Global Warming a fake?

[freeztar]

I like CO2, it tickles my nose.

 

I recommend cyanide tissues. They also tickle.

 

I don't want to see us suppress economic activity (fossil fuel production and use) unless it's necessary.

 

Sure. How about the toxicity of smog? It is carcinogenic. It's bad for us. Let's try to ameliorate the problem. :Guns:

 

Let's study this another fifty or 100 years, to get a good handle on the problem.

 

I'm guessing that we will continue to study climate as long as we exist. I hope so anyway. Freud is not as cherished as he was, but Psychology is more the richer. ;)

[HydrogenBond]

Here is how I look at global warming. Say we look at the earth over the past billion years, and plot temperature from then to now. What we would see are warming and cooling cycles. If we make this graph to scale, so 1 billion years equals one meter, and then plot the current data we now debating, we will need to get out a razor blade and make a tiny data notch.

 

Those who see natural climate cycles have a billions years of data that shows this is not unique. Yet the hype is based on a razor cut of data on that scale. I can't see how we can separate the two effects seeing the long history.

 

Here is an analogy. We have baseball player who has played for 10 years, averages 30 home runs per year and has a lifetime batting average of 312. It we look at his career he has had his ups and downs, feast and famine.

 

Next, we has a rookie, who hits a home run his first and only time at bat. He has a lifetime batting average of 1000 and averages one home run each time he is at bat. He has never struck out and has hit safely in all at bats. That is what we can do with a razor point of data, making him the greatest player of all time. The ten year player, on paper, does seem quite as reliable based on his stats. In the small time scale things can appear more than they are.

[Buffy]

I don't want to see us suppress economic activity (fossil fuel production and use) unless it's necessary.

This is the most egregious fallacy of all the arguments against taking action.

 

We've exported all our manufacturing offshore, and if the US economy is going to grow again, it had better latch on to something new in which we have the ability to leverage our strengths. One of the *only* areas that we can immediately exploit is green technology.

 

We ignore this possibility at our economic peril, because the Chinese and Indians are already investing heavily, even though their resources are a fraction of ours...

 

Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it, :Guns:

Buffy

[modest]

Here is how I look at global warming. Say we look at the earth over the past billion years, and plot temperature from then to now. What we would see are warming and cooling cycles. If we make this graph to scale, so 1 billion years equals one meter, and then plot the current data we now debating, we will need to get out a razor blade and make a tiny data notch.

 

Those who see natural climate cycles have a billions years of data that shows this is not unique. Yet the hype is based on a razor cut of data on that scale. I can't see how we can separate the two effects seeing the long history.

 

Here is an analogy. We have baseball player who has played for 10 years, averages 30 home runs per year and has a lifetime batting average of 312. It we look at his career he has had his ups and downs, feast and famine.

 

Next, we has a rookie, who hits a home run his first and only time at bat. He has a lifetime batting average of 1000 and averages one home run each time he is at bat. He has never struck out and has hit safely in all at bats. That is what we can do with a razor point of data, making him the greatest player of all time. The ten year player, on paper, does seem quite as reliable based on his stats. In the small time scale things can appear more than they are.

 

The meteor that hit the earth 65 million years ago would be a fraction of a razor's edge. Humans could, theoretically, make Earth's atmosphere unlivable in very short order. The meter stick in your analogy is relatively long in time, but the razor can be sharp and could certainly kill us all.

 

~modest

[BrianG]

I find global warming problematic, start reporting observations when its cool, end when its warm, voilà, a warming trend.

 

The significant question, do you see signs of climate catastrophe? I must confess, I find the climate beautiful.

 

YouTube- George Carlin on Global Warming http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOOc5yiIWkg

[BrianG]

Just learning to post a url, excuse me.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

This is the most egregious fallacy of all the arguments against taking action.

 

We've exported all our manufacturing offshore

in response to

I don't want to see us suppress economic activity (fossil fuel production and use) unless it's necessary. Let's study this another fifty or 100 years, to get a good handle on the problem.

Generalizations and fallacies are fun ;)

 

I'm employed by a manufacturer and I'm American and I'm employed onshore and I know and I know of many many peoples that work for manufacturers manufacturing thingies:D

[lemit]

I'm employed by a manufacturer and I'm American and I'm employed onshore and I know and I know of many many peoples that work for manufacturers manufacturing thingies:D

How nice for you! I live in the fossil fuel-rich American West, but I work with companies that are creating clean, new fuels, and are developing methods of sequestering carbon to clean up the air and improve the soil.

 

I am very ambivalent about the data used to prove Global Warming, and see downward trends where the Alarmists see upward trends. But with those doubts, I work to assure the accuracy of the Denialist predictions. The time to build a storm shelter is before, not after, the storm.

 

--lemit

[BrianG]

... I work with companies that are creating clean, new fuels, and are developing methods of sequestering carbon to clean up the air and improve the soil...

Are there many tax breaks and subsidies in that sector? Congress is considering mandating renewable energy and we've got strong energy conservation policies. Do we want government picking winners and losers in the energy market?

 

I want an energy policy that encourages the production and use of energy. We need more now, we can conserve when we're dead.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

How nice for you! I live in the fossil fuel-rich American West, but I work with companies that are creating clean, new fuels, and are developing methods of sequestering carbon to clean up the air and improve the soil.

 

I am very ambivalent about the data used to prove Global Warming, and see downward trends where the Alarmists see upward trends. But with those doubts, I work to assure the accuracy of the Denialist predictions. The time to build a storm shelter is before, not after, the storm.

 

--lemit

Yah tiz nice to make things and have a job in this economy.... wish it paid as well as being a desk jockey (managers make more than supervisors and supervisors make more than labor....tiz not fair specially cuz we do all the work) .....We have a firm here (well 20 mi from here in Erie, Pa.) that makes and researches alternative fuels....which is really cool.....wish they were hiring....would be a cool job switch....would also save me 5 miles each way...also have GE but they are layin off right now.

 

 

Yeah but if the last known storm large enough to justify a shelter was 1000 years ago it would seem rather foolish to build a bunker "just in case".....have you built your self/family a nuke fallout shelter? After all with all of the nuclear weapons and powerplants in the world it is highly likely that by your logic that you will need it:D

[lemit]

I have a good basement.

 

--lemit

[C1ay]

I like CO2, it tickles my nose.I don't want to see us suppress economic activity (fossil fuel production and use) unless it's necessary. Let's study this another fifty or 100 years, to get a good handle on the problem.

 

While the amount that CO2 does or does not contribute to climate change may be debatable the fact that it is a pollutant is not. There is no good argument that we should continue to contaminate the air we breathe, the air we depend on for life, for the sake of our own economic activity. Is it OK for fellow swimmers to pee in the pool you're swimming in?

[BrianG]

Not from the diving board.

 

CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's a fertilizer. The CO2 from fossil fuel was in the air before, so we are just putting it back. Trapped fossil carbon can't feed the world, atmospheric CO2 can. Plant's require CO2, we require oxygen, this is the circle of life. Hakuna matata.

[Essay]

Not from the diving board.

 

CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's a fertilizer. The CO2 from fossil fuel was in the air before, so we are just putting it back. Trapped fossil carbon can't feed the world, atmospheric CO2 can. Plant's require CO2, we require oxygen, this is the circle of life. Hakuna matata.

 

Can't we all just get along? :hihi:

But seriously, you're both right. CO2 is a pollutant... and a fertilizer; in the same way that ammonia can be both a dangerous chemical and a fertilizer. The whole issue is about amounts, levels, and concentrations of these chemicals.

 

Sure life is carbon based, and CO2 is essential; but ammonia is just as crucial to the nitrogen cycle (also essential to life as we know it) and we don't go around spewing enough ammonia to raise atmospheric ammonia levels, saying that since it is a fertilizer, there must be no problem.

 

We can choose to define CO2 either way (or both ways), but that doesn't change the physics or thermodynamics of CO2, a typical triatomic greenhouse gas. It is specifically a concern for that "circle of life" -and how "out of round" it is becoming- that drives world-class scientists like Edward O. Wilson to point out our unsustainable practices and their long-term consequences.

[BrianG]

Climate and CO2 in the Atmosphere

 

We are living in an atmospheric [ce]CO2[/ce] famine, way back before the SUV, the air was much richer in CO2. It didn't hurt mammals before, what makes anyone think it will hurt us now?

[Essay]

It didn't hurt mammals before, what makes anyone think it will hurt us now?

Very nice site about CO2.

What CO2 levels in the past are you pointing to?

===

 

But for an answer to your question about mammals and harm, please see:

http://hypography.com/forums/science-news-elsewhere/21627-greenhouse-gas-carbon-dioxide-ramps-up-aspen-growth.html#post286461

[CraigD]

CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's a fertilizer.

…

Plant's require CO2, we require oxygen, this is the circle of life.

A pretty accurate description, IMHO, though in high enough concentrations, [ce]CO2[/ce] can be deadly not only to animals, but to plants. See my post “Safe and hazardous CO2 concentrations” for a more detailed discussion.

The CO2 from fossil fuel was in the air before, so we are just putting it back. Trapped fossil carbon can't feed the world, atmospheric CO2 can.

While I think its accurate to say that most of the carbon in fossil fuels has passed through the atmosphere as [ce]CO2[/ce], and carbon in the atmosphere will eventually be buried in the earth to form far future fossil fuels, it’s important to understand that it wasn’t all in the atmosphere at the same time.

 

It’s also important to note that the role of the seawater in the [wiki]carbon cycle[/wik]. Seawater contains on the order of 50 time the amount of carbon as in the atmosphere, and 10 times as much as in all fossil fuel reserves.

We are living in an atmospheric [ce]CO2[/ce] famine, way back before the SUV, the air was much richer in CO2.

I’m familiar with the idea that we need much more atmospheric [ce]CO2[/ce] than even the present levels (which are about 30% greater than at any time in human prehistory and history) from cautionary fiction such as the 1991 novel Fallen Angels. It usual in such speculation, however, and more scientifically supported, to hypothesize that high [ce]CO2[/ce] levels are preventing dangerous global cooling. Since these ideas were seriously discussed by science and science fiction enthusiasts, however, much more has been learned about climate, and several new developments – most dramatically, I think, the opening of Arctic Ocean ice (which doesn’t raise sea levels), and northern and southern glacier melting (which do) – have illustrated that, even if high [ce]CO2[/ce] levels are preventing global cooling, they are over-doing it, and causing global warming. It rare, in my experience, to encounter scientifically knowledgeable people who still seriously caution against slowing the increase in or decreasing atmospheric [ce]CO2[/ce], rather I find it now mostly among people who distrust professional scientists, and Americans who self-identify as conservative and/or Republican.

It didn't hurt mammals before, what makes anyone think it will hurt us now?

As I noted in my post “Safe and hazardous CO2 concentrations”, it’s nearly inconceivable that even the greatest projected atmosphereic [ce]CO2[/ce] concentrations could directly hurt any but the most metabolically fragile animals. To actually kill a mammal with [ce]CO2[/ce], you must get it in an at least semi-air-tight container, or some sort of natural depression, such as the natural bowl near the hot springs at Rapolano Terme mentioned in the wikipedia article “carbon dioxide”.

 

What can hurt mammals such as humans is flooding of costal land due to a rise in sea level due to glacial melting due to increased air temperature due to increased atmospheric [ce]CO2[/ce].