Global Warming

[g8terh8ter_eric]

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 | Define Pollutant at Dictionary.com

The dictionary is politically correct. Interesting.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Five years ago, Al Gore was a genius too. Things change, and theories are proven wrong.

Like I said, I am all for a cleaner planet, just don't dip into my shallow pockets to make it more of a reality.

 

[gsvol]

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.

I don't know who told you all that but they told you wrong.

 

[IPorange]

I don't know who told you all that but they told you wrong.

I don't know who told you all that was wrong, but they told you wrong.


Fun game.

 

[gsvol]

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...

We don't have any problem putting the timber industry out of busines in the Pacific NW over the spotted owl.

We don't have any problem cutting off water in California's Imperial Valley over the delta smelt.

We don't have any problem with cutting off water that was guaranteed forever in Oregon's Klamath Valey over who knows what, that is still unclear to me.

You think telling a poor farmer in Borneo to take a hike is some sort of problem????

One of the worst things is the whole deal is that it is about CO2 and that isn't even a problem.

 

[IPorange]

We don't have any problem putting the timber industry out of busines in the Pacific NW over the spotted owl.

We don't have any problem cutting off water in California's Imperial Valley over the delta smelt.

We don't have any problem with cutting off water that was guaranteed forever in Oregon's Klamath Valey over who knows what, that is still unclear to me.

You think telling a poor farmer in Borneo to take a hike is some sort of problem????

One of the worst things is the whole deal is that it is about CO2 and that isn't even a problem.

I don't think any of those things are easy to do. When I was a kid growing up in Idaho, I used to fish and swim in the Bruno river. We would catch bass, dig up clams, and generally just have a great time. The lands surrounding the river were all privately owned by ranchers, and they didn't mind us driving in and enjoying the river as long as we didn't let any cows out. Shortly after I moved away, a rare endemic snail was found in the river. The cattle ranchers were forced out, and the river is now closed to all fishing type activities (or was, still is as far as I know). That sucks, and does seem silly to do over a little snail. But it's the ONLY place in the whole world that snail lives, and if it is gone, it is gone. I would like to think some sort of compromise of fair-use could have been worked out and had a better resolution.

I guess I am saying I agree that it sucks when things like what happened in the Northwest with the Spotted Owl happen, but at the same time you have to take the long view. In the end, more constructive compromises are needed.

The water use stuff is really complex out west. Many of those water agreements were made a very long time ago under completely different circumstances. The fact of the matter is there isn't enough water out there to go around every year, and people have to share with each other and the environment. "First use" guarantees are BS in the modern era, and the gallon quota system is broken because it assumes that there will be a certain number of gallons every year. As they are learning in the Southwest, that is not the case. And from the paleoenvironmental records, we actually may be headed back to a "norm" of slightly drier conditions out there.

 

[gsvol]

I don't know who told you all that was wrong, but they told you wrong.


Fun game.

You're wrong, this isn't a game, it's serious business.

He has used nothing but what goes on between his ears, I've used the IPCC, NASA and several other sources who are among the foremost in their scientific fields to support my arguments in this thread.

You said earlier that science is a philosphy and I asked just what that philosophy might be but didn't notice any response from you.

You said this is like debating evolution. (not the same at all imo, the only religion involved in debating climate change is the green religion.)

Answer me this, if every little detail of the evolution theory were true, ie first some pond scum emerged from the primordial ooze and now here we are today.

Would that not entail a good deal of change???

Does science not tell us that Earth has had constantly changing weather patterns and a wide range of long lasting wildly different mean temperatures that were long lasting in it's history??

Do scientists not say that over 90% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct??

So why the overriding argument that we must fight tooth and nail any change now??

Why the huge uproar that some species of minnow might go extinct.

You people say that anyone who doesn't buy your climate change theory is paranoid (or not intelligent or informed enough to understand the argument.)

I say your whole spiel is based on paranoia.

We are supposed to fear climate change because it will bring about a catastrophy.

We are supposed to fear some species will go extinct and the whold food chain will colapse.

We are supposed to fear increase in CO2 levels when we know Earth has had much higher CO2 levels with no adverse affect.

You worry about depleting rain forests but we are losing much of those rain forests because people are cutting them down to raise grain to produce ethanol because of unfounded paranoid green prohibitions against fossil fuel use and forcing ethanol use on us by governmental decree.

And finally you make the absurd paranoid claim that ecological colapse is on the horizon.

And you try to compare people who don't agree with the political proposals to avert all these paranoid conculusions to flat earthers.

Some cay man can look back and see that the current climate change propaganda of paranoid conclusions is more like the fear of sailing off the edge of the world than anything those who are presenting on the other side of the debate ever mentioned.

 

[IPorange]

He has used nothing but what goes on between his ears, I've used the IPCC, NASA and several other sources who are among the foremost in their scientific fields to support my arguments in this thread.
[/quote

Both of those organizations say there is anthropogenic climate change.

You said earlier that science is a philosphy and I asked just what that philosophy might be but didn't notice any response from you.

It's a philosophy of analysis, empirical verification, and coherentism.

You said this is like debating evolution. (not the same at all imo, the only religion involved in debating climate change is the green religion.)

Answer me this, if every little detail of the evolution theory were true, ie first some pond scum emerged from the primordial ooze and now here we are today.

Would that not entail a good deal of change???

Does science not tell us that Earth has had constantly changing weather patterns and a wide range of long lasting wildly different mean temperatures that were long lasting in it's history??

Do scientists not say that over 90% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct??

So why the overriding argument that we must fight tooth and nail any change now??

0. That you see this debate as different than debating evolution because "there isn't a religion involved" is very telling. The presence of a religion apparently overrides the actual merits of evolutionary theory.

1. There is no sudden change in argument. Not one climate scientist thinks things have never changed before. I have no idea why you and eric act like that is the case.

2. It' a matter of scale and context. What occurred 500 million years ago matters diddly to the current assemblage of species on Earth, including man.

The uproar is because we are actually driving this change, not a natural process. That means there may be consequences that we don't even know about yet. At worst, by warming the climate, we may disrupt current thermohaline circulations in the ocean, and actually trigger an ice age (and we're almost due for one anyway. All of classical to modern history has occurred in an interglacial period). It's a geologically unprecedented event that we are a part of.
Why the huge uproar that some species of minnow might go extinct.

3. Much more than 90 % of all species that ever existed are extinct. That's partly due to "species" being a man-made concept and division. All organisms are undergoing changes from generation to generation all the time. What we know as a "species" is just a snapshot in a fluid and continuous evolutionary path that is stretched out over millions of years.

You people say that anyone who doesn't buy your climate change theory is paranoid (or not intelligent or informed enough to understand the argument.)

I'm saying thinking there is a global conspiracy is paranoid, and most of the skepticism that has been expressed on this board is based on either faulty information or reasoning, and just plain dissatisfaction with the implications.

I say your whole spiel is based on paranoia.

That's extremely ironic, coming from the guy who thought someone hacked his computer to silence him when the forum was having trouble that one time

We are supposed to fear increase in CO2 levels when we know Earth has had much higher CO2 levels with no adverse affect.

500 million years ago, before even dinosaurs existed, when there were 3 foot long dragon flies in the air and seven foot sea scorpions in the sea.

It was a different planet then for all respective purposes, with a completely different climate and land masses. "Adverse" is a relative term, as the conditions then were partly due to the CO2 but the organisms of the world were adapted to them. Swamps and jungles covered much of the land, and are the origins of coal and natural gas that we (ironically) use today.

You worry about depleting rain forests but we are losing much of those rain forests because people are cutting them down to raise grain to produce ethanol because of unfounded paranoid green prohibitions against fossil fuel use and forcing ethanol use on us by governmental decree.

We agree here, as you know.

And finally you make the absurd paranoid claim that ecological colapse is on the horizon.

I never claimed it was on the horizon. I said we are susceptible to it.

And you try to compare people who don't agree with the political proposals to avert all these paranoid conculusions to flat earthers.

Some cay man can look back and see that the current climate change propaganda of paranoid conclusions is more like the fear of sailing off the edge of the world than anything those who are presenting on the other side of the debate ever mentioned.

Quite the opposite.

 

[gsvol]

I don't think any of those things are easy to do. When I was a kid growing up in Idaho, I used to fish and swim in the Bruno river. We would catch bass, dig up clams, and generally just have a great time. The lands surrounding the river were all privately owned by ranchers, and they didn't mind us driving in and enjoying the river as long as we didn't let any cows out. Shortly after I moved away, a rare endemic snail was found in the river. The cattle ranchers were forced out, and the river is now closed to all fishing type activities (or was, still is as far as I know). That sucks, and does seem silly to do over a little snail. But it's the ONLY place in the whole world that snail lives, and if it is gone, it is gone. I would like to think some sort of compromise of fair-use could have been worked out and had a better resolution.

I guess I am saying I agree that it sucks when things like what happened in the Northwest with the Spotted Owl happen, but at the same time you have to take the long view. In the end, more constructive compromises are needed.

No kidding, everyone lost because some guy with a government grant found a reason to advance an insane agenda where everyone loses.

Now the fish have probaly eaten all the little critters up.

I have a good friend from Idaho, he's a songwriter who previously taught Egnlish at some very prestigeous universities, married to a gal who is working on her third PHD. Those two are two of my best friends ever.

I haver another friend from the area, Montana, among his many distinctions he wears the fifth personally handmade beaded belt buckle given to him by the chief of the northern band of the Cheyene Nation who told him after he had given away the first four; "this is the last one I make for you," and on the back of which is written, "to be given to gs upon my death."

He once told me a story about when was in his local town cafe and when Ted Turner and Jane Fonda bought aabout 10 or 12,000 acres just north of town they dropped in for breakfast and the lady that owned it refused to serve them, as they left the lady told Ted he could get service the next time if he didn't bring that byatch with him.

John Kerry and George Soros also have some big estates out there that incidentally are near one another.

Quite the fashionable thing for those kind of people.

The water use stuff is really complex out west. Many of those water agreements were made a very long time ago under completely different circumstances. The fact of the matter is there isn't enough water out there to go around every year, and people have to share with each other and the environment. "First use" guarantees are BS in the modern era, and the gallon quota system is broken because it assumes that there will be a certain number of gallons every year. As they are learning in the Southwest, that is not the case. And from the paleoenvironmental records, we actually may be headed back to a "norm" of slightly drier conditions out there.

Well then BS on fighting their next damned war.

Skeered of rising sea levels, screw you, (speaking figuratively, not personally) let the Sahara be a lakebed as it once was and would love to be again.

In the heart of the Great Erg of Bilma near the heart of the Sahara desert are footprints of Giraffs, Hippopotomi and Elephants. Let the desert bloom, let food flow to a starving continent, let the Earth green itself, let Yat become the skin divers mecca, where you can find all kinds or artifacts under the shallow waters, beautifully made arrowheads and other stone age artifacts and in the nearby mountains look at wall paintings that are almost a duplicate of those in Arizona, New Mexico, Australia and South America, think of the tourist factor.

 

[IPorange]

I don't know that warming of the climate will bring back the continental monsoons to Africa, the Western US, and Australia. In fact, it's probably the opposite: cooling would bring them back.

 

[gsvol]

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.

And we know a lot less than you apparently think.

Where did you get the following, cliff notes from Al Gore's idiotic pseudo-science treatise on global warming??

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.

I've never said it was exclusive to natural causes but have pointed out numerous times that it is well over 90% natural.

It has been warming since the little ice age but has quite a bit to go before it reaches the peak during the midieval warm period. (a vary good time in Earth history, both for mankind and the environment.)

I'll venture that there are laws of physics that determine limits to both highs and lows and in all history there has been no time where highs were a big danger to the future of mankind or mass extinctions, etc.

However there have been times during ice ages when lows did cause mass extinctions.

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.

This is true, but even at that we havn't raised CO2 levels dangerously and actually still play a small role in natural world CO2 levels and cycles.

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

True but CO2 plays an almost insignificant role as one of the greenhouse gases.

Not only that in the whole history of the Earth, CO2 has been a follower of global temperatures and not a driver.

Therefore the whole theory reads like a cart before the horse scenario.

Some politicians and financiers would reverse the known laws of physics in order to pass legislation that benefits them greatly and costs everyone else greatly, even though they seem to fond no shortage of buyers of this P T Barnum approach to science.

CO2 IS at it's highest levels in human history, and in the last several million years.

That just simply isn't true.

GREENIE WATCH

Modern greenhouse hypothesis is based on the work of G.S. Callendar and C.D. Keeling, following S. Arrhenius, as latterly popularized by the IPCC. Review of available literature raise the question if these authors have systematically discarded a large number of valid technical papers and older atmospheric CO2 determinations because they did not fit their hypothesis?

Obviously they use only a few carefully selected values from the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by the burning of fossil fuel.

Evidence for lacking evaluation of methods results from the finding that as accurate selected results show systematic errors in the order of at least 20 ppm.

Most authors and sources have summarised the historical CO2 determinations by chemical methods incorrectly and promulgated the unjustifiable view that historical methods of analysis were unreliable and produced poor quality results

Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski's criticism's of the assumed reliability of IPCC graphics merging pre-industrial CO2 data from ice cores with atmospheric measurements from 20C

The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2).
--------------------------------

Improper manipulation of data, and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming is common in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases. In peer reviewed publications I exposed this misuse of science [3, 9]. Unfortunately, such misuse is not limited to individual publications, but also appears in documents of national and international organizations. For example IPCC not only based its reports on a falsified “Siple curve”, but also in its 2001 report[14] used as a flagship the “hockey curve” of temperature, showing that there was no Medieval Warming, and no Little Ice Age, and that the 20th century was unusually warm. The curve was credulously accepted after Mann et al. paper published in NATURE magazine[15]. In a crushing criticism, two independent groups of scientists from disciplines other than climatology [16, 17] (i.e. not supported from the annual pool of many billion “climatic” dollars), convincingly blamed the Mann et al. paper for the improper manipulation and arbitrary rejections of data. The question arises, how such methodically poor paper, contradicting hundreds of excellent studies that demonstrated existence of global range Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age, could pass peer review for NATURE? And how could it pass the reviewing process at the IPCC? The apparent scientific weaknesses of IPCC and its lack of impartiality, was diagnosed and criticized in the early 1990s in NATURE editorials [18, 19]. The disease, seems to be persistent.
---------------------------------

The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere.

This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false.

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.

I don't get the connection between techtonic activity and CO2 levels?????

Man IS the reason why CO2 is elevated.

But not the sole reason and his role is minor compared to other natural cycles.

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.

And what? Should we starve to death the excess??

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.

Which is the greater danger to disrupting food supply, weather or political action??

So far the latter have been screwing up more.

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.

Methodology observed for over a half century by political groups masquerading as being envormentalists.

Spout a bunch of stuff that is mostly true but is presented in a distorted manner, then finish with some scary prediction that could or might happen.

Herd the sheeple along into some action that involves political change which in most cases does little if anything to relieve the supposed problem and in many cases does just the opposite.

 

[IPorange]

I was bringing up plate tectonics to describe how different the world was then.

As for as "letting the excess starve," I don't know how you could come to that conclusion. My concern was FOR those people.

As for the rest of it, we could trade links all day. I know what the majority of relevant scientific community thinks.



It is funny that you and others keep bring up political points when discussing the merits of climate change. It is very clear that your real problem is the implications and politics that have been hitched to it (which I don't like either), because that is what these threads always come back around to.

 

[kptvol]

Agree with 47.8 percent of that.

 

[Velo Vol]

Nothing to see here:

Warmest June on record, climate scientists say

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Nothing to see here:

Warmest June on record, climate scientists say

But is it the warmest June ever?? I think not.

So, your right, nothing to see here, other than more fodder for legislative change and more public funding.

There's a Jerry Maguire quote that fits perfectly with most of this science.

 

[MG1968]

Nothing to see here:

Warmest June on record, climate scientists say

in other news, summertime is the warmest of the 4 seasons

 

[BeecherVol]

in other news, summertime is the warmest of the 4 seasons

Interesting. Always wondered why nobody had there cement pond open in January.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utvolpj]

Nothing to see here:

Warmest June on record, climate scientists say

World sizzles to record for the year - USATODAY.com

Joe D'Aleo, a meteorologist who co-founded The Weather Channel, disagrees, too. He says oceans are entering a cooling cycle that will lower temperatures.
He says too many of the weather stations NOAA uses are in warmer urban areas.
"The only reliable data set right now is satellite," D'Aleo says.
He says NASA satellite data shows the average temperature in June was 0.43 degrees higher than normal. NOAA says it was 1.22 degrees higher.

 

[volinbham]

World sizzles to record for the year - USATODAY.com

Will be interesting to see in 10 years or so. I've heard several predictions that we are entering a cooling cycle. The GHG may still limit the downturn but the truth is we won't know until it happens.

 

[golfballs]

Nobody knows what the hell they're talking about

 

[IPorange]

Nobody knows what the hell they're talking about

A lot of people know what they are talking about for a given component, but there are many, many components that don't always fit together in intuitive or obvious ways.

 

[IPorange]

World sizzles to record for the year - USATODAY.com

It's funny that what you quoted is what you took away from the article. Not disputing the quote, just saying it seems like blatant cherry-picking.

 

[MG1968]

I thought NASA was doing outreach to muslim countries, what are they doing using their satellites to collect climate data?

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Nobody knows what the hell they're talking about

This.

And this is why it's dangerous to be proposing radical legislation based on data that's not even conclusive in the slightest.

I'll all for clean energy, reducing pollution, recycling, etc. but I also like common sense and the doomsday prophets like Al Gore are mostly full of crap, as are the majority of the celebrities trying to tell everyone else what they need to be doing.

 

[KentheOrange]

Nobody knows what the hell they're talking about

This!