Author Topic: Global Warming (Read 16658 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #540 on:** March 09, 2007, 08:36:44 AM »

oboe.. I have no problem with "taking it slow" and not doing something out of panic. I think that is the problem. The science is not very good at this point. I think that we are probly going through a period of high sun activity and that it will level off.. what we can do about that is.... nothing.

As for our "contribution" to the warming? let's get some real answers.. do the research but don't ask me to do anything until you have some solid data..

Every scientist that is honest will tell us that the models they have can't possibly work because the earth is too complex and the variables too unknown.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041030221144.htm

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N10/EDIT.jsp

Nothing is constant.. the ocean is actually cooler now than at its peak in the 1920's it went up in 1940 and then down in 1970 and is back up but still not the level of 1920...

It seems to me that the scientists are cherrypicking data.. like, since they can claim co2 is up.. like they are ignoring everything but co2... global temp not rising? ignore it... ice caps not receeding? ignore it.. cold spells? ignore it.

seems they are hanging their whole arguement on Co2 doesn't it? something that they admit that they don't understand and that is more affected by nature than by humans...

They are pretty much left with the old "straw that broke the camels back" defense... they call it "tipping point"

'coarse... they won't tell us what exactly is the "tipping point" or even how much of a load the camel can bear.

Seems to me that the more we look at this thing the more shaky and nebulous and voodoo the science gets.

lazs

Angus · « **Reply #541 on:** March 09, 2007, 09:00:03 AM »

"Nothing is constant.. the ocean is actually cooler now than at its peak in the 1920's it went up in 1940 and then down in 1970 and is back up but still not the level of 1920... "

Didn't see that anywhere, so I'd love to have the source.
Actualy the ocean should be about the same temperature as that many years ago, since so much icemass has been melting and thereby being mixed into the sea. Funny enough, but still works, - an icecube that melts into your whisky will actually cool the blend

FastFwd · « **Reply #542 on:** March 10, 2007, 05:19:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by EagleDNY
"in excess of what plants will need to survive" isn't a static, just as how much food you need to survive isn't fixed either. For example, although you can survive for a day on a couple of slices of pizza, that doesn't mean that you couldn't eat the entire pizza after a hard days work.

Photosynthesis is not a static. A plant with plenty of sunlight and more CO2 will grow more, consuming more CO2 and releasing more oxygen. Try the experiment - put two identical plants under a lamp, and introduce additional CO2 to one of them. After a month, I guarantee you that one plant will be much larger than the other.

Multiply this phenomenon by every photosynthetic lifeform on the plant, and I think we have a pretty large correction factor towards removing any "excess" CO2 from the atmosphere.

Interesting post, but is there any evidence to show that any species of plant life is growing larger today than it did 400 years ago? Also, large swathes of plants/vegetation have been destroyed to make way for urbanization, and the Brazilian rain forest is shrinking at a vast rate.

oboe · « **Reply #543 on:** March 10, 2007, 07:11:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
Every scientist that is honest will tell us that the models they have can't possibly work because the earth is too complex and the variables too unknown.

lazs

Statements like this lead me to distrust what you say. It hurts your credibility in my eyes. I don't believe there is any way this statement could possibly be true.

john9001 · « **Reply #544 on:** March 10, 2007, 08:21:36 AM »

what i like about computer models is if you don't get the results you expected you "adjust" the model until you do.

lazs2 · « **Reply #545 on:** March 10, 2007, 08:33:57 AM »

oboe.. I really don't care. This is what I am distilling from what I am reading.. Everything says that the earth and all the variables are too complex for us to have a useful computer model. I believe this is the only thing that makes sense given the fact that they can't even predict next years weather with any kind of accuracy. How did they suddenly get the ability to see decades into the future?

I also would point out that they have moved the "tipping point" year around several times and the date for a doubling of Co2 has moved almost a century from 2040 to 2122.

I would have to say that if you believe that the scientists have accurate global climate models at this time...

Well... I would have to say that if you are being honest then... I have lost a lot of respect for your opinion and ability to reason without emotion.

lazs

cpxxx · « **Reply #546 on:** March 10, 2007, 10:50:39 AM »

Great documentary on Britain's Channel four called the 'The great global warming swindle'.

Here's the site:

swindle

Is there hope at last that us sceptics are finally going to proved right? Hell no, this express train is not for stopping for the next half century or so until it derails itself when everyone realises it was all hoax.

Angus · « **Reply #547 on:** March 10, 2007, 11:00:37 AM »

Nice.
Look at the results of the poll, just for fun.
Then ponder on simple statements like the clouds having a cooling effect (Which depends) and the accepted fact that greenhouse gases are needed for keeping the planet warm enough.

oboe · « **Reply #548 on:** March 10, 2007, 11:11:56 AM »

laz,

I think your skepticism about global warming is fine. I do believe it is a characteristic of real science to allow for degrees uncertainty, therefore its certainly untrue that EVERY scientist to would hold the attitude that all climate models CAN'T POSSIBLY work and if they don't, they are dishonest.

lazs2 · « **Reply #549 on:** March 11, 2007, 10:47:58 AM »

oboe... where did I say that all climate models can't work? I simply said that theirs.. the long range global climate models can't work... not at this time. maybe never.. they might at some time be able to say... If the sun does this and this and nothing else changes... this will happen or.. if this many volcanoes and this much sun activity and this much... you get the picture.

They can't predict next year or hurricanes or earthquakes or anything really and they are telling me to send em money now or the earth will end in a few decades due to....

the weather?

lazs

EagleDNY · « **Reply #550 on:** March 11, 2007, 01:23:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FastFwd
Interesting post, but is there any evidence to show that any species of plant life is growing larger today than it did 400 years ago? Also, large swathes of plants/vegetation have been destroyed to make way for urbanization, and the Brazilian rain forest is shrinking at a vast rate.

I've got some anecdotal evidence I can share, but as far as I know there has been no scientific study - indeed I wonder if it is even possible to do a scientific study on this because of all the variables which change over time (weather), and all the plants which no one would bother measuring. You could probably correlate data from the dept of agriculture, but even that would be flawed - allow me to explain.

I can be conclusively proven that agricultural harvests are way up, but whether this is the effect of additional CO2 or just smarter farmers (or both) is probably impossible to prove. Anecdotal evidence: when I was a kid, we lived on a farm in South Carolina where they grew corn. What Mr. Russ (the farmer) would do is plant a big cornfield, harvest it, and then turn out pigs in the field to eat what was left (and provide some free fertilizer) and then slaughter the pigs. It was considered a good crop year if they got anything over 100 bushels per acre of corn at the harvest. They got one great year I remember where they got 130. This was in the the 1960's.

Today it is routine for farmers to get well over 200 bushels per acre, and I've read about farmers up in PA getting over 300 bushels per acre - more than twice was Mr. Russ used to get. You can read the commodities reports on soybeans, corn, wheat, etc. and add the numbers up to see that we are producing more than ever before. I don't see any way to prove how much of that is due to better farming methods, new varieties of corn, better pesticides, good weather, CO2 levels, more acreage planted, etc. because I don't see how you could get quantifiable data on it all.

In a lab, with a controlled environment, 2 plants given all the sunlight and water they can use with the only variable being CO2 will definitely grow at different rates. That is easy to prove. The rate at which plants in the wild will consume additional CO2 would vary by species, location, etc. How could you quantify it?

As far as the rainforest goes, yes, they are plowing it down at a great rate and planting on it (much more of that acreage is going to farming than to urbanization). I think it is pretty shortsighted myself, and I think the key to stopping it is the economic development of Brazil. People should realize that concern for the environment isn't the biggest thing on the minds of poor and hungry people. If it comes down to burning down rainforest acreage and planting on it or letting my family go hungry, then I'm out there with a zippo and a can of lighter fluid (and I'm betting spotted owl tastes just like chicken).

EagleDNY
$.02

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #551 on:** March 11, 2007, 01:37:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dadano
Why not error on the side of conservation?

If we can save some species/crops/coastline/glaciers....along the way, GREAT!

I cannot understand why people are adverse to cleaning up our act.

Money

FastFwd · « **Reply #552 on:** March 11, 2007, 01:48:34 PM »

EagleDNY - interesting post ^ -thanks for that.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #553 on:** March 11, 2007, 01:56:57 PM »

Yay/Nay

reguardless.

Be it from solar activity, Natural earth cycles. Our impact
or a combination of all (which is the most probable)
Fact of the matter is
Global warming is happening.
and history shows that even a change in a few degrees can have an almost unbeleivable adverce impact on the climate and all earth dwelling creatures inluding us

"From around 800 A.D. to 1200 or 1300, the globe warmed again considerably and civilization prospered. This warm era displays, although less distinctly, many of the same characteristics as the earlier period of clement weather. Virtually all of northern Europe, the British Isles, Scandinavia, Greenland, and Iceland were considerably warmer than at present. The Mediterranean, the Near East, and North Africa, including the Sahara, received more rainfall than they do today. During this period of the High Middle Ages, most of North America also enjoyed better weather. In the early centuries of the epoch, China experienced higher temperatures and a more clement climate. From Western Europe to China, East Asia, India, and the Americas, mankind flourished as never before.

This prosperous period collapsed at the end of the thirteenth century with the advent of the "Mini Ice Age" which, at its most frigid, produced temperatures in central England for January about 4.5deg.F colder than today. Although the climate fluctuated, periods of cold damp weather lasted until the early part of the nineteenth century. During the chilliest decades, 5 to 15 percent less rain fell in Europe than does normally today; but, due to less evaporation because of the low temperatures, swampy conditions were more prevalent. As a result, in the fourteenth century the population explosion came to an abrupt halt; economic activity slowed; lives shortened as disease spread and diets deteriorated"

http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/history_health.html

Fact of the matter is we are having an impact on this event no matter how great or small
Also fact of the matter is our impact no matter how small is a negative one
Even if not to the planet itself to our wellbeing as a whole.
Already if you live in or near a major city your risk of developing several types of cancers and considerably greater just from beathing the polluted air. Which is something we cant exactly avoid doing without donning climate controled spacesuits
Which is undelyably created by our own activities and not some natural event or cycle.

the question is
Even if we arent a major contributor to this event.
Why would we want to help it along?

Hmm I think I answered this question already though.

Money

Dowding · « **Reply #554 on:** March 11, 2007, 05:27:42 PM »

That Channel 4 program was very interesting. I was fairly open minded about the issue of global warming and could probably be put in the 'err on the side of caution' side of the argument.

But now? After seeing the documentary and looking at the science behind it through a few online scientific journals I'm convinced CO2 and the production of it by man is simply a geo-political tool.

Now, every time I hear 'carbon footprint' or 'carbon neutral' I feel a barely controllable desire to yell 'bollocks' at a very high volume. It's utter rubbish. We're being duped by perhaps the most ridiculous hoax mankind has ever devised. And it's really getting on my tits.

Unfortunately, the average inhabitant in Europe, the US etc has the scientific aptitude of a dead gold-fish and will happily accept all the doom-mongering and political posturing we see in the papers or on our screens.

What will it take for people to actually come to terms with that 'inconvenient truth' - that the Earth (and sun) on a geological timescale will do whatever the hell it likes and cannot be affected by CO2 emissions from a bunch of factories?