HoseHeads.com | HoseHeads Classifieds | Racer's Auction
Home | Register | Contact | Verify Email FAQ |
Blogs | Photo Gallery | Press Release | Results | RacersAuction.com | HoseheadsClassifieds.com
Hoosier Tire Great Plains | Hoosier Mid Atlantic | Racing Warehouse | Performance Race Parts | Xtreme Race Parts

Welcome Guest. Already registered? Please Login

 

Forum: HoseHeads Sprint Car General Forum (go)
Moderators: dirtonly  /  dmantx  /  hosehead

Topic: get out your coats liberal skunks...
Email this topic to a friend | Subscribe to this TopicReport this Topic to Moderator
First | Previous | Next | Last Reply 1 to 20 of 72
BigRightRear
June 20, 2007 at 08:30:28 PM
Joined: 11/27/2004
Posts: 3751
Reply

global cooling is back in the news...as it turns out, the primary heat source of the Earth is in fact THE SUN!

 

Read the sunspots

The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling

R. TIMOTHY PATTERSON, Financial Post

Published: Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Politicians and environmentalists these days convey the impression that climate-change research is an exceptionally dull field with little left to discover. We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that "the science is settled." At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the rise in world temperatures to 2C.

Read the Post's series on Climate Change: The Deniers

Forget warming, beware the new ice age

(See hardcopy for Chart/Graph)View Larger Image View Larger Image

(See hardcopy for Chart/Graph)

Andrew Barr, National Post
Email to a friendEmail to a friendPrinter friendlyPrinter friendly
Font:

They call this a consensus?

 

Dire forecasts aren't new

The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change." Liberal MP Ralph Goodale's June 11 House of Commons assertion that Parliament should have "a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide, which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world," would be humorous were he, and even the current government, not deadly serious about devoting vast resources to this hopeless crusade.

Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.

Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.

My interest in the current climate-change debate was triggered in 1998, when I was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council strategic project grant to determine if there were regular cycles in West Coast fish productivity. As a result of wide swings in the populations of anchovies, herring and other commercially important West Coast fish stock, fisheries managers were having a very difficult time establishing appropriate fishing quotas. One season there would be abundant stock and broad harvesting would be acceptable; the very next year the fisheries would collapse. No one really knew why or how to predict the future health of this crucially important resource.

Although climate was suspected to play a significant role in marine productivity, only since the beginning of the 20th century have accurate fishing and temperature records been kept in this region of the northeast Pacific. We needed indicators of fish productivity over thousands of years to see whether there were recurring cycles in populations and what phenomena may be driving the changes.

My research team began to collect and analyze core samples from the bottom of deep Western Canadian fjords. The regions in which we chose to conduct our research, Effingham Inlet on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, and in 2001, sounds in the Belize-Seymour Inlet complex on the mainland coast of British Columbia, were perfect for this sort of work. The topography of these fjords is such that they contain deep basins that are subject to little water transfer from the open ocean and so water near the bottom is relatively stagnant and very low in oxygen content. As a consequence, the floors of these basins are mostly lifeless and sediment layers build up year after year, undisturbed over millennia.

Using various coring technologies, we have been able to collect more than 5,000 years' worth of mud in these basins, with the oldest layers coming from a depth of about 11 metres below the fjord floor. Clearly visible in our mud cores are annual changes that record the different seasons: corresponding to the cool, rainy winter seasons, we see dark layers composed mostly of dirt washed into the fjord from the land; in the warm summer months we see abundant fossilized fish scales and diatoms (the most common form of phytoplankton, or single-celled ocean plants) that have fallen to the fjord floor from nutrient-rich surface waters. In years when warm summers dominated climate in the region, we clearly see far thicker layers of diatoms and fish scales than we do in cooler years. Ours is one of the highest-quality climate records available anywhere today and in it we see obvious confirmation that natural climate change can be dramatic. For example, in the middle of a 62-year slice of the record at about 4,400 years ago, there was a shift in climate in only a couple of seasons from warm, dry and sunny conditions to one that was mostly cold and rainy for several decades.

Using computers to conduct what is referred to as a "time series analysis" on the colouration and thickness of the annual layers, we have discovered repeated cycles in marine productivity in this, a region larger than Europe. Specifically, we find a very strong and consistent 11-year cycle throughout the whole record in the sediments and diatom remains. This correlates closely to the well-known 11-year "Schwabe" sunspot cycle, during which the output of the sun varies by about 0.1%. Sunspots, violent storms on the surface of the sun, have the effect of increasing solar output, so, by counting the spots visible on the surface of our star, we have an indirect measure of its varying brightness. Such records have been kept for many centuries and match very well with the changes in marine productivity we are observing.

In the sediment, diatom and fish-scale records, we also see longer period cycles, all correlating closely with other well-known regular solar variations. In particular, we see marine productivity cycles that match well with the sun's 75-90-year "Gleissberg Cycle," the 200-500-year "Suess Cycle" and the 1,100-1,500-year "Bond Cycle." The strength of these cycles is seen to vary over time, fading in and out over the millennia. The variation in the sun's brightness over these longer cycles may be many times greater in magnitude than that measured over the short Schwabe cycle and so are seen to impact marine productivity even more significantly.

Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.

However, there was a problem. Despite this clear and repeated correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have observed in our proxies. In addition, even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate change.

Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.

The opposite occurs when the sun is less bright. More cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.

In some fields the science is indeed "settled." For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.

Meantime, we need to continue research into this, the most complex field of science ever tackled, and immediately halt wasted expenditures on the King Canute-like task of "stopping climate change."


R. Timothy Patterson is professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University.


Lincoln 1845 ft/.35 mile T1=118MPH 
Eldora 2287 ft/.43mile T3=135MPH
Port 2716 ft/.51 mile T3=TBD
Grove 2792 ft/.53 mile T3=135MPH
Selinsgrove 2847 ft/.54 mile T1=136MPH
"I didn't move to PA from El Paso in search of better 
weather." Van May

Chasingoutlaws.com
MyWebsite
June 20, 2007 at 08:39:12 PM
Joined: 01/30/2007
Posts: 77
Reply
This message was edited on June 20, 2007 at 09:47:21 PM by Chasingoutlaws.com

I'm sure everything is fine with the planet........Humanity Not so much



OKCFan12
MyWebsite
June 20, 2007 at 09:10:04 PM
Joined: 04/18/2005
Posts: 4764
Reply
This message was edited on June 20, 2007 at 09:22:34 PM by OKCFan12

everybody hears the word global warming and thinks that implies that earth is turning into the sun. Most agree that burning fossil fuels and all the excess carbon is not good for the environment. global warming could in fact trigger another ice age, but in the end it just don't matter what is goin on. It doesn;t matter if burning of fossil fuels is what in fact screws up the environment.........a bunch of dumb shits will claim it's a liberal myth because in the end........it doesn't matter to most stupid people in this country what the issue actually is.......it's whether or not you are a conservative or liberal and whichever you are you tune to your corresponding news channel to have your opinion fed to you because you don't have the wit or the balls to think for yourself. Or maybe it is just too much effort.

The planet in the end would be fine......if not for it's inhabitants screwing it up.......especially those who inhabit the western hemisphere.

When gas gets to a point most can't pay for it......and there is not a viable alternative.......I wonder who these people will blame then???? I imagine it will again be liberals fault. Most think that it's the liberals fault we don't get the oil in alaska......but lets say we did get it.....and we have 20 more years of oil for our beloved chevy's and fords........then what happens after that runs out??? There's no point in delaying the inevitable, screwing the environment, all because people love their cars? people need to grow up.


How much would could a wouldchuck chuck if a 
wouldchuck could chuck would

OKCFan12
MyWebsite
June 20, 2007 at 09:28:00 PM
Joined: 04/18/2005
Posts: 4764
Reply

I would like to see who signs that idiots checks as well. At tht University of Oklahoma they teach the same thing that global warming is a "liberal myth". And if you look at who signs their checks....you will find several oil companies on that list. That says a whole lot.


How much would could a wouldchuck chuck if a 
wouldchuck could chuck would

Maxine
June 20, 2007 at 09:34:02 PM
Joined: 05/05/2005
Posts: 165
Reply

I could have sworn this forum was a racing forum.



Rogue-9
June 20, 2007 at 09:34:16 PM
Joined: 02/11/2007
Posts: 1163
Reply

Global warming really only means the warming of the polar ice caps. So, I wonder what would be worse, cooling of canada's climate, or the crops being under water? And quite possibly, with the melting of the polar ice caps, you could have both at the same time.



cheese21
MyWebsite
June 20, 2007 at 09:53:54 PM
Joined: 07/26/2005
Posts: 1176
Reply

At OU they do NOT teach that global warming is a liberal myth. Instead 99% of professors believe in it 110%. What I have stated previously is that ONE of the leading geologist said that the Earth is warming up BUT it is not humans that have caused it, instead it is CO2 from the Earth itself.

I don't want to start anything here, but why is it that if you are conservative you can't think for yourself? That makes no sense to me...I can clearly think through things and understand why I believe what I believe. I've ran into this a million times in college. "Oh you are just conservative because you are a white male and your dad was conservative." Ok then, you are liberal because you are a hippie college professor and your parents smoked dope and didn't discipline you when you were little. (not referring to anyone on here, just an example). Throughout life you are given many chances to make decisions as to how you want to live, and different people pick different paths.


 

BigRightRear
June 20, 2007 at 09:55:57 PM
Joined: 11/27/2004
Posts: 3751
Reply

OKC - amazing that you can say that GLOBAL WARMING causes GLOBAL COOLING...then tell us which came first...the bull or the bullshit?

you may have just presented the best argument to ignore enviro-idiots that feed on hot air from wind bags like Algore...who incidentally has a carbon footprint that dwarfs the combined total of most extended families. now tell, since you brought it up...who signs his check?

as long as gas has more TAX )30-50 cents per gallon) per gallon than PROFIT (8-10 cents per gallon) talk to the idiots in DC about their appetite for price gouging the taxpayer.

fact: warm climates provide most of the food that feeds the entire planet..as opposed to those gnarly turnips that canadians pull out of the ground.

btw: when ice melts in a glass it does not OVERFLOW...try it sometime.

just mention SKUNKS and they all show up...

 


Lincoln 1845 ft/.35 mile T1=118MPH 
Eldora 2287 ft/.43mile T3=135MPH
Port 2716 ft/.51 mile T3=TBD
Grove 2792 ft/.53 mile T3=135MPH
Selinsgrove 2847 ft/.54 mile T1=136MPH
"I didn't move to PA from El Paso in search of better 
weather." Van May

Offie
June 21, 2007 at 05:34:58 AM
Joined: 11/29/2004
Posts: 401
Reply

Are liberal skunks considered Posse?



OKCFan12
MyWebsite
June 21, 2007 at 06:05:45 AM
Joined: 04/18/2005
Posts: 4764
Reply
Reply to:
Posted By: cheese21 on June 20 2007 at 09:53:54 PM

At OU they do NOT teach that global warming is a liberal myth. Instead 99% of professors believe in it 110%. What I have stated previously is that ONE of the leading geologist said that the Earth is warming up BUT it is not humans that have caused it, instead it is CO2 from the Earth itself.

I don't want to start anything here, but why is it that if you are conservative you can't think for yourself? That makes no sense to me...I can clearly think through things and understand why I believe what I believe. I've ran into this a million times in college. "Oh you are just conservative because you are a white male and your dad was conservative." Ok then, you are liberal because you are a hippie college professor and your parents smoked dope and didn't discipline you when you were little. (not referring to anyone on here, just an example). Throughout life you are given many chances to make decisions as to how you want to live, and different people pick different paths.



I'm not saying that because you are one or the other it automatically means you can;t think for yourself Cheese. But it's an overwhelming discrepincy when you look at those that take in every issue with an open mind.......and those that choose to classify EVERYTHING into liberal or conservative. BTW about the OU.........I imagine that most there have different opinions......but still do not understand why 1 professor.....who is supposed to be an expert on the issue.......does not teach that the carbon released from the burning of fossil fuels is what tips the balance on the issue considering the amounts the earth itself DOES release. You are right....the earth releases a ton of it. alwasy has. whats dangerous is what humans are adding to it.

Overall I agree with your post. I know b/c i mentioned the ou thing you might have had the impression that my post was directed towards you......my bad about that impression as that wasn't my intention. My knock is on people (like BRR) who can't look at things naturally......a liberal could come up with the greatest idea the world has ever seen and yet he would oppose just because......they are a liberal. when it comes to affairs that affect all of mankind and generations to come......its very irresponsible.

Don't think I'll even attempt to read brr post. Don't wanna start my day pissed off. if i had that much time to waste we could argue the point forever.....just look at past threads involved with mspn. I'll check out that nonsense when I don't actually have pressing issues.......like gettin my ass to work.


How much would could a wouldchuck chuck if a 
wouldchuck could chuck would

stubb
June 21, 2007 at 07:38:21 AM
Joined: 12/05/2004
Posts: 529
Reply

DAMN YOUR GLOBAL WARMING/COOLING!!!!! Remember a long time ago, we had what they call now ...."the Ice Age" ( i think they even made a movie!!) Well, scientists have proven that BEFORE that era, all of civilization was considered "Posse" Thank God for the warming & Ohio moved just a little to the west......it gives the ol' Posse a place to come & have fun in the sun in July!!!!! Hell, rumor has it that some Iowans may even roam this territory!!



BigRightRear
June 21, 2007 at 07:50:21 AM
Joined: 11/27/2004
Posts: 3751
Reply

some liberals can always find a way to sound even dumber...


Lincoln 1845 ft/.35 mile T1=118MPH 
Eldora 2287 ft/.43mile T3=135MPH
Port 2716 ft/.51 mile T3=TBD
Grove 2792 ft/.53 mile T3=135MPH
Selinsgrove 2847 ft/.54 mile T1=136MPH
"I didn't move to PA from El Paso in search of better 
weather." Van May

DuchessJane
June 21, 2007 at 08:20:13 AM
Joined: 01/08/2005
Posts: 229
Reply

What great timing!

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/addressing_climate_crisis_bush


----
Blog

Facebook

Bill W
MyWebsite
June 21, 2007 at 08:41:28 AM
Joined: 11/23/2004
Posts: 5142
Reply
Reply to:
Posted By: stubb on June 21 2007 at 07:38:21 AM

DAMN YOUR GLOBAL WARMING/COOLING!!!!! Remember a long time ago, we had what they call now ...."the Ice Age" ( i think they even made a movie!!) Well, scientists have proven that BEFORE that era, all of civilization was considered "Posse" Thank God for the warming & Ohio moved just a little to the west......it gives the ol' Posse a place to come & have fun in the sun in July!!!!! Hell, rumor has it that some Iowans may even roam this territory!!



I rember the Ice Age scare well Stubb. Most on here are not old enough. It too was politically generated. Last time I checked all living beings on the earth affect the environment and we are one of them for better or worse...I just find it interesting that Gore was against Kyoto while in office and after, and suddenly thinks its great, I believe he's made some $ the last couple years. He has nice charts though...

Duchess: Thanks for the link and humor...

Maxine: You are right, let's take this to the Williams Grove Message Board...


If this post isn't results, stories or something c
constructive, it isn't me! 
@BillWMedia
www.OpenWheel101.com

DuchessJane
June 21, 2007 at 08:51:40 AM
Joined: 01/08/2005
Posts: 229
Reply

We should probably warn Red River Valley Speedway: "the proposed National Air Conditioner would cover 90 percent of the state of North Dakota and face south".

That's gonna make track preparation difficult. I predict a lot of wing failure as well.


----
Blog

Facebook

Bill W
MyWebsite
June 21, 2007 at 08:55:10 AM
Joined: 11/23/2004
Posts: 5142
Reply

As long as River Cities is safe...it's pretty much in Minnesota anyway, right?


If this post isn't results, stories or something c
constructive, it isn't me! 
@BillWMedia
www.OpenWheel101.com

cubicdollars
June 21, 2007 at 09:14:48 AM
Joined: 02/27/2005
Posts: 4443
Reply


 

 

 

They don't even know how to spell sprint car much less chromoly...http://www.ycmco.com


DuchessJane
June 21, 2007 at 09:15:09 AM
Joined: 01/08/2005
Posts: 229
Reply

Ooooohhhh, bad news for NoDak Speedway though. That's gonna put a real damper on the Norsk Hostfest as well.

I'd be worried about Dacotah Speedway, but ever since I fell through the bleachers as a kid there, I've kinda hated the place.


----
Blog

Facebook

fotowiz
MyWebsite
June 21, 2007 at 09:15:16 AM
Joined: 11/30/2004
Posts: 45
Reply

Hey Stubb - didn't I actually see YOU in that movie????



Rogue-9
June 21, 2007 at 09:15:22 AM
Joined: 02/11/2007
Posts: 1163
Reply
Reply to:
Posted By: BigRightRear on June 20 2007 at 09:55:57 PM

OKC - amazing that you can say that GLOBAL WARMING causes GLOBAL COOLING...then tell us which came first...the bull or the bullshit?

you may have just presented the best argument to ignore enviro-idiots that feed on hot air from wind bags like Algore...who incidentally has a carbon footprint that dwarfs the combined total of most extended families. now tell, since you brought it up...who signs his check?

as long as gas has more TAX )30-50 cents per gallon) per gallon than PROFIT (8-10 cents per gallon) talk to the idiots in DC about their appetite for price gouging the taxpayer.

fact: warm climates provide most of the food that feeds the entire planet..as opposed to those gnarly turnips that canadians pull out of the ground.

btw: when ice melts in a glass it does not OVERFLOW...try it sometime.

just mention SKUNKS and they all show up...

 



Ok, now try filling the glass with water, melting ice in another glass, and pooring it in. The frozen water in the polar ice caps is trapped there. When it melts, it flows into the ocean, thus raising the sea level.



First | Previous | Next | Last Reply 1 to 20 of 72


Post Reply
You must be logged in to Post a Message.
Not a member register Here.
Already registered? Please Login




 

If you have a website and would like to set up a forum here at HoseHeadForums.com
please contact us by using the contact link at the top of the page.

© 2024 HoseHeadForums.com Privacy Policy