Global warming

[Zythryn]

Jac, forget about Kyoto, forget about Exxon, Bush, France or other political entities. Let's stick to science, specifically the science of GW.

You have made a number of statements, earlier and more recently. You have been asked for supporting evidence or sources.

So far, all you have supplied was that you heard it from Rush Limbaugh and on off hand mention of Nasa (no link or even name of a study).

You have stated that mankind has no affect on the climate. There are 1200 scientists and 152 countries that disagree with you. I can point you to their studies, can you give us reasons for yours? Or is is simply fact because you heard it from Rush? This is a valid reason, however if you are going to insist that everything Rush says on his program trumps any scientific studies there is little point in discussion.

 

Politics has nothing to do with the "accepted principles" of global warming. The issue of GW has been politicized, however the accepted principles are scientific and not political.

 

As for your comment about more plantlife growing when more co2 is available thus balancing the co2. Why are the co2 levels going up?

Your premise seems valid as plants like co2 and thrive when there is an abundance of it. However, the plantlife and ocean can't absorb all the co2 we are adding. This is why the co2 levels go up each year.

 

While I appreciate your stance, and like a good debate, if you won't support any of your points as facts, I will take the facts of peer reviewed journals over your unsupported opinion.

[TheBigDog]

Jackson, what purpose does wild exaggerations play in a debate. It only serves to make you look poorly informed or trying to purposely mislead readers.

 

Unfortunately I don't have much time to address the rest of your post. I will return later to do so if no one else has done so.

 

However I couldn't let this pass. Can you tell me when Gore, or ANY other scientist indicated they were convinced that all of mankind (that is what you meant by 'we all' right?) will be dead in ten years due to global warming?

Here is my trace on this particular quote...

 

Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.

 

Bill

[Zythryn]

Not bad, that is actually somewhere in the ballpark. I appreciate you finding the information Bill as I can see how the mistake was made.

 

edit-- I take some of that back (not the appreciation for finding it though). From what I have been able to find, that quote is just someone summing up 'An inconvenient truth'. It is not a quote by Gore (that I could find) nor any scientist. Most likely a publisher trying to drum up interest/alarm. I agree it is over the top. But it does not appear to be accurate, nor is the extension mentioned by Jac accrate to even the quote Bill found (still a great find though:)).

 

This seems to be an overly dramatic example of the 'tipping point' idea. The idea that the GW problem will reach a point of 'no return' due to the length of time that co2 remains in the atmosphere. Epidemics are a bit of a stretch, but the others fit most of the predictions of a warmer earth.

[HydrogenBond]

I believe global warming is occurring. Where I differ is the assumption that human intervention is the primary reason for this change. One observation that disproves the premise, is connected to the observation that Mars is also warming, at the same time. That would suggest that the sun is in a warmer output cycle, since one can factor out manmade CO2 as a common factor in the simutaneous occurance.

 

Let us look at the bright side of global warming. I would say most people prefer summers over winters. Global warming will give people more of what they prefer. It will also lower heating costs and our dependance on fossil fuel for home heating.

 

Picture if Greenland became a green land. It would be an excellent place to move the world's expanding populations into. It is a whole extra continent that we have yet to tap into. We can't, in the present, due it it being too cold.

 

So the ocean levels rise. This won't happen overnight. It will occur slowly like the movement of lava, with plenty of time to relocate. It will create a new mix of people with ocean front property. It also will create a land boom slightly inland as people begin to speculate where the new beaches will finalize. The migration and speculation inland will protect people better from hurricanes ,since more at risk people will decide to migrate inland away from potential ground zeros.

 

The warmer weather means more rain and more fresh water. People are complaining about fresh water. Here is a no cost solution. The warmer air and extra rain means more food propduction for the worlds hungry populations.

 

I bet if Al Gore and the doom and doom crowd had been around 100, 000 year ago (transport culture back 100,000 year), they would say that the melting of the massive continental glaciers from Canada to Tennessee, from Siberia to China, will mean all kinds of doom and gloom. But history shows that that the warming created better conditions for life on earth. It created the conditions needed for prehumans to become humans.

[InfiniteNow]

I have to just come out and ask, is it really THAT likely I have been totally misrepresenting the evidence that's been put forth? Yeah, cycles. Super. I agree. Do those cycles not get influenced by the vast amounts of carbon we expel into the atmosphere daily? I mean, am I daft? Am I stupid, and malleable to false data and buy into whatever claim is offered as evidence of our role in climate change? Seriously, am I misrepresenting the evidence that's been put forth? Or... are you [/rhetorical nonspecified target of question]?

[infamous]

I believe global warming is occurring. Where I differ is the assumption that human intervention is the primary reason for this change. One observation that disproves the premise, is connected to the observation that Mars is also warming, at the same time. That would suggest that the sun is in a warmer output cycle, since one can factor out manmade CO2 as a common factor in the simutaneous occurance.

 

This is excellent evidence in support of the claim that; "Although warming may be taking place, mankind is not responsible for any significant portion of the effect." I personally feel that all the fever, excuse the pun, being created over gobal warming is really only an attempt to validate the excuse for the carbon tax. A socialistic attempt at redistribution of wealth.

 

Give em an inch,

They'll take the mile.

...................................................Infy

[TheBigDog]

I have to just come out and ask, is it really THAT likely I have been totally misrepresenting the evidence that's been put forth? Yeah, cycles. Super. I agree. Do those cycles not get influenced by the vast amounts of carbon we expel into the atmosphere daily? I mean, am I daft? Am I stupid, and malleable to false data and buy into whatever claim is offered as evidence of our role in climate change? Seriously, am I misrepresenting the evidence that's been put forth? Or... are you [/rhetorical nonspecified target of question]?

According to the UN report there is a 10% chance that you are indeed daft. :hihi:

 

Bill

[Turtle]

According to the UN report there is a 10% chance that you are indeed daft.

 

Bill

 

According to yet another report, I call your daft and raise you a recanter. :hihi:

 

Dateline Friday, February 02, 2007

...Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

 

"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

 

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence

...

Read entire article here >>>

The real deal?

[Zythryn]

...Where I differ is the assumption that human intervention is the primary reason for this change. One observation that disproves the premise, is connected to the observation that Mars is also warming, at the same time. That would suggest that the sun is in a warmer output cycle, since one can factor out manmade CO2 as a common factor in the simutaneous occurance....

 

Hydrogen, I am shocked that you would put forth a post with such a glaring logical fallicy.

 

The observation you mention does no disprove the idea that human intervention is pumping more co2 into the air than nature can absorb, thus warming the planet.

What it does prove is that mankind's contribution is not the ONLY possible explaination for the earth warming.

 

One point, Mars is not necessarily undergoing global warming. The southern pole is undergoing a regional increase in temperature. It MAY be undergoing global changes, however we have little evidence of that. I would suggest we gather more data.

 

However, if you can jump to the conclusion that Mars is undergoing global warming, then I think we are safe in considering the large body of scientific research as establishing Earth's global warming as very likely having a human component.

 

Unless, someone wants to argue that co2 in the atmosphere will not increase the temperature of the climate.

[Buffy]

Its funny: a lot of energy is being expended on "is global warming man made or not" and "is it real or not?"

 

You know what really bugs me? Here we are with the leaders of the US and industry saying that we don't need to do manufacturing because we're going to be the founders of all new high technology, and yet:

• We won't invest in any government programs promoting technology that might help solve global warming because it would "require" admitting its real
  
• We won't invest in alternative energy sources because the powerful oil companies squash it.
  
• We won't invest in stem cell research because the social conservatives have some kind of problem with it.

When are we gonna wake up and smell the money?

 

I don't give a darn whether Global Warming is real or not. As the spokesman for the Oakland A's said today when asked about the fact that a recent study shows that the new stadium they want to build will be underwater by the end of the century: "a century is a long way off, and I won't be available for comment in a hundred years when it becomes a problem."

 

BUT its a *huge* opportunity to sell new technology that we can invent to a world that fervently believes that its happening. Unfortunately, any government support or promotion--and as we know, government support really greases the wheels, as massive Chinese investment in industry over the past couple of decades has shown--is avoided because it would "require admitting that Global Warming is real" and the corporations footing the bill for the Republicans won't stand for it.

 

This is sheer stupidity. If you think that denying global warming is a good thing, you really must want America to fail.

 

I strongly advocate giving strong lip service to the GW cause: its *easy* to argue that Kyoto is unrealistic and that India and China being exempt make it unfair. But you don't have to deny GW in order to not follow Kyoto.

 

Worst case, GW is real, and we'll have some technology to do something about it.

 

If you think the White House is doing the right thing for America, think again, they're just doing the right thing for their buddies at Exxon and Chevron, and thumbing their noses at we "liberal" high tech entrepreneurs.

 

Ppppppbbbbtt,

Buffy

[Zythryn]

According to yet another report, I call your daft and raise you a recanter.

 

I am sure there are a number of Astrophysicists that don't believe GW is caused by co2.

I find his idea about cosmic rays causing global temperature changes intriguing. I was unable to find any peer reviewed paper from him following up on what he stated in the interview.

 

I used to be a climate skeptic, and have recanted that view. Should that be proof to others that climite change is real?

[infamous]

Whether man is adding in a significant way to gobal warming, that is yet to be determined. Nevertheless, I feel confident that warming is occuring as evidenced by the heat being generated in this thread...................Infy

[Buffy]

And you wanna know who agreed with my rant above?

 

Dick Cheney's own fund manager! Read it and weep:

Successive U.S. administrations have taken little interest in either oil substitution or climate change," he writes, "and the current one has even seemed to have a vested interest in the idea that the science of climate change is uncertain...China already has auto fuel efficiency standards well ahead of the U.S.....America could have eliminated its oil dependency on the Middle East years ago with just a reasonable set of increased efficiencies. All it would take is 10% fewer vehicles, each driving 10% fewer miles and getting 50% more miles per gallon. Under that sensible but still only moderately aggressive policy,not one single barrel would have been needed from the Middle East.

 

Think logically, not ideologically,

Buffy

[Boerseun]

That there are heating/cooling cycles, there are no doubt about. Geologic evidence will show glacier scrape marks over territory that is now desert, like the Karoo and Kalahari in South Africa.

 

Ice core samples taken in the Antarctic show fluctuations in atmospheric carbon over hundreds of thousands of years. Heck, we might even be moving in and out of interstellar dust bands, obscuring the sun every few million years, freezing the planet, to be warmed again when the Solar System orbits into the clear after a while.

 

Fact remains that we are now pumping carbon into the atmosphere which have been removed from the cycle and buried underground for millions of years. There have never been as much carbon in the atmosphere as there is right now. A quick look at conditions on Venus should serve as a stern warning of what happens with too much greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

 

Surely, we're not responsible for Global Warming. There is strong evidence pointing towards it being completely natural, to be followed by Global Cooling. But what we're doing, what the real danger is, is to accellerate the process. We're making the planet do in a hundred years what it would have normally done in ten thousand. And that's the real danger.

 

We should be prudent, and instead of denying any responsibility towards our contributing to GW, see it as a serious threat and support technology that can counter it.

 

The obvious problem is that if we 'go all green' on this, and avert the disaster, fifty years from now the others will say "so where's this Global Warming you were worrying about fifty years ago? You were wrong! Hahaha!" and hopefully we can ask "We invested seriously in green tech 50 years ago. Have you seen sea levels rising?"

And they'll say "No!"

And we'll just smile and say "Exactly".

 

Unfortunately, it's been calculated that even if we stop injecting carbs into the atmosphere right now, it'll take much more than 50 years for the atmosphere to scrub itself, so maybe the above conversation will take place a few centuries from now. But if we're not prudent, and we ignore the risks, maybe the conversation won't take place at all. I, for one, believe it's a natural cycle. But I also believe that we're accellerating it beyond anything reasonable.

[Turtle]

...There have never been as much carbon in the atmosphere as there is right now....

 

I saw a graph just last week which contradicts this oft-quoted meme. It may even be here at Hypog but damned if I can find it. :hihi: Anyway, how's about a bona fide source (whatever that is these days) that supports your claim?

[Boerseun]

I saw a graph just last week which contradicts this oft-quoted meme. It may even be here at Hypog but damned if I can find it. Anyway, how's about a bona fide source (whatever that is these days) that supports your claim? :)

There you go.

 

Granted, it's not *for ever*, but only for the last 650,000 years.

[Buffy]

A slightly different graph from NASA that--as all good US government agencies must do when the political commisars* are looking over their shoulders--cuts off the last 300 years that show up on the graph on B's page.

 

 

What I like to point out to people is that we're currently at a maximum, and its quite possible that our green house emissions may have prevented the next Ice age that is actually *overdue*. I mean just *look* at those regular cycles!

 

The problem of course is that we didn't just balance it, we sent it way off in the other direction almost doubling the variation over what we know from these half-million year data sets.

 

Now to clarify the point that it was "much higher in the past," that's *true*, and here's a graph from the NYTimes (damn biased Bush-hating liberal press!):

 

 

But note that when it was really high, we were living in the ocean, and when it was moderately high but a lot higher than today, we were all reptiles and dinosaurs.

 

In other words, there was time to adapt, or we all died massively. We're looking into the jaws of one of those extreme kinks in the curve: It may be that the "Earth has been here before," but man sure hasn't and he may not survive if he doesn't start using his brain.

 

I personally think we don't know which way its going to break, but we're fools to avoid finding out what we can do about it.

 

You can pay me now or you can pay me later,

Buffy

 

* In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries.