Global Warming

[IPorange]

Well, you seem to be the only person that believes this. See below:

World deforestation rates and forest cover statistics, 2000-2005

Land Use and the Global Carbon Cycle - The Woods Hole Research Center

I hate to ruin your day with facts, but........

Ironically, one of the sites you just linked addresses your original remark about deforestation and CO2:

The largest anthropogenic contributor to the greenhouse effect is carbon dioxide gas emissions, about 77 percent of which comes from the combustion of fossil fuels and 22 percent of which is attributed to deforestation.

Impact of Deforestation - Atmospheric Role of Forests

 

[TennTradition]

Are you serious? Global cooling was last thought of seriously in the late seventies. The only people suggesting it today are the same detractors I mentioned earlier that are not even doing their own research. There is ZERO evidence to support a global cooling theory. The fact that there is quantifiable data to support an increase in temperature and a rise in ocean levels is not a debatable one. Glaciers are melting at a level that has never been seen before. I guess that's because things are "cooling" huh?

You tend to trust what you hear way too much, Eric, rather than doing your own research.

The problem with doing your own research in the internet age is that unless you have a very particular frame of mind when approaching it, all you end up doing is confirming whatever your inclination was to begin with.

 

[KentheOrange]

This!

 

[KentheOrange]

Ironically, one of the sites you just linked addresses your original remark about deforestation and CO2:



Impact of Deforestation - Atmospheric Role of Forests

Was more of a question than a remark. I don't see where absorption of CO2 is a part of the Kyoto Protocol and it seems strange to only address CO2 production. Reinforces (in my mind anyway) that it is nothing more than a money grab for USD.

 

[IPorange]

Was more of a question than a remark. I don't see where absorption of CO2 is a part of the Kyoto Protocol and it seems strange to only address CO2 production. Reinforces (in my mind anyway) that it is nothing more than a money grab for USD.

...ok. You trust a site enough to link it when it supports your claim on deforestation (that I was wrong on), but not enough to accept that it accounts for deforestation in it's estimates of atmospheric CO2.

What was it you said to TT? "This!"?

Agreed.

 

[TennTradition]

Are there reforestation allowances in Kyoto? I understand your point about trees not being the best carbon sink, IP, but I thought that there were provisions to promote reforestation....

 

[IPorange]

Are there reforestation allowances in Kyoto? I understand your point about trees not being the best carbon sink, IP, but I thought that there were provisions to promote reforestation....

There are. Deforestation isn't as much of an issue in the first world nations that the Kyoto protocol most applies to, though. And I'm not sure how you tell a poor farmer in Borneo that he has to find another way to make a living other than using the only resource he has...

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Are you serious? Global cooling was last thought of seriously in the late seventies. The only people suggesting it today are the same detractors I mentioned earlier that are not even doing their own research. There is ZERO evidence to support a global cooling theory. The fact that there is quantifiable data to support an increase in temperature and a rise in ocean levels is not a debatable one. Glaciers are melting at a level that has never been seen before. I guess that's because things are "cooling" huh?

You tend to trust what you hear way too much, Eric, rather than doing your own research.

Look bro, Google is a great thing, the problem is as TT said you can find all the evidence you want to support your own claims or thoughts. There is NOTHING decided about how climate really works, and if you think that there is you are very misinformed. If you can sit there with a straight face and tell me that ALL that data they processed wasn't altered in some form or fashion to get the results they desired, then your a damn good liar. Look, the fact of the matter is, we are still don't fully understand how things work, and it kills scientists to admit that. This whole concept of climate change is one that should have skepticism placed upon it, because of the political nature that exists within it. Al Gore has been proven wrong numerous times for his claims of catastrophic events that would happen if we didn't change one thing or another.

Here's the bottom line, until they come MUCH closer to understanding how things work and stop trying to point a finger at one thing or another when some small shred of evidence supports that particular theory, we will NEVER have a sane view of how climate works. I have a feeling that there are scientists that are going to study this for decades before releasing more accurate results because of the skepticism and misinformation that is out there. If I had some good research going, I wouldn't allow ANY political figure or grant to be a part of my research. Once you allow the government in, you start becoming biased because they expect certain results, and if you don't produce those certain results they cut funding.

As long as we RESPONSIBLY move towards cleaner and more efficient machines, we will prosper as a society. The government is NOT and NEVER will be part of the solution to a problem that needs much more research.

 

[IPorange]

We don't fully know how consciousness in the brain works, and yet we have a pretty good idea of ways to alter it and screw it up...

The whole "we just don't really understand/know about x" argument is a fallacy that is often brought up by people, but could be said about ANYTHING. I don't fully know how my computer works, but I still know how to maintain it. Many on this board who are religious readily admit that they don't fully understand the divine, but they still go to church on Sundays.

No, we don't know everything about climate. But we know a lot more than you apparently think.

 

[KentheOrange]

...ok. You trust a site enough to link it when it supports your claim on deforestation (that I was wrong on), but not enough to accept that it accounts for deforestation in it's estimates of atmospheric CO2.

What was it you said to TT? "This!"?

Agreed.

Where did I say I didn't accept those findings? Ironic isn't it, that if sea levels do rise due to GW caused by increased CO2, the oceans will be able to absorb more CO2.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

We don't fully know how consciousness in the brain works, and yet we have a pretty good idea of ways to alter it and screw it up...

The whole "we just don't really understand/know about x" argument is a fallacy that is often brought up by people, but could be said about ANYTHING. I don't fully know how my computer works, but I still know how to maintain it. Many on this board who are religious readily admit that they don't fully understand the divine, but they still go to church on Sundays.

No, we don't know everything about climate. But we know a lot more than you apparently think.

We have been studying the human brain and God's Word for MUCH longer than we have been studying a theory on man's supposed involvement in CC. Surely you can come up with a better argument than that. You should know as well as I do that it's only been since the late 70s that people have been trying to pick climate apart without partially understanding it. I can't believe you would rationally use this argument.

 

[IPorange]

Where did I say I didn't accept those findings? Ironic isn't it, that if sea levels do rise due to GW caused by increased CO2, the oceans will be able to absorb more CO2.

It's what is known as a "negative feedback loop." There are tons of them, as well as positive feedback loops, that work together and against one another to drive changes in climate

 

[IPorange]

We have been studying the human brain and God's Word for MUCH longer than we have been studying a theory on man's supposed involvement in CC. Surely you can come up with a better argument than that. You should know as well as I do that it's only been since the late 70s that people have been trying to pick climate apart without partially understanding it. I can't believe you would rationally use this argument.

It was a logical post. Nit-picking it failed to change that.

I'd love to hear about the detailed studies of the human mind outside of the last 200 years, btw.

 

[gsvol]

Ok. Animal Rights activists are nazis, people who believe in climate change are trying to economically sabotage the western world to bring about a socialist/communist renaissance, democrats stole the 2008 election through fraud, Obama is a diabolically manufactured foreign entity who was placed in office, virtually all Muslims are evil and complicit with violent Jihad against the rest of the world, Apartheid was a good thing for South Africa, and those lousy black Afrikaners are now ruining everything, but-- BUT!-- I am the one drinking the kool aid.

And I am a "lefty" since I don't agree with any of the ridiculously slanted and kooky things above that have less basis in reality than an average episode of Star Trek.

Got it.

What's to disagree with, bring it up point by point we'll debate individual topics.

Fairly accurate except you are twisting everything I've said to make it misrepresent what I've said in order to make it fit your own world view with the atttitude that people who don't buy your view are in someway kooks.

The two most blatent corrections,

1. I'm not condeming individual muslims, I am pointing out that by nature islam itself is incompatible with western ideas of freedom.

In the words of their own leaders they say they mean to conquer America.

2. I didn't ever say apartheid was a good thing, it is obvious however it was more humane and fair than what the current communist leaders are doing.

If it is offends you for me to poke fun at your treehugger koolaid drinking, then I shall refrain.

Get it??

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

It was a logical post. Nit-picking it failed to change that.

I'd love to hear about the detailed studies of the human mind outside of the last 200 years, btw.

And how long has data been gathered about man made Climate Change?? 200 years of studying the human mind, and it started before then as well, and 10 years of studying man made climate change is apples to oranges. It's an infant science IP, you can't change that fact, and yes you may have some data to support your claims, but there is data opposite of that to dispute it. Neither side has a good grasp of what is REALLY happening.

 

[IPorange]

And how long has data been gathered about man made Climate Change?? 200 years of studying the human mind, and it started before then as well, and 10 years of studying man made climate change is apples to oranges. It's an infant science IP, you can't change that fact, and yes you may have some data to support your claims, but there is data opposite of that to dispute it. Neither side has a good grasp of what is REALLY happening.

I am not saying it is all known and lain at our feet, but nothing ever is. I think we know enough.


We're just going to have to continue to disagree on this.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

I am not saying it is all known and lain at our feet, but nothing ever is. I think we know enough.


We're just going to have to continue to disagree on this.

You keep acting like this is all decided though, and it's not on either side.

 

[IPorange]

You keep acting like this is all decided though, and it's not on either side.

Some things are decided. It IS warming. I think most people agree with that, but some skeptics will argue as if it isn't one moment, and then say it is due exclusively to natural causes the next (see gsvol). Obviously, it can't be both and that is a contradictory position.

CO2 emissions by humans ARE unprecedented in geologic history. Nothing else on Earth ever pumped out fossil fuels and combusted them into the atmosphere on a global scale for hundreds of years (or even on a local scale for one day) before people.

CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. Always has been, always will be due to it's chemical structure.

CO2 IS at it's highest levels in human history, and in the last several million years. To put it into perspective, the Himalayas didn't exist yet, India was an island subcontinent, and the Red and Mediterranean Seas didn't exist either. This matters because the arrangement of continents and oceans/seas factors mightily into climate and climate patterns.

Man IS the reason why CO2 is elevated.



Now, all those known things combine to paint a picture. On top of that, we live in a fully settled and occupied world with by far the largest human population in history that is growing all the time. Disruptions to the development of food, the availability of water, and ecosystems that people depend on for these things will undoubtedly lead to human suffering and death. Natural disruptions already lead to this as it is. Also, the large amount of people on the Earth puts strain on natural environments and ecosystems.

as far as the natural world:

What was once unbroken rainforest (for example) for thousands of square miles in parts of the world are now fractured islands of trees only a few hundred square miles in size. Populations of animals and plants no longer pass freely from one area to another, and are isolated. This reduces the ability of populations to recover from natural events like disease, fire, too many predators, whatever. We've put all of nature's eggs in small baskets of preserves, parks, and marginal land areas that just weren't very good for human settlement (badlands), and now are pushing on the climate. Those species can't just move into new areas that have become more suitable, or are still suitable for them. They're stuck. Ecological collapse would then ensue.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Some things are decided. It IS warming. I think most people agree with that, but some skeptics will argue as if it isn't one moment, and then say it is due exclusively to natural causes the next (see gsvol). Obviously, it can't be both and that is a contradictory position.

CO2 emissions by humans ARE unprecedented in geologic history. Nothing else on Earth ever pumped out fossil fuels and combusted them into the atmosphere on a global scale for hundreds of years (or even on a local scale for one day) before people.

CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. Always has been, always will be due to it's chemical structure.

CO2 IS at it's highest levels in human history, and in the last several million years. To put it into perspective, the Himalayas didn't exist yet, India was an island subcontinent, and the Red and Mediterranean Seas didn't exist either. This matters because the arrangement of continents and oceans/seas factors mightily into climate and climate patterns.

Man IS the reason why CO2 is elevated.



Now, all those known things combine to paint a picture. On top of that, we live in a fully settled and occupied world with by far the largest human population in history that is growing all the time. Disruptions to the development of food, the availability of water, and ecosystems that people depend on for these things will undoubtedly lead to human suffering and death. Natural disruptions already lead to this as it is. Also, the large amount of people on the Earth puts strain on natural environments and ecosystems.

as far as the natural world:

What was once unbroken rainforest (for example) for thousands of square miles in parts of the world are now fractured islands of trees only a few hundred square miles in size. Populations of animals and plants no longer pass freely from one area to another, and are isolated. This reduces the ability of populations to recover from natural events like disease, fire, too many predators, whatever. We've put all of nature's eggs in small baskets of preserves, parks, and marginal land areas that just weren't very good for human settlement (badlands), and now are pushing on the climate. Those species can't just move into new areas that have become more suitable, or are still suitable for them. They're stuck. Ecological collapse would then ensue.

But is man THE reason that it is warming?? That's the $100 billion dollar question that NO ONE can answer definitively as of right now.

Now, do we need to move away from fossil fuels right now?? Sure.

Do we need to strive to create a cleaner planet?? Absolutely!!

But do we know BEYOND a reasonable doubt that man is the culprit for warming the planet. Absolutely not.

Let's let some unbiased research take place, chastise politicians for pleas of legislative change, and let the market place take us to where we need to be as a country and a planet. The market will ultimately decide where we go, because if we disrupt it to the point of collapse, we will be 100x more screwed in our foreseeable future.

 

[IPorange]

chastise politicians for pleas of legislative change, and let the market place take us to where we need to be as a country and a planet. The market will ultimately decide where we go, because if we disrupt it to the point of collapse, we will be 100x more screwed in our foreseeable future.

On this we totally agree. The legislative efforts and politicization (not to mention people like Gore finding ways to position themselves to be profiting from this) are only discrediting, not helping.

 

[Sabanocchio]

But is man THE reason that it is warming?? That's the $100 billion dollar question that NO ONE can answer definitively as of right now.

It can be answered with a respectable amount of certainty. Yes, the earth is trending toward warming, but there is no doubt man is contributing to a faster rate of warming (and ultimately a higher peak) than the earth has seen in millenniums.

Now, do we need to move away from fossil fuels right now?? Sure.
Do we need to strive to create a cleaner planet?? Absolutely!!

Then what exactly are you debating...or rather WHY are you debating?

But do we know BEYOND a reasonable doubt that man is the culprit for warming the planet. Absolutely not.

We DO, in fact know from core samples at the poles that man HAS with absolute certainty contributed to the massive influx of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It can be traced to the onset of the Industrial Revolution. Researchers note based on these samples that methane and carbon dioxide levels after the onset of the Industrial Revolution remain unmatched to any record during the 650,000 years before the Revolution. That is substantial and definitive.

The scary part is, the records can only be traced back to decades after this period due to the nature of the layering -- meaning the impact which we are now having on the environment will not be truly known for many more years. There is no doubt that it is having an impact, however, and that it is an adverse one.

No one is saying here that we are the only cause, just that the impact we are having on the situation is substantial and making things disastrously worse.

Let's let some unbiased research take place, chastise politicians for pleas of legislative change, and let the market place take us to where we need to be as a country and a planet. The market will ultimately decide where we go, because if we disrupt it to the point of collapse, we will be 100x more screwed in our foreseeable future.

What BIAS is there in the research, Eric???? What do these scientists and researchers have to possibly gain here? That is not bias, friend. Look up the definition.

The only alarming participants in this debate are the ones leading to a misconception that everything is fine. That is where the true danger lies.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

It can be answered with a respectable amount of certainty. Yes, the earth is trending toward warming, but there is no doubt man is contributing to a faster rate of warming (and ultimately a higher peak) than the earth has seen in millenniums.

Then what exactly are you debating...or rather WHY are you debating?
We DO, in fact know from core samples at the poles that man HAS with absolute certainty contributed to the massive influx of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It can be traced to the onset of the Industrial Revolution. Researchers note based on these samples that methane and carbon dioxide levels after the onset of the Industrial Revolution remain unmatched to any record during the 650,000 years before the Revolution. That is substantial and definitive.

The scary part is, the records can only be traced back to decades after this period due to the nature of the layering -- meaning the impact which we are now having on the environment will not be truly known for many more years. There is no doubt that it is having an impact, however, and that it is an adverse one.

No one is saying here that we are the only cause, just that the impact we are having on the situation is substantial and making things disastrously worse.

What BIAS is there in the research, Eric???? What do these scientists and researchers have to possibly gain here? That is not bias, friend. Look up the definition.

The only alarming participants in this debate are the ones leading to a misconception that everything is fine. That is where the true danger lies.

Ever heard of government funding?? Typically, if you don't produce the results they are giving you money to produce, you get your funding cut.

BTW Sab, since you seem to be in this camp, has your climate changed enough to where you are doing different things to make sure you don't contribute to the problem you are so hell bent on proving to me with some Google research??

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

On this we totally agree. The legislative efforts and politicization (not to mention people like Gore finding ways to position themselves to be profiting from this) are only discrediting, not helping.

Your correct, and until non-governmental companies come out and say we are changing our methods because of temperature increases on our planet, I will remain non-believing as well. I'm all in favor of a cleaner planet, but calling something I exhale a pollutant is silly.

 

[IPorange]

Your correct, and until non-governmental companies come out and say we are changing our methods because of temperature increases on our planet, I will remain non-believing as well. I'm all in favor of a cleaner planet, but calling something I exhale a pollutant is silly.

Why would you believe a company any more than a government?

And I can think of other things our bodies release that you would call pollutants... Raw sewage is a pollutant, is it not? Something being natural has nothing to do with it...

PS: The dictionary is silly.

pollutant (pə-l t'nt) Pronunciation Key
A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

Pollutant | Define Pollutant at Dictionary.com

 

[IPorange]

Turns out you can now believe in global climate change, Eric!

Here's a network of non-governmental organizations who believe in climate change!

Welcome to the Climate Action Network — Climate Action Network

Here's a news story from five years ago about various companies and corporations' self-imposed actions to reduce their emissions and fight climate change:

The Race Against Climate Change


So case closed, right? Right?

Ya, I thought not, but it was worth a shot.