climate to 2030. It is a prediction that differs from most in the public domain. It is a prediction of imminent cooling.”

See Warwick Hughes and David Archibald



22. Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, Head of Space Research, Lab of Pulkov Observatory. See iceagenow.com:

In his presentation called The Sun Dictates the Climate, he indicated that there would be an ice age kind of temperatures in the middle of the 21st century. He showed a graph called The forecast of the natural climate change for the nearest 100 years and it showed the globa temperatures dropping by more than 1°C by 2055. According to him, a new ice age could start by 2014.”

And read here.



23. Dr Fred Goldberg, Swedish climate expert. People Daily:

We could have an ice age any time, says Swedish climate expert.”

and read: We could have an ice age any time, says Swedish climate expert



24. Dr. George Kukla, a member of the Czechoslovakian Academy of Sciences and a pioneer in the field of astronomical forcing, Read Ice Age Now:

In the 1970s, leading scientists claimed that the world was threatened by an era of global cooling.

Based on what we’ve learned this decade, says George Kukla, those scientists – and he was among them — had it right. The world is about to enter another Ice Age.”



25. Peter Clark, Professor of Geosciences at OSU: Read iceagenow.com:

Sometime around now, scientists say, the Earth should be changing from a long interglacial period that has lasted the past 10,000 years and shifting back towards conditions that will ultimately lead to another ice age.”



26. James Overland, NOAA. Read physorg.com:

‘Cold and snowy winters will be the rule rather than the exception,’ said James Overland of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”



27. Dr. Theodore Landscheidt. Predicted in 2003 that the current cooling would continue until 2030 [Read here]:

Analysis of the sun’s varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC’s speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8°C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected.”



28. Matt Vooro, P. Eng. The icecap.us:

We seem to be in the same climate cycle that we were back in 1964-1976.The last two winters [2008, 2009] have been very similar to those we had back then with all the extra snow and cold temperatures. Once the extra warming effect of the current 2009/2010 El Nino is finished, watch for colder temperatures to return due to the impact of the negative PDO, AMO, AO, NAO, ENSO/La Nina, major volcanic ash and changing solar cycles.”



29. Thomas Globig, Meteorologist, Meteo Media weather service. Read here at WUWT:

‘The expected cold for the next month will bring this down significantly by year end. ‘The year 2010 will be the coldest for ten years in Germany,’ said Thomas Globig from the weather service Meteo Media talking to wetter.info. And it might even get worse: ‘It is quite possible that we are at the beginning of a Little Ice Age,’ the meteorologist said. Even the Arctic ice could spread further to the south.”



30. Piers Corbyn, Astrophysicist. From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/27/piers-corbyn-goes-global-cooling/

Predicting in November that winter in Europe would be “exceptionally cold and snowy, like Hell frozen over at times,” Corbyn suggested we should sooner prepare for another Ice Age than worry about global warming. Corbyn believed global warming “is complete nonsense, it’s fiction, it comes from a cult ideology. There’s no science in there, no facts to back [it] up.”



31. Dr. Karsten Brandt, Director of donnerwetter.de weather service.

It is even very probable that we will not only experience a very cold winter, but also in the coming 10 years every second winter will be too cold. Only 2 of 10 will be mild.

Read here.



32. Joe Bastardi – Accuweather meteorologist and hundreds of other meteorologists (i.e. expert forecasters who outperform climatologists hands-down in seasonal forecasting).


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 7:46 AM

KANEMAN


Seem s to me theses guys are a tad confused. Warming or cooling?


I'm back....in the new york groove

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 7:53 AM

RIGHTEOUS9




uh....

thanks Kaneman. Given that the first two sources you posted didn't immediately give me what I was looking for, which was NOT whether or not scientists were claiming global cooling at one point in history, but that the very same scientists who are claiming global warming now were,

could you do me the favor of just sifting through all that and pointing out one or two that actually fit that criteria? The bandied about assertion is that these current scientists who insist climate change is being influenced by humanty are uncredible, because they were preaching the end at the hands of global cooling just 30 years ago, not that some scientists who are inconsequential in the conversation today were.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 8:08 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:


uh....

thanks Kaneman. Given that the first two sources you posted didn't immediately give me what I was looking for, which was NOT whether or not scientists were claiming global cooling at one point in history, but that the very same scientists who are claiming global warming now were,

could you do me the favor of just sifting through all that and pointing out one or two that actually fit that criteria? The bandied about assertion is that these current scientists who insist climate change is being influenced by humanty are uncredible, because they were preaching the end at the hands of global cooling just 30 years ago, not that some scientists who are inconsequential in the conversation today were.






I would say you are taking "the same scientists that said...are now saying" too literal. I think they mean climate scientists as a whole when a journalist says "the same people that told us A...are now telling us B" meaning the disipline...not any particular individual...I could be wrong.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 8:20 AM

KANEMAN


Also, a lot of people say all scientists believe...

Well, here is alink to senate reports....


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateRepor
t



Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 8:35 AM

KANEMAN


Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight time the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus" LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process - LINK)


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 9:37 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER


I'm wouldn't immediately assume scientist are not credible just because they've changed their conclusions. Isn't science all out discovering something new, often not what you previously thought or expected.

My problem is with the carbon tunnel vision that plagues politics and the science. I don't buy in to the manmade global warming theories because they seem to ignore several relevant factors like the earths extensive geological history and the influence our sun has on our climate, probably because we can't really mess with that. However, if we caused it we can fix it right? Assuming the right people get the right money, the right projects get funded, etc...

We should focus our attention the either understanding the teal problem our solving the problems we already know we have like starvation, poverty overfishing, deforestation, etc...

I'm a music teacher with an interest in Science, not really an expert, but if co2 was so bad, couldn't we just take the o2 out of it rather than trying to capture is and bury it underground? Or better yet could we just feed the co2 to plants?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 11:24 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I don't buy in to the manmade global warming theories because they seem to ignore several relevant factors like the earths extensive geological history and the influence our sun has on our climate, probably because we can't really mess with that.



I read this from sentiment frequently from those who don't "believe" in man-made Climate Change. Yet whenever I read a paper or other research on the subject, it's almost always factored in. I wonder why that is?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 12:04 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I don't buy in to the manmade global warming theories because they seem to ignore several relevant factors like the earths extensive geological history and the influence our sun has on our climate, probably because we can't really mess with that.



I read this from sentiment frequently from those who don't "believe" in man-made Climate Change. Yet whenever I read a paper or other research on the subject, it's almost always factored in. I wonder why that is?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."



Just lucky I guess.

Also sloppy wording on my part. After all, deforestation certainly qualifies as man-made. I suppose what I should have said was man-made carbons being the primary cause and solution. I still think carbons are at most a symptom but not the actual problem.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 12:08 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


They really were very pretty

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 12:17 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
They really were very pretty



*Like*

Haha, Magonsdaughter has a good point. Maybe we're just bitter cause our govt won't let us shoot our own fireworks lol.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 1:57 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


You are not allowed fireworks????

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 2:15 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER


Not allowed to shoot them on our own least not any good ones, not in my state. We're not allowed to use much more than sparklers. The City usually does something, it's the citizens that can't be trusted not to start a fire our blow their hands off or something, or so conventional wisdom tells us.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 7:54 PM

HARDWARE


Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
Also, a lot of people say all scientists believe...

Well, here is alink to senate reports....


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateRepor
t



Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.





This was the senate report I was going to link. I have yet to see a unified consensus that states the climate is going to do one thing or another. Even accepting that the climate is going to change I see no further proof that we are definitively the cause of the event. Correlation/causation/coincidence, the difference is a bitch.

Even a simple perusal of Wikipedia would have given you several good examples of the vacillation on the part of organized science and the media when it comes to global climate change.

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

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL