Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Stegahorse on June 04, 2007, 04:49:06 PM
-
Mars is Warming (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)
If Mars is warming up, then the Earth warming ain't a human effect!
:O :O :O :O :O
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/917_1180995761_mars-rover.jpg)
-
yep... the "scientists" will say anything to explain the warming of mars from "plantetary tilt" to "core shifts" to whatever... anything but the big yellow ball that heats both planets...
There is no grants... no money and no power in saying that the sun is making things hotter and cooler. since mars has no co2... how can it be heating?
Lets just ignore mars tho before people realize that...
ITS THE SUN STUPID
The environmentalists are getting desperate. I am sure that they know that we are about due to go into a cooling cycle in the next few years... they are desperate to hid the data and get laws and grants passed so that they (and co2) can take credit for the global cooling...
I have faith tho... people have been showing resistance to their scams. They may have gone too far.... no one seems panicked anymore... The hoax has about run its course in my opinion...
More and more people are saying "nice theory but how do you explain...?"
lazs
-
maybe I should have been more clear... mars does not have enough C02 for it to be considered a "greenhouse gas" we don't either but what the heck.. If you are going to create a hoax you need to make it a big one.
sooo... an atmosphere that is thick and full of co2 is heating at the same rate as sun activity... another planet with co2 but really... no atmosphere to speak of is also heating at the same rate...
Yet... in the planet with the thick atmosphere the scientists are blaming the co2 and ignoring.... no... hiding from.. the fact that the sun is doing the same thing to both planets..
They won't even consider it. And how could they? it would kill the golden grant goose and the spots on good morning America and their 15 minutes of fame and fortune. I mean... what can you do about the frigging sun right?
They have to hustle tho.. people are not getting as scared as needed to get some laws passed and grants handed out.
When people find out what it will cost em.. the theories of co2 and such start sounding even weaker.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Ferndale
Wrong again - the CO2 component in the earth's atmosphere is only 0.038%, according to Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere
It doesn't sound like much, but without it the earth would be much colder/less hospitable. But the reverse is true - too much of it, and the earth overheats....
and what causes this unwanted overheating? hmmm?
-
... and more plant life dying in any given year due to a change in solar activity?
-
did anybody ask the Dinosaurs what they think of this "global warming"
-
whats wrong with warming? you like ice and snow?
-
Originally posted by Ferndale
- apparently it does not agree with various species in the food chain. Oh, and some countries would become submerged/uninhabitable. But these are generally small, "insignificant" countries where the first language is not English and where there is no oil. So nothing to worry about. :aok
and how is this different over the last 200 million or so years? Either adapt or perish. I may not know whether or not the climate will or will not change significantly over the next 10 to 100 years but I do know this, no Man (or woman) can or will ever be able to change or halt anything this planet does, and anything they try to do to "fix" it will only end up making things worse somewhere else. We are all on the path to extinction. save all that money and spend it on beer and nachos and get over it.
-
ferndale... you are still missing the point.. if matters not how much co2 makes up whatever type of atmosphere.. the sun heats em all up.
ITS THE SUN STUPID
lazs
-
Ferndale, why just worry about global warming? In about 3 billions years the Sun will swell into a red giant and turn the Earth in to a large charcoal briquet. If we havent killed ourselves off by then that'll sure do it.
Quick better get Al Gore and Michael Moore started now on solving that... if you're not worried then I guess you're just to short sighted and dont care about the future... what about our great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great- grandchildren...
-
A combination of factors, exacerbated by man made waste products (CO2, water vapor etc.) which stem from the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity (~37%), power vehicles (~22%) and other purposes.
Hmmm... if that is the case and the claims that the last polar ice melt was 200 million years ago (or whatever) and the same "scientists" claim man hadn't even discovered fire yet - what caused that "global warming?"
Remember when you tell a lie you must remember the original one so that you can cover that lie in the future.
My 2 cents worth.
-
First, it is always better to read the whole article, and not just the title given to it if you are presenting it as "proof" of your point of view. Follow up scientists make Habibullo Abdussamatov sound like a quack in the article.
Comparing Mars with Earth as part of the global warming debate is just smoke and mirrors on the part of those trying to cloud and dispute the debate. After all, bad and contradictory data points work just as well as actual scientific proof does..... better in fact if that contradictory proof does not exist.
We've landed five vehicles successfully onto the Martian surface, all smaller than a VW bug. We've not gotten core samples from Martian ice caps. We've not had weather data collected on the Martian surface for the past 200 years. We've not had detailed, daily, long term weather data collected from points all over the Martian surface for many decades. We've not had large, sophisticated weather satellites orbiting Mars for fifty years.
There is no where near enough collected data on Mars weather and global cycles to make the statement that Mars is warming up due to solar activity as a solar system wide effect. There is also Mar's orbital parameters to consider as they change over time: Perihelion, Aphelion, Orbit inclination, Orbit eccentricity. Mars does not have the stabilizing effect of a large moon (the "wobble effect" mentioned in the article.
Mar's CO2 atmosphere is very thin even at low elevations, practically a vacuum, what there is is made mostly of carbon dioxide. The surface pressure on Mars is only about 0.7% of the average surface pressure at sea level on Earth. CO2 effects on Mars are not a comparison to Earth's atmosphere.
Even from the quoted article:
The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.
"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)
All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.
These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.
Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.
"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.
So someone pays a scientist to put his name of a controversial paper, that goes against what is known about Mars as a means to cloud the global warming issue as it pertains to planet Earth.
The list of successful Mars missions include:
1964 Mariner 4 US (flyby) Success Returned 21 images
1969 Mariner 6 US (flyby) Success Returned 75 images
1969 Mariner 7 US (flyby) Success Returned 126 images
1971 Mars 3 Orbiter/Lander USSR Success Orbiter obtained approximately 8 months of data and lander landed safely, but only 20 seconds of data
1971 Mariner 9 US Success Returned 7,329 images
1973 Mars 5 USSR Success Returned 60 images; only lasted 9 days
1973 Mars 6 Orbiter/Lander USSR Success/Failure Occultation experiment produced data and Lander failure on descent
1975 Viking 1 Orbiter/Lander US Success Located landing site for Lander and first successful landing on Mars
1975 Viking 2 Orbiter/Lander US Success Returned 16,000 images and extensive atmospheric data and soil experiments
1996 Mars Global Surveyor US Success More images than all Mars Missions
1996 Mars Pathfinder US Success Technology experiment lasting 5 times longer than warranty
2001 Mars Odyssey US Success High resolution images of Mars
2003 Mars Express Orbiter/Beagle 2 Lander ESA Success/Failure Orbiter imaging Mars in detail and lander lost on arrival
2003 Mars Exploration Rover - Spirit US Success Over 70,000 images lasting 8 times longer than warranty
2003 Mars Exploration Rover - Opportunity US Success Over 58,000 images lasting 8 times longer than warranty
2005 Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter US Results TBD
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
We've landed five vehicles successfully onto the Martian surface, all smaller than a VW bug. We've not gotten core samples from Martian ice caps. We've not had weather data collected on the Martian surface for the past 200 years. We've not had detailed, daily, long term weather data collected from points all over the Martian surface for many decades. We've not had large, sophisticated weather satellites orbiting Mars for fifty years.
There is no where near enough collected data on Mars weather and global cycles to make the statement that Mars is warming up due to solar activity as a solar system wide effect. There is also Mar's orbital parameters to consider as they change over time: Perihelion, Aphelion, Orbit inclination, Orbit eccentricity. Mars does not have the stabilizing effect of a large moon (the "wobble effect" mentioned in the article.
The Earth is estimated to be around 4 billion years old, give or take a couple of birthdays, if you asked the Earth she'd probably say 29... anyhow. So 200 years of weather observation, data collected from weather satellites for the last 50 years, data drawn from surveys for the last what (60 years or so) and then saying you understand a 4 billion year old planet and weather system is any better? I dont see it, I would say There is no where near enough collected data on Earth's weather and global cycles to make the statement that Earth is warming up due to any activity. It maybe be warming up but I dont think we really understand why...
What is particulary funny to me is using that argument to discount the intrepation of the Mars data but ignoring that argument when discussing the Earth's data
-
"If Mars is warming up, then the Earth warming ain't a human effect!
:O :O :O :O :O"
"ITS THE SUN STUPID"
Where's that childhood understanding thread when we need it?
-
ferndale... you are still missing the point.. if matters not how much co2 makes up whatever type of atmosphere.. the sun heats em all up.
It very much matters how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, as it helps retain heat. Certainly it's the sun that causes the atmosphere to heat up, but CO2 makes it cool more slowly.
Lock a dog in a closed car in the heat of summer and it might be the sun that kills the animal, but it's the closed windows that make the difference.
-
ITS THE SUN STUPID
People have been trying to tag Earth weather patterns to the various solar patterns, the 11-year sunspot cycle, the solar magnetic cycle of 22 years, the 80 year long small variations in the sunspot cycle, a cycle with a length of about 180 years that is becoming apparent from long term data, since the early 1800's.
Every theory tends to start to come apart as long term observations and more data come available. The sun, aparently in relation to humanity's existence, is pretty stable. Yes, the sun changes, over the course of hundreds of millions of years, in a lifetime measured in billions of years. The effects on Earth have much more to do with Earth's orbit changing over time as it orbits the sun, and less on the sun itself. The Earth is a wobbling ball whose orbit eccentricity, tilt, and other parameters change over time have bigger effects than the sun itself.
People really do not have a sense of the difference in scale at work here.
As a comparison:
Age of the universe about 13,700,000,000 years or so.
Age of the sun/solar system 4,560,000,000 years old
How much longer the sun has 4,000,000,000 to 5,000,000,000 years left as a main sequence star.
Precambrian Era in history about 4,500,000,000 to 543,000,000 years. Oldest rocks, reducing atmosphere transition to oxygen, oldest fossils.
The earliest documented ice age 850,000,000 to 630,000,000 years ago (the Cryogenian period).
Paleozoic Era ran from about 543,000,000 to 248,000,000 years. Start with explosion of multi-celled life, ends it 90% of all species wiped out.
A Mini Ice Age was recorded about 460,000,000 to 430,000,000 years ago.
There was extensive ice caps from 350,000,000 to 260,000,000 years ago.
Pangea beak up spans between 250,000,000 and 60,000,000 years ago
Mesozoic Era ran from about 248,000,000 to 65,000,000 years ago. Hi Dino. Bye Bye Dino.
Sun's orbit about the galaxy about 225,000,000 to 250,000,000 years to complete one revolution.
Cenozoic Era ran from about 65,000,000 years to today
Primates go back to the Paleocene 60,000,000 years ago.
The first Antarctic ice formed about 40,000,000 years - this also marks the start of the "current" Ice Age, with glaciation periods occurring on 40,000 and 100,000 year cycles. Yes, we are IN a geological ice age period now, in an interglacial period which should last another 14,000 years.
Homo habilis goes back to around 2,600,000 to 1,500,000 years ago, along with stone tools.
Earth's Milankovitch Cycles occur about 450,000 years (Orbital variation cycles combine and compound influence).
Homo Sapiens have been around for 250,000 years.
Earth's Eccentricity Cycle around the sun 95,000 years changes from a thin ellipse (oval) to a circle and back again
Modern man is roughly considered to be 50,000 years ago with burials, bone tools, and clothing.
Earth's Obliquity Cycle runs on about a 42,000 year cycle (the earth wobbles and the angle of the axis, with respect to the plane of revolution around the sun, varies between 22.1° and 24.5°)
Earth's Precession Cycle running about 21,000 year cycle (axial tilt toward and away from sun during orbit).
The last glacial period ended around 10,000 years ago. Should last another 14,00 years. The next Ice Age expected in 50,000 years due to Earth's orbit.
Recorded history goes back approximately 6,000 years.
If it were truly the sun at work here, we, as a species, would be totally screwed. If it were an Earth orbit cycle, it would be readily apparent --- no it's not an Earth cycle effect at work on our atmosphere and environment. That leaves environment. At least the environment we have a chance to positively influence to our benefit.
-
Isn't the universe only like 6,000 years old?
I thought man walked with the dinosars, so couldn't we ask them?
:confused:
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
What is particulary funny to me is using that argument to discount the intrepation of the Mars data but ignoring that argument when discussing the Earth's data
We have access to a lot more information on the Earth. We've already accessed 740,000 years atmospheric history by way of 3km deep Antarctic ice cores which is by far the oldest continuous climate record obtained from ice cores so far. We've hundreds of years of weather observations and recorded data from all over the planet to draw on. We've got hundreds of years of data to collect from tree rings. We've deposits in the earth that can be dug up an analyzed. We've got sediments in lakes, seas, and the deep sea bed that we can access.
We've got nothing on Mars compared to all of that.
-
Never mind Mars, look at Venus, runaway greenhouse effect. That is our future. The Venusians were just like us once, complacent, in denial. They wouldn't give up their SUVs either. They didn't believe the venvironmentalists when the flagged up the dangers of Venusian made CO2 in the atmosphere.
Now look at them, bathed in acid rain that would burn the fake tan off a New York socialites face.
There's a lesson there for us all. ;)
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
It very much matters how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, as it helps retain heat. Certainly it's the sun that causes the atmosphere to heat up, but CO2 makes it cool more slowly.
Lock a dog in a closed car in the heat of summer and it might be the sun that kills the animal, but it's the closed windows that make the difference.
Incorrect analogy.
A closed window blocks convection.
Co2 does not block convection. That's why it's incorrect to call it a "greenhouse" gas. A greenhouse works on the principle of blocking convection. co2, being a gas, is extremely permeable.
Adding co2 actually promotes plant growth quite a bit. However, the effect of it working as insulation is logarithmic. It's backwards from what most people perceive as an exponential growing problem. A very small, local net increase in humidity has more heating effect than doubling the environment's co2.
-
Originally posted by Stang
Isn't the universe only like 6,000 years old?
I thought man walked with the dinosars, so couldn't we ask them?
:confused:
good point. I'll try to remember to ask my mother in law. she is is coming over later.
-
I think Michael Crichton was spot on. Those who have turned away from traditional religions are just creating new ones and the church of Global Warming is the most popular among them today.
-
The point is that those who want to be in control want Human Beings to be at fault for Global Warming. If Mankind is doing the heating then there is hope for a man to be all powerful.
The Serene people know the truth of the reality. There are far more powerful things out there; the Sun is just one example.
:furious :furious :furious :lol
-
I see a bunch of monkies with their hands over their eyes and ears.
Funny that they call themselves "conservatives" given their absolute refusal to conserve anything at all.
Ah well.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
It very much matters how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, as it helps retain heat. Certainly it's the sun that causes the atmosphere to heat up, but CO2 makes it cool more slowly.
Lock a dog in a closed car in the heat of summer and it might be the sun that kills the animal, but it's the closed windows that make the difference.
Of the "greenhouse gases" which is the most abundant?
Hint... it's not CO2.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I think Michael Crichton was spot on. Those who have turned away from traditional religions are just creating new ones and the church of Global Warming is the most popular among them today.
I think Michael Crichton used to be a decent novelist, but now he's just another political hack.
-
What many people fail to realize is that global warming will lead ito a mini iceage when global ocean currents shutdown. Do your research......before you post your ignorance.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
It very much matters how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, as it helps retain heat. Certainly it's the sun that causes the atmosphere to heat up, but CO2 makes it cool more slowly.
Lock a dog in a closed car in the heat of summer and it might be the sun that kills the animal, but it's the closed windows that make the difference.
Honestly the difference is the ******* that locked the dog in the car in the first place, and if the windows were down the dog would probably jump out of the car anyway. And are we talking about a Polar Summer, Or Summer in Arkansas that is really frigging hot man!
-
My local weatherman struggles to get it right 3 days from now. The atmosphere is an extremely complex system, for any one side to claim to truly know anything seems arrogant.
-
Of the "greenhouse gases" which is the most abundant?
Hint... it's not CO2.
No, but CO2 is a greenhouse gas, no one seriously disputes that. And man is releasing truly vast amounts of it into the atmosphere. No one seriously disputes that either.
Incorrect analogy.
A closed window blocks convection.
Co2 does not block convection.
No, it reduces radiation of heat back out into space. The end result is the same, it gets hotter.
My local weatherman struggles to get it right 3 days from now. The atmosphere is an extremely complex system, for any one side to claim to truly know anything seems arrogant.
Well, it's much easier to make predictions about trends than it is about daily fluctuations. It's easy to predict that winter will be colder than summer, for example.
There's a couple of things we know about CO2. It retains heat in the atmosphere. Man is releasing very large amounts of it into the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Well, it's much easier to make predictions about trends than it is about daily fluctuations. It's easy to predict that winter will be colder than summer, for example.
I was being a bit simplistic, what i was trying to point out was that there doesnt seem to be much agreement as to the degree of mankinds contribution to "global warming". Some scientists and pseudo-scientists will glom onto the most dire predictions no matter how unlikely and cry "The sky is falling!" while others will down play it and say that the affects are minor. Who is right? Dunno. What we seem to know is that there is a warming of the Earth, but how much is mankind REALLY contributing? Looking at history it would seem that mans impact hasnt become significant until the start of the industrial revolution, and we still dont know that it is all THAT significant compared to what mother nature does to herself.
I remain skeptical as a matter of scientific impartiality and will await more definitive data.
-
Two things we do know: The earth is warming, and we are a filthy race. If anything this global warming gig is a great excuse to be a bit more conscious of our environment. Scared of the government using your money to fund R&D? Or companies charging more for their product to pay for more environmentally friendly production? Tough. The world does not revolve around you. It revolves around us.
-
it is summer, in pittsburgh this morning it is eight degrees above freezing.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
No, it reduces radiation of heat back out into space. The end result is the same, it gets hotter.
Yes, but not anything remotely close to approximating your scenario of a closed window. To even suggest that our atmosphere works like a greenhouse is false representation. A greenhouse is based on convection containment. Water vapor & clouds have more to do with heating than co2 does. Co2 is one of the smallest components and only absorbs a relatively narrow band of radiation (all of which overlaps with the absorbtion properties of water).
I'm not saying lets dump as much co2 as possible into the environment, and we have no effect at all. That's just silly. Co2 has an effect, but it's a very, very small one compared to how Al Gore markets it.
want to buy some Carbon Credits?
-
Originally posted by indy007
Yes, but not anything remotely close to approximating your scenario of a closed window. To even suggest that our atmosphere works like a greenhouse is false representation. A greenhouse is based on convection containment. Water vapor & clouds have more to do with heating than co2 does. Co2 is one of the smallest components and only absorbs a relatively narrow band of radiation (all of which overlaps with the absorbtion properties of water).
I'm not saying lets dump as much co2 as possible into the environment, and we have no effect at all. That's just silly. Co2 has an effect, but it's a very, very small one compared to how Al Gore markets it.
want to buy some Carbon Credits?
To say this:
"To even suggest that our atmosphere works like a greenhouse is false representation"
Is nothing but boulderdash, for WITHOUT some greenhouse effect our atmosphere would be...ehmm...somewhat Siberian. _18 deg Celcius global average?
The carbon is IMHO overrated, but not to be discarded. Methane is also something to worry about. The melting of Ice is seriously something to worry about, for Ice radiates most (80%+) of the solar energy back out to space, while seawater has the numbers inversed.
So, it's a bit of all, really. Ice has a cooling effect, Forests have a cooling effect, Charbon in general has a warming effect, warming has a tendency to accelerate untill something naughty happens, Volcanoes cool, but may in the long run warm the atmosphere (depending on their chemistry), the Sea helps dealing with the carbon if kept ok, etc etc.
Anyway, the biggest IMPACT at the moment is mankind, with both emissions and deforestation on a very impressive scale. And since the sun is actually warming Mars, it is something to worry MORE about, for it means that we have an adding effect...
-
LOL... you can't have it both ways... if co2 is causing the global warming we are seeing then... who put the extra co2 in mars atmosphere lately? Oh wait... it is a tilt or something that is causing mars heating... it is just coincidence that the suns activity mirrors the heating and cooling of both planets right?
We have small heating and cooling cylcles that are caused by suns activity that last about 30-40 years... we had a cooling cycle in the 40's (the height of the industrial revolution by the way) and it lasted until the late 70's
Like todays warming trend...it was mild but... it caused the new religion of man made global climate at the time declare that we would all be under a glacier by the year 2000...
Hundreds of scientists met and declared that man was creating an ice age with his filthy ways and demanded that they be given the money and power to do something about it.. Unfortuantely for the cause.... it started to get warmer as the sun went into a higher activity cycle..
The same will happen again.... if they don't get their way...if they ask for too much... people will tell em to suck eggs and they won't get a good power grab going... the suns activity will lessen in the next few years and the earth will start to cool... The church of man made global climate change will have to wait a few decades and then declare the horror of man made global cooling and the impending doom of a man made ice age and then.... on and on..
In the end tho...
ITS THE SUN STUPID
yep... the sun is as tedbr says... pretty darn stable... it only heats or cools the planet unevenly every 30 or 40 years and then only a tiny amount.. a fraction of a degree (we are talking a fraction of a degree here) Hell... your home thermostat is not that kind or efficient.
more and more tho... people are saying "nice theory" as they should. How many will be up in arms to "do something" if it means doubling the price of gas say? what is that? none..
How bout a big tax on pickups or how bout your utility rate doubling?
Ah... so now you need a little more proof of man made global warming eh?
The your-0-peeeans are already suffering under gas prices 3 time higher than they should be... they are angry that we are not... so long as "doing something" means only punnishing the U.S. then they are all for it..
double their utiility bills or gas prices and watch the new "hoax" documentaries come out of england.
For those of you in the U.S. that think we ought to let the your-0-peeans and the UN guide us on this.... why don't you just wear a hair shirt and self flaggulate and leave the rest of us alone?
lazs
-
It won't matter when the oil runs out in 10 years....
Tronsky
-
nope.. and it hasn't... I recall when the scientists in the 70's told us we only had 20 years worth left. us being out of oil now hasn't mattered a bit... the ice age of the 90's didn't hurt us much either and...
how bout that butter thing.... good for us this year or bad? I can never keep up.
Fool me once... shame on you... fool me a couple of dozen times a year... shame on me.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
To say this:
"To even suggest that our atmosphere works like a greenhouse is false representation"
Is nothing but boulderdash, for WITHOUT some greenhouse effect our atmosphere would be...ehmm...somewhat Siberian. _18 deg Celcius global average?
Not at all. I don't care if you make up another word for it, but it's not a greenhouse effect. A greenhouse doesn't work without blocking convection. "greenhouse gasses" do not block convection.
It's a misnomer. It's like calling a Democrat a liberal, when they're really socialist. Just because the mainstream decided to use the term does not make it correct.
-
LOL, so there is no such thing as a "greenhouse effect"?
Funny. After all, it is being measured and applied in some cases.
And Lazs, - I actually thought that the height of the industrial revolution, - emissionwise, would be in our days. Now for instance?
As for the Carbon, I think it's overrated on it's own, and that, getting into politics and agendas and such, is IMHO a rather bad thing. The whole impact of mankind is very much bigger in other fields.
All are rather bad.
-
Originally posted by Angus
LOL, so there is no such thing as a "greenhouse effect"?
I didn't say there was no warming effect.
I said calling it a "greenhouse effect" is incorrect.
Unfortunately it's used as part of the political sales pitch and leads to false impressions of how the atmosphere actually works. That's my problem with it.
-
One could look at the data from a number of perspectives: Is the glass half-empty or is it half-full.
The Vostok Ice-Core data is often cited as indicative of a correlation between rising global temperatures and levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Yet the same data over the last 500 thousand years also seems to indicate that the world should already be sliding into another major ice age, and yet has not. Global warming may, in effect, be preventing an even greater catastrophe.
So, which would you rather have, global warming with rising sea levels and regional droughts leading to famine in the developing nations.....or continental glaciers thousands of feet thick covering the major food producing nations of the northern hemisphere?
It may be possible to compensate for the effects of global warming....but how does one compensate for two-thirds of a continent being covered by ice?
I just love the way scientists who are demanding that the world's governments take steps to rein in CO2 levels that are leading us toward "disaster" hedge their bets by claiming that global warming could possibly lead to a new ice age. An "Even if we're wrong we're right" sort of debating point.
By the by, according to one source I've read (which I have not been able to verify), the World Meteorological Organization's data of average world-wide temperatures since 2001 have shown a steady decline. Except for 2002, each succeeding year has been slightly cooler than the year before.
Does anyone have an actual graph or source for these figures?
Also, I have seen data that indicates that the rising temperatures for the U.S. during the 1990s, the decade when such rises were first cited as proof of global warming, have not yet achieved the high temperature levels of the 1930s "Dust Bowl" decade.
Regards, Shuckins
-
nashwan points out that the "scientists" can't predict what the weather will be in 3 days but... claims that it is much more difficult (and easy to disprove) to make an accurate short term prediction than a long term one...
Now.. this is pretty nutty on the face of it unless he means that it is easier to guess at a trend than do an actual prediction... hotter in 10 years or colder? Heck... ya got a 50/50 chance but...
Lets examine his claim... When have they ever been right on a long term prediction? they claimed we would be under a glacier by now..
They are wrong on the short term and so far.... wrong on the long term.
a watch with a dead battery is more accurate... it is right at least twice a day.
I think that we are at an end to the global warming cycle and that the suns activity will lessen in it's normal 30-40 year period and we will see some global cooling starting (if it hasn't already) in the next few years.
I just don't want these a holes to get credit for it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Ferndale
Well LOL! Coming from someone who, in an earlier thread, dismissed the existence of global warming out of hand because his town had had the coldest winter he could remember in 20 years!
What I dismiss is those crying the "sky is falling", not global warming. I'm also not ready to believe it is man made and will be the end of civilization.
It has been very mild here this summer so far.
-
When I was in college some 25 years ago, our scientists predicted global warming. They said it would start being noticable in some 20 years, and a good tell-tale would be massive ice melting.
Funny, isn't it...
And FYI, I do look at the weather forecast, - it is often wrong, but since it doesn't go into small detail, I can usually adapt it to my own theories about the area I know so well, and the result is reasonably reliable. For much more than 3 days even.
-
angus... if your scientists of the 80's were predicting global warming then they had made a huge flip flop from the scientist body as a whole who in the 70's predicted global cooling on a massive scale.
And what are these scales? 1 degree in a hundred years if that?
A couple of my old broken bones predict the weather better than most scientists on a day to day basis. They have gotten better at watching hurricanes and tornados form tho.
I think what it boils down to is that you live in a place where it is best for it to stay cold... the "scientists" always try to scare you with heat... In Amercia of the 70's we lived and live, in a place where it was warm so they tried to scare us with ice.
From day to night it gets hotter and colder... in 30 or 40 year cycles it gets hotter and colder and it's all because.....
ITS THE SUN STUPID.
and there aint a damn thing we can do about it... all your "scientists" are powerless against the sun.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
A couple of my old broken bones predict the weather better than most scientists on a day to day basis.
Hehe. Last week we had rain predicited, then they took the rain out of the forecast for our area that day. I said "BS". Left knee was killing me. I told the wife and neighbor we would have heavy rain within 2 hours. We got 5 inches in less than 1 1/2 hours. :)
Granny Clampett and her beetle in a match box can do better than the morons that call themselves scientists.
-
well... to be fair... most of the thousands of new "climate scientists" are no such thing.. they were anything but till they seen the money and jumped on the bandwagon...
Most of the real scientists in the field that have been in it for decades are a lot more cautious with their warnings.. the person who did the original ice core sampling and testing for instance does not believe that co2 is causing global warming at all.
"the man made global warming hoax" is an excellent documentary and counterpoint to the algore soap opera one... unlike algores attempt.. it has real science and real scientists tho. It is done in an entertaining way none the less.
You can still watch it on youtube I believe.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well... to be fair... most of the thousands of new "climate scientists" are no such thing.. they were anything but till they seen the money and jumped on the bandwagon...
Exactly. When this turns around and bites them in the rear, they will be looking for the next ship to jump on that produces cash.
If it became a popular fable that lady bugs are going to destroy the earth, the very same ones would become Insta Demonbugologists.
It`s all about the money.
-
Cough, and I guess there is no money in the oil industry?
Here is a link to what is happening and a careful prediction for the next 100 years or so. The interview is in Icelandic, but the graphics and pictures tell their story.
Most of our glaciers will be gone in my daughters lifespan, and only the highest one might survive 200 years. That is, if it stops warming now and keeps as it is, - which is a careful prediction.
And Lazs, I repeat that I completely missed those Iceage predictions in the 70's (however I got those linking a Nuclear holocaust with a Nuclear winter to follow). Now, our weather guys live in a rather unique environment (N-Atlantic gulfsream climate), and our weathers are delicately unstable. Ways to measure are all before our eyes, such as Ocean temps (be it Arctic or Gulfstream), air temp, rain, snow and Glaciers, as well as the effect of regular Volcanic eruptions. All around us (Out the kitchen window, I have one Volcane, One hiding one, and 2 Glaciers, out the living room I see Fata Morgana from the Black beaches.)
So, very much worldwide hype can easily be discarded when you have the things right before your eyes, - maybe that's why....
(Us farmers noticed the warming quite fast too, and quickly took advantage off it :D)
-
The link:
http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/frett.html?nid=1273517
-
I hate seeing all those bandwagoning scientists with all their global warming cash on MTV cribs, wearing all that bling in their Escalades or SLK 500's, buying English premier league teams, and Laker floor season tickets...
...bastards....
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Angus
Cough, and I guess there is no money in the oil industry?
What part of "all" don`t you understand? :)
If it doesn`t pertain to big money, your unlikely or rarely hear about it in the media...........unless it`s pure sensationalism. :)
Watched a little ditty on the high increases in box cereal prices. Why? Ethanol production. :rofl
It`s all about the money.
-
FYI, Coffee is actually one of the biggest businesses in the world.
Superceeded only by Oil as a whole merchant product, both have a very big environmental impact, and make things like midgety subventions for scientific research look rather....small.
Why bother drilling into glaciers anyway..silly avacados :D
-
I hate everything and call BS on anything that says I cannot live like I always have and always wanted to live. :D
-C+
-
Oh.. I get it.. we are supposed to believe that we are doomed and that the sun has nothing to do with global warming or that... wait for it... the tiny amount (relatively) of co2 that man puts into the atmosphere is a "tipping point" the straw that broke the camels back so to speak? even tho co2 itself is only a small portion of greenhouse gases..
and.. even tho models the "scientists" use are admitedly flawed we need to "do something" (something meaning make the other guy suffer)? If it is only a straw that we are creating... what happens when the real influence.. the sun... goes into another normal and cyclical cooling cycle? like it does every 30-40 years?
Our little contribution will be nothing.. If what they say is true then the planet should be warming at a predictable rate based on co2 rise. Yet... the planet has cooled 4 out of the five last years.. the total ice pack on the planet is the same or larger than it was. The planet is not any warmer now than it has been in the past with lower levels of co2. It doesn't add up.
The sun is the biggest contributor. sorry some of your little lands are getting warmer.. sorry some places are getting colder... sorry it is warmer in the day than at night... what can I say? I am not going to run my life based on co2 theory tho.
ITS THE SUN STUPID
lazs
-
Ferndale, current projections are that the world's oceans will rise by 20 inches over the next century, given the current rate of glacial melting....not the 20 feet trumpeted by Al Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth."
That will not produce the mass-flooding that he and some of the other "experts" have predicted. In addition, the rate of that rise will be so slow as to be almost imperceptible, giving plenty of time for coastal cities to make adjustments.
However, the climate pattern alterations brought on by changing global wind patterns and rainfall are where the real danger of global warming will come in, if all the Chicken-Little predictions come true.
It isn't going to be easy to reverse the current warming trend. Indeed, it may be impossible. Personally, I think some of the hot air produced by supporters of the Kyoto Accords may be contributing to global warming. Despite all the rhetoric and holier-than-thou breast beating by the nations who signed it, it now appears that none of the signatory nations will be able to reach their target goals for reduction in their production of greenhouse gases by 2012. In fact, they're not even coming close.
If the World Meteorological Organization figures which I cited earlier are correct, the Earth has seen a slight cooling trend since the year 2000.
(http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/12/vostok_back_to_eemian.jpg)
Look at this graph closely. Note that the termination of the last ice age took place about 12,000 years ago, followed by a rapid rise in global temperatures to the Holocene period. The warm temperature cycle the world has been in for the last 12 millenia is uncharacteristically long for an inter-glacial cycle. Study of other Vostok graphs reveals that the peak of temperature after the end of an ice age is relatively short, followed by a steady downward trend to another ice age.
There has been relatively little fluctuation in global temperatures during that age, save for the little ice age of the medieval period. This suggests that something else may be at work causing global temperatures to remain at their currently uncharacteristically high levels, for this trend began 12 thousand years before the invention of the internal combustion engine, and 5,000 years before the rise of human civilization.
The rise of global temperatures by one degree Fahrenhype over the last century is a mere blip by comparison.
Should we control the production of greenhouse gasses? Certainly. Our negative impact on the environment should concern all of us. Should we take the stance that man-made pollutants are the only cause of global warming?
Certainly not.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
There has been relatively little fluctuation in global temperatures during that age, save for the little ice age of the medieval period. This suggests that something else may be at work causing global temperatures to remain at their currently uncharacteristically high levels, for this trend began 12 thousand years before the invention of the internal combustion engine, and 5,000 years before the rise of human civilization.
"this trend began 12 thousand years before the invention of the internal combustion engine, and 5,000 years before the rise of human civilization."
say, isn't that when cavemen discovered fire?
:noid
-
*ehem*
Most port reactors and land development "food farm land .ect"
Would only need to be under 10-20 more feet of water "on average" before they would be useless.
Try driving your car, or buying cloth's without the ports to deliver the oil, metal or goods.
Try keeping the pumps going without electricity, try going to work without lights.
try going to the store without power to keep the items refrigerated.
Then again, whats the point of having a car with most road ways blocked by water, whats the point of going to work if your day to day life is none exsistant.
what would be the point of going to the mall, if the power is out. or the movies, or trying to play golf with every low land on the course filled with water.
A city run's out of power for a few hours and full on riots break out "who cares WHY, thats not the point" the fact is it happends every** time.
What people do not understand is water is heavy, it seeps and soaks into everything. Sure a water way system can move water from point A to point B, but there is NO system that can hold out on the total mass and weight of the intire ocean spilling into whatever low lands it can reach.
The intire vally of california would be under water, any place with a 15 foot dam or imbankment would fail, im not talking about massive death of untold billions.
Im talkin' about the total and complete brakedown of every day life.
And thats all in just one* state. Not even nation wide, or world wide.
Ever waided thru water upto your neck for 15+ mins to try to get to higher land in a flood? JUST so you could dry off in the sun, before going back and completing your task? "getting fresh water"
I have, try doin' that for the rest of your life.
Power systems down or cut, ground becomes soiled..weak power polls fall over,fail.
Gas/oil/lubrecation/material for plastics, distrabution fail, road's unpassable, bridges down, gas at all time high from lack of global wide movement or in some locations no resupply at all.
Farm lands flooded, useless, nations food supply cut in half or more.
I do not consider myself a enviromentalist, just someone who can see this happening already, goto the coast in california and you can see how much the water has gone up from even 3 years ago.
On the pluss side, i can swim very well..can you? :)
-
20 feet? al the gore said 200 feet. so we build more ports, give work for all the illegal aliens.
BTW, it's raining here now, is this the "end".
-
Originally posted by Ferndale
Just because the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere seems tiny (to you) does not mean it's insignificant. The seemingly small proportion still has a significant bearing.
Any proof? Please demonstrate just how significant this small proportion is. Feel free to post any links to scientificly valid data...
-
ferndale.... 50 years? you are worried about us doubling the co2 in 50 years? We will run out of oil well before that according to a lot of scientists.. Who knows what the sun will do in 50 years? who knows what new ways we will have of doing things. 50 years ago we didn't have cell phones or cable tv or home computers or any of a myriad of things..
50 years ago we were at the end of a global warming cycle and going into a cooling cycle..
ITS THE SUN STUPID
I deal with small amounts of elements every day... parts per million... parts per billion... (politicaly correct now to say milliliters per liter but.. same thing).
I need more proof that man made co2 is having any effect worth doing anything about when compared to the sun.
Certainly we should try not to ruin the planet. I think that waste is always just that... waste but..
What would you have us do to make you feel better? I say co2 is a boogie man with no teeth.. I say that the planet has as much ice total as ever and that the oceans will not rise this century to any real extent.
But... what would you have us do... name some things that we should be doing... name the things that would affect each and every one of us.
Should we give more money to the scientists? should we all slit our throats? Stop driving? ground all pleasure jet aircraft and commercial flights? Mandate that everyone get 50 mpg and junk any car that doesn't?
What do you suggest?
You see.. to fall for the sky is falling line is to say that you believe them.. if you believe them then you have to go for their cure.
What should we do?
That is the crux.. the reason the euros won't meet their goals is because they won't meet em without pain. no person will willingly give up anything so you will have to do it at the point of a gun.
lazs
-
Wonder what the earth would be like if Antartica were completely thawed and habitable? All that additional land mass and water would give humanity some room to stretch out, new frontiers. Sure there might be some discomfort during the transition to a new global climate but the payoff might well be worth it.
-
also... since I know you won't have any real suggestions like stop all tourist travel in jets...
Everything you linked says that maybe... maybe.. if we double the co2 we may get as much as 5 degrees more in global climate in 100 years.. unless of course the suns activity slows.. what do we do then?
What if we are going into a global cooling cycle... global cooling is far more harmful than global warming... do we then make co2 generators?
The flawed models and of course (LOL) wikepedia.. are all saying that if the sun doesn't do as it always has and go into a cooling cycle about now.. and we somehow manage to double the co2 with no help from the sun or.. it somehow continues to have high activity.. that... in 100 years.. we might get a few degrees more of global temp and that the sea might even rise a few inches.
All this is done in the fishbowl of a computer that is fed data that the scientists don't even understand fully.
It has gotten cooler for several years. If co2 is the boogie man and it has gone up... How do you explain this? How can it possibly ever not just get hotter and hotter much less.... COOLER.
How?
ITS THE SUN STUPID
compared to the sun.. everything else is minor.
The planet is changing... the south poles have more ice.. the north less.. england may have some changes.. sooooo... people in iceland and england want us all to "do something" sorry.. nothing we can do.
Maybe people in england and iceland should not be allowed to drive or fly except for legitimate reasons? try that first and see how it goes over.
lazs
-
problem with the global warming reports, is that none of the predictions, or even the amount of warming that has occured, is the same from one to the other...
i've never seen a graph showing estimated greenhouse gas outputs vs. global temp.
i have seen graphs showing sun activity vs. temp. ...
and no-one seems to have tried putting them together to show just how much the human effect is...
i dont see much science being done...by either side.
show me some real bare data from a few different sources, on even just the major variables that everyone talks about...and i'll pay attention
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/16-201-XIE/2006000/t057_en.htm?
anyone want to tell me why the highest upwards trend for canada is in the far north, where theres far far less emissions than the great lakes and st. lawrence area, where most of our industry is?
-
since i can easily get data for canada... heres some interesting graphs
(http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/16-201-XIE/2006000/ct012_en.gif)
(http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/16-201-XIE/2006000/ct026_en.gif)
(http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/16-201-XIE/2006000/ct020_en.gif)
-
Originally posted by vorticon
i dont see much science being done...by either side.
show me some real bare data from a few different sources, on even just the major variables that everyone talks about...and i'll pay attention
Because it has gone too far for that. Too much money is involved. Politics are involved. Economics are involved. Reputations are involved.
The USA and NASA are pretty much shutting down long term orbital observation of the planet Earth, and have removed it from NASA's mission statement: "if you don't see it, it didn't happen." Move along. There's nothing to see here. When it is official government policy to quit monitoring a potential problem and threat, something is wrong.
Science today is too much about producing what the people funding you want to see in the results. Not necessarily the facts. On either side of the issue now. And sometimes, some efforts seemed gears toward disinformation or muddying the waters enough so no one can get a clear picture. Hence the start of this thread about an article trying to tie Mars conditions to Earth, and blaming it all on the sun (which, if that were the case, humanity is absolutely screwed), even though our data on Mars is so much more limited (5 landers and a few orbiters) compared to what we know about the Earth (hundreds to thousands of years of documentation, observations, and core samples).
You do have many pushing the global warming issue into a religion or movement these days, as well as all the Luddites jumping in. OTOH, the biggest press against looking at or doing anything about global warming seems to come down to individuals not wanting anything to impact their own wallet. All about self interest in that camp. "Don't bother me!"
anyone want to tell me why the highest upwards trend for Canada is in the far north, where theres far far less emissions than the great lakes and St. Lawrence area, where most of our industry is?
Probably a result from the lack of polar ice reflecting the suns rays back into space at the poles. There is a lot of open water up there for much longer parts of the year (hence all the drowning polar bears) --- open water takes in more heat from solar radiation than pack ice. So, the far north of Canada sees the effects first. Same for any land mass that loses its covering of ice and snow up north. Ground absorbs more solar radiation.
-
so...i should sell my snow plow?
-
I accuse Al Gore of plagiarism! (http://www.glumbert.com/media/globalwarming1958)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I accuse Al Gore of plagiarism! (http://www.glumbert.com/media/globalwarming1958)
And your point is....:)
-
Next he will be making documentaries about the evils of marijuana!
-
Originally posted by Ferndale
Or should I defer to jackal? l
I wouldn`t. You seem to much more prefer fairy tales produced by "Paid To Sayers".
-
ferndale.. if I am on a loop then so are you.. you are bringing up the same old data and pinning your whole arguement on man made co2.
you sound like that beetle guy we used to have here...
In the mean time... just like him.. you won't answer simple questions.
Heres one... If we all slit our throats today. How many minutes would it take off the "man made global warming we are all gonna fry" computer model? how would that save the earth?
How bout.. if we all just stopped driving? flying airliners?
What should we do? How much will it cost us? What measures do you think we should take? maybe ban suv's? ban any car you don't like? we can still take useless vacatiions to switzerland and such tho right?
How many people will want better proof when everything costs 10% more? 20% more? How many will want better proof when their lives are restricted?
How many will think....
ITS THE SUN STUPID
How many will realize that you and your scientists can't predict what will happen next week much less 100 years from now.
I say the suns activity is already slowing.. I say we will see a cooling trend.
Why do you not answer simple questions? How can co2 be the main factor if it has gone up and the temperature for the last 4 or 5 years has gone down? How is that possible?
The sun is heating and cooling mars and us at the same rate no matter what our atmospheres.
There are a lot of "inconvienent truths" involved in the whole man made global warming scare.
I realize that you are retired and have very little to do but most of us have a life to get on with.. kids to drive around.. events to attend.. money to earn to pay the bills... that sort of thing.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
...
If it became a popular fable that lady bugs are going to destroy the earth,
...
Oh they WOULD do it too! (Given the chance.)
-
There are some reasonable scientists.. they are in danger of being defrocked by the rabid followers of the "man made global warming" religion tho..
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220341,00.html
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/170.pdf
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003040068_warming05.html
and lets not forget the documentary on the BBC recently "the great man made global warming hoax"
Nor should we forget that algores movie is a gigantic exageration by anyones standards and that algore may be one of the most blatant liars of the last 50 years (inventor of the internet?) he is delusional .. he is egotistical in the extreme... yet... the religious acolytes like ferndale listen to this nutball.
There is more ice in antartica than ever.. there is no net global loss of ice.. the sea is actually receeding in spots. The solar activity is highest in the last 20 years than it has been in centruries.
The earth has gone into warming and cooling trends many times over with no influence of man at all. We are headed for a global cooling due to the suns activity slowing..
ITS THE SUN STUPID.
Have to get bumper stickers made up.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yep... the "scientists" will say anything to explain the warming of mars from "plantetary tilt" to "core shifts" to whatever... anything but the big yellow ball that heats both planets...
There is no grants... no money and no power in saying that the sun is making things hotter and cooler. since mars has no co2... how can it be heating?
Lets just ignore mars tho before people realize that...
ITS THE SUN STUPID
The environmentalists are getting desperate. I am sure that they know that we are about due to go into a cooling cycle in the next few years... they are desperate to hid the data and get laws and grants passed so that they (and co2) can take credit for the global cooling...
I have faith tho... people have been showing resistance to their scams. They may have gone too far.... no one seems panicked anymore... The hoax has about run its course in my opinion...
More and more people are saying "nice theory but how do you explain...?"
lazs
This thread is both scary and promising. Promising in that some of you actually go out and get the data, (where it isn't suppressed) and make informed, coherent arguments. Then there are those of you, who, having made up your minds long ago, professing from the platform of your small, inconsequential reality bathed in regurgitated pseudo-science, scream what must seem like logic to your own ears (It's da sun stoopidd)
Sir, may I ask, pray tell where you thought up this idea? You must be the only enlightened individual to possibly think of this. How godlike you are... not one formal scientist on the planet actually thought.."gee i wonder if the sun is changing" (they did, by the way) I sputter to think that the world's scientific minds didn't actually obey one of the first rules of science..(Achem's Razor) which dictates the simplest answer is usually the right one. Yeah, they just ignored it and went right on by to the current CO2 based theory.
I for one, believe the "theory, ( I open myself up here, yet feel confident in the knowledge that, among others, gravity, like climate change, is still a "theory". ) Those of you who think that the scientists out there doing research are in it for the money... you are living in some sort of warped reality that only Mr. Mcoy could get you back from. I live and work as a marine biologist... there is NO money in science... EVERYONE I know works in it from pure passion. Money, I.E. "grants", are fiercely fought over...and those grants DO NOT go to my living arrangements. There aren't many pure scientists living in cozy mansions around the world. Science, in itself, is self-policing and any hypothesis that does not reproduce results is vehemently bashed. The problem is, the research IS bearing out the hypothesis around the world. It is veritably impossible to get two scientists in any one field to agree on much anything, let alone 99.9 percent of those in a field. (Climatologist are that much in agreement)
The only opposition to this entire problem of global climate change, stems from those of you who couldn't pass high school biology without cheating, something which is not your fault.
The numbers bear witness to the theory.
Instead of clinging to the ideology which you personally most agree, try actually understanding the topic you are grasping for. The staggering ignorance I find to this is literally mind boggling, and it stems from lack of scientific knowledge at a basic level. If you don't know what a simple compound such as say, C6H12O6 is, without looking it up on wikipedia, your knowledge base on this subject is MUTE to the extreme. Your crap "theory" is refuted to the end by numbers posted by at least five other posters on this board, numbers that are statistically viable and are checked out.
IT's THE SUN PLUS IGNORANCE, STUPID.
(C6 H12 O6 is glucose BTW and it's what is ultimately responsible for your complete ignorance, it powers your brain and most everything else living on the planet)
-
" It is veritably impossible to get two scientists in any one field to agree on much anything, let alone 99.9 percent of those in a field. "
like i said before, from what i've seen, other than the fact that its warming, and the idea the c02 is behind it...there not agreeing on much of anything.
and when the idea that c02 is the direct cause of it, is refuted by my earlier graphs, that show the tempurature rise being a stready line, despite the number of cars almost quadrupling in the same time period...
someone said the effect was logarithmic.
most of the last millenium was a mini-ice age.
volcanos, el-nino, loss of tree-cover over vast swaths of land, pouring thousands of kilometers of ashphalt, jet contrails, ocean currents, algea in the oceans... and that barely scratches the surface of the variables...
your a marine biologist...
has there been any change in ocean currents in the past 50 years? what about plankton and algea growths due to massive over-fishing...what effect would that have?
anyone in the forestry industry on here? have trees been growing faster and looked greener thanks to all the c02 in the air?
-
lazs at large:
ferndale.... 50 years? you are worried about us doubling the co2 in 50 years? We will run out of oil well before that according to a lot of scientists.. Who knows what the sun will do in 50 years? who knows what new ways we will have of doing things. 50 years ago we didn't have cell phones or cable tv or home computers or any of a myriad of things.."
That would solve it then. But we are drilling deeper and deeper, and possibly getting new grounds on the arctic zones. As for the sun, you know perfectly well that there is nothing we can do about it.
And
AKIron:
"Wonder what the earth would be like if Antartica were completely thawed and habitable? All that additional land mass and water would give humanity some room to stretch out, new frontiers. Sure there might be some discomfort during the transition to a new global climate but the payoff might well be worth it."
While this is right, it is absolutely wrong. To make Antarctica nice and cosy, how much land do you think that will be uninhabitable instead because of high temperature?
-
2) The evidence is clear, the Sun is not responsible for the recent warming. Despite it being responsible for events such as the Little Ice Age, Medieaval Warming Period, and closely correlating with temperature before the human influence took over.
By 'recent warming' I mean the last 3 decades, to quote from NASA's Goddard Institute:
"Global warming is now 0.6°C in the past three decades and 0.8°C in the past century. It is no longer correct to say that "most global warming occurred before 1940". More specifically, there was slow global warming, with large fluctuations, over the century up to 1975 and subsequent rapid warming of almost 0.2°C per decade."
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
This is important in view of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_History_and_Flux-2.png
You can clearly see that is was only after 1950 that levels really took off.
2a)
The most up-to-date work on Satellite measurement of radiation from the Sun by Frohlich at the Davos Solar Observatory shows that:
"The observed change of [Total Solar Irradiance] difference between two successive minima amounts to -10 ppm which is not significantly different from zero at the 3-sigma level."
In other words there has been no increase in irradiance (brightness) of the Sun since 1976. Some may use the ACRIM dataset of Willson and Mordinov to claim that there has been an inrcrease in irradiance. However Frohlich gives very compelling reasons to accept his results in his paper, available for download here:
2b)
Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen has a good hypothesis about the linkage between cloud cover and cosmic ray flux. Basically cosmic rays cause a cascade of high energy particles when they hit the upper atmosphere and, to some degree, this affects cloud cover. Neutron counters based on the ground are a reliable indicator of how many cosmic rays are hitting the upper atmosphere.
However once again, in the context of the 0.6 degree C warming of the last 3 decades this theory fails.
You can see for yourself how the climax neutron monitor shows no trend in neutrons.
Go to the main page of the climax neutron monitor site. If you select the start year to the earliest possible, 1953, and leave the end period, which should be 1997. You can click on "Plot" and you will see a level graph with no overall trend.
This means Cosmic Ray Flux can't be causing the 'recent warming'.
2c)
Furthermore if the Sun were the cause of the warming then it would cause Stratospheric warming. It is not, the Stratosphere is cooling!
See "Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere:
Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences" here http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm
Figure 1 shows the measured cooling. Figure 1.2 shows that most of the cooling is due to CO2, not ozone. Table 1 summarises the responses of surface, troposphere, and stratosphere to changes in various forcing factors.
So to summarise the Science is settled that we have around 0.6 degrees C of warming over the last 3 decades yet we do not have a change in the influence of the Sun that would cause that.
Before the last 30 years, Solar changes do correlate well with global temperatures. But it is only recently that human CO2 emissions have risen so high and so fast that they now have an effect. Without climate models it is impossible to identify the previous effect of CO2. It is only since the '70s that the effect has become so marked that it can be appreciated by lay persons such as myself without the benefit of models.
To summarise for Laz: ITS NOT THE SUN STUPID.
-
LOL... by saying that mars had no co2 I meant that it had no atmosphere to speak of.. sure.. what little they have is co2 but they don't have any.
I would say that if mars and earth are heating at the same rate... and mars has a stable co2 content and earth has a rising one... how can co2 be the reason for global warming? or... put another way... if mars has a much higher percent of co2 than earth then it would simply continue to warm till it was a fireball.. after all... it has had 95% co2 for...well.. almost forever.
Akh is dismissing this and at the same time... calling increased sun activity and it's mirroring heating and cooling of the planet for eons as... as what? coincidence? laughable... he listens to a scientist that says the sun can't be causing it because it is not doing what he thinks the sun should be doing.. that this scientist understands the relationship between the sun and earth so well (even tho he never even mentioned it before now) that he can dismiss increased sun activity..
All because it can't be made money or power off of... as angus so rightly pointed out... we can't control the sun.
Nope..all we can do is panic people as best we can before the suns activity slows and the pot of gold dries up.
soon enough.. it will begin to cool... everyone will be wearing bumper stickers that say...
ITS THE SUN STUPID
and why does this message bother the acolytes so much? like god... they can't do much about the sun... they are powerless... Like god... their scientists can't save em.. scientists can't make us live forever and they can't do anything about the sun.
Then there are those who are just busybodies... they simply must have a say in what everyone else does... they hate it when people enjoy themselves.. or when people do things they themselves are not good at. They are socialists.. they are womanly and petty and the environment gives em a cause and a reason to be depressed and to punish.
Then there are the frieghtened ones.. the ones who live in areas that world wide climate change will affect... england... iceland... it matters not that...
ITS THE SUN STUPID
they cling desperately to the hope that science can save them from normal planetary changes..
and of course.. the "scientists" no one ever listened to before who are no "climate scientists" the ones so willing to jump on the band wagon to get grants and their 15 minutes of fame.
look at all the acolytes and you will see one of those things driving them and their new found religion...
I don't really care tho.... so long as I don't have to listen to em and so long as they have no effect on my life unless I want em to.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
While this is right, it is absolutely wrong. To make Antarctica nice and cosy, how much land do you think that will be uninhabitable instead because of high temperature?
Half of the Netherlands is below sea-level. They seem to be doing alright.
-
They won't be allright if you melt Antarctica, that's fore sure and more.
Bangladesh is also low, today they're not allright.
But aside from that, I was not thinking of sea levels at all in my answer, but the temperatures then being in the countries that are rather hot today. Imagine...TEXAS?
-
ahhh.... poor beetl... er.. ferndale.
can't win. And why should you? more and more scientists are deserting your sinking co2 ship. Mars has very little atmosphere but it is not gaining in co2 at the same rate ours is... nothing in their "greenhouse" is changing at all..
The only thing changing for them is the suns activity and it is changing just like ours.. and.. their planet is warming just like ours.
To pin all your global warming religion on co2 is to invite heartbreak and ridicule... What do you say if even one year is colder than the one before?
How can that be if co2 is always going up? it should be impossible.
The planet changes... sorry some of your tiny little spots will have to change.
Politics change... sorry you tiny little island isn't relevant anymore.. not my fault and no need to be jealous but... trying to punish us is pretty childish.
ITS THE SUN STUPID
sorry.. you and iceland are doomed.. nothing the scientists or the US can do about it. the sun is like god in that respect.. we are powerless.
get over it.
lazs
-
My goodness...how old are you lazs? You are acting like a three year old.
(and when I say like a three year old I mean a three year old...not a 20 year old or 40 year old....just to be clear.)
:rofl
-
LOL... beetl.... er.... ferndale.. I did indeed give links that showed an increase in solar activity... nice dodge tho on the "brightness" aspect. did you read the links?
your kettle may not boil.. you are saying that you turned the heat up under it (suns activity) if all else remains constant...you can expect to have hot water for that horrible tea crap in no time. Now... if the gas got turned off say... the flame would go out and.. the kettle would never boil.
Your argument is that you turned on the heat and that since science can tell when it will boil to a few minutes..... surely they can do the same for the entire planet?
It is like you turn the heat on tho and then say that you putting an ice cube in the same room is going to significantly change the time it takes to boil... or that if you light a cig... your "contribution" will hasten the warming...
You say it is co2.. then you say it isn't... you say we must do something about co2 but you don't say what.
Name the things we need to do and see if we can agree ok?
I will start... I will be ok if people quit taking airliners for vacations.
lazs
-
I can visualize what the aliens explorer will find in the future : a skull and fully functional 45ACP.
-
If they find my skull they will find a firearm by it. If they find the womanly socialist global warming guys skulls they will find em all in huge piles of rubble that was once shoddily built government housing.
lazs
-
well then.. you did not say any of those things lambchop... A guy called beetle used to say a lot of that..
ferndale.. beetle... lambchop... all gets a little confusing like your arguments..
So if you think we out to use biofuels as they come up and as a choice and that we ought to build nuke plants....
no harm no foul... we agree on what needs to be done... you seem to think it is to avert a man made global catastrophe while I think it is just a good idea to reduce dependence on oil and to get some cheap electricity.
We both win... we should do those things.
end of problem
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
LOL... beetl.... er.... ferndale.. I did indeed give links that showed an increase in solar activity... nice dodge tho on the "brightness" aspect. did you read the links?
your kettle may not boil.. you are saying that you turned the heat up under it (suns activity) if all else remains constant...you can expect to have hot water for that horrible tea crap in no time. Now... if the gas got turned off say... the flame would go out and.. the kettle would never boil.
Your argument is that you turned on the heat and that since science can tell when it will boil to a few minutes..... surely they can do the same for the entire planet?
It is like you turn the heat on tho and then say that you putting an ice cube in the same room is going to significantly change the time it takes to boil... or that if you light a cig... your "contribution" will hasten the warming...
You say it is co2.. then you say it isn't... you say we must do something about co2 but you don't say what.
Name the things we need to do and see if we can agree ok?
I will start... I will be ok if people quit taking airliners for vacations.
lazs
Your argument lacks even there mere quintessential bit of what it needs.. any fragment of logic. "It" is most certainly not anything like what your pathetic analogy attempts to portray it. Where does the "lighting a cig" possibly connect to global warming? Your understanding of the subject and your arguments henceforth should be filed just after "flat earth" and before the "geocentric theory of the solar system" (look it up if you have trouble)
The entire analogy of a cigarrette having anything to do with raising the temp of water etc, lacks any fundamental connection to the physics involved in the phenomenon of global warming. Something more analogous might be... Heating a water source from above with and without a semi permeable membrane stretched across water source. Try that, and my friend, you have an idea. In basic high school physics classrooms you do a very similar experiment, and low and behold... the damn, you know what????... the water gets warmer.
You know I am in a science field, marine biology. Take it from my little slice of the pie chart, the oceans are soaking up a vast amount of CO2, which is changing the acidity of the water. CO2 is not the prime gas to be concerned about, water vapor and to a much larger extant, CH4 or methane is to be worried about. The slight warming of the current climate is pushing the ocean towards an event that has happened before, the releasing of enormous amounts of methane sealed beneath the ocean floor....which is kept in place only by the temperatures that are usually found there. A methane boil was charted not too long ago in the North Sea, that lasted for two weeks. As well, more to my field, the more CO2 gets put in the ATMOSPHERE, the more goes into my oceans. CO2 content lowers the pH (raising acidity). Marine life, is by it's nature NOT ACCUSTOMED to ANY change in pH. (Try keeping a saltwater aquarium anything less than 8.0 on the pH scale.) Once enough CO2 is accumulated, the pH will pass a critical point to which I am fully prepared to state, will collapse all oceanic ecosystems. If they collapse, so willl the terrestrial environs. (we are after all, only on 24.6 % solid ground on this planet, if 75% of the system goes... you do the math.) If the terrestrial habitats collapse... WE GO WITH IT.
Please do us all a favor, and your kids too... go back to school or at least have someone somewhere teach you the mere basics of what you are commmenting on. But, I mean, it took 150 years for people to accept that viruses caused sickness... not the boogeyman or the "evil spirits the devil sent to invade your sinning soul"... so I think I might just write you off as being unqualified to form a based, knowledged opinion.
I ask you, if you thought a particular situation had a decent prospect of killing your kids, ie, crazy friend driving them to a party, etc., would you just bask in the deniability that it was the ENGINE that ran them into the tree, or the drunk driver that was behind the wheel. No, you would probably not put them in that situation anyhow, right. Now extrapolate that to global warming and figure it out. Yeah, we don't know EXACTLY where its going..but we know, right now, the kid that isn't too "with it" is behind the wheel. You gonna buckle your daughter up next to him?
Don't ask me why I even waste time on this here.
-
Moray,
What you are describing about the oceans absorbing co2 and the subsiquent raising of water temp sounds like one of the precursor indicators to the earths iceage cycle starting into a 15,000 year freeze. So what happened in the last global ocean ecosystem collapse besides lots of fresh water killing the gulf stream and the planet freezing? We then had an iceage???? Species came and went....we acended...and here we are. So are you suggesting we need to avert the next natural iceage? By the way it's just been released that our fertilizer pollution of nitrogen seems to cause trees to absorb higher amounts of atmospheric co2.
Maybe I'll do my part this weekend at the local gun range and release some nitrogen into the atmosphere. Smokeless powders are nitrogen base propellants.....:cool: <----- I'm very sure Laz knows his science on this subject......:aok
-
Originally posted by bustr
Maybe I'll do my part this weekend at the local gun range and release some nitrogen into the atmosphere. Smokeless powders are nitrogen base propellants.....:cool: <----- I'm very sure Laz knows his science on this subject......:aok
lol
So many of you guys are such sheep. Lazs likes guns = good, so I'll back him up on every argument, even though he has about as much scientific knowledge as a rock.
-
Originally posted by Curval
lol
So many of you guys are such sheep. Lazs likes guns = good, so I'll back him up on every argument, even though he has about as much scientific knowledge as a rock.
Naw Curval I'm just rooting for the Iceage to get here. Then you'll have to were pants like the rest of us neadertals or freeze your skinny knees off.....:rolleyes:
-
Curval, don't be insulting rocks like that.
-
Hehe, well Lazs basically has the opinion of not doing anything about anything, so that is a bit like a ... rock.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Naw Curval I'm just rooting for the Iceage to get here. Then you'll have to were pants like the rest of us neadertals or freeze your skinny knees off.....:rolleyes:
Not sure what a neadertal is....is that what you become when you get an internet crush on another man due to his love of guns?
...and stop checking out my knees.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Not sure what a neadertal is....is that what you become when you get an internet crush on another man due to his love of guns?
...and stop checking out my knees.
Neanderthaler is my household name. But originally they come from Dusseldorf, - or nearby :D
-
moray... very passionate.. good for you. now you are a climate scientist... not so good. I am in a science field too... to an extent. just as we all are.. to an extent.
What you say is true about the mechanism of the ocean.. so far as we know.. Heating it does cause it to not be able to absorb co2 and to possibly release methane.
What you fail to say is that..
ITS THE SUN STUPID
the sun is heating the ocean. I'll ask you the same questions none of your fellow handwringers here will answer...
If we all slit our throats this afternoon.. how much would that change the temp of the planet in 100 years?
And.. what are the measures short of that (be specific) that we need to take in order to "do something" meaningful to stop mans contribution to this global warming trend..
Also.. do you really believe that the suns activity is not cyclical and will go into a lesser activity cycle at some point soon anyway?
I have heard from ferndale/beetle/lambchop and he says we can let people who want to produce and use biofuel... that sounds ok to me.. he says we can build nuke plants... that also sounds good to me.
I will also say that letting the market produce and sell solar systems for homes (the price is getting attractive) is inevitable and good.
So lets hear it moray and all you hand wringers... name some things you would force people to do "just in case" Tell us how much more you are willing for products to cost and just how many more agencies you are willing to fund and just how much government interferance in your... er..everyone elses lives..you are willing to put up with.
NAME SOME THINGS YOU WOULD FORCE US TO DO.
lazs
-
Some uncertainty remains about the role of natural variations in causing climate change. Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. At most.
Stanford Solar Center (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html)
(http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png)
ITS NOT THE SUN STUPID
-
ahhh so a quarter of the recent warming is the sun. by the new estimates? Well thats better than last years "the sun has nothing to do with it" eh?
The rest is then... what? all man made? if the sun heats the ocean a degree or so then it releases (or can't hold as much) co2 and well..
it is not just sunspots.. sunspots are an indicator of suns activity and solar winds.
Again.. you are trying to murk up the situation... You first said (pretty sure it was you) that solar brightness had not changed implying that there was no effect from the sun... as did all the "scientists" last year.
And still.. you won't say how much is increased solar winds/activity and how much is man made in some form.
If you are going to say that sunspots have increased only 25% and therefore the sun is only responsible for 25% then where does the other 75% come from? are you trying to say that 75% of the warming trend we see is man made co2?
If so.. this is a first.. we have pinned down a scientist who is giving us a number... (like the 20ft rise in sea level in the next 10 years)
If we all slit our throats this afternoon... global warming would decrease by 75%??? is that what you are saying?
Is it just suv's or is it because the scientists don't have enough grant money or is it simply that we have too much freedom and need more government control...
please... save us. and if that isn't enough.... what about those pesky metiorites and comets? surely only karl marx can save us from them?
lazs
-
also... look at the chart... sunspots (an INDICATOR of suns activity) go up and down.. the tempreture FOLLOWS the indicator...
The co2 is a pretty much steady climb... yet... there are periods where the co2 is climbing and yet the planet cools.
How do you explain this if the sun is only 25% of the motivator? surely... rising co2 would not allow a pissant 25% to sun spot INDICATOR of suns activity to twist and distort a chart that should have temp as steady a climb as co2 if.... if co2 were as big a factor as you believe... not to mention mans small contribution to that.
Your chart proves my point not yours. co2 lags... sun leads. co2 can do whatever it wants and yet we can have decades of cooler temps. It also shows that sun activity is cyclical.
your chart sure seems to point out that co2 is just a follower and that...
ITS THE SUN STUPID
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
...
The co2 is a pretty much steady climb... yet... there are periods where the co2 is climbing and yet the planet cools....
Are you sure you can read a curve ?
PS : may I remember you that C02 a contrario to the sun don't produce energy ?
PS2 : it's clear reading the curve that you need sun + CO2 to increase temperature , CO2 increase sun effect.
PS3 : look at the sun in 1975 and 1870 it's the same amount of energy, if you were right the final temperature should be the same.
But it's not ,and the only different factor is C02.
What do you answer to this ?
-
Lazs, - please try to replace "It's the sun, stupid" with " "CO2 increases sun effect".
(TY Straffo)
An increase in solar activity makes greenhouse gases effect into a much more serious concern, and since there is nothing mankind can do about the sun effect, the voila, there is a job on the other end.
Same goes with the polar caps, - them disappearing will trap much more sunlight.
I am curious to know your responce, but I bet on the repetition of "The Sun, Stupid", and there is no point in doing anything.
-
the polar ice caps are receeding? you mean we have less ice now than... than when? I believe we have more ice... it is thicker in the south these last few decades is it not?
Ok.. look at the chart.. it is missleading... intentionaly so imo... but.. it shows that sunspots (an INDICATOR of suns activity) lead changes in temp. We know that always in the past, as now, co2 lags temp. the reason being that warmer temps release more co2 from the ocean..and.. warmer oceans can't hold as much co2.
now look at the chart.. the co2 is steadily rising but... the solar activity and the temp are not.. they are dancing partners with sun spots (an INDICATOR of suns activity) leading the dance.
There are many periods where the co2 continues to rise but temp drops... to expand that chart or, zoom in on the end of it, would show that we have had a lowering of temp and of sun spot activity (an INDICATOR of suns activity)
I keep saying INDICATOR for a reason.. scientists are convinced that sunspot activity is a good indicator of suns activity and solar winds... it is by no means a strength indicator. I am saying that even with just being an INDICATOR it is amazing how well they correlate to each other.. temp and sun spots.
Much better than temp and co2.
I am saying that we don't know enough about the sun and solar winds etc.. and that we ought to be looking at it instead of wasting all our time on the red herring of co2... man made or otherwise.. we already know that as the sun heats the oceans they release co2... in vast amounts.. amounts that make mans contribution seem beyond puny.
If co2 is causing global warming then how can co2 steadily rise but us have years at a time of cooler global temps? How would you explain that?
The suns activity will slow... we will cool and the oceans will cool and absorb more co2.. sun spot activity (an INDICATOR of the suns activity) will lessen and temp will follow... trending downward... co2 will continue to rise (it lags remember) and then... as the oceans cool... the co2 will start to drop..
in the end...
ITS THE SUN STUPID
lazs
-
Get a brain (a real one) and come back.
Plus a bit of honesty if you don't mind.
-
Originally posted by AKH
Some uncertainty remains about the role of natural variations in causing climate change. Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. At most.
Stanford Solar Center (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html)
(http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png)
ITS NOT THE SUN STUPID
Hiya H, looks to me like those graphs (there are three of them cleverly integrated) indicate temp is following sunspots more than co2.
-
You're right before 1950.
But after ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
You're right before 1950.
But after ?
When talking climate change, the record of only 50 years is not statistically significant. Some natural swings in temperature have taken centuries, some studies now indicate that temperatures rose 16 C in only a few decades several times in the past. We are still within the normal fluctuations of this highly chaotic system.
We can have reason to suspect that we are having an effect, but that is all the more sure we can be. The only thing we can be sure of now is that we do not know. We can suspect, but that is not enough for a conviction.
-
How can you affirm it's not statistically significant ?
We don't have data before 1800.
I'm sorry but I can't make statistical analysis without data.
-
Originally posted by straffo
How can you affirm it's not statistically significant ?
We don't have data before 1800.
I'm sorry but I can't make statistical analysis without data.
The data before 1800 comes fom tree rings, ice cores, etc.
That we do not have direct data from eons ago adds to the uncertainty of the problem. How can one be sure that current condtions are abnormal when we are uncertain of the norm?
-
The climate is changing.
Ain`t that a real news flash.
Let`s see.........the best we can tell it has only done that since................well as far back as we can tell.
I suspect it will continue to do so just as it always has despite all the whining on the BBS. :D
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
The climate is changing.
Ain`t that a real news flash.
Let`s see.........the best we can tell it has only done that since................well as far back as we can tell.
I suspect it will continue to do so just as it always has despite all the whining on the BBS. :D
Good thing humans are a climate-adapting species! :D
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
The Earth is estimated to be around 4 billion years old, give or take a couple of birthdays, if you asked the Earth she'd probably say 29... anyhow. So 200 years of weather observation, data collected from weather satellites for the last 50 years, data drawn from surveys for the last what (60 years or so) and then saying you understand a 4 billion year old planet and weather system is any better? I dont see it, I would say There is no where near enough collected data on Earth's weather and global cycles to make the statement that Earth is warming up due to any activity. It maybe be warming up but I dont think we really understand why...
What is particulary funny to me is using that argument to discount the intrepation of the Mars data but ignoring that argument when discussing the Earth's data
People like you and lazs proves we need a better education system. If you don't know for sure how can you turn it around and reject global warming all together?
I'm no tree hugger but I'm not a scientist either so I would think if you don't know the answer to something you wouldn't argue against it so much.
-
Originally posted by parker00
People like you and lazs proves we need a better education system. If you don't know for sure how can you turn it around and reject global warming all together?
I'm no tree hugger but I'm not a scientist either so I would think if you don't know the answer to something you wouldn't argue against it so much.
Your point is wasted when you attack the poster and not the subject.
My opinion hasn't changed much after reviewing literally hundreds of documents on the subject over the past 5 years: Climate Change (formerly known as "Global Warming"..recently changed to "Climate Change" to protect egs since its possible that scientists are wrong) is happening. Is it cyclic? Yes. Are humans the sole reason for it? No. Do humans contribute to it? Yes, but to think we're the sole reason for it is arrogance in its finest human form. Thankfully we're an adaptive species. Some of the food chain below us may not be, but the species on this planet have changed before, and they will continue to change, evovle, become extinct and new species will evolve.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Your point is wasted when you attack the poster and not the subject.
My opinion hasn't changed much after reviewing literally hundreds of documents on the subject over the past 5 years: Climate Change (reduced name from "Global Warming" to protect the possibility that scientists are wrong) is happening. Is it cyclic? Yes. Are humans the sole reason for it? No. Do humans contribute to it? Yes, but to think we're the sole reason for it is arrogance in its finest human form.
That's ok, wouldn't a made difference anyways. I just wanted to point out that for no one really knowing what causes it for sure it's just as stupid to say it's not us as it is to say it is us with any certainty.
-
look hand wringers... call me stupid... call me a witch and a blasphemer of your new religion/politic..
Point is... people on these boards are not stupid.. you aren't making your case.
and why is that? well.. I say it is that you have no case...no real hard facts.. if you did they would have come out by now. but it is more than that...
it is your dishonesty.. the "it's too important to tell the truth about" attitude that is obvious. This is the real problem with the left.. which oddly ... seem to be the ones in the man made warming camp.
Take those two things and apply em to the new chart... the one no one ever seen until.. until the nay sayer ubeliever traitor scientists said... "hey, it just may be that it's....."
ITS THE SUN STUPID
At this point the true believers suddenly study the sun and know all about it..
yesterday they didn't even know or admit (ignrorance or dishonesty) about the sun doing anything.. they said yesterday that the suns "brightness" had not changed for eons... now...
today.. they admit what? it is 25%? 50%? I got a better idea.. why not admit that they either never looked before (ignorance) or ignored the data (dishonesty)
They claim they know enough to make everyone change their lifestyle but convieniently have ignored or lied about 25-100% of the real problem.
Why should we trust these guys when the more we learn the more we see they are not telling the truth or that they don't know as much as they claim.
And how bout those answers? WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE US DO?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
look hand wringers... call me stupid... call me a witch and a blasphemer of your new religion/politic..
Point is... people on these boards are not stupid.. you aren't making your case.
and why is that? well.. I say it is that you have no case...no real hard facts.. if you did they would have come out by now. but it is more than that...
it is your dishonesty.. the "it's too important to tell the truth about" attitude that is obvious. This is the real problem with the left.. which oddly ... seem to be the ones in the man made warming camp.
Take those two things and apply em to the new chart... the one no one ever seen until.. until the nay sayer ubeliever traitor scientists said... "hey, it just may be that it's....."
ITS THE SUN STUPID
At this point the true believers suddenly study the sun and know all about it..
yesterday they didn't even know or admit (ignrorance or dishonesty) about the sun doing anything.. they said yesterday that the suns "brightness" had not changed for eons... now...
today.. they admit what? it is 25%? 50%? I got a better idea.. why not admit that they either never looked before (ignorance) or ignored the data (dishonesty)
They claim they know enough to make everyone change their lifestyle but convieniently have ignored or lied about 25-100% of the real problem.
Why should we trust these guys when the more we learn the more we see they are not telling the truth or that they don't know as much as they claim.
And how bout those answers? WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE US DO?
lazs
There was no smoking gun or hard facts that supported us going to war with Iraq yet to this day you still support it don't you? You just have to look at the evidence that is given and come up with your own conclusions and if you would stop only using evidence that says it's not happening then you might get the entire story. Look at all your post you have ever written and its obvious you don't even listen to what the left has say so how can you say you get the full story? I'm not saying the left is right or wrong but 99% of the time you have to take what the left says and then compare it to what the right says and the truth is usually in the middle because they both stretch the truth to support their cause.
-
well... now we are getting desperate aren't we?
just what are my views on iraq in your opinion?
Even if they were wrong... how would that make me not praying to your man made global warming religion not a good thing? Would I have to be right 100% of the time on every subject in order to be right about one so little understood and so emotion filled and dishonest as man made global warming?
This just seems so typical of the left. all nicey nice and hippy trippy until someone doesn't agree and then... a scorned woman looks tame compared to their hissy fits.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well... now we are getting desperate aren't we?
just what are my views on iraq in your opinion?
Even if they were wrong... how would that make me not praying to your man made global warming religion not a good thing? Would I have to be right 100% of the time on every subject in order to be right about one so little understood and so emotion filled and dishonest as man made global warming?
This just seems so typical of the left. all nicey nice and hippy trippy until someone doesn't agree and then... a scorned woman looks tame compared to their hissy fits.
lazs
Who just threw the hissy fit? Talking about praying to some new religion or playing nicey nice? Just like I said before, dismiss everything someone says if it doesn't fit your argument.
What I'm trying to say and point out is that it is stupid to believe in something so strongly that you can't even begin to prove one way or the other yet you make comments like:
"Would I have to be right 100% of the time on every subject in order to be right about one so little understood and so emotion filled and dishonest as man made global warming?"
-
are you saying that man made global warming is very well understood? that there is no agenda? How do you explain that they never even brought up the sun until it was too big an elephant in the room to hide anymore?
dishonest things like "the suns brightness has not changed to any significant amount in eons" Now they admit that it "might" be 25% of the warming... sheesh.. it is most likely 99% of the warming.
lazs
-
Maybe you ought to read the IPCC reports before you try to debunk them?
6.11 Solar Forcing of Climate (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/244.htm)
25% due to solar forcing (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/448.htm)
-
ahh... so now they admit that there is some "influence" from solar forcing and....
They can put a number on it! unlike co2 that for some reason they can't put a number on oddly enough. They mention that volcanoes might have some effect too... no number.
How many other natural things are there that they are not looking at and haven't put a number to?
I say man made contribution due to co2 is 2% give me a better number.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
are you saying that man made global warming is very well understood? that there is no agenda? How do you explain that they never even brought up the sun until it was too big an elephant in the room to hide anymore?
dishonest things like "the suns brightness has not changed to any significant amount in eons" Now they admit that it "might" be 25% of the warming... sheesh.. it is most likely 99% of the warming.
lazs
No, I'm saying I don't know. I'm saying because I don't know, I will listen and keep an open mind to both sides instead of just flat out rejecting the other sides argument. Man may not be the cause at all but I'm sure we don't help slow it down if we do affect it. You on the other side know for sure since you keep repeating "ITS THE SUN STUPID". In reality though we just don't have enough data to go by to say one way or the other.
-
Originally posted by AKH
Maybe you ought to read the IPCC reports before you try to debunk them?
6.11 Solar Forcing of Climate (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/244.htm)
25% due to solar forcing (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/448.htm)
If this was to me, I haven't rejected anything.
-
I would have an open mind on the thing too if the left had not lied about it so much... if they had not made statements to the effect that "it is too important to allow differing opinions on"
stuff like that.. if they were open minded and were acting like real scientists instead of grundgingly admitting something here and there when backed into a corner.
I think it is clear to anyone who is willing to look that the left has exaggerated and lied many times and that the scientists have missled us on purpose... claiming knowledge they do not posses.
I am suspicious.
If someone says....
ITS THE SUN STUPID
enough times...and I am speaking of the few honest scientists not me, then the religious left ends up having to at least look into it.
I believe that if we did not protest they would say more and more outrageous things every day... I think anyone who is honest knows this to be true... it has already happened.. they have said stuff like the ocean will rise 100 ft in the next few decades and that the ice caps are melting or that we are losing total ice cap even tho 90% is in the south and it is thickening.
look at the anger directed at me... it is that way everywhere. No debate is allowed.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I would have an open mind on the thing too if the left had not lied about it so much... if they had not made statements to the effect that "it is too important to allow differing opinions on"
stuff like that.. if they were open minded and were acting like real scientists instead of grundgingly admitting something here and there when backed into a corner.
I think it is clear to anyone who is willing to look that the left has exaggerated and lied many times and that the scientists have missled us on purpose... claiming knowledge they do not posses.
I am suspicious.
If someone says....
ITS THE SUN STUPID
enough times...and I am speaking of the few honest scientists not me, then the religious left ends up having to at least look into it.
I believe that if we did not protest they would say more and more outrageous things every day... I think anyone who is honest knows this to be true... it has already happened.. they have said stuff like the ocean will rise 100 ft in the next few decades and that the ice caps are melting or that we are losing total ice cap even tho 90% is in the south and it is thickening.
look at the anger directed at me... it is that way everywhere. No debate is allowed.
lazs
Are you that brainwashed from the right to realize you are the exact same thing for them that you hate about the left? Like I said before, you have to take what the right says and then compare it to what the left is saying and the truth is somewhere in between.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ahh... so now they admit that there is some "influence" from solar forcing and....
Now? That report was published in 2001 :lol
They can put a number on it! unlike co2 that for some reason they can't put a number on oddly enough. They mention that volcanoes might have some effect too... no number.
Try reading the report.
How many other natural things are there that they are not looking at and haven't put a number to?
Try reading the report.
I say man made contribution due to co2 is 2% give me a better number.
lazs
I say the moon is made of cheese - prove me wrong.
-
Originally posted by parker00
If this was to me, I haven't rejected anything.
No, it was for lazs benefit.
-
Originally posted by AKH
Now? That report was published in 2001 :lol
Try reading the report.
Try reading the report.
I say the moon is made of cheese - prove me wrong.
Please tell me you aren't one of those loons that believe we don't in fact have in our posession a sample of exactly what the moon is made of.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Please tell me you aren't one of those loons that believe we don't in fact have in our posession a sample of exactly what the moon is made of.
No, I'm not - just getting into lazs' style of debate :)
-
Hehehe, Jacka1:
"The climate is changing.
Ain`t that a real news flash."
It was to you a few months ago.....
-
Originally posted by john9001
it is summer, in pittsburgh this morning it is eight degrees above freezing.
Woah woah woah. Stop the presses! john9001 has just made a discovery of immense scientific importance, which casts serious doubts on the so-called "global warming theory"! Someone call MENSA, I'll get ahold of the Nobel committee.
-
Originally posted by Dadano
The world does not revolve around you. It revolves around us.
No, it just revolves around the Sun. The world doesn't give a damn about anybody.
-
Originally posted by Stang
Isn't the universe only like 6,000 years old?
I thought man walked with the dinosars, so couldn't we ask them?
:confused:
:lol
Stang, it isn't "dinosars", it's "behemoths". Didn't you learn anything from those Ken Ham vids?
And we can't ask the dinosaurs. They ate fruits and berries in Eden, but they couldn't talk any better than Chewbacca. Those big sharp teeth kept getting in the way. We'll have to ask Fred Flintstone instead. He would probably have something to say about our "internal combustion engines" and "rubber tires". Kids these days.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The data before 1800 comes fom tree rings, ice cores, etc.
That we do not have direct data from eons ago adds to the uncertainty of the problem. How can one be sure that current condtions are abnormal when we are uncertain of the norm?
Sorry ?
You want make a comparison with data measured another way ???
If you can interrelate It simply don't work,it's not statistic it's metrology.
-
Originally posted by straffo
....,it's not statistic it's metrology.
What's the average temperature for your town this time of year?
Answer without using statistics.
-
Icecores, tree rings, fossils, soil & seeds, and in later history human accounts is the core of what we have about the climate in ancient times.
Oddly enough, some folks from the warming-denialist camp have been mocking the scientific effort to gather information.
As for the average temp in various places, where I live it is uppedy-up. So are the plants that we can suddenly grow outside. We're even growing plants that didn't thrive in the warm medival period.
By the way, to analyse what was actually being grown in medieval times up here, a team of scientists has been looking into soil from canals etc, - ash layers from volcanic eruptions give us a very good and "striped" calendar down into the earth. So, they look for seeds from certain depth. Accounts of Barley and Rhye being grown are now backed up, but today we are doing wheat. In ICELAND!
-
I did read the report.. are you saying that no new data on the sun has come out since 2001? that they knew that at the very least 25% of the global warming was caused by a small amount of the suns effect that they studied but they haven't felt it worth looking into more since then?
they dismiss volcanoes as... as what? don't even put a number on that one... other forces of nature? no numbers..
Man made co2... no number there either so far as amount it is making the globe hotter... just "significant" that is real scientific isn't it? significant can be parts per billion if you have none and then add a couple parts per billion... that does not mean it is a danger.
If the temp has gone up 1 degree in the last century... if it is going to go up one degree (taking for granted the suns activity will continue to contibute as will all the other natural contributors) by that logic... if we all slit our throats today....
The very most we could do would be to drop temps about half to 3/4 of a degree.
If solar activity goes down as it always has... in the next century we will see a global cooling... far worse for man than warming... we may help slow the cooling by half a degree of so..
This is all if nature plays along and..... if "significant" means more than a few percent of the global warming we are seeing. It means that "if" we don't find out that the sun really is causing more than the 7 year old study says... it means if.. if we don't spend all our resources on worrying about the red herring of man made co2 and really start studying natural effects.
The reason the left is so desperate is because they know the sun will go into a natural cooling cycle soon... their whole sky is falling scenario will implode... they will be laughing stocks like they allways are when it comes to doomsday scenarios they come up with.. like the last ice age of the 1990's.
And.. to be cynical... winter will come. talking about the planet heating up doesn't scare people who pay $500 a month to heat their home in february.
lazs
-
the solution to potential global warming from man made causes has become evident to me. all you people living outside of the United States should immediate discontinue utilizing our resources. quit driving your little beep beep beep cars, quit utilizing our inventions such as electricity and most importantly quit breathing our air. I'm fairly confident that if you others will follow these simple instructions the problem will immediately go away.
-
Originally posted by LambChop
LOL! I bet Angus spends more on heat in Iceland than you do in California.
angus heats his igloo with govt provided geothermal heat, don't you know anything about iceland?
-
it is the sun and now all of you outlanders. you guys need to do the right thing. c'mon step up to the plate and do your bit for Amer...er the world, ya the world, the planet, ya the planet that's it. c'mon do what those clever rodents up your way do.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I did read the report.. are you saying that no new data on the sun has come out since 2001? that they knew that at the very least 25% of the global warming was caused by a small amount of the suns effect that they studied but they haven't felt it worth looking into more since then?
You may have read it, but it appears that you had some difficulty understanding the material, or you would not take the phrase "direct effect of variations in solar forcing over the 20th century was about 20 to 25% of the change in forcing due to increases in the well-mixed greenhouse gases" to mean "at the very least 25%."
Are you saying that new data changes everything? If so, please provide your source(s).
they dismiss volcanoes as... as what? don't even put a number on that one... other forces of nature? no numbers..
Man made co2... no number there either so far as amount it is making the globe hotter... just "significant" that is real scientific isn't it? significant can be parts per billion if you have none and then add a couple parts per billion... that does not mean it is a danger.
The numbers are there, if you care to look for them. Volcanic emissions are approximately 0.15Gt/year compared to anthopogenic sources being approximately 7Gt/year.
This is all if nature plays along and..... if "significant" means more than a few percent of the global warming we are seeing. It means that "if" we don't find out that the sun really is causing more than the 7 year old study says... it means if.. if we don't spend all our resources on worrying about the red herring of man made co2 and really start studying natural effects.
What natural effects are being ignored?
The reason the left is so desperate is because they know the sun will go into a natural cooling cycle soon... their whole sky is falling scenario will implode... they will be laughing stocks like they allways are when it comes to doomsday scenarios they come up with.. like the last ice age of the 1990's.
It's amusing that you feel the need to put a political spin on the subject. I wonder if you do so in order to feel more confident burying your head in the sand and ignoring the leftist, metrosexual climate scientists?
What ice age are you rambling about?
Nice to see that you have dropped the sun worship mantra though, even if only temporarily.
-
LambChop
The Acid Ocean – the Other Problem with CO2 Emission (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-acid-ocean-the-other-problem-with-cosub2sub-emission/)
-
Found a great documentary site with a good one on the theory of global dimming. Check it out here (http://best.online.docus.googlepages.com/).
-
Regarding the sun, and as pointed out many times before, one needs a certain amount of greenhouse effect for this planet to be comfortable.
You know how the temp drops once you are above the earths atmosphere, - even on a sunny day.
As for the global dimming, that is a known factor. Is that the one Lazs is referring to as the iceage prediction?
-
Originally posted by Angus
As for the global dimming, that is a known factor. Is that the one Lazs is referring to as the iceage prediction?
I think Lazs' refererence to the ice age prediction is with regard to the 1970's predictions based on the 1940 to 1970 drop in global average temperatures.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The data before 1800 comes fom tree rings, ice cores, etc.
That we do not have direct data from eons ago adds to the uncertainty of the problem. How can one be sure that current condtions are abnormal when we are uncertain of the norm?
I noticed you didn't really understood my previous post, I was trying to point that you cannot/shouldn't compare data acquired by different mean.
That's all.
-
Originally posted by straffo
I noticed you didn't really understood my previous post, I was trying to point that you cannot/shouldn't compare data acquired by different mean.
That's all.
Okay...
So you must disagree with the crux of the Global Warming argument, as all data prior to Mr. Fahrenheits invention was gathered by different means than is common today.
-
I neither agree nor disagree ,I don't know if global warming is a hoax or not,from human origin or not.
All I know is "principe de précaution" (Precautionary principle) : in doubt I try to not influence in the bad direction.
-
"principe de précaution" I agree with.
What I disagree with is the move afoot to label all GW skeptics as kooks: and by some strange parallel, many of those who label GW skeptics as kooks take umbrage with GW Bush supporters saying if you disagree with the President, you are tantamount to being treasonous.
-
Skepticism is always a good thing. Labelling anyone who sees merit in some of the arguments that global climate change exists and is, at least in part, due to manmade factors as kooks, repeatedly claiming ITS THE SUN STUPID and relying on one BBC documentary as solid scientific proof which surpasses all others is just as silly.
-
lets get the debate parameters in line here folks... no one claims that the globe does not heat and cool in cycles... it even gets hotter and colder in a 24 hr period.
what I am saying is..
ITS THE SUN STUPID.
I am saying that the sun changes it's activity and the world follows.. volcanoes... all sorts of natural things work to change the planet... man has very little effect..
At first.. the "scientists" all said that it was co2 made by man...now they are backing off that.. they never gave a number... they can tell us that the suns activity causes 20-25% of the heating... and that volcanoes do another portion... all exact and dismally low numbers..
They leave the rest as... well... you have to assume the rest is man made due to... to what? Do they really think it is co2 still? co2 lags the heat.
I say that they don't really have a handle on the effects of the sun any more than they do anything else in nature so far as global climate change.
moray left because he had nothing... they oceans are heating... that releases methane (to put it simply) the sun is causing the ocean to warm and not hold as much co2 or methane. He stuck to the "co2 is causing the world to heat which is causing the ocean to heat which is.."
The ice age I refer to is the one 200 of the worlds best scientists predicted to happen by the late 1990's... they said the sun had nothing to do with it and that it was "man made dust particles" from smog that was causing it. To read about this event is deja vu all over again (so to speak).
Same scare tactics... same sure of themselves and same "what can it hurt" .
It can hurt a lot. If you destroy economies and create socialism then you might as well just fry. dead is dead.
but.. lets look at the pitiful data that the scientists will show us and that they think is happening... even by the best case scenario... if we all slit our throats today... we would only slow the inevitable...
ITS THE SUN STUPID...
By their own admission... the sun will simply take a three/four times as long to do the same thing they say we are doing... the sun and other natural forces will simply continue to do what it does at whatever rate.
If we go into a cooling cycle.. an ice age caused by the suns low activity..
Do you all think that we can stave it off with man made co2? maybe that is what we should be doing... maybe we need this head start on the coming ice age?
At least now people are admitting the whole thing is not understood.. that there has been a lot of bs from the man made camp..
politically? only a fool could not see that the left is the one pushing the man made portion. they do it in order to have more control.. it is a page out of the lefty playbook... create a crisis and then come up with a government solution.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
lets get the debate parameters in line here folks...
Yes, let's.
what I am saying is..
ITS THE SUN STUPID.
Reboot after CTD?
moray left because he had nothing... they oceans are heating... that releases methane (to put it simply) the sun is causing the ocean to warm and not hold as much co2 or methane. He stuck to the "co2 is causing the world to heat which is causing the ocean to heat which is.."
It's more likely that he left because he felt he might get more sense discussing this topic with a marine specimen than with "skeptics" like yourself.
The ice age I refer to is the one 200 of the worlds best scientists predicted to happen by the late 1990's... they said the sun had nothing to do with it and that it was "man made dust particles" from smog that was causing it. To read about this event is deja vu all over again (so to speak).
OK. Time to put your money where your mouth is, assuming that you can squeeze your wallet past your foot, that is. Cite one reference to a peer-reviewed scientific journal that supports your ice-age claim. This shouldn't be too difficult, if 200 of the world's best scientists predicted it, should it?
If you do not, then I would say there is a significant probability that you are full of it. Meanwhile, in the spirit of this "debate", I will give you some information to get you started.
Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/)
Regards
Hoopy
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hehehe, Jacka1:
"The climate is changing.
Ain`t that a real news flash."
It was to you a few months ago.....
Nope......not to me or anyone else. It has always changed...always will I suspect.
Up until recently it hasn`t been used as a money/control/political scam though.
It was to you a few months ago.....
This belongs as your statement btw, not included in a quote from me.
-
carbonic acid
Carbonic acid
Other names Carbon dioxide solution
Identifiers
CAS number [463-79-6]
SMILES C(=O)(O)O
Properties
Molecular formula H2CO3
Molar mass 62.03 g/mol
Density 1.0 g/cm3
(dilute solution)
Solubility in water exists only in solution
Acidity (pKa) 6.36 (see text)
10.25
Except where noted otherwise, data are given for
materials in their standard state
(at 25 ‹C, 100 kPa)
Infobox disclaimer and references
Carbonic acid (ancient name acid of air or aerial acid) has the formula H2CO3. It is also a name sometimes given to solutions of carbon dioxide in water, which contain small amounts of H2CO3. The salts of carbonic acids are called bicarbonates (or hydrogencarbonates) and carbonates. It is a weak acid.
Carbon dioxide dissolved in water is in equilibrium with carbonic acid:
CO2 + H2O ⇌ H2CO3
The equilibrium constant at 25‹C is Kh= 1.70~10−3: hence, the majority of the carbon dioxide is not converted into carbonic acid and stays as CO2 molecules. In the absence of a catalyst, the equilibrium is reached quite slowly. The rate constants are 0.039 s−1 for the forward reaction (CO2 + H2O ¨ H2CO3) and 23 s−1 for the reverse reaction (H2CO3 ¨ CO2 + H2O).
i are no scientist but it says "the majority of the carbon dioxide is not converted into carbonic acid and stays as CO2 molecules."
it seems the "bond" between co2 and h2o is a weak bond, which explains why when i pour my soda water into a glass all the co2 turns into bubbles and escapes the bond with h2o.
sorry, i need more proof the oceans are turning into carbonic acid and destroying the base of the food chain.
-
To be fair...lazs only "rubbishes" science that disagrees with him.
Show him a You-Tube video he agrees with and THAT is all fact.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Skepticism is always a good thing. Labelling anyone who sees merit in some of the arguments that global climate change exists and is, at least in part, due to manmade factors as kooks, repeatedly claiming ITS THE SUN STUPID and relying on one BBC documentary as solid scientific proof which surpasses all others is just as silly.
Indeed. It is certainly refreshing to hear all these people are talking about skepticism and rational thought. I just wish those who call for skepticism on this issue, would call for skepticism in all other areas as well.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i are no scientist but it says "the majority of the carbon dioxide is not converted into carbonic acid and stays as CO2 molecules."
it seems the "bond" between co2 and h2o is a weak bond, which explains why when i pour my soda water into a glass all the co2 turns into bubbles and escapes the bond with h2o.
Absolutely incredible. Not even a scientist, but still pumping out brilliant new discoveries. This level of science is obviously far above "marine biologists" such as Moray. How do you do it?
-
Originally posted by LambChop
[BSorry, I call BS on that. [/B]
"the majority of the carbon dioxide is not converted into carbonic acid and stays as CO2 molecules."
i see you can cut and paste, try reading.
-
Originally posted by john9001
sorry, i need more proof the oceans are turning into carbonic acid and destroying the base of the food chain.
Did you follow the link to the 68 page report?
Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13539)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted to the atmosphere by human activities is being absorbed by the oceans, making them more acidic (lowering the pH the measure of acidity).
Evidence indicates that emissions of carbon dioxide from human activities over the past 200 years have already led to a reduction in the average pH of surface seawater of 0.1 units and could fall by 0.5 units by the year 2100. This pH is probably lower than has been experienced for hundreds of millennia and, critically, at a rate of change probably 100 times greater than at any time over this period.
The report outlines our best understanding of the impacts of these chemical changes on the oceans. The impacts will be greater for some regions and ecosystems, and will be most severe for coral reefs and the Southern Ocean. The impacts of ocean acidification on other marine organisms and ecosystems are much less certain. We recommend a major international research effort be launched into this relatively new area of research.
We recommend that action needs to be taken now to reduce global emissions of CO2 from human activities to the atmosphere to avoid the risk of irreversible damage from ocean acidification.
-
I quit posting this board simply because any argument I put forth is bereft of any understanding by certain people who continuously ask for "proof", and yet can't even understand basic science that my C level undergrads are whistling through. I won't begin to touch with "A" level science here.
This is a problem that many of my colleagues are frustrated with, and it stems from the mantra of our american educational system, at it's base level.
My own experience with this subject is limited by what I learn from colleagues in NOAA and other agencies. I will freely admit, I am not a climate scientist. My own miniscule piece of the puzzle suggests that the current theorem is proving itself. I've seen a rise in acidity over the past 10 years, when I was an undergrad to now. I know that right now, alot of people are frustrated in the sciences, and alot are scared. People with PhD's in multiple areas don't get scared about stuff until they do a whole lot of work. Even after they do all that work, they don't truly get scared until someone ELSE does that work and duplicates theirs. Alot of work is scaring ALOT of smart people, because it backs up one truth. I know in my work, that if this pace keeps going, there will definately be a collapse in the oceans in the future. Marine organisms don't tolerate pH fluctuations, they've never had to since the LAST big extinction. The oceans are the base of all ecosystems. They go... WE GO. There is no simpler way to put it. Quite a few of my colleagues already feel an extinction event is well underway... right under our feet. I've seen a definate homoginization on my reefs. Species I used to find aren't there in anywhere close to the same numbers. Sharks, for example. It's been close to 2 years since I've seen a requiem shark on some of my sites. But, I'm sure you will find a way to say this is a good thing.... I assure you, it is not.
Lazs, you will take pieces of what I said and post them to in some way back up your argument... your "cut and paste" machine. To say, "Oh see, He's this or that damn liberal" or whatever. You miss in so many ways. I, like most other scientists, don't give a damn about party politics or agendas. We don't get payed for ringing alarm bells... we get mocked, both in and outside of science, until the rest of the research starts to come in. Lasz, you continually appraise that there is an agenda... let me reaffirm it... SCIENCE HAS NO AGENDA. POLITICS has an agenda. In this case, the science is self-supporting. Do you consciously believe that ANYONE wants global climate change to be true?? You would have to be a conspiracy theorist beyond comprehension. In your famous "ice age" case, of the late 70's and 80's, there was NEVER any major consensus on the subject. In fact, it was one of the most hotly contested theories to be put forth. It never reached anything close to the 99.2% agreement that Global Warming has. But, then again, the glaciers never came.... but the daisies did start blooming in Alaska, and the bears never went into torpor (hibernation) in Russia last year.
I thought about starting to post links to papers and figured it wouldn't begin to help. You just can't understand what's being given to you. It's not your fault. I 'm sorry that I am unable to help you or your skeptical ilk anymore. I've got work to do.
It's nice to see that a few people are posting truly scientific things on here now. I found that reassuring. The truth is, sadly, that many people like you Lasz, feel that you are somehow smarter than everyone, and generally, you haven't even begun to touch any level of education. You blazed right through my posts picking what you could to support somehow, your derelict argument. At least 7 different posters put up real scientific information that you refuse to even consider. You are, as a blind man in an archery contest.... firing off into the darkness, hoping for a hit.
ITS THE SUN PLUS IGNORANCE, STUPID
My apologies for such a long winded post.
-
Originally posted by LambChop
ALL the CO2 in your glass turns into bubbles and escapes? How do you know that ALL the CO2 escapes? Have you done a litmus test to determine the pH of the water? I think you'll find that bottled soda water is under pressure, and that pressure forces more CO2 into the water than could be sustained at normal atmospheric pressure. Just because you don't see as many bubbles after a few minutes does not mean there's no CO2 in the water. Or are you saying that carbonic acid can exist only at pressures higher than normal atmospheric pressure?
Sorry, I call BS on that.
Lambchop passed chem 1, i would venture to guess. He is right. Pressure is the mitigating circumstance in this reaction.
-
i did not read a 68 page report on pseudoscience.
i did do a search on carbonic acid.
"the majority of the carbon dioxide is not converted into carbonic acid and stays as CO2 molecules."
-
A fine English education at work.
:aok
But, lazs was pretty good at making meth (self professed), so he must know a wee bit about chemistry.
-
moray.. that was a fine speech.. thank you.. brought a tear to my eye.
Thing is.. no one is saying that we are not in a global warming cycle.. the sun is heating the oceans. That much is true. they can't hold as much co2 when they are heated. that is also true.
That does not by any means mean that man made co2 is driving the heating of the planet.. you simply assume that and then give a disaster scenario based on that.
As for the science... show me one time that science has been right about global disaster predictions... running out of oil by the year 1990.... the ice age of 1990... the nuclear winter caused by the oil fields in kuwait burning... The "population bomb" name one time they were right on.
The majority of the scientist did indeed believe an ice age was coming and they blamed it on man according to everything I can find on the subject.. they even called a conference and 200 of the most prestigious met to talk about the problem and it's solutions.. sound familiar?
scientists are getting grants up the wazoo for studying anything they can think of so long as they add the words "man made global warming" on to it. Are you saying scientists don't thrive off these grants?
It is nice that you guys are admitting finally tho that... at least to a large (dare I say "significant" amount......
ITS THE SUN STUPID.
lazs
-
i think what is important to me, nelson and lasersailor is will the increased acidity affect the hulls of our boats?
and on a broader scale will the increased acidity kill off the infamous zebra mussel that has infected the great lakes and the mississippi river and is causing disruptions of power plants and water supplies?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The majority of the scientist did indeed believe an ice age was coming and they blamed it on man according to everything I can find on the subject.. they even called a conference and 200 of the most prestigious met to talk about the problem and it's solutions.. sound familiar?
Not one citation. No links, no names, no dates, no locations. No surprise.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i did not read a 68 page report on pseudoscience.
:rolleyes:
i did do a search on carbonic acid.
Excellent, and you managed to get as far as Wikipedia. Unfortunately, your rigour did not extend to noticing the link at the bottom of that very page: Ocean acidification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification)
Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by their uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of -0.075)
:rofl
-
Originally posted by AKH
:rolleyes:
Excellent, and you managed to get as far as Wikipedia. Unfortunately, your rigour did not extend to noticing the link at the bottom of that very page: Ocean acidification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification)
:rofl
it was not wikipickya.:p
and no one has answered my question, should i build a swimming pool or buy a snow plow? What do the scientists say?
-
Post the linky and I'll answer your question :)
-
I read the report. It was long, nicely written, and to the average uninitiated lesser mortal who is not part of the titled or inner understanding circle of "SCIENCE" a snore.
1. They said with great authority that we is boned but they leave lotsa ways out because they also said with great authority their data could possibly be flawed to some degree.
2. They said with great authority that the PH process in the ocean is boned and organisims that rely on the process for creating calcium based parts of themselves are boned. But then they gave themselves lots of wiggly room just incase the organisms are listening and adapt and overcome.
3. They said with great authority that this paper is to the best of their knowlege BUT it possibly could be wrong, BUT not to go with that MORE research is definatly in order. But we is boned and the worst part will show up by 2100. But it might not but we is boned.
4. They said with greater AUTHORITY that much more research is necessary to determine if in fact we is boned and just how bad we is boned.
In conclusion it was a good paper to which no one was going to bet their life and name on but were willing to give their best analysis to date of the available information. We is boned and we is not boned but if you want the definitive boning answer give us more money and toys and we will give you another update some day to how much we might be boned. But we already did the worst boning part but wont definitivly know squat untill maybe 2100.........:noid
-
I have linked to the ice age of the 90's before but..
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/iceage.htm
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=bdc24964-7f82-4f7a-863c-f0ff43010278
and of course... the infamous time magazine article that I recall reading..
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=bdc24964-7f82-4f7a-863c-f0ff43010278
note the similarities in the hysteria and dire predictions of doom.. the "majority of scientists" the "this has never happened before and it is all because of man" the "only one degree cooler will spell the end of life as we know it" hysteria and the "if this trend continues for 100 years or so.. it is the end"
same old same old.. the sun and other acts of nature were ignored and focus was on man made, in this case particulants... whole scenarios for disaster were laid out 100 or more years... nothing taking into account natural changes in the suns activity...
They refused to admit back then that....
ITS THE SUN STUPID.
what is going on today? same thing really... no one says that half a degree warming is a bad thing if it happens in 30 years and then goes down a degree in the next thirty... what they are saying is that the sun and other things are not a part of it... that the sun will stay constant and that something...anything.. that man is doing will make the temp continue to rise no matter what. If the suns activity goes down as it allways has and always will... we will be facing another ice age if you use their computer models that don't take into account the sun.
the sun is heating the oceans.. the ph will drop.. 0.075 of a point.. do you know what the range of ph is between all the oceans? I bet moray does.
do you know what the range was for the last 10,000 years of even one body?
If the sun goes into a cooling cycle we may see PH go up 0.1 does that mean the ocean will go into a cooling crises?
Has not the ocean changed over the eons? the ph certainly has... much more than a fraction of a point.
lazs
-
It's not just the sun stupid.
Oh, but why ask, it ain't warming at all.
Or?
Spring in the Arctic is arriving "weeks earlier" than a decade ago, a team of Danish researchers have reported. Linkie:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6763511.stm
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I have linked to the ice age of the 90's before but..
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/iceage.htm
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=bdc24964-7f82-4f7a-863c-f0ff43010278
and of course... the infamous time magazine article that I recall reading..
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=bdc24964-7f82-4f7a-863c-f0ff43010278
So the Sunday Mail, the Business and Media Institute, the Financial Post and Time are peer-reviewed scientific journals? Surely you could find references more substantive than these if your claim was true?
-
Lambchop
Has planet earth ever stopped supporting life since it's surface became hospitable to life? Will life on earth come to its absolute end because of the current state of CO2 as you have decided is a canary to impending doom?
I am not in awe and reverence of scientists as you present yourself. I do not lack for the cognitive ability to understand scientific arcania. I refuse to live my life in fear because a scientist or group of scientists theorise the possibility of the end to life as we know it. Computer models of future climate and environmental possibilities become exponetially flawed the farthur out in time they try to model. Just the same as the farther back in time they attempt to extrapolate. The planet itself won't cooperate from day to day.
I'm not hearing anything unexpected if you remember 12th grade biology from the generation I went to school with. But I'm also not hearing anything but business as usual to roll over and play dead because we are scientists and know better than you so give us your hard earned money because your life style is killing the planet and we need your money more than you do to save it from you.
All of these scenarios in my lifetime have been the same. Scientists propose a theory of a world wide catastrophic potential. Scientists point their fingers directly at we the human beings as the reason the world will end. Scientists try to convince us that we ARE TOO STOOPID to understand or qualified to question them. Scientists demand us to give them money to prove their theory of world doom because it's our fault the planet is in this mess. They show up again in 10-20 years with a new catastrophy and won't talk about what happened with the old catastrophy.
And the reason we gave them all the money for the last catastrophy is because of legions of our fellow humans like your self who shouted I cannot take the chance the world will end. If a scientist says it's true, thats good enough for me. Sounds like the catholic church in medevil europe. Pope says the world is going to end on day, month, year and hour unless you give more in the sunday plate........
-
Originally posted by bustr
If a scientist says it's true, thats good enough for me. Sounds like the catholic church in medevil europe. Pope says the world is going to end on day, month, year and hour unless you give more in the sunday plate........
Here's the difference between a scientist and a priest.
1) The scientist works with evidence, the priest does not.
2) A scientist's theories are subject to scrutiny. A priest's "certainties" are not.
3) The criticism and review of a scientific theory is itself also subject to scrutiny. Yet scrutiny is welcomed, and good counter-evidence is welcomed especially because in the scientific view even a disproof of a cherished theory means our knowledge has been advanced. Obviously none of this joy in and desire for intellectual honesty applies to religion.
4) After something has been peer-reviewed enough, we can have some degree of confidence that we can make decisions based on the theory. We can't be 100% sure, but we do our best. This admission of imperfection is something that is quite alien to religion.
You might not be qualified to properly comment on a proposed theory. That doesn't mean you are dumb or that you don't have cognitive ability. While intellectual honesty and rational thought and skepticism and logic are big parts of science, to actually be a scientist you also have to have knowledge and experience. For example, do you think you could comment on any new theories in quantum electrodynamics? Even though you have plenty of cognition and intelligence, I would wager that you would not feel qualified to pronounce judgements in that field.
-
When it comes to this point in human and geopolitical history, for the first time in my long life, concerning the theory of man made global warming I do not trust scientists to not be acting like christian monk sects in the middle ages and basing their continued existance along personal ideological and fiduciary lines.
A scientist is a human being. Geopoliticaly, socitaly and culturaly the stakes over global warming are too high for them not to be influenced. Global Warming is being turned into a "GO" move to make one more move towards global governance. If we can be made to believe we are too selfish, unenlightened and simply too many of us now, and look the proof is global warming. Maybe we can be stampeded by the old working formula of fear and guilt to demand we be saved from ourselves by those who have convinced us they are superior and enlightened by having identified the problem. And who may those titans of humanity be? Those scientists who told us we created global warming. But again the scientist will be managed by buracrats sorta like the EU..........But they will be the scientists who were true believers in the theory of man made global warming. All other scientists will be defrocked for herasy. Kinda like midevil christian sects when power changed hands.
If it works scientists will be used for the last word in everything to the unwashed unenlightened masses who they will say caused the global warming catastrophy in the first place by OUR own greedy STOOPIDITY. Sorry I'm no sooner going to kiss the Popes tushy than I will yours because you sound so intellegent on this BBS or some person whos accident of birth was an IQ higher than my own.
When global warming graduated to a political ideology all scientists working with it became suspect. The Greeks also sounded very reasonable when the came baring gifts.
-
i don't want another ice age, the thought of hundreds of thousands of Canadians fleeing the massive ice caps and coming to Florida gives me the chills (pun), i don't want to hear "so have some more beers you hoser, eh".
or if they are from Quebec "ayez ainsi encore plus de bières vous hoser, hein"
-
Originally posted by bustr
A scientist is a human being.
Indeed, that is why science was created--to try to make up for the fact that, as individuals, we are imperfect semi-rational biased mammals. It has done a pretty good job so far.
Originally posted by bustr
If we can be made to believe we are too selfish, unenlightened and simply too many of us now, and look the proof is global warming. Maybe we can be stampeded by the old working formula of fear and guilt to demand we be saved from ourselves by those who have convinced us they are superior and enlightened by having identified the problem.
Step off the horse. Your "argument" applies equally to both sides. If there was a scientist who said "global warming is bollocks", you and a bunch of others would be kissing his bellybutton and feeding him money and power and respect. In fact, didn't somebody in this thread quote the new NASA chief saying something of the sort?
Peer-reviewed science is the best tool we have to understand our world. It is specifically designed to be self-correcting in dealing with the problems you mention. Aside from your own individual bias on this particular issue, I don't see any reason to think that we are at some catastrophic breakdown of the scientific process.
-
You forget, all scientists with ties to it either way now have become suspect when global warming became a world wide political ideology. When that line was passed scientists stopped being "innocent titans of virtue".
All of us unenlightened monkeys should be running a borascope up any scientists kester now who presents anything one way or another over global warming to make sure the world isnt about to get cosmicly boned by the unintened consiqunces of a theory.
Scientists have the unintended consiquence of enabling mass manipulations of cultural and societal direction with only theories. They have the unintended consiquence of enabling governments to pass agenda based laws whos only benifits are to the government by growing its personel numbers, increaseing taxes and granting itself more control over the unwashed masses lives based on the "theory" so as to protect the masses from some nebulous doom that might happen based on a "theory".
I'm not on a high enough horse. People in general allow themselves to be cowed by persons with titles, degrees, positions of authority and well articulated communication skills. Con Men know this aspect of the human mind and cow the unwashed unintelligent masses out of their hard earned money.
Don't sell me scientists as a protected class of humanity because they toil for the higher good. Scientists are trying to sell this planet on a world class theory that can have unforseen consiquences to human rights and personal freedom in the name of saving the world from us the unwashed masses who scientists have once again determined we have screwed the planet. I love how scientists are blaming us. Man Made Global Warming. It grants them such elevated unchallanged legitamicy over the masses. Funny exactly how the legitimacy of any ideologies priesthood is established and maintained.
-
Originally posted by bustr
I'm not on a high enough horse. People in general allow themselves to be cowed by persons with titles, degrees, positions of authority and well articulated communication skills. Con Men know this aspect of the human mind and cow the unwashed unintelligent masses out of their hard earned money.
I am happy to see you display such a healthy sense of skepticism. Really.
Originally posted by bustr
Don't sell me scientists as a protected class of humanity because they toil for the higher good.
I wasn't. Read my post again. With comprehension this time, please. :)
Originally posted by bustr
Funny exactly how the legitimacy of any ideologies priesthood is established and maintained.
Are you religious?
-
No I'm against world class con jobs.
No one in the west or much of the rest of the world is against technology or alternative energy sources. But no one is for accepting any motion backwards from their current level of basic expectations where daily energy requirments as a direct indicator of their quality of life is concerned.
Man made global warming is being blamed on us the unwashed masses and our expectations for energy use. The increase in our population to energy use can be shown to grow with the increased amounts of CO2 in the last 200 years if you want to interprit the data that way. But that helps with casting fear and guilt on those masses to stampede them to not think but want the "It" fixed.
Numbers of forcasts show the world going to heck at the least in about 40 years, but 2100 seems to be the safe target so no one will be alive who started all this garbage. It seems the energy usage forcasts are not accounting for the real fact about us humans that we will develop more efficient energy sources, technologies and probably have moved into hydrogen. World populations will be on the decline as more emerging world peoples quality of life improves and their women want educations over making babies.
We are not going to kill the planet in the next 40-50 years due to our energy consumption addictions pumping out CO2. Nature will be controling it indirectly just like population booms of animals eventualy decline dramaticly due to diaseas and starvation. In our case educated women don't want to reproduce on the levels their less educated sisters do.
But this is a situation ripe for a con job. The 21st century is supposed to become the new dawn of the age of secular humanity and scientific reason. This age wants to be a technocracy with a global ruling body if Man Made Global Warming can be leveraged to scare the unwashed masses into calling for the world elite to save them from the possibility of global doom a century away. (Ocracies always have a body of acoloyts to maintain and defend them. Usualy called priests. We used to call them religions.)
Technology, mass media and the internet are doing a 24x7 propaganda blitz on the world. The last 2 generations of first world school children have been indoctrinated to worship mother earth and science as the savior of all that is good. The only thing standing in the way is the baby boomer generation. Over the next 40 years we boomers will all die off. Populations will decline and all the current politicians and world egalitarians(scientists) of my generation will be in the ground and no one will remember what the bullshine was all about. This is how a great Con job works. The mark never nows it happened. Unless another con is watching..........
-
The planet has gone very close to that. Now we must of course test out what it can do with a little push :D
-
akh.. so the link you show is nothing more than a huge excuse...it is a klinton style... "it depends on how you define is" thing.. hundreds of scientists.. leaders in their field thought that man made particulate matter was going to cause an ice age. co2 was rising but.. the suns activity was low...
Suns activity increased and the ice age went away...man made particulate matter suddenly was nothing compared to the sun... now.. it is man made co2 driving the temps... the sun is ignored.. when the suns activity slows we will go into a cooling cycle and scientists will all pretend they didn't really say what they said about co2... they will point to the portions of their documents that say "we are not sure" and say..."see.. we never said absolutely that it would get hotter due to co2'
bustr says it much more elequently but... I have been around a while too... I have seen theories trotted out as fact and irrefuteable and worth "doing something" in the past.
Todays scientists talk with certainty about what will happen 100 years from now... as buster points out.... how could they have a clue? how could they model what they still don't understand fully or model progress in human knowledge?
scientists predicting disaster in 100 years? 100 years ago scientists felt that leeches were a good cure for people bleeding to death. 40 years ago they told me I was responsible for the next ice age in 1990.
I am more than skeptical... I look at their success rate for predicting doomsday scenarios... so far they have been right 0.0% of the time.. why should this be different? especially since they are using the same methods?
lazs
-
Lazs, again, without greenhouse effect, we'd have a worldwide ice age.
Same reason as Venus being warmer than Mercury, who is closer to the sun, - the difference being that mercury's highest temp doesn't touch Venuses mean temp. (100 min to 700 K max vs 730 as a mean, or basically 240 to 340 as a mean temp). So in short, one planet melts lead, while the one closest to the sun may sometimes promt comfortable tempereature.
As for the scientists, - they will never have any clue about what is to happen, if they do like you, - refuse anything, say anything is in vain anyway, and not think too much about it.
:p
-
angus.. without a certain level of suns activity we would have an ice age.
lazs
-
Originally posted by bustr
No I'm against world class con jobs.
OK, so you think religion is a "world class con job". Fair enough. Personally I agree that religion is completely false, but not a complete con job. Some people who spread religion are frauds, and others actually do believe it.
Now on global warming, do you have any particular reason to think it is a complete fraudulent scam, except for the fact that you disagree with its conclusions? Do you think that 99% of the scientists are knowingly colluding in a big lie in order to delude the "unwashed masses" and gain power? Science, remember, is different from religion. If some scientists have access to contrary data and analysis, they can publish their findings and those findings won't be ignored. People as high up as the director of NASA are saying global warming is false. So there's no big conspiracy here as you'd like to believe. There may very well be legitimate controversy with the findings, but you're not going to contribute to that with some off-the-cuff intuitive remarks.
Your posts, bustr, look a lot like some kind of demagogic Maoist propaganda. "Join the revolution! Overthrow the ruling intellectual elite!"
Originally posted by bustr
The last 2 generations of first world school children have been indoctrinated to worship mother earth and science as the savior of all that is good.
LMAO. Such a statement betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of what science is. It's like saying we "worship" constitutional democracy as a "divine right of rule". And I don't know about you, but it seems to me that far more kids these days are being homeschooled and indoctrinated into bronze-age myths at the explicit expense of science...and the rest of the kids don't give a damn about science anyway.
-
THIS JUST IN!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"China overtakes U.S. as top CO2 emitter: Dutch agency
Jun 20, 2007
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - China has overtaken the United States as the top emitter of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, because of surging energy use amid an economic boom, a Dutch government-funded agency said on Wednesday.
Other experts have estimated that China will only surpass the United States in coming years. The rise to number one emitter may put pressure on Beijing to do more to help a U.N.-led fight against global warming.
Top US stories
"China's 2006 carbon dioxide emissions surpassed those of the United States by 8 percent," the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency said in a statement. In 2005, it said China's emissions were 2 percent below those of the United States.
"With this, China tops the list of CO2 emitting countries for the first time," it said. Almost all scientists say rising amounts of carbon dioxide will bring more droughts, floods, desertification, heatwaves, disease and rising seas.
The report, based on data on energy use and cement production, reckoned China's carbon dioxide emissions totaled 6.2 billion metric tons in 2006. Of the total, 550 million tons was from cement, a main source of industrial emissions.
U.S. emissions totaled 5.8 billion metric tons last year, of which 50 million tons was from cement, it said. The report said the European Union was in third place on the ranking ahead of Russia, India and Japan.
The International Energy Agency (IEA), which advises rich nations, said in April China was likely to surpass the United States as the top carbon dioxide emitter in 2007 or 2008.
The Dutch agency said its data were based on fossil fuel use estimated by BP, cement data from the U.S. Geological Survey and energy use data until 2004 from the IEA. Carbon dioxide accounts for about 75 percent of greenhouse gases.
China's economy has registered double-digit growth for four years in a row and expanded by 11.1 percent in the first quarter compared to a year earlier due to booming investments and exports."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now hear this!
All Albore worshipers, Greenies and U.N. soothsayers will report to a China based forum immediately!
When you get them convinced, get back to us. :)
-
Nobody ever said on this board that Global Climate change was exclusively a US issue.....ever.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Now hear this!
All Albore worshipers, Greenies and U.N. soothsayers will report to a China based forum immediately!
When you get them convinced, get back to us. :)
They still blame the US, only now it's the United States fault for not setting an example for China....
-
Originally posted by soda72
They still blame the US, only now it's the United States fault for not setting an example for China....
You poor victims.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by lazs2
angus.. without a certain level of suns activity we would have an ice age.
lazs
Without greenhouseffect we could easily have much more sun and yet an iceage.
-
It's amazing, watching some people on these boards. Somehow, I'm not surprised.
On the China-US CO2 emissions...
Open up your head for a minute and ask yourself one question... how, could a country that is basically filled to the brim with poor people that live in the country...overtake the United States in CO2 production? (the United States still leads in per capita production.. 19.46 thousand metric tons/1000 citizens to China's 2.52 thousand metric tons/1000 citizens.(Nationmaster, 2004)) Perhaps all of you denialists, that, surely live real close to that WALMART, should walk in a look at the labels on everything there. MADE IN CHINA. Now, I will post an article outlining my point.
Trade Imbalance Shifts U.S. Carbon Emissions to China, Boosts Global Total
December 1, 2005
BOULDER—The growth of Chinese imports in the U.S. economy boosted the total emissions of carbon dioxide (a primary greenhouse gas) from the two countries by over 700 million metric tons between 1997 and 2003, according to a study published online in the journal Energy Policy. The analysis, prepared by two scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, suggests that American emissions of carbon dioxide in 2003 would have been 6% higher if the United States had manufactured the products that it imported from China. Meanwhile, China's 2003 emissions would have been 14% lower had it not produced goods for the United States.
"These results show the importance of world trade in accounting for the emissions that drive climate change," says Shui Bin, an environmental policy analyst who authored the Energy Policy paper with geochemist Robert Harriss. Their research was supported by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s primary sponsor.
The world’s two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases are the United States (about 25% of the global total) and China (about 15%). The Shui and Harriss study implies that the United States is indirectly responsible for even more carbon dioxide than widely perceived.
Because Chinese manufacturing relies heavily on coal and less-efficient technologies, it produces more greenhouse-gas emissions on average than the United States for a given product. Emissions in 2002 and 2003 rose at 8-9% a year in China and about 1% a year in the United States. If all of the U.S. imports from China had been produced domestically, then U.S. greenhouse emissions would have risen at 1.5% to 2% per year.
(National Center for Atmospheric Research, 2005)
Policymakers, aware that our "need for everything material" has led to this, want to dissuade you from looking at these reports. Bush, himself, denies Kyoto, saying nations like China must also adhere to the concept. What he uses are straight line statistics to prove his case.. and I'm sure he will laud this news that China overtook us in the same way. What he denies is WE made China overtake the United States.
As citizens, we must have the ability to open our eyes and accept our blame. This nation should be innovating it's way to a place in the next century, NOT lunging in a lazy haze of our now FORMER greatness. With all that manufacturing, and now an upper middle class developing in China, seriously, how long do you think we have at the top? You are seriously delusional if you don't see China as the next "Top Dog" in the world. We, the disposable society, created our biggest threat, and we are selling our country away to them. China holds more of our debt than any other single nation.
OPEN YOUR EYES... THINK CRITICALLY.. THEN SPEAK, STUPID.
-
But it's so much easier for the deniers to make facts up and trust that people will believe them if they are repeated enough.
“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”
-
^
That can certainly cut both ways you know; there's a real inconvenient truth for you.
:)
-
world trade is bad, it will kill us all by making the seas full of carbonic acid, that's acid folks ....A C I D,
we need to shut down all factories NOW to save the earth. Buy a horse and a plow, grow your own food, turn your car into a greenhouse and grow veggies in it.
:O :rolleyes:
-
Sad Moray, but you're right.
As for the horse and plough, say alone a pair of oxes with a bigger plow, a tractor running on home-grown bio-fuel will put the carbon balance better.
A normal farm in a temperate atmosphere would need some -10% of the production area to sustain all it's energy needs. That means that that particular agriculture would be on zero regarding carbon emission, since it's running on carbon it tied up from photosyntetis in the first place.
We do still have a lot of folks on this board that do not know what that is about, - hence this thread will get much longer.
-
Originally posted by Toad
^
That can certainly cut both ways you know; there's a real inconvenient truth for you.
:)
"A leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two'.
He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. 'I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,' he said. 'This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.' He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator."
link (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html)
One of the "skeptic" favourites, isn't it?
-
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4
Sorry if this article has been linked already, but this is a pretty good article.
-
Originally posted by soda72
They still blame the US, only now it's the United States fault for not setting an example for China....
:aok
Yep.....and when the cooling period starts we will be blamed for all of the scientists being wrong. Of course a lot of them are bailing now.
-
IF the cooling period starts, you'll be begging for it, unless you moved northwards.
(Know of land for sale just in case :D)
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
"These results show the importance of world trade in accounting for the emissions that drive climate change," says Shui Bin, an environmental policy analyst who authored the Energy Policy paper with geochemist Robert Harriss. Their research was supported by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s primary sponsor.
"world trade in accounting for the emissions that drive climate change,"
your post, not my "mindless drivel".
-
Originally posted by john9001
"world trade in accounting for the emissions that drive climate change,"
your post, not my "mindless drivel".
John, do you follow anything that's been said?
Yes, it was my quote. It supported my point. (the US is responsible for most of the heavy gas emissions, directly and indirectly)
Second, you posted an idiotic solution to my quote, "turn all your cars into flower pots" and such. I never said such a thing. You must suffer from some sort of mongoloidy. I did not say we need to "turn off all the factories". I stated that, in response to the news that China has overtaken the US in total emissions, that a little intellect was required to figure out WHY that was. In that report, it can be stated that, on the basis of our overwhelming trade imbalance with china (they make it with low wage help and ship it here because WE WANT IT...) that we, the United States, are directly and INDIRECTLY responsible for the overwhelming majority of emissions.
Without our trade, China's emissions would be up to 14% lower and ours 6% higher...Can i digest it anymore for you?
Please take a minute to think. Use your cerebrum. Don't just spout off at the mouth. You will lose any logical discuaaion that way. Take your emotions out of the equations and digest the information at hand.
Your problem is that you already have decided on the issue. Therefore you will use any means necessary to defend that stance.
-
Originally posted by bustr
You forget, all scientists with ties to it either way now have become suspect when global warming became a world wide political ideology. When that line was passed scientists stopped being "innocent titans of virtue".
All of us unenlightened monkeys should be running a borascope up any scientists kester now who presents anything one way or another over global warming to make sure the world isnt about to get cosmicly boned by the unintened consiqunces of a theory.
Scientists have the unintended consiquence of enabling mass manipulations of cultural and societal direction with only theories. They have the unintended consiquence of enabling governments to pass agenda based laws whos only benifits are to the government by growing its personel numbers, increaseing taxes and granting itself more control over the unwashed masses lives based on the "theory" so as to protect the masses from some nebulous doom that might happen based on a "theory".
I'm not on a high enough horse. People in general allow themselves to be cowed by persons with titles, degrees, positions of authority and well articulated communication skills. Con Men know this aspect of the human mind and cow the unwashed unintelligent masses out of their hard earned money.
Don't sell me scientists as a protected class of humanity because they toil for the higher good. Scientists are trying to sell this planet on a world class theory that can have unforseen consiquences to human rights and personal freedom in the name of saving the world from us the unwashed masses who scientists have once again determined we have screwed the planet. I love how scientists are blaming us. Man Made Global Warming. It grants them such elevated unchallanged legitamicy over the masses. Funny exactly how the legitimacy of any ideologies priesthood is established and maintained.
So your argument is that scientists are out for power... I will post a list of all 43 United States presidents... how many are scientists again>?
1 George Washington Surveyor, Farmer/plantation owner, Soldier (General of United Army of the Colonies)
2 John Adams Lawyer
3 Thomas Jefferson Writer, Inventor, Lawyer, Architect, Farmer/Plantation owner
4 James Madison Lawyer
5 James Monroe Lawyer
6 John Quincy Adams Lawyer
7 Andrew Jackson Soldier, Lawyer
8 Martin Van Buren Lawyer
9 William Harrison Soldier
10 John Tyler Lawyer
11 James Polk Lawyer, Plantation owner
12 Zachary Taylor Soldier
13 Millard Fillmore Lawyer
14 Franklin Pierce Lawyer
15 James Buchanan Lawyer, Prizefighter, Diplomat
16 Abraham Lincoln Lawyer, Saloon owner, Seamboat pilot
17 Andrew Johnson Tailor
18 Ulysses Grant Soldier, General of the Army, Tanner
19 Rutherford Hayes Lawyer
20 James Garfield School teacher, minister
21 Chester Arthur School teacher, lawyer, collector of tariffs
22,24 Grover Cleveland Sheriff, lawyer, assistant teacher
23 Benjamin Harrison Lawyer, journalist
25 William McKinley Lawyer
26 Theodore Roosevelt Public Official, Rancher
27 William Taft Lawyer, judge, law reporter, dean of law school at the University of Cincinnati
28 Woodrow Wilson Lawyer, professor, president of Princeton University
29 Warren Harding Newspaper publisher/editor
30 Calvin Coolidge Lawyer, Vice President of Northampton Savings Bank
31 Herbert Hoover Engineer, Investor
32 Franklin Roosevelt Lawyer
33 Harry Truman Farmer, Men's clothing retailer
34 Dwight Eisenhower Soldier (Supreme Allied Commander, Army Chief of Staff), President of Columbia University, Ice lifter
35 John F. Kennedy Writer
36 Lyndon Johnson Teacher, Public Official
37 Richard Nixon Lawyer
38 Gerald Ford Lawyer
39 Jimmy Carter Peanut farmer, writer
40 Ronald Reagan Actor & broadcaster, President of the Screen Actors Guild
41 George H. W. Bush Businessman (Oil)
42 Bill Clinton Lawyer, Law lecturer
43 George W. Bush Businessman (Oil, baseball)
It sure seems like they are grabbing for power, huh. I see a slew of biologists and chemists on that list.
And those theories you speak of.... GRAVITY is one of em. It's still just a little old theory. Seems that one works out ok... I mean, good enought to send a little spacecraft to Neptune.
-
MORAY37
stop calling me stupid, it's your post that said climate change is caused by world trade, or more exactly USA trade with china. What is your solution, shut down world trade?
why don't you give us some more pseudo science about the worlds oceans turning into carbonic acid.
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
See Rules #2, #5
-
See Rules #2, #5
-
See Rule #2
-
Originally posted by Angus
IF the cooling period starts
Not a question of "if".
-
Appears there is no more horse left to beat. Beating each other does not count.