Carbon Dioxide Debate

[staf0048]

We're all worried about global warming and our carbon foot prints. Maybe we've seen that popular movie/book/lecture by a famous American Politician, or took an class on climate change and were pretty much convinced that we're killing the planet with this orderless and invisible gas known as Carbon Dioxide (CO2).

Some of the most convincing evidence for many people came from the attached graph (or others like it).

I've been doing some research on this and it seems that not everyone is convinced that CO2 is the culprit. So I listened to their arguments and I must say it makes sense to me. So I thought I'd get the opinions of those who care about the matter in this form.

1st: When you take a close look at the graph doesn't it appear that the temperature line increases BEFORE the CO2 line? Would this not suggest that temperature is somehow driving CO2? The theory goes that oceans hold large amounts of CO2 naturally, but the total amount they an hold varies with temperature. As ocean temp increases the amount of CO2 it can hold decreases - thus it gets gassed out into the atmosphere.

2nd: If CO2 is a strong driver of temperature, why aren't we warmer? Our total CO2 levels are higher than ever before, yet according to the graph we're still well within the normal range and seem to have leveled off for the time being. Could we maybe have been part of a natural heating cycle the past 100 years or so and will be soon experiencing global cooling (if we're not already experiencing it).

3rd: If the current warming is due to man made CO2 emissions, what caused the fluctuation of CO2 in the past? We were not around 600,000 years ago to dump CO2 into the atmosphere, so why did it vary?

4th: If the greenhouse effect caused the previous warming periods, why is it short lived? Based on current theory of the effect there is no reason why the earth should have suddenly cooled, we should have kept on warming and we would never have made it here today to worry about such things.


I've done a lot of digging and have found very little evidence that CO2 is the actual cause of global warming - most of what I've found just takes it as fact, but provides no proof or reasoning - other than CO2 has been increasing and temperatures have been increasing, there's your proof.

I don't intend to make this a political thread, just want some ideas, thoughts, and maybe a few helpful sources because I'm seriously starting to think we're barking up the wrong tree with CO2.

[Rainstride]

2nd: If CO2 is a strong driver of temperature, why aren't we warmer? Our total CO2 levels are higher than ever before, yet according to the graph we're still well within the normal range and seem to have leveled off for the time being. Could we maybe have been part of a natural heating cycle the past 100 years or so and will be soon experiencing global cooling (if we're not already experiencing it).
a single volcano going off gives off more co2 than the human race has ever made in its entire existence. our planet has 11,000 year heating and cooling cycles caused by a small flux in its orbit(i forget what its called). witch is why we have ice ages on and off about every 10-11,000 years.


3rd: If the current warming is due to man made CO2 emissions, what caused the fluctuation of CO2 in the past? We were not around 600,000 years ago to dump CO2 into the atmosphere, so why did it vary?
if it is caused by man, than why have they stopped calling it global warming now that its colder, and now say its "climate change" as if though we're only supposed to have a single season and temp. they said we were causing a green house effect with co2. now our co2 is cooling the earth?



I've done a lot of digging and have found very little evidence that CO2 is the actual cause of global warming - most of what I've found just takes it as fact, but provides no proof or reasoning - other than CO2 has been increasing and temperatures have been increasing, there's your proof.

I don't intend to make this a political thread, just want some ideas, thoughts, and maybe a few helpful sources because I'm seriously starting to think we're barking up the wrong tree with CO2.
well, there are about 10,000-20,000 scientists saying global/climate change is bull. and instead of people listening to them, they listen to al gore and fox news and cnn()](*,). then they said that the polar bears are in danger of drowning, when polar bears can swim up to 300 miles a day if need be.

it just seems to be one lie or misconception after the other with global warming/climate change.

[PrePenguin]

Far as I know there is no evidence that the polar caps have ever melted at the rate they are now. The global warming is not so much related to CO2 as much as they are all the metals and chemicals that are emmitted into the atomosphere trapping the sun's harmful UV rays thereby warming the planet. The danger of doing this is shutting down the ocean conveyor belt of cold water and warm water exchange that drives the earth weather.. Take note why the hurricanes, Droughts, and odd weather in places in which the weather had never been of this behavior. I suggest you research the oceans conveyor belt system to get your answers and other culprits in the air such as silicones and the like. Once the ocean conveyor shutdowns we will revert back to an ice age but before that weather patterns will change for countries that have plenty of rain to places that were deserts. In the past it took large scales disasters to cause such events such as massive volcano eruptions or astroid collision which all resulted in trapping the suns UV rays thereby changling the earths climate in the domino effect.

[Faolan84]

a single volcano going off gives off more co2 than the human race has ever made in its entire existence. our planet has 11,000 year heating and cooling cycles caused by a small flux in its orbit(i forget what its called). witch is why we have ice ages on and off about every 10-11,000 years.


There are several orbit flux cycles, but I think you mean the 26,000 year precession cycle. There are several others, but the precession cycle does seem to have an impact on the climate as well as zodiacal age :P

[Exodist]

a single volcano going off gives off more co2 than the human race has ever made in its entire existence. our planet has 11,000 year heating and cooling cycles caused by a small flux in its orbit(i forget what its called). witch is why we have ice ages on and off about every 10-11,000 years.


THANK GOD SOMEONE ELSE OUT THERE AGREES WITH ME!! /end excitement..

[handy]

This thread will be closed.

Since the Backyard sub-forum was shut down, we aren't allowed to talk about this stuff here anymore.

[Faolan84]

Yes, but we aren't talking politics, this is science. MUWAHAHA!

[Paqman]

a single volcano going off gives off more co2 than the human race has ever made in its entire existence.

That's a pretty woolly statement. "A singe volcano"? Do you mean they all give off that much CO2, in every eruption? Or did one do it once?

From a quick Google:

Krakatau in 1883 is estimated to have produced 9.1x10^11 moles of CO2. One mole of CO2 is 44g so this amount of CO2 is about 40-million tonnes. The latest figure I can find for total human carbon emissions is 8,230-million tonnes of carbon in 2006, or about 29-billion tonnes of CO2. So in one year, total anthropogenic CO2 emissions are more than 700 times the amount Krakatau vented in 1883.

Source (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf)

And that's Krakatoa, probably the biggest eruptions of the last couple of centuries.

[Rainstride]

There are several orbit flux cycles, but I think you mean the 26,000 year precession cycle. There are several others, but the precession cycle does seem to have an impact on the climate as well as zodiacal age :P
yeah, i think that might be the one i was thinking of.


THANK GOD SOMEONE ELSE OUT THERE AGREES WITH ME!! /end excitement..
:)same here.


That's a pretty woolly statement. "A singe volcano"? Do you mean they all give off that much CO2, in every eruption? Or did one do it once?

From a quick Google:


Source (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf)

And that's Krakatoa, probably the biggest eruptions of the last couple of centuries.
hmm.. those numbers don't seem quite right. though we currently have almost no active volcanoes left on this planet. last i checked a single large volcanic blast gave off that much in a single eruption. but it is dependent on how long it goes on for also. a blast that goes on for a week or two like some of them give of much more than one that lasts a day or two. besides if you check ice core samples there are very large amounts of carbon in the sections of the ice that date back to the last ice age. humans sure as hell didn't do that:).

[Paqman]

last i checked a single large volcanic blast gave off that much in a single eruption. but it is dependent on how long it goes on for also. a blast that goes on for a week or two like some of them give of much more than one that lasts a day or two.

Have you got any actual numbers to back you argument up with though?

From the wikipedia article about the volanic gas emissions:

The greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is emitted from volcanoes, although volcanic emissions account for less than 1% of the annual global total

Source: Royal Society Climate Change Controversies, London, June 2007

[handy]

Yes, but we aren't talking politics, this is science. MUWAHAHA!

It is also politics, if not yet, then it soon will be...

[murderslastcrow]

I recently watched a documentary on the subject. It turns out that 7 billion people on earth only account for about 5 percent (that's still a lot). But most of it is caused by forest fires, naturally occuring geysers/volcanoes and decomposing wildlife.

So, even if we reduced our emissions to zero, it would have little effect on the temperature. I do think, however, it would have a beneficial effect on the WEATHER and our living circumstances in general. It's been proven that more pollution = more illness and stilted growth in children. So it's still a problem.

I just think it's disgusting that humans have to think they're about to be obliterated forever as a race before they do anything meaningful about a situation. But our global society isn't exactly the easiest to make good decisions in since it's all based on profitability and affordability, not worthiness.

[PrePenguin]

Like i mentioned in my last post its not carbon dioxide as much it is the chemicals we spew into the atomosphere which traps the suns UV rays and therefor heats the planet and melting our ice caps which is essential in regulating water temps and controlling earths weather. Mankind has also destroyed billions of acres of Rain forrest which consume CO2 and produce oxygen. The earth atomosphere is made up of 21% oxygen, 78% nitrogen and 1% other gases.. Once again its the garbage man is spewing out of coal plant/automobiles etc that is causing the retention . Forrest fires is a natural process of mother earth renewing itself via lightning etc. The earth will reach a tilting point and will get rid of humans like a disease and heal itself.. Whats the definition of a virus? See if Humans fit in this category to earth? She will heal herself when she gets sick enough.

[the8thstar]

then they said that the polar bears are in danger of drowning, when polar bears can swim up to 300 miles a day if need be.

That's pretty fast... that's an average of 12.5 mph for 24 hours straight. Only the Terminator and Chuck Norris can do that!

[Rainstride]

Have you got any actual numbers to back you argument up with though?

From the wikipedia article about the volanic gas emissions:


Source: Royal Society Climate Change Controversies, London, June 2007
not right off hand. but then again, you don't seem to have any ether. what i do know is with a 2 second google search i found that The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (http://www.oism.org/pproject/) has a 31,000 scientist long petition against global warming/climate change, saying there is no such thing. I think ill go with the 31,000 scientists.



It is also politics, if not yet, then it soon will be...
its not yet, so let it ride.


I recently watched a documentary on the subject. It turns out that 7 billion people on earth only account for about 5 percent (that's still a lot). But most of it is caused by forest fires, naturally occuring geysers/volcanoes and decomposing wildlife.

So, even if we reduced our emissions to zero, it would have little effect on the temperature. I do think, however, it would have a beneficial effect on the WEATHER and our living circumstances in general. It's been proven that more pollution = more illness and stilted growth in children. So it's still a problem.

I just think it's disgusting that humans have to think they're about to be obliterated forever as a race before they do anything meaningful about a situation. But our global society isn't exactly the easiest to make good decisions in since it's all based on profitability and affordability, not worthiness.
we didn't effect any of the other ice ages or warm periods and we won't effect this one.

[bobbob94]

a 31,000 scientist long petition against global warming/climate change, saying there is no such thing. I think ill go with the 31,000 scientists.


But you're no doubt aware that a majority of scientific opinion is on the side of the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis. Why do you think this is if, according to you, the hypothesis is so clearly wrong?

[etnlIcarus]

I'd like to request that the mods just delete dumb/inflammatory posts, rather than immediately locking the entire thread.


When you take a close look at the graph doesn't it appear that the temperature line increases BEFORE the CO2 line? Would this not suggest that temperature is somehow driving CO2? The theory goes that oceans hold large amounts of CO2 naturally, but the total amount they an hold varies with temperature. As ocean temp increases the amount of CO2 it can hold decreases - thus it gets gassed out into the atmosphere.

Despite Al Gore's interpretation of the data, no one suggested those CO2 emissions began those warming periods. What the data does show, is that CO2 emissions rise with temperature increases, amplifying the increase in temperature. This is due to positive feedback loops: you explained one such loop, with the earth's oceans decreased capacity to absorb CO2 (it's actually plankton that do most of the work - for a related issue, see ocean acidification). Other detrimental feedback loops include deforestation reducing the effectiveness of the other major carbon sink (err, the forests), receding glaciers having less capacity to reflect light and melting permafrost, accelerating the decomposition of bio-matter, producing methane and CO2. There's also the problem that warmer temperatures will result in more water vapour in the atmosphere, which is also an important greenhouse gas.


If CO2 is a strong driver of temperature, why aren't we warmer? Our total CO2 levels are higher than ever before, yet according to the graph we're still well within the normal range and seem to have leveled off for the time being. Could we maybe have been part of a natural heating cycle the past 100 years or so and will be soon experiencing global cooling (if we're not already experiencing it).There's no, "if". Don't be confused: there's no debate over whether CO2 is an important greenhouse gas. Most criticisms are about peripheral factors (well, that's giving most of these folks too much credit. Lets just call them diversions).

More specific to your point, that graph's timescale makes it impossible to make any observations about short-term changes in temperature. More appropriate graphs (lazy wikipedia linking, I know) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png) do show that temperatures are rising and are accelerating. The rising isn't so much a problem (that's meant to be happening), it's the acceleration that is concerning.

Will continue addressing your points, but I need to get my dinner.

Edit:


If the current warming is due to man made CO2 emissions, what caused the fluctuation of CO2 in the past? We were not around 600,000 years ago to dump CO2 into the atmosphere, so why did it vary?This comes back to your first point. No one is suggesting that CO2 has been the initial catalyst for global temperature changes throughout history. If I may abuse wikipedia once more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Causes), there are a multitude of factors that can set off periods of warming or cooling.


If the greenhouse effect caused the previous warming periods, why is it short lived? Based on current theory of the effect there is no reason why the earth should have suddenly cooled, we should have kept on warming and we would never have made it here today to worry about such things.Besides changes in the above listed factors eventually reversing global temperatures, an obvious example here are the Oceanic gyres: I assume you've heard of the concern regarding the stability of the Noth-Atlantic gulf stream (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation)? Super-continent breakup is also a note-worthy possibility (relates back to volcanism but interesting, none the less).

[cascade9]

well, there are about 10,000-20,000 scientists saying global/climate change is bull. and instead of people listening to them, they listen to al gore and fox news and cnn()](*,). then they said that the polar bears are in danger of drowning, when polar bears can swim up to 300 miles a day if need be.

Gah! 'Poalr' bear, thats just wrong...its a water bear! water! Ursus maritimus!

(Sorry, personally I hate 'polar bear', IMO its double-think to disguise that we killed all the ones that aren't in polar regions)


That's a pretty woolly statement. "A singe volcano"? Do you mean they all give off that much CO2, in every eruption? Or did one do it once?

From a quick Google:


Source (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf)

And that's Krakatoa, probably the biggest eruptions of the last couple of centuries.


Krakatoa isn't _that_ big. Santa Maria, Mount Pinatubo, and Novarupta in the 20th Century are all in the same sort of class as Krakatoa. Santorini is far more impressive, it is probably is the biggest eruption for the last few thousand years. Which is a tiny amount of time, geologically.


4th: If the greenhouse effect caused the previous warming periods, why is it short lived? Based on current theory of the effect there is no reason why the earth should have suddenly cooled, we should have kept on warming and we would never have made it here today to worry about such things.

One of the more neat explanations for this is from George Simpson (Director of the UK Meteorological Office1920-1938). Basically, all the high latitudes are arid. No rain or snow, so no ice. So, to get nice big glaciers to form in the high latitude you need to move the polar front further north (in the northern hemisphere), so that snow in large amounts can fall in the places where glaciers could form (like Baffin island, Canada). To do that, you need a warmer climate, which will also cause more evaporation, and also more rain and snow, which will make heavy snowfalls in currently arid areas. The glaciers will grow and spead south, and the albedo effect will reflect away the sunlight that might have melted them otherwise. Eventually, the albedo effect from the ice will reflect away so much sunlight that the pendulum swings back the other way. Hey presto, ice age! Unproven (at least untill we get an iceage to check) but very neat theory.

IMO, CO2 is just an 'easy target'. I really think that a lot of people who talk about CO2 have no idea about absorption bands (Fraunhofer bands). CO2 absorbs nearly all infra-red rays, at certain wavelengths _only_. Adding more CO2 will not make much difference, as there is very little radiation left to be absorbed. Its far more likely that any climate change is driven by the sun, not CO2. It would explain why a Mars, Jupiter, Triton (one of the moons of Neptune) and Pluto are all heating up. (There may be other bodies in the solar system heating up, I havent checked LOL)

[PrePenguin]

Once again previous Ice ages were preceded by a global incident which spawned the domino effect that sets off the chain of events and the scientist have this data.. I find it ironic just since the Bush administration 90% of these scientist that are pushing this natural earth cycle theory have flipped 180 degree just in the 8 years of the Bush presidency from the other side of the coin.. Somehow with this big swing in reverse of opinions in just 8 years i cant help but relate that to political considering all the energy crisis we have had over the last several years.

[CarpKing]

we currently have almost no active volcanoes left on this planet

This may not be the most volcanic era of Earth's history, but there are still a large number of active volcanoes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Active_volcanoes

[Rainstride]

That's pretty fast... that's an average of 12.5 mph for 24 hours straight. Only the Terminator and Chuck Norris can do that!
lol, can chuck norris run at about 40mph on land?:) they also, hang out on ice flows, so that helps in getting around. the normal distance is about 100 a day no problem. though if they feel like it http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2028001/posts
to bad for that bear though.

[renzokuken]

One thing that always seems to be ignored is the methane effect. Methane is a much MUCH more powerful greenhouse gas (although alot more shortlived than CO2). Cattle is one of the biggest contributors of this, and i guess the argument is whether man learning to domesticate and mass breed cattle has caused a significant change.

Personally, and as a scientist/research chemist, i'm completely unconvinced about climate change being a direct result of our actions. I never believe anything in the media about it as they only ever portray the side of the argument that will grab the headlines.

We are probably also forgetting that whatever happens, the planet will survive. It will adapt and change as it needs. Whether man survives is completely immaterial as we are only a very small cog in a very big machine. Human arrogance and selfishness has no bounds in the grand scheme of the universe and mother nature.

[Rainstride]

But you're no doubt aware that a majority of scientific opinion is on the side of the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis. Why do you think this is if, according to you, the hypothesis is so clearly wrong?

what majority? most of the people saying it is real are getting large sums of money to do interviews and tv shows and write books. pull out some creditable people who have nothing to gain, with some science that hasn't been proven wrong(or in a few cases out right lies.). besides the sun its self has cycles where it gets hotter and colder. and on top of that common since should tell people more co2 = more plant growth.

and even if it was all true. so what? what is the big threat? the ice caps melting? if thats it, ice expands when it freezes, so the water level with most likely fall. the way the oceans move is dictated by deep sea volcanoes so thats fine. so there is not really a threat even then.

[gnomeuser]

Let's quickly inject some actual science into the debate. Real Climate (http://www.realclimate.org/) contains articles by climate scientists on a number of different subjects, I recommend accessing their index to the wealth of information they have made available with data.

[Rainstride]

Personally, and as a scientist/research chemist, i'm completely unconvinced about climate change being a direct result of our actions. I never believe anything in the media about it as they only ever portray the side of the argument that will grab the headlines.
exactly. and nothing gets attention like "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!";)


We are probably also forgetting that whatever happens, the planet will survive. It will adapt and change as it needs. Whether man survives is completely immaterial as we are only a very small cog in a very big machine. Human arrogance and selfishness has no bounds in the grand scheme of the universe and mother nature.
agreed.

[PrePenguin]

what majority? most of the people saying it is real are getting large sums of money to do interviews and tv shows and write books. pull out some creditable people who have nothing to gain, with some science that hasn't been proven wrong(or in a few cases out right lies.). besides the sun its self has cycles where it gets hotter and colder. and on top of that common since should tell people more co2 = more plant growth.

and even if it was all true. so what? what is the big threat? the ice caps melting? if thats it, ice expands when it freezes, so the water level with most likely fall. the way the oceans move is dictated by deep sea volcanoes so thats fine. so there is not really a threat even then.



The oceans Conveyor uses polar caps to cool hot water from the southern /equator waters to the north there by cause the cold water to sink and repeat the cycle of circulating the oceans waters thereby helping to control earths weather patterns. The sun is getting bigger true since in 50-100 billion years its will die becoming a red dwarf in the process and expand and burning earth and all planets in our vicinities it does not have the mass to become a supernova or a gamma ray burst upon death so it will just expand until it collapses back on itself and dye. However man is kicking up chemicals that reflects the beneficial UVA rays for plant groth and trapping more and more UVB rays etc that cause global warming that will be retain in our atomosphere due to being unable to escape thereby setting off the chain of events that will start the earth into a irreversible path until she has healed herself and natural ordered is restored.

[Paqman]

not right off hand. but then again, you don't seem to have any ether.

No, but I started digging some up. Since you're the one making the original claim, the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise you're just posting opinions, not facts.

Surely you agree that discussion of the topic should be fact-based?

[NCLI]

Denying global warming is extraordinarily dangerous. Every single major scientific investigation conducted into this by, fx, the United Nations, have come to the conclusion that we are accelerating global warming. And really, it's not just CO2. It's tonnes and tonnes of other, much more problematic gasses. It's just that CO2 is easiest to point out.

Anyway, what happens if we do nothing about global warming, and it's true?
Most of the world will be covered in water, and many people will flee to the richer countries, causing major resource problems.

What happens if we do something about it, and it's just a scam?
We lose some money, but rid ourselves of our dependency of limited issues like oil and coal.

What happens if we do something about it, and it's true?
Same as the above,but we also avoid #1.

What happens if we do nothing about it, and it's just a scam?
Well, nothing. However, we will still be dependent on oil and coal, which WILL run out someday.

Now, which of these options are preferable, honestly?

[Exodist]

Humans have a lack of looking a the broad picture of things at hand. Despite what many of the so called scientist report, these things are fact:
- Ice Ages come and go in cycles. This is the natural order of things for a planet of our type.
- Yes humans are accelerating the next coming ice age. But since Ice Ages come every 30 to 40tx years and last for about 10tx years. 1 or 2 more thousands years sooner isnt going to make a hill of beans.
- Ice Age will not be the end of the human race. Matter of fact Glaciers where mostly predominate in the northern hemisphere. So most (2/3rd give or take) of the US and European coutries will be snowed under. But Cancun Mexico will be kicken!

[cascade9]

what majority? most of the people saying it is real are getting large sums of money to do interviews and tv shows and write books. pull out some creditable people who have nothing to gain, with some science that hasn't been proven wrong(or in a few cases out right lies.). besides the sun its self has cycles where it gets hotter and colder. and on top of that common since should tell people more co2 = more plant growth.

and even if it was all true. so what? what is the big threat? the ice caps melting? if thats it, ice expands when it freezes, so the water level with most likely fall. the way the oceans move is dictated by deep sea volcanoes so thats fine. so there is not really a threat even then.

Yeah, IF you think that only the arctic has ice. Theres also Greenland and Antarctica (and thats just big ones).

Sea levels will rise.


Denying global warming is extraordinarily dangerous. Every single major scientific investigation conducted into this by, fx, the United Nations, have come to the conclusion that we are accelerating global warming. And really, it's not just CO2. It's tonnes and tonnes of other, much more problematic gasses. It's just that CO2 is easiest to point out.

Anyway, what happens if we do nothing about global warming, and it's true?
Most of the world will be covered in water, and many people will flee to the richer countries, causing major resource problems.

Umm..no, 'most of the world' is already covered with water. Sure, sea levels will rise, but its not going to change the land/water ratio that much. BTW, you have noticed that the richest areas are at very low levels? A lot of the richer places will be flooded.


What happens if we do something about it, and it's just a scam?
We lose some money, but rid ourselves of our dependency of limited issues like oil and coal.

What happens if we do something about it, and it's true?
Same as the above,but we also avoid #1.

What happens if we do nothing about it, and it's just a scam?
Well, nothing. However, we will still be dependent on oil and coal, which WILL run out someday.

Now, which of these options are preferable, honestly?

Yeah, well, if it wasnt for the push to nuclear power I would agree. But IMO, better to have sea levels rise (or even to step back into an ice age) than to have lots of much more dangerous waste floating about.

[stinger30au]

i reckon this co2 caper is a load of bullocks

if you have a look back in history oyu will find the earts temperature was a lot hotter then what it is now

this has been proven by a group of scientisits drilling core samples from ice for some time now

infact the earts temperature was even hotter then it was before the industrial revolution even started

so there is no way earths climate change been caused by us

as a general rule of thumb, the most simple of answers is correct

and in this case the only thing that makes the earth hot, is the jiant nuclear reactor in the sky called the sun

wow... what a boring name, our star is called "sun"
could have been more interesting like i dunno, zaphoid beeblebrox or something more exciting

getting of soap box now

[Rainstride]

The oceans Conveyor uses polar caps to cool hot water from the southern /equator waters to the north there by cause the cold water to sink and repeat the cycle of circulating the oceans waters thereby helping to control earths weather patterns. The sun is getting bigger true since in 50-100 billion years its will die becoming a red dwarf in the process and expand and burning earth and all planets in our vicinities it does not have the mass to become a supernova or a gamma ray burst upon death so it will just expand until it collapses back on itself and dye. However man is kicking up chemicals that reflects the beneficial UVA rays for plant groth and trapping more and more UVB rays etc that cause global warming that will be retain in our atomosphere due to being unable to escape thereby setting off the chain of events that will start the earth into a irreversible path until she has healed herself and natural ordered is restored.
even then you would still have the deep sea volcanoes causing water to cycle. we're also on a 23degree tilt in our orbit. that is what causes the 6months of night and 6 months of day in the highest/lowest parts of the earth. besides the ice caps grow and shrink all the time. I said hoter not bigger, its a cycle just like the 11 year solar flare cycle, though I don't know how long its supposed to last.



No, but I started digging some up. Since you're the one making the original claim, the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise you're just posting opinions, not facts.

Surely you agree that discussion of the topic should be fact-based?
Agreed.

[Rainstride]

wow... what a boring name, our star is called "sun"
could have been more interesting like i dunno, zaphoid beeblebrox or something more exciting

getting of soap box now

our star is called "Sol" its just easier to say sun.

[etnlIcarus]

then they said that the polar bears are in danger of drowning, when polar bears can swim up to 300 miles a day if need be.

Yes polar bears can swim. No, polar bears cannot swim indefinitely.


I recently watched a documentary on the subject. It turns out that 7 billion people on earth only account for about 5 percent (that's still a lot).Depends how you measure anthropogenic contributions (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm). Also depends on how you define anthropogenic - the IPCC's definition includes fewer human activities than you might think.


Like i mentioned in my last post its not carbon dioxide as much it is the chemicals we spew into the atomosphere which traps the suns UV rays and therefor heats the planet and melting our ice caps which is essential in regulating water temps and controlling earths weather. Firstly, CO2 is one of those, "chemicals" (and certainly the most prominent in terms of impact, mostly due to volume). Secondly, you seem to be confused with the ozone layer. Ozone blocks light within the ultra-violet spectrum from reaching the earth's surface. In terms of climate, it's (directly, at least) not very important. The greenhouse effect is where light from the sun reaches the earth's surface, is radiated back out in the thermal infra-red spectrum and is absorbed.radiated back out by gasses within the atmosphere.


Forrest fires is a natural process of mother earth renewing itself via lightning etc. The earth will reach a tilting point and will get rid of humans like a disease and heal itself.. Whats the definition of a virus? See if Humans fit in this category to earth? She will heal herself when she gets sick enough.It's really unfortunate that you post stuff like this. You were spot-on when you were talking about ocean currents.


we didn't effect any of the other ice ages or warm periods and we won't effect this one.This is just assertion.


IMO, CO2 is just an 'easy target'. I really think that a lot of people who talk about CO2 have no idea about absorption bands (Fraunhofer bands). CO2 absorbs nearly all infra-red rays, at certain wavelengths _only_.
This is misleading. It absorbs strongly across almost all of the infrared spectrum, only dropping off at the longer wavelengths. Most of what gets radiated back into the atmosphere falls on the shorter-wavelength end of the spectrum.


Adding more CO2 will not make much difference, as there is very little radiation left to be absorbed. Its far more likely that any climate change is driven by the sun, not CO2.I'm going to be obnoxious and request a source for both these claims.


It would explain why a Mars, Jupiter, Triton (one of the moons of Neptune) and Pluto are all heating up.Some heating has been verified on a couple of bodies (you may want to re-check a couple of those) but no significant change in solar output has been recorded. In order to theorise that these warming bodies have a common cause, you first need an applicable mechanism.

[benj1]

i reckon this co2 caper is a load of bullocks

if you have a look back in history oyu will find the earts temperature was a lot hotter then what it is now

this has been proven by a group of scientisits drilling core samples from ice for some time now



yes the earth has been hotter in the past, look at the graph in the first post, as co2 rises temperature rises


as a general rule of thumb, the most simple of answers is correct
yes youre correct, in this case co2 leads to increases in temperature


so there is no way earths climate change been caused by us
oh very responsible


infact the earts temperature was even hotter then it was before the industrial revolution even started
interesting you should say that infact we went through a mini ice age in the C19th, additionally the temperature was kept down by all the soot particles in the air, the temperature only started to rise after we passed all the clean air acts, although im not suggesting we should start pumping out clouds of smog to get us out of the sh*t

[lisati]

Anyone else remember Y2K? There was a lot of hype, a lot of which turned out to be nonsense.

Relevance? There has recently been a lot of hype about climate change. Some of it is likely to turn out to be just as nonsensical.

[benj1]

Yes polar bears can swim. No, polar bears cannot swim indefinitely.

you also forgot to mention they wouldnt be able to breed, also they wouldnt be able hunt, not that there would be anything to hunt because the seals would have no where to breed

[cybuqui]

thinking,no comment

[etnlIcarus]

you also forgot to mention they wouldnt be able to breed, also they wouldnt be able hunt, not that there would be anything to hunt because the seals would have no where to breed

If we're being anal, the first thing that will get them will be the polar bear equivalent of hypothermia. For all their fat and fur, the heat conductivity of water will syphon their body heat faster than they can generate it, once they hit the polar bear equivalent (I'm saying that a lot, tonight <.<) of, "runner's wall".

But I figured most of the implications were obvious enough, that, "can't swim indefinitely", summed it up pretty nicely. :P

[benj1]

Anyone else remember Y2K? There was a lot of hype, a lot of which turned out to be nonsense.

Relevance? There has recently been a lot of hype about climate change. Some of it is likely to turn out to be just as nonsensical.

alot of people said the world was going to end aswell but it didnt.

on the other hand strange theories like the theory of evolution, or newtons laws of motion, which are generally accepted as true.

then theres always doubt as to whether the y2k bug existed or we fixed it. if i dropped a cup and caught it before it hit the floor, how do i know it would have hit the floor?

[benj1]

If we're being anal, the first thing that will get them will be the polar bear equivalent of hypothermia. For all their fat and fur, the heat conductivity of water will syphon their body heat faster than they can generate it, once they hit the polar bear equivalent (I'm saying that a lot, tonight <.<) of, "runner's wall".

But I figured most of the implications were obvious enough, that, "can't swim indefinitely", summed it up pretty nicely. :P

true, except obviously not obvious enough for someone to point out that polar bears can swim for 300 miles

[etnlIcarus]

I think we've underestimated the global warming potential of sick burns.

[cascade9]

Yes polar bears can swim. No, polar bears cannot swim indefinitely.

This is misleading. It absorbs strongly across almost all of the infrared spectrum, only dropping off at the longer wavelengths. Most of what gets radiated back into the atmosphere falls on the shorter-wavelength end of the spectrum.

I'm going to be obnoxious and request a source for both these claims.

Some heating has been verified on a couple of bodies (you may want to re-check a couple of those) but no significant change in solar output has been recorded. In order to theorise that these warming bodies have a common cause, you first need an applicable mechanism.

Polar bears can swim, yes. A long long way. They have been spotted over 300Km from land and can 'only' swim at aprox. 9Km an hour. Thats a lot of swimming. (BTW, thats more than 300 miles, once you count getting out there and back again).

As for the absorption bands, theres plenty of nice graphs around.
http://brneurosci.org/spectra.png

Right now, I cant really provide a source on "Adding more CO2 will not make much difference, as there is very little radiation left to be absorbed. Its far more likely that any climate change is driven by the sun, not CO2." but I'll try to find something online (damn books, makes it hard to link LOL)

There is significant increases in solar output.

http://www.daylightpage.com/Sun.htm


One important thing to note about this is that the variation in solar output tracks very closely with sunspot activity, temperature changes on Earth and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.I'd love to know what other cause there would be for temp rises across several bodies in the solar system at one time.

[benj1]

Polar bears can swim, yes. A long long way. They have been spotted over 300Km from land and can 'only' swim at aprox. 9Km an hour. Thats a lot of swimming. (BTW, thats more than 300 miles, once you count getting out there and back again).
which is what ethnicarus said, although you cant really be suggesting they can survive indefinitely at sea



There is significant increases in solar output.

http://www.daylightpage.com/Sun.htm

first that graph shows that output has remained static for the past 50 years, second the graph doesnt realy match up with the mini ice age of the pre C20th period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age)

just found a nice graph showing temp,sunspot activity and co2 levels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg



I'd love to know what other cause there would be for temp rises across several bodies in the solar system at one time.

to quote this web site
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm



1. Not all planets are warming - some are cooling
2. The sun has shown no long term trend since 1950
3. There are explanations for why other planets are warming

[etnlIcarus]

As for the absorption bands, theres plenty of nice graphs around.
http://brneurosci.org/spectra.pngWell, I stand corrected on that point.


There is significant increases in solar output.

http://www.daylightpage.com/Sun.htmThat graph (which incidentally I've seen before) doesn't support your assertion.


I'd love to know what other cause there would be for temp rises across several bodies in the solar system at one time.That's, of course, pre-supposing a common cause.

[bobbob94]

what majority? most of the people saying it is real are getting large sums of money to do interviews and tv shows and write books. pull out some creditable people who have nothing to gain, with some science that hasn't been proven wrong(or in a few cases out right lies.).

The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change http://www.ipcc.ch/ are unlikely to be in it for TV interviews, nor is the author of the Stern Review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review, nor the various national academies of science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_changeI mean really, if you want to disagree with the science, go ahead, but to suggest that a majority of scientific opinion isn't against you, and that the 'few' who are are in it for tv show money is just downright silly...

[ssam]

my gran is 97 and smokes 20 a day. all those scientists saying that smoking causes cancer must be lying.

*cough*

/me puts head back in sand

[handy]

Well done you lot! :D

I'm both surprised & very impressed; you have shown intelligence & self control.

I wouldn't have thought this thread would have survived beyond 2 pages. :)

Perhaps if I hadn't of refrained from going down this path again things would have turned out differently? Perhaps not... :)

[Sporkman]

3rd: If the current warming is due to man made CO2 emissions, what caused the fluctuation of CO2 in the past? We were not around 600,000 years ago to dump CO2 into the atmosphere, so why did it vary?


Logical fallacy - !C & A does not disprove C->A.

[Sporkman]

if it is caused by man, than why have they stopped calling it global warming now that its colder, and now say its "climate change" as if though we're only supposed to have a single season and temp. they said we were causing a green house effect with co2. now our co2 is cooling the earth?

CO2 absorbs infrared radiation - radiation that would otherwise radiate out into space. This changes the energy dynamic of the atmosphere. Doesn't necessarily mean the temperature will rise (though modelling indicates this), but it does imply change.

[etnlIcarus]

Cascade9: while information on the point you brought up has been scarce, I believe I've found a pretty straight-forward explanation (and refutation) of the argument you're describing (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/).

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it.

[cascade9]

Well, I stand corrected on that point.

That graph (which incidentally I've seen before) doesn't support your assertion.

That's, of course, pre-supposing a common cause.

If by 'assertion' you meant the 'solar output tracks with sunspot activity', that was a quote I put in from the linked site. Its got issues, but it is overly simplified (as is everything in this thread LOL). Its not just about sunspots though, radiance matters a lot, and other things (like volcanos) can also play major roles.

As for the refutation, theres arguments against that as well-

http://nov55.com/ntyg.html

BTW, I really dont like to link to that page. Theres excessive politics around the whole climate change issue, and quoting from websites supporting either side are flawed, at best, IMO.

[Dennis N]

Heed Dr. Hansen's advice:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

[Hyporeal]

if it is caused by man, than why have they stopped calling it global warming now that its colder, and now say its "climate change" as if though we're only supposed to have a single season and temp. they said we were causing a green house effect with co2. now our co2 is cooling the earth?

This is interesting from a linguistic perspective. The decision to replace "global warming" with "climate change" was made by a man named Frank Luntz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Global_warming). A Luntz memo (http://www.ewg.org/node/8684) told the Bush administration that the new term is "less frightening" and without the "catastrophic connotations" of the old one. In other words, it's a piece of marketing from those who want to downplay the importance of environmentalism.

[Dragonbite]

1st: When you take a close look at the graph doesn't it appear that the temperature line increases BEFORE the CO2 line? Would this not suggest that temperature is somehow driving CO2? The theory goes that oceans hold large amounts of CO2 naturally, but the total amount they an hold varies with temperature. As ocean temp increases the amount of CO2 it can hold decreases - thus it gets gassed out into the atmosphere.

Or does the ocean release more CO2 as a result of raising temperatures to help return the climate from going too extreme?

I remember in the 70's (or was it 80's) when they were talking about us going into another Ice Age and we'd be covered in feet of snow and crops would die and we'd starve to death shivering ...

This year, in the Northeast USA, it has been one of the wettest and coolest summers I can recall. Is that an indicator of climate change? No, unless it happens next year, and the year after that, and the year after that, ...

Or maybe the world is SUPPOSED to be hotter than it is, and we've been screwing it up all along bringing the temperature down to what we are used to?

Look at the good side of things, though. With receding ice caps we have access to data and information buried underneath for hundreds, thousands or even longer! They are finding bacteria and bodies that have otherwise been frozen in time. The bacteria even revived some after warming up.

Do we screw up the environment? Yes, definitely. Nature uses lightning to start fires in forests which then weeds out the weaker and diseased trees, bushes and plant-life so the rest can grow stronger and what is left of the fallen goes back into the soil as nutrients to the ones that survived.

Now we put our homes all through these woods and put out these darn fires to save our homes and more plant-destroying diseases and fungi are given the chance to survive and thrive unlike before. Of course, it may start in the woods but that doesn't mean it cannot be picked up and carried around and eventually reach crops or elsewhere causing problems.

Yeah, humans are screwing up the environment, but it isn't from carbon (completely).

Just my (at this minute, subject to change without notice) thoughts.

There is a video that goes counter the global-warming / climate-change theory and such. It's called The Great Global Warming Swindle. I haven't seen it all the way through, but it does bring up some interesting thoughts.

[benj1]

and other things (like volcanos) can also play major roles.

actually volcanoes only count for a small percentage of carbon dioxide output ie <3%

and major eruptions actually cool the planet.
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
according to wikipedia 1.2c

Average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius in the year following the eruption. Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa

[dgrafix]

CO2 manmade or not, we still have to reduce our consumption of... everything, considering the planet has long passed its point of sustainability. If panic over a global warming gets people to walk half a mile to the shops instead of taking the SUV, and to turn stuff off when not in use then GREAT.


a single volcano going off gives off more co2 than the human race has ever made in its entire existence
This statement has been said before and discredited in more ways than one.
Not only is this false, it couldn't possibly be true given the CO2 record from any of the dozens of sampling stations around the globe. If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in CO2 concentrations, then these CO2 records would be full of spikes -- one for each eruption. Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend. - From a USGS study of Hawaii

[Dragonbite]

CO2 manmade or not, we still have to reduce our consumption of... everything, considering the planet has long passed its point of sustainability.

Reduce consumption or population?

Maybe this will be the push for humans to start looking at populating other stellar bodies like the Moon or Mars or a Moon of Jupiter?

[benj1]

There is a video that goes counter the global-warming / climate-change theory and such. It's called The Great Global Warming Swindle. I haven't seen it all the way through, but it does bring up some interesting thoughts.

interesting thoughts? ofcom upheld numerous complaints against it, at least two of the scientists that were interviewed said they were misrepresented.

this is what wikipedia says


Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and individual scientists (including two of the film's contributors[7][8]). The film's critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[9][10][11][12] Channel 4 and Wag TV (the production company) accepted some of the criticism, correcting a few errors in subsequent releases.[13] However according to Bob Ward (former spokesman for the Royal Society), this still left five out of seven of the errors and misleading arguments which had been previously attacked by him and 36 other scientists in an open letter.[11]

The British broadcasting regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), received 265 complaints about the programme, one of which was a 176-page detailed complaint co-authored by a group of scientists.[14][15] Ofcom used this complaint in its deliberation,[2] and delivered its ruling on 21 July 2008. It ruled that the programme had unfairly treated Sir David King, the IPCC and Professor Carl Wunsch. Ofcom also found that part 5 of the programme (the 'political' part) had breached several parts of the Broadcasting Code regarding impartiality. Ofcom said that the rules on impartiality did not apply to the scientific arguments in parts 1-4, because global warming caused by human activity was a settled fact: "In this respect it could be said that the discussion about the causes of global warming was to a very great extent settled by the date of broadcast ( 8 March 2007 ). [...] In Ofcom’s view the link between human activity and global warming also became similarly settled before March 2007. [...] Having reached this view, it follows that the rules relating to the preservation of due impartiality did not apply to these parts."[2]. Regarding the programme's accuracy, Ofcom noted that in its role as regulator it: "had to ascertain – not whether the programme was accurate - but whether it materially misled the audience." On this basis Ofcom ruled that: "On balance it did not materially mislead the audience so as to cause harm or offence."[2][16] On 4 and 5 August 2008, Channel 4 and More 4 broadcast a summary of Ofcom's findings,[17] though it will not face sanctions.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

there was even a documentary shown about it (cant remember what it was called, anyone else remember?) reinterviewing half the people and re examining the data, and coming to very different conclusions

[Dragonbite]

interesting thoughts? ofcom upheld numerous complaints against it, at least two of the scientists that were interviewed said they were misrepresented.

this is what wikipedia says

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

there was even a documentary shown about it (cant remember what it was called, anyone else remember?) reinterviewing half the people and re examining the data, and coming to very different conclusions

Of course for some, it's all part of the conspiracy ;)

[Paqman]

This is interesting from a linguistic perspective. The decision to replace "global warming" with "climate change" was made by a man named Frank Luntz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Global_warming). A Luntz memo (http://www.ewg.org/node/8684) told the Bush administration that the new term is "less frightening" and without the "catastrophic connotations" of the old one. In other words, it's a piece of marketing from those who want to downplay the importance of environmentalism.

I was under the impression it was suggested by scientists. "Climate change" is more accurate, because "global warming" was giving the public the mistaken impression that the main effect was that their local temperature would rise. People were understandably less concerned about that than they should be.

[benj1]

Of course for some, it's all part of the conspiracy ;)

true,
if your are the type of person to ignore the overwhelming body of scientific evidence.
and if you are the type of person to believe that the wind turbine industry and green peace are more likely to, and be able to perpetrate such a massive hoax, while the combined weight of the oil companies and scientific communities (that arent in on the hoax)are unable to counter it.

at the end of the day you can always go out and do the measurements your self, thats the good thing about science its testable.

[Dragonbite]

true,
if your are the type of person to ignore the overwhelming body of scientific evidence.
and if you are the type of person to believe that the wind turbine industry and green peace are more likely to, and be able to perpetrate such a massive hoax, while the combined weight of the oil companies and scientific communities (that arent in on the hoax)are unable to counter it.

at the end of the day you can always go out and do the measurements your self, thats the good thing about science its testable.

Or just wait 100 years and I'll be dead and won't care!

I'd be interested if you can find or remember the video that countered the "..Swindle" movie. I'm sure the person who gave it to me would be interested in watching that one.

Kinda ironic how the Mayans can create a super-accurate calendar (clock?) hundreds of years ago with knots, and today we can't even tell for a fact and without any "swaying" of the data one way or the other whether the climate is changing and if it is indeed because of humans or if it is a natural occurrence!

Heck, we can't even accurately predict the weather consistently!

[Hyporeal]

I was under the impression it was suggested by scientists. "Climate change" is more accurate, because "global warming" was giving the public the mistaken impression that the main effect was that their local temperature would rise. People were understandably less concerned about that than they should be.

I haven't seen any sign that scientists care what it's called one way or the other. After all, neither term is meaningful without at least a basic understanding of the science. I've heard someone sincerely argue that the sun warms the earth and is therefore responsible for global warming! We've seen in this thread someone claiming that climate change is perfectly normal -- because of seasonal changes! Thus I conclude that both terms can be taken in completely inaccurate ways. In my opinion, either one will suffice as long as it is not used as a substitute for real understanding.

[benj1]

Or just wait 100 years and I'll be dead and won't care!

I'd be interested if you can find or remember the video that countered the "..Swindle" movie. I'm sure the person who gave it to me would be interested in watching that one.


i cant remember i thought it was called the great global warming swindle, swindle, but i cant seem to find a programme with with that title.

it was very damning, they showed a graph from TGGWS showing a strong correlation between average temp and solar activity (or something) going up to 1980, although they neglected to show the rest of the graph (for which there was data), because the two correlated lines deviate sharply after 1980.

[gnomeuser]

i reckon this co2 caper is a load of bullocks

if you have a look back in history oyu will find the earts temperature was a lot hotter then what it is now

this has been proven by a group of scientisits drilling core samples from ice for some time now

infact the earts temperature was even hotter then it was before the industrial revolution even started

so there is no way earths climate change been caused by us

as a general rule of thumb, the most simple of answers is correct

and in this case the only thing that makes the earth hot, is the jiant nuclear reactor in the sky called the sun

wow... what a boring name, our star is called "sun"
could have been more interesting like i dunno, zaphoid beeblebrox or something more exciting

getting of soap box now

Sorry, you are wrong (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/recent-warming-but-no-trend-in-galactic-cosmic-rays/) - the exact impact of solar forcing is hard to determine, it is however not the end all, be all explanations for recent warming trends. Strike one.

As for your pre-industrial age was hotter claim, wrong again (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/werent-temperatures-warmer-during-the-medieval-warm-period-than-they-are-today/), the period between the 15th and the 19th century is known as the little ice age for a reason. Strike two.

And your complete failure to cite references for your claims brings you up to strike three.

I do believe it's time for you to withdrawn and research a bit.

[Dragonbite]

Sorry, you are wrong (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/recent-warming-but-no-trend-in-galactic-cosmic-rays/) - the exact impact of solar forcing is hard to determine, it is however not the end all, be all explanations for recent warming trends. Strike one.

As for your pre-industrial age was hotter claim, wrong again (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/werent-temperatures-warmer-during-the-medieval-warm-period-than-they-are-today/), the period between the 15th and the 19th century is known as the little ice age for a reason. Strike two.


Do they have stats are pre-medieval times?

It's an interesting site, but a bit to chew through.

Anybody know of any sites that are like this but of the opposite argument?

[Chronon]

a single volcano going off gives off more co2 than the human race has ever made in its entire existence.

This is simply not true. For example:
Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.



our planet has 11,000 year heating and cooling cycles caused by a small flux in its orbit(i forget what its called). witch is why we have ice ages on and off about every 10-11,000 years.

It's called precession. Other factors could alter this dynamic.



if it is caused by man, than why have they stopped calling it global warming now that its colder, and now say its "climate change" as if though we're only supposed to have a single season and temp. they said we were causing a green house effect with co2. now our co2 is cooling the earth?

well, there are about 10,000-20,000 scientists saying global/climate change is bull. and instead of people listening to them, they listen to al gore and fox news and cnn()](*,). then they said that the polar bears are in danger of drowning, when polar bears can swim up to 300 miles a day if need be.

it just seems to be one lie or misconception after the other with global warming/climate change.
People have begun to refer to it as climate change because it's not known what the long term effects of forcing the climate will be. It's possible that strong oscillations will arise or that completely unpredictable time evolution could result. Nonlinear systems can exhibit chaos so I, personally, consider it wise to not push such a system's evolution away from well-behaved quasi-periodic trajectories.

We do emit geologically and probably ecologically significant amounts of carbon dioxide. Maybe we should be mindful of this is all.

(I find it interesting that you conflate Al Gore, CNN and Fox News into one group.)

[Chronon]

Kinda ironic how the Mayans can create a super-accurate calendar (clock?) hundreds of years ago with knots, and today we can't even tell for a fact and without any "swaying" of the data one way or the other whether the climate is changing and if it is indeed because of humans or if it is a natural occurrence!

Heck, we can't even accurately predict the weather consistently!

It was a calendar. You then continue with an utter non sequitur.

Nobody has ever been able to predict weather consistently. Your point?

[gnomeuser]

Do they have stats are pre-medieval times?


Given that accurate measurement equipment has only existed for the past 150 years or so that data is inferred from other sources. You can look at the hockey stick articles.



It's an interesting site, but a bit to chew through.

Anybody know of any sites that are like this but of the opposite argument?

As this is a science based site which is written by climate scientists filled with articles citing data am I to assume you are looking for a denialist site with nothing but fabrications written by quacks?

Honestly you do not need such a site, RC has an excellent forum, they answer all the common denialist claims and have lengthy articles discussing the popular "climate change denialist" movies honestly and even follow up on old articles if new data is presented with clear admissions when they were wrong. An excellent example of this is the solar forcing articles which were amended as new data showed that the original impact estimate was in the low range. Regardless any site that takes the same approach (science + data + educated people) should come naturally to the same conclusion, should new data or theories to proposed that is suitable for peer reviewed scientific articles not a public outreach website where such articles are debated and explained.

[Chronon]

i haven't seen any sign that scientists care what it's called one way or the other. After all, neither term is meaningful without at least a basic understanding of the science. I've heard someone sincerely argue that the sun warms the earth and is therefore responsible for global warming! We've seen in this thread someone claiming that climate change is perfectly normal -- because of seasonal changes! Thus i conclude that both terms can be taken in completely inaccurate ways. In my opinion, either one will suffice as long as it is not used as a substitute for real understanding.

+1

[m4tic]

A simple breath of fresh air we make increases our lifetime, instead when i jog in the morning i breath in car fuels which makes my exercises useless.If i die because of fossil fuels, what's protecting animals? after all we are the longest living mammals aren't we? and if our equation of life is disturbed, the whole climate becomes unbalanced

[tjwoosta]

It seems to me that everyone likes to rid their conscience by passing off the whole man made global warming issue as being false without ever actually doing any real research into the subject themselves.

We hear a few scientists (belonging to the minority by the way) say it could be false and everyone jumps the gun on the situation and agrees with them just because we want it to be so.

It would be too much hassle for us to actually change our ways, so we just pretend we don't have to right up until the end.


Like mentioned before...

If it is true and we do nothing about it, were all screwed.

If it is true and we do something about it, we saved ourselves and countless other species around the world, along with ridding ourselves of the dependency we have on oil which is running out so it would need to be done anyway.

If its not true and we do nothing about it, nothing happens but we still have a dependency on oil which is running out.

If its not true and we do something about it anyway, we lose a little bit of profit but we still rid ourselves of the dependency we have on oil which is running out anyway.


So you see theres really only one logical course of action regardless of whether or not this whole man made global warming issue is true or false. We need to just stop debating about it and start to take action.

[SunnyRabbiera]

For me the issue of global climate change is real, and I like to think we have something to do with what is going on right now.
I mean come on we pour toxic gases into the air each day that has to have a very large effect on our planet.
The term "global warming" is very misleading though, I prefer to call it global climate change as not only heat will happen.
Some areas that were once very warm might get frigid, while frigid areas burn up.

[Chronon]

Like mentioned before...

If it is true and we do nothing about it, were all screwed.

If it is true and we do something about it, we saved ourselves and countless other species around the world, along with ridding ourselves of the dependency we have on oil which is running out so it would need to be done anyway.

If its not true and we do nothing about it, nothing happens but we still have a dependency on oil which is running out.

If its not true and we do something about it anyway, we lose a little bit of profit but we still rid ourselves of the dependency we have on oil which is running out anyway.


So you see theres really only one logical course of action regardless of whether or not this whole man made global warming issue is true or false. We need to just stop debating about it and start to take action.
It's a non-theological Pascal's Wager! :)

[Dragonbite]

If it is true and we do nothing about it, were all screwed.

Either that, or the worlds population gets shrunken down, production and consumption drops to bare essentials, infrastructures collapse, people stop running factories and driving cars in the same numbers as before, Nature starts recovering and the few people left inherit the Earth. ;)


So you see theres really only one logical course of action regardless of whether or not this whole man made global warming issue is true or false. We need to just stop debating about it and start to take action.

And that is what is screwing us over.. humans don't follow logic, nor morality.

Why not just push oil production up to max and burn off all that stuff so then we run out and then *have* to compensate?!

:guitar:

[staf0048]

If I may redirect focus on the topic...

I think we can all agree that climate change is real, etiher through natural forces or man made. However, the culprit we're told is CO2 and more over our contribution of CO2 to the environment. However, it seems that the relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration is still not that well understood. I'm not interested in any scientific consensus as consesus does not equate to truth. The world is round. Germs do exist.

Does anyone know of any scientific studies that show beyond a shadow of a doubt the link between global temperature and CO2 and at what atmospheric concentration we would actually experience a greenhouse effect? I'm not doubting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, I'll give you that much, but at what concentrations does it actually have an effect on temperature? I'm having a hard time finding anything that doesn't require the correlation = causation fallocy.

I bring this up because if we're wrong about CO2, then we're not addressing the problem. Rather, we're just fooling ouselves and wasting a lot of time and energy while the real culprit goes unnoticed and unchecked.

I'm not against decreasing CO2 emissions, increasing fuel efficiency, or finding alternative energy sources. In my opinion, the less we pollute as a species the better, but the problem at hand is global warming/climate change. If we don't have concrete evidence that CO2 is the biggest contributor to this change, then we're all fooling ourselves.

Worst case senerio, our solutions to CO2 emmisions actually causes an increase in the true cause of climate change and our self imposed "medicine" ends up killing all life on the planet. This is why getting it right is so important and why we cannot accept any research that requires us to assume or otherwise not based on sound scientific practices.

[alphaniner]

If its not true and we do something about it anyway, we lose a little bit of profit

Sigh. It's not about losing profit, it's about losing freedom. If you haven't been paying attention, many - if not most - green 'solutions' would require radical economic and social re-organization. Whether Climate Change is real or fabricated, many people aren't willing to make the commensurate sacrifices.

A green revolution based on anything less than 100% replacement of the energy production capacity of fossil fuels (not to mention the 'byproducts') is not a brighter future. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding himself.

[tjwoosta]

Sigh. It's not about losing profit, it's about losing freedom.

I guess I fail to see how decreasing co2 emissions and using alternative fuels is going to take away our freedoms.


A green revolution based on anything less than 100% replacement of the energy production capacity of fossil fuels (not to mention the 'byproducts') is not a brighter future

Nobody's talking about abolishing fossil fuels in one day. Its about making changes where possible. Every little bit will make a difference. Fossil fuels are going to need to be replaced very soon anyway as we don't exactly have an unlimited supply like many seem to believe.

[Chronon]

A green revolution based on anything less than 100% replacement of the energy production capacity of fossil fuels (not to mention the 'byproducts') is not a brighter future. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding himself.
I think that there is no way for there to be a brighter future for everyone. People in developing countries can probably look forward to brighter futures as they industrialize. Those in the developed world will probably look forward to having to share the world's resources with more people. Higher demand means higher prices.

There simply isn't enough material to go around for everyone on Earth to live at the standard of living to which Americans (for example) have
become accustomed.

On the energy front, we can probably meet everyone's needs if we get a handle on controlled nuclear fusion. This doesn't magically create enough raw material to go around, though.

[CarpKing]

at what concentrations does it actually have an effect on temperature?

It has always had an effect on temperature. CO2 is part of the soup of gasses called the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect caused by this soup is essential to life as we know it. The idea in this case is that increasing the amount of this greenhouse gas will cause an increase in the greenhouse effect.

I know that correlation does not always equal causation, but if you're lying in bed piling blankets on top of yourself and you start to get uncomfortably warm, do you stop adding blankets or research cosmic rays?

[alphaniner]

I guess I fail to see how decreasing co2 emissions and using alternative fuels is going to take away our freedoms.

It has nothing to do with freedom, so long as things stay voluntary. But most 'go green' proposals don't stop at voluntary compliance. That is my problem.


I think that there is no way for there to be a brighter future for everyone...

Speaking generally, I think that it's highly unlikely but not impossible. But if anything is going to deliver us into a future worth living in, it's going to be scientific and technological progress; not the economically suicidal solutions of the go green goons.

[LowSky]

CO2 manmade or not, we still have to reduce our consumption of... everything, considering the planet has long passed its point of sustainability. If panic over a global warming gets people to walk half a mile to the shops instead of taking the SUV, and to turn stuff off when not in use then GREAT.


People keep bringing up that the planet has past its point of sustainability but no on ever gives reference to the data to support that claim.
Prove to me the damage isn't reversible, because right now the evidence isn't here, and saying it "might be" isn't a scientific answer.

[Crunchy the Headcrab]

We're all worried about global warming and our carbon foot prints.
No we're not. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm concerned with the culture of excess and poor sanitation, but the whole C02 thing pisses me off. Mostly because my government, the US, is trying to use it to tax the living for living. Meanwhile, other countries that pollute in huge quantities are ignoring the issue.

So where do I stand? I think it's pointless in my country to commit economic suicide in order to control pollution that is just going to be rampant in other parts of the world anyway.

[wilee-nilee]

Using CO2 as a argument point is at the least a one sided look at the problems facing the world at large. There are to many variables in this to have a informed position, this is why nobody can give a complete answer that is a concrete fact. Don't let your ego overshadow looking for good data, we are all allowed to have a opinion but make sure you haven't fallen into confirmation bias and group think, just to feel justified in your unprovable opinion.

[benj1]

People keep bringing up that the planet has past its point of sustainability but no on ever gives reference to the data to support that claim.
Prove to me the damage isn't reversible, because right now the evidence isn't here, and saying it "might be" isn't a scientific answer.

at the moment most of our energy is coming from oil and gas, we are using it faster than its produced, that isn't sustainable, also most of the worlds rain forests and rivers are shrinking, which also isnt sustainable.

is the damage reversible? yes, will we still be around to wait for the earth to heal itself? no.




I'm concerned with the culture of excess and poor sanitation, but the whole C02 thing pisses me off. Mostly because my government, the US, is trying to use it to tax the living for living. Meanwhile, other countries that pollute in huge quantities are ignoring the issue.

So where do I stand? I think it's pointless in my country to commit economic suicide in order to control pollution that is just going to be rampant in other parts of the world anyway.

remind me again when did bush introduce taxes on pollution, or infact even admit there was a link between co2 and climate change?

regarding economic suicide.
considering even if the US halved its co2 per capita it would still be higher than even most of europe it has plenty of scope to lower emissions, the US has the second highest co2 out put of any country, only beaten (just)by china, thing is the US has a population of 306million, china has a population of 1.3 billion.
so if europe can remain competitive whilst outputting half the co2 why cant the US.

[staf0048]

I know that correlation does not always equal causation, but if you're lying in bed piling blankets on top of yourself and you start to get uncomfortably warm, do you stop adding blankets or research cosmic rays?

Right, but what if you're using many different types of blankets of varying ability to insullate? You don't know which one/one's are have the best ability to insulate, you just know you're getting hotter and your adding blankets. So maybe you make the connection, "As I add more blankets I get hotter, I should stop adding blankets!" You tell your neighbor and convince them it's the blankets, your local government gets involved and starts telling everyone to stop putting on blankets, but people don't listen, so they start taxing blankets to try to get people to stop using them. Meanwihle no one even notices that they're all lying on a bed of hot coals, because the investigation stopped.

[wilee-nilee]

Right, but what if you're using many different types of blankets of varying ability to insullate? You don't know which one/one's are have the best ability to insulate, you just know you're getting hotter and your adding blankets. So maybe you make the connection, &quot;As I add more blankets I get hotter, I should stop adding blankets!&quot; You tell your neighbor and convince them it's the blankets, your local government gets involved and starts telling everyone to stop putting on blankets, but people don't listen, so they start taxing blankets to try to get people to stop using them. Meanwihle no one even notices that they're all lying on a bed of hot coals, because the investigation stopped.

Wow what a nice example of using assumptions to prop up a personal opinion.

[benj1]

Right, but what if you're using many different types of blankets of varying ability to insullate? You don't know which one/one's are have the best ability to insulate, you just know you're getting hotter and your adding blankets. So maybe you make the connection, "As I add more blankets I get hotter, I should stop adding blankets!" You tell your neighbor and convince them it's the blankets, your local government gets involved and starts telling everyone to stop putting on blankets, but people don't listen, so they start taxing blankets to try to get people to stop using them. Meanwihle no one even notices that they're all lying on a bed of hot coals, because the investigation stopped.
its better than the other option of not doing anything, because it might be wrong, and every one boils to death regardless, plus removing the blankets still helps, and gives you time to diagnose the actual problem, and finally at least you would know that the blankets werent the root cause.

[staf0048]

Was simply trying to prove that correlation does not equal causation. As you can tell by some of my other posts in this thread, I'm looking for data - not assumptions.

[Chronon]

People keep bringing up that the planet has past its point of sustainability but no on ever gives reference to the data to support that claim.
Prove to me the damage isn't reversible, because right now the evidence isn't here, and saying it "might be" isn't a scientific answer.
The question is one of time. Nature will recycle all things eventually.

There is plenty of certain materials. There simply isn't enough of everything to go around, however. For example, we can't scale up fuel cell as the basis of any realistic, large scale infrastructure because platinum is in short supply: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6X1J-4V18SP5-H&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1060158213&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=94882d948f5ae384cf43dfc0bbcbe66c

[benj1]

Was simply trying to prove that correlation does not equal causation. As you can tell by some of my other posts in this thread, I'm looking for data - not assumptions.

there has been plenty of data bandied about, and theres plenty on the internet, if you want detailed methodology you are probably better off finding the relevant journals, although of course if you want to be really sure read up on all of the theory verify it and come to your own conclusions.

i can point you to this by the IPCC but its been cut down.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/findings-of-the-ipcc-fourth-3.html
and im sure wikipedia will point you to other relevant articles

[staf0048]

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out and see what they say. My problem so far has been finding any factual information that CO2 in it's current and projected concentrations in our atmosphere will actually have an impact on temperature. It's a greenhouse gas - I'm not disputing it's properties, I'm just saying that my experience so far is that the data behind the science appears to be lacking - and that has got me very concerned on a number of levels. Do you have an idea of what scientific journal(s) I should research - internet searches are not doing me very well.

[benj1]

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out and see what they say. My problem so far has been finding any factual information that CO2 in it's current and projected concentrations in our atmosphere will actually have an impact on temperature. It's a greenhouse gas - I'm not disputing it's properties, I'm just saying that my experience so far is that the data behind the science appears to be lacking - and that has got me very concerned on a number of levels. Do you have an idea of what scientific journal(s) I should research - internet searches are not doing me very well.

i dont sorry, i would have thought university libraries would have something, maybe public libraries.

[Chronon]

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out and see what they say. My problem so far has been finding any factual information that CO2 in it's current and projected concentrations in our atmosphere will actually have an impact on temperature. It's a greenhouse gas - I'm not disputing it's properties, I'm just saying that my experience so far is that the data behind the science appears to be lacking - and that has got me very concerned on a number of levels. Do you have an idea of what scientific journal(s) I should research - internet searches are not doing me very well.

Climate doesn't just consist of CO2 and temperature, so it's naive to look for hockey stick graphs as necessary evidence. Here's a short wikibook entry about climate models (not about particular predictions but about how they are built). http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Climate_Change/Science/Climate_Modeling

[CJ_Hudson]

The point about carbon emissions affecting weather systems is that they (the weather systems) follow Chaos Theory quiet closely. By that I mean that altering one part of the system (e.g. shutting down the ocean conveyor belt, melting the polar ice caps) can have unpredicatable and extreme consequences in other areas. For instance, if you look at maps predicting the consequences of unchecked global warming, vast centres of population near the sea will be flooded creating massive movements of people (refugees from global warming)which will in turn affect global economics and could e.g. cause more wars because of e.g. competition for resources etc.
Environmentalists are not merely being a bunch of namby-pamby, limp-wristed pinko-liberal scare-mongering wusses when they require governments to take action NOW to reduce carbon emissions, they want to avoid a future where people's choices (e.g. of what they want to eat, wear, how they want to travel, what jobs they can do etc.) are severely limited, which would be a future of extreme resource scarcity. It also has implications for what sort of society we would be living in under these conditions, wether we would be able to afford in terms of the resources available to be e.g. democratic and support diversity or wether, by simply allowing capitalism to destroy the planet, we would be in a kind of political limbo or straight jacket where there were no more choices!
I am painting quite an extreme picture but I am sure you can see the sense of my argument.

[running_rabbit07]

if it is caused by man, than why have they stopped calling it global warming now that its colder, and now say its "climate change" as if though we're only supposed to have a single season and temp. they said we were causing a green house effect with co2. now our co2 is cooling the earth?

I missed this info on the news. When did global warming stop and this cooling trend start?

[cariboo]

Where I live it started last winter, we had the coldest winter in almost 20 years with temperatures as low as -35°C for three weeks in a row as well as more than the normal amount of snow. This year we had the same type of summer as we had 20 years ago and so far the coldest temp this fall was -15°C on Oct. 2.

[running_rabbit07]

I guess I fail to see how decreasing co2 emissions and using alternative fuels is going to take away our freedoms.

Because certain groups in America and other nations feel the need to have 500hp trucks with 40 inch lift kits and don't care about emissions. Same group think it is alright to have diesel trucks designed to tow trailers to make up for some lack of manhood. You also have those people that think they are cool driving an H2 and trying to race them against Hondas.

These people will be losing their freedom if they have to drive an economically correct vehicle.

[running_rabbit07]

Where I live it started last winter, we had the coldest winter in almost 20 years with temperatures as low as -35°C for three weeks in a row as well as more than the normal amount of snow. This year we had the same type of summer as we had 20 years ago and so far the coldest temp this fall was -15°C on Oct. 2.

Wow! Canada?

[Chronon]

Where I live it started last winter, we had the coldest winter in almost 20 years with temperatures as low as -35°C for three weeks in a row as well as more than the normal amount of snow. This year we had the same type of summer as we had 20 years ago and so far the coldest temp this fall was -15°C on Oct. 2.
Yes, but this is a bit like using Exxon's recent success to argue for the health of the economy at large. Local anecdotes don't generally support global conclusions.

[alphaniner]

Because certain groups in America and other nations feel the need to have 500hp trucks with 40 inch lift kits and don't care about emissions. Same group think it is alright to have diesel trucks designed to tow trailers to make up for some lack of manhood. You also have those people that think they are cool driving an H2 and trying to race them against Hondas.

These people will be losing their freedom if they have to drive an economically correct vehicle.

Precisely. It is not your business or mine what kind of car people drive, or whether or not such a preference is motivated by a lack of manhood. Nor is it my business why an astute environmental saviour such as yourself would choose to increase your carbon footprint by making childish posts on web forums. I mean, is it really necessary? Surely, you wouldn't be any less free if someone prevented you from doing so, right?

[Rainstride]

This is interesting from a linguistic perspective. The decision to replace "global warming" with "climate change" was made by a man named Frank Luntz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Global_warming). A Luntz memo (http://www.ewg.org/node/8684) told the Bush administration that the new term is "less frightening" and without the "catastrophic connotations" of the old one. In other words, it's a piece of marketing from those who want to downplay the importance of environmentalism.
no, its still carrying those negative connotations. you turn on the tv its "climate change is dangerous/bad/evil" depending who you are watching the intensity of those statements grow. the main difference is the climate change is a very broad term that can mean anything. as where global warming is pointing to heating alone.



It's called precession. Other factors could alter this dynamic.
its been going for 4 billion years, (other than small variations) I don't think it will change now.


People have begun to refer to it as climate change because it's not known what the long term effects of forcing the climate will be. It's possible that strong oscillations will arise or that completely unpredictable time evolution could result. Nonlinear systems can exhibit chaos so I, personally, consider it wise to not push such a system's evolution away from well-behaved quasi-periodic trajectories.
hmm...I don't really follow what it is you are saying with the last sentience. could you rephrase?


We do emit geologically and probably ecologically significant amounts of carbon dioxide. Maybe we should be mindful of this is all.

(I find it interesting that you conflate Al Gore, CNN and Fox News into one group.)
well if you take in to account that plants grow bigger and faster when there are higher levels of co2 thus resulting in more oxygen for use by humans. co2 being put out by us is a good thing. If you know you're history, you know most of Africa was jungles at one point. Places like Egypt looked like Florida. and oxygen levels where much higher also. personally i think we need to worry about more dangerous things, like toxic waste, cross breed plants and animals effecting habitats they shouldn't be in. nuclear waste. war. famine. that kind of stuff.

as gore,cnn,fox. I tend to like to group fear mongers together. especially a billion air who is pushing his ideas on how the world works on people with no tangible proof. its basically a what if scenario.

[running_rabbit07]

Precisely. It is not your business or mine what kind of car people drive, or whether or not such a preference is motivated by a lack of manhood. Nor is it my business why an astute environmental saviour such as yourself would choose to increase your carbon footprint by making childish posts on web forums. I mean, is it really necessary? Surely, you wouldn't be any less free if someone prevented you from doing so, right?

Yes I do have the right to criticize them. Said vehicles are a safety hazard due to the height and weight compared to the typical street vehicle. And should be licensed the same way commercial haulers are.

I am not an environmentalist, but if you notice in our recent history the price of gas skyrocketed soon after the bill was signed allowing automakers such as Dodge to put higher horse power engines in their vehicles.

My post has no effect on the carbon footprint. If you don't like my opinion, feel free to go to your User CP and put me on ignore.

[Rainstride]

Yes I do have the right to criticize them. Said vehicles are a safety hazard due to the height and weight compared to the typical street vehicle. And should be licensed the same way commercial haulers are.

I am not an environmentalist, but if you notice in our recent history the price of gas skyrocketed soon after the bill was signed allowing automakers such as Dodge to put higher horse power engines in their vehicles.

My post has no effect on the carbon footprint. If you don't like my opinion, feel free to go to your User CP and put me on ignore.

you have the right to criticize, you do NOT have the right to stop anyone from doing it though. 18 wheelers are licensed because of length not weight.

there's an option to ignore people?

[running_rabbit07]

you have the right to criticize, you do NOT have the right to stop anyone from doing it though. 18 wheelers are licensed because of length not weight.

Yes, they are licensed per weight, too. Over a certain tonage, they have to get even more permits that restrict their driving even more. In VA they do limit how high a vehicle can be lifted. Here in NV, they are very lenient on those laws.


there's an option to ignore people?

Yes scroll down on the UserCP page.

[alphaniner]

Yes I do have the right to criticize them.

...

My post has no effect on the carbon footprint. If you don't like my opinion, feel free to go to your User CP and put me on ignore.

You are entirely missing my point. Of course you have the right to criticize, and make posts here. I never suggested otherwise. But in doing so, energy was expended (presumably from fossil fuels) and carbon was produced. Even if you are using 100% renewable power sources, if you had chosen not to make the posts that energy could have been fed back into the grid and offset the consumption of CO2 producing fossil fuels. Granted, the amount is minuscule, infinitesimal even. But, face it, it adds up.

My point is that environmentalists like yourself are all too eager to point out what others should be doing to save the planet, but none too eager to make sacrifices yourselves.


Said vehicles are a safety hazard due to the height and weight compared to the typical street vehicle.

Yeah, if a smart car or whatever gets into an accident with an SUV, the passengers in the SUV will likely be better off. And if a SUV plows through your house it will do more damage than a smart car would. But that's not a legitimate basis for banning or restricting SUVs.


if you notice in our recent history the price of gas skyrocketed soon after the bill was signed allowing automakers such as Dodge to put higher horse power engines in their vehicles.

Come on, now, that's a textbook example of a correlation=causation fallacy.


I know you get fined if you over a certain weight though

But that kind of thing is due to structural concerns, not environmental. And SUVs and lifted trucks don't quite approach such limits.

[Rainstride]

Yes, they are licensed per weight, too. Over a certain tonage, they have to get even more permits that restrict their driving even more. In VA they do limit how high a vehicle can be lifted. Here in NV, they are very lenient on those laws.
really, I figured they where going by length. they let me drive VERY large box trucks for some of my jobs, but not semi (no cdl:().I know you get fined if you over a certain weight though.



Yes scroll down on the UserCP page.

I thought that was for private messages....

[Chronon]

its been going for 4 billion years, (other than small variations) I don't think it will change now.

Precession is a property of any rotating rigid body. I'm not saying it will cease, though the amount of precession as well as its frequency can change via collisions with other bodies, tidal deceleration, etc.



hmm...I don't really follow what it is you are saying with the last sentience. could you rephrase?

I was saying that it's not a linear system so it's not simply a matter of "increase in A translates into increase in B". The future behavior may be very complicated, completely unpredictable, even. Thus, some people feel that the more general 'climate change' may be more accurate.

Because nonlinear systems can exhibit both chaotic trajectories and quasi-periodic ones, it seems prudent not to push the system away from a stable orbit. We simply don't know what its behavior will be under arbitrary perturbations.



well if you take in to account that plants grow bigger and faster when there are higher levels of co2 thus resulting in more oxygen for use by humans. co2 being put out by us is a good thing. If you know you're history, you know most of Africa was jungles at one point. Places like Egypt looked like Florida. and oxygen levels where much higher also. personally i think we need to worry about more dangerous things, like toxic waste, cross breed plants and animals effecting habitats they shouldn't be in. nuclear waste. war. famine. that kind of stuff.

:confused:
Now it's my turn to be confused. You are saying that because plants use CO_2 in photosynthesis that increased concentrations in the atmosphere are automatically a good thing? The bit about jungles in Africa just seems like a non sequitur.



as gore,cnn,fox. I tend to like to group fear mongers together. especially a billion air who is pushing his ideas on how the world works on people with no tangible proof. its basically a what if scenario.
Yes, but it's a bit like calling everyone a conspiracy theorist and pretending that conspiracies don't actually happen. Just because some people entertain ridiculous ideas about secret conspiracies doesn't justify painting every such scenario with the same brush. Similarly, just because some people leverage fear as a resource doesn't mean that absolutely no legitimate cause for concern can exist.

Humans put out 100 times as much carbon dioxide as volcanoes (in stark contrast to your prior claim). Our capacity to extract resources and convert energy from one form to another has grown dramatically over the last two centuries. Thinking about this planet as infinite no longer seems justified.

At what stage should we begin to think about pursuing lower impact energy sources? Is it necessary for it to become a matter of global crisis before we think about this?

I am personally rooting for the fusion research underway to make electricity abundant and cheap. I think that dramatically funding plasma physics and fusion research is a prudent and environmentally responsible course of action.

[etnlIcarus]

If by 'assertion' you meant the 'solar output tracks with sunspot activity'I'm referring to your original suggestion:

Adding more CO2 will not make much difference, as there is very little radiation left to be absorbed. Its far more likely that any climate change is driven by the sun, not CO2.You proposed solar output as the, "likely", mechanism for current climate change, yet, in response to my request, cited the (correct) figures, indicating that solar output has been steady for the latter half of the 20th century.


As for the refutation, theres arguments against that as well-

http://nov55.com/ntyg.html

BTW, I really dont like to link to that page. Theres excessive politics around the whole climate change issue, and quoting from websites supporting either side are flawed, at best, IMO.

Well I'm glad you pointed that out, yourself. Granted, the liberal use of the word, "fraud", is the least of that's site's problems: besides the fact that it's author takes his ignorance of studies on the voluminous, temperature and atmospheric composition effects on CO2 absorption, to mean they are without merit, his argument is just too simplistic. I'm also unsure how it's meant to represent an argument against the real climate article, as from the get-go, it falls into the trap outlined in the real climate article.

You really should have just scrolled down to his bibliography (which is in itself a bit of a problem) for a more competent presentation of the same argument (http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm).


I remember in the 70's (or was it 80's) when they were talking about us going into another Ice Age and we'd be covered in feet of snow and crops would die and we'd starve to death shivering ...Human memory is a funny thing. In the late 70's, a couple of articles popped up in publications like Time, suggesting that we were headed for another ice age. Nothing that appeared in scientific literature, came to any conclusion of the sort; in fact, indications were already pointing to a warming of the earth's climate. Outside of academia,'global cooling' didn't even gain much traction within media.

I actually find global cooling to be really interesting, actually. It's amazing how human memory can be conditioned. It also creates some really interesting possibilities for punking entire populations. :P


This year, in the Northeast USA, it has been one of the wettest and coolest summers I can recall. Is that an indicator of climate change? No, unless it happens next year, and the year after that, and the year after that, ...Even if the long-term trend were towards wetter and cooler weather in the NE US, deriving from this conclusions about the global climate would still be composition.


Or maybe the world is SUPPOSED to be hotter than it is, and we've been screwing it up all along bringing the temperature down to what we are used to?You can't say something should or ought to be a certain way, in a purely naturalistic context. It's ultimately about our agenda as a species: what are the implications of climate change and, when factoring in all the pros and cons, what do we want the climate to be?

Also, thank christ Chronon showed up. I've been waiting for either koenn or Chronon to show up, since last night. You guys can do the heavy lifting for a while. :P

[etnlIcarus]

Does anyone know of any scientific studies that show beyond a shadow of a doubt the link between global temperature and CO2 and at what atmospheric concentration we would actually experience a greenhouse effect? I'm not doubting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, I'll give you that much, but at what concentrations does it actually have an effect on temperature? I'm having a hard time finding anything that doesn't require the correlation = causation fallocy.

The IPCC reports are available for download on their website. They're about the most comprehensive study you'll find on the subject.

Of course, being extensively peer-reviewed science, don't expect any 'eureka' moments, or the kind of single-minded self-certainty you might find in an essay.

[running_rabbit07]

You are entirely missing my point. Of course you have the right to criticize, and make posts here. I never suggested otherwise. But in doing so, energy was expended (presumably from fossil fuels) and carbon was produced. Even if you are using 100% renewable power sources, if you had chosen not to make the posts that energy could have been fed back into the grid and offset the consumption of CO2 producing fossil fuels. Granted, the amount is minuscule, infinitesimal even. But, face it, it adds up.

My point is that environmentalists like yourself are all too eager to point out what others should be doing to save the planet, but none too eager to make sacrifices yourselves.

I am not an environmentalist, though I prefer not to trash our planet.

I got rid of my 4X4 and bought a car that gets 2 times better gas mileage. I use evaperative cooling instead of the $500 a month central air unit on my roof. I cover my pool every day to prevent evaporation and absorb solar heat. I recycle everything I can. I do as much as I can to save resourses. My power grid is powered by the flow of water through a dam. No fuels, just gravity. Doesn't matter how much we cut back, they'd just have to release more water through the by-passes to feed Cali and Mexico their shares.



Come on, now, that's a textbook example of a correlation=causation fallacy.

But it is still a fact. Out sprung the Hemi, then everyone else followed suit to make a higher powered V8 truck. Thankfully, Dodge started designing them to be more efficient on the highway by shutting off fuel to cylinders.



But that kind of thing is due to structural concerns, not environmental. And SUVs and lifted trucks don't quite approach such limits.

The reason this applies is because CDL required vehicles have laws that require them to driver slower in many situations. If they required heavy duty SUVs to be specially licensed, the drivers would be more cautious and the average driver would end up buying something a bit more economical.

I know quite a few people who have recycled their big SUVs for German cars that have the power, safety, economicable fuel usage, and status that all together make them happier with thier decision.

I am done with this for the night. Karmic just finished installing and I need to check it out.

BTW, being I dumped Windows for Ubuntu, I am conserving power, being the CPU barely goes above 20 percent anymore.

[carole2233]

Hope something can be done to it. We can't bear living in a planet full of CO2.

[snl2587]

Yeah, well, if it wasnt for the push to nuclear power I would agree. But IMO, better to have sea levels rise (or even to step back into an ice age) than to have lots of much more dangerous waste floating about.
Not so much of a problem in the more modern reactors combined with a competent re-enrichment program. Keep in mind that it is only the reactors of the past that have the severe waste-disposal problems that made nuclear reactors the enemies of environmentalism that they are no longer.

[Rainstride]

Precession is a property of any rotating rigid body. I'm not saying it will cease, though the amount of precession as well as its frequency can change via collisions with other bodies, tidal deceleration, etc.
true. but any significant change would be beyond bad for us no matter how you spin it. but the pro-climate change people say its co2 and not planetary/solar cycles dictating things.


I was saying that it's not a linear system so it's not simply a matter of "increase in A translates into increase in B". The future behavior may be very complicated, completely unpredictable, even. Thus, some people feel that the more general 'climate change' may be more accurate.

Because nonlinear systems can exhibit both chaotic trajectories and quasi-periodic ones, it seems prudent not to push the system away from a stable orbit. We simply don't know what its behavior will be under arbitrary perturbations.

Agreed.


:confused:
Now it's my turn to be confused. You are saying that because plants use CO_2 in photosynthesis that increased concentrations in the atmosphere are automatically a good thing? The bit about jungles in Africa just seems like a non sequitur.
Im saying that in the long run increased co2 levels would do more good than bad. the point i was making with the africa thing is that when co2 was in higher concentrations(thousand/millions of years ago) there was more wide spread plant growth.


Yes, but it's a bit like calling everyone a conspiracy theorist and pretending that conspiracies don't actually happen. Just because some people entertain ridiculous ideas about secret conspiracies doesn't justify painting every such scenario with the same brush. Similarly, just because some people leverage fear as a resource doesn't mean that absolutely no legitimate cause for concern can exist.
True.




I am personally rooting for the fusion research underway to make electricity abundant and cheap. I think that dramatically funding plasma physics and fusion research is a prudent and environmentally responsible course of action.
1+ definitely! this would be great. no more nuclear waste. and enough power for the whole planet(once enough reactors are built.).

[Chronon]

true. but any significant change would be beyond bad for us no matter how you spin it. but the pro-climate change people say its co2 and not planetary/solar cycles dictating things.

First, large changes in precession of Earth would be due to a catastrophic collision, so at that point climate would be the least of our worries.

Second, I think you may be fighting a straw man here. Obviously, periodic (or sporadic) fluctuations like the sunspot cycle need to be accounted for in any long term and reliable climate model. Scientists who are concerned about climate issues are not claiming that solar irradiance is irrelevant to the climate. This whole either/or mode of thinking seems totally reductionist and really appears like a strawman argument to me. Reasonably, both play a role in determining climate.

While we are not responsible for (and have relatively little control over) solar irradiance, we do play a large role in determining the carbon dioxide and methane load in today's atmosphere. I don't find it unreasonable to pursue studies of these effects and to tread carefully when talking about global climate when it's a real system that we all inhabit.

[alphaniner]

I am not an environmentalist, though I prefer not to trash our planet.

I got rid of my 4X4 and bought a car that gets 2 times better gas mileage. I use evaperative cooling instead of the $500 a month central air unit on my roof. I cover my pool every day to prevent evaporation and absorb solar heat. I recycle everything I can. I do as much as I can to save resourses. My power grid is powered by the flow of water through a dam. No fuels, just gravity. Doesn't matter how much we cut back, they'd just have to release more water through the by-passes to feed Cali and Mexico their shares.

Clearly you're not the go green goon I painted you to be. My apologies. Still, anyone who belittles others for the environmental impact of the cars they drive is an environmentalist in my book. But that's just semantics, not a judgment. No offense intended.

Still, aside from giving up the 4x4, none of what you quoted really smacks of sacrifice. And even that had fringe benefits as you pointed out. Due to the vagaries of geography I ran in 'redneck' circles in my youth. And I had a lot of good friends for whom giving up their truck would have been like you or I giving up personal use of computers. Point being, sacrifice is subjective.

I obviously don't consider myself an environmentalist either, but I'm conscious about recycling too and I never throw my cigarette butts on the ground. I also turn off the lights when I leave the room, and never leave my computers running unless I have a reason to; even at work where most people leave their machines on year round. But then none of this requires any sacrifice so isn't saying much.

[etnlIcarus]

But that's just semanticsIt's only semantics because you're arbitrarily re-defining words.

[Rainstride]

First, large changes in precession of Earth would be due to a catastrophic collision, so at that point climate would be the least of our worries.

Second, I think you may be fighting a straw man here. Obviously, periodic (or sporadic) fluctuations like the sunspot cycle need to be accounted for in any long term and reliable climate model. Scientists who are concerned about climate issues are not claiming that solar irradiance is irrelevant to the climate. This whole either/or mode of thinking seems totally reductionist and really appears like a strawman argument to me. Reasonably, both play a role in determining climate.

While we are not responsible for (and have relatively little control over) solar irradiance, we do play a large role in determining the carbon dioxide and methane load in today's atmosphere. I don't find it unreasonable to pursue studies of these effects and to tread carefully when talking about global climate when it's a real system that we all inhabit.

some people I have met in the past didn't even consider the possibility of it being caused by the sun. witch is beyond sad. i would love if it was independently studied by a couple thousand scientists. the problem is it is always presented as pure fact. when its at best a theory. it would be nice if people would take into account the tidal force of the sun on the earth and the effects solar radiation had on planetary temps. sunspot activity, the lack of volcanic activity here on earth. and anything else they can think of. instead I hear people say "Its CO2! WERE ALL GONNA DIE!!"(not really joking, they think its gonna kill us.](*,))

[Faolan84]

some people I have met in the past didn't even consider the possibility of it being caused by the sun. witch is beyond sad. i would love if it was independently studied by a couple thousand scientists. the problem is it is always presented as pure fact. when its at best a theory. it would be nice if people would take into account the tidal force of the sun on the earth and the effects solar radiation had on planetary temps. sunspot activity, the lack of volcanic activity here on earth. and anything else they can think of. instead I hear people say "Its CO2! WERE ALL GONNA DIE!!"(not really joking, they think its gonna kill us.](*,))

The fact that all of the other planets in the solar system including the outer planets showed warming trends up until around 2000 or so is quite interesting too. After that, the Earth and other planets started cooling again. There actually hasn't even been a warming trend in the past decade, the temperatures have been going down. 1998 was the hottest year on record.

Now what happens after 2012 when the solar cycle becomes active again (interesting year that happens to coincide with) may change that, or we may be in the beginings of a new solar minimum which could be worse than a warming trend, it would be more like the Little Ice Age. That's an interesting time in history, fraught with instability because of revolutions, food shortages, and all sorts of other happenings due to migrations in third world areas.

[Chronon]

some people I have met in the past didn't even consider the possibility of it being caused by the sun. witch is beyond sad. i would love if it was independently studied by a couple thousand scientists. the problem is it is always presented as pure fact. when its at best a theory. it would be nice if people would take into account the tidal force of the sun on the earth and the effects solar radiation had on planetary temps. sunspot activity, the lack of volcanic activity here on earth. and anything else they can think of. instead I hear people say "Its CO2! WERE ALL GONNA DIE!!"(not really joking, they think its gonna kill us.](*,))

Who presents it as pure fact, exactly? What are the details of the climate models we are discussing at the moment? You need to be specific if you're going to talk about this stuff, not spread around vagaries and claims about what various hypothetical people have claimed. To do so is to make strawman arguments and it does your argument little credit.

Do you think that any amount of carbon dioxide can lead to adverse (for humans) outcomes for the climate. If not, why not? If so, do you think it wise to try to assess the perturbative effects of our industrial activities?

[Chronon]

The fact that all of the other planets in the solar system including the outer planets showed warming trends up until around 2000 or so is quite interesting too. After that, the Earth and other planets started cooling again. There actually hasn't even been a warming trend in the past decade, the temperatures have been going down. 1998 was the hottest year on record.

Now what happens after 2012 when the solar cycle becomes active again (interesting year that happens to coincide with) may change that, or we may be in the beginings of a new solar minimum which could be worse than a warming trend, it would be more like the Little Ice Age. That's an interesting time in history, fraught with instability because of revolutions, food shortages, and all sorts of other happenings due to migrations in third world areas.
That's interesting. Would you care to cite the results for the other planets?

I don't know where you're getting your data from, but this page begs to differ: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Warming trends clearly continue past 2000. Also, a Northwest passage only became accessible a couple of years ago and remains a passable shipping lane during summer months.

I'm not sure what you mean about the solar cycle as we seem to be at a minimum of activity right now. The sunspot cycle should be picking back up again by 2012.

[HappinessNow]

It is also politics, if not yet, then it soon will be...I'm not sure what your talking about?

[handy]

interesting thoughts? ofcom upheld numerous complaints against it, at least two of the scientists that were interviewed said they were misrepresented.

this is what wikipedia says

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

there was even a documentary shown about it (cant remember what it was called, anyone else remember?) reinterviewing half the people and re examining the data, and coming to very different conclusions

I don't know if anyone has posted the following links or not after your post:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/13/science.media

[handy]

I'm not sure what your talking about?

Good, long may it last. :)

[benj1]

The fact that all of the other planets in the solar system including the outer planets showed warming trends up until around 2000 or so is quite interesting too. After that, the Earth and other planets started cooling again. There actually hasn't even been a warming trend in the past decade, the temperatures have been going down. 1998 was the hottest year on record.

not all the other planets warmed up, and for those that did, there were various reasons http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm

ps the trend hasnt been down for the past decade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png, unless you start off from the 1998 high, unfortunately weather is quite complicated and things dont tend to happen in a straight line.

[mobilediesel]

not right off hand. but then again, you don't seem to have any ether. what i do know is with a 2 second google search i found that The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (http://www.oism.org/pproject/) has a 31,000 scientist long petition against global warming/climate change, saying there is no such thing. I think ill go with the 31,000 scientists.

The 30,000 Global Warming Petition is Easily-Debunked Propaganda (http://www.desmogblog.com/30000-global-warming-petition-easily-debunked-propaganda)
http://www.desmogblog.com/30000-global-warming-petition-easily-debunked-propaganda

[Dragonbite]

Because certain groups in America and other nations feel the need to have 500hp trucks with 40 inch lift kits and don't care about emissions. Same group think it is alright to have diesel trucks designed to tow trailers to make up for some lack of manhood. You also have those people that think they are cool driving an H2 and trying to race them against Hondas.

These people will be losing their freedom if they have to drive an economically correct vehicle.

I don't like seeing so many gas-guzzlers for no practical reason on the roads much either. If they have a reason, like large pickup trucks being used for work where they need the horsepower, carrying capacity, etc. then that is OK by me.

Wouldn't their impact, though, be less significant if they didn't have to drive about 50 miles per day (one way?!) to get to work because they want the quality of life of a suburban or country(~ish) community over living and working in the city and there isn't any public transportation available?

I drive 35 miles (one way) to work. There are no trains or buses between home and work that I can take as an option and there are few job around home that are significantly closer. The school system, though, is very good and well worth my sacrificing of losing 2 hours per day commuting to work. I am finding more and more people doing the same exact thing.

I just recently bought a new car (missed the cash-for-clunkers deal though..) and was amazed that looking around, most cars have NOT increased their mileage very much. My 10 year old Pontiac convertible gets maybe up to 3-5 mpg less than my new sedan.

Hybrids are not much better, since most of my driving is on the highway. Maybe the teeny-tiny econoboxes are better but they aren't going to fit my 3 kids or feel very safe when driving 35 miles during a blizzard.

So just trying to get rid of the huge cars isn't enough, until there is a viable alternative available.


Human memory is a funny thing. In the late 70's, a couple of articles popped up in publications like Time, suggesting that we were headed for another ice age. Nothing that appeared in scientific literature, came to any conclusion of the sort; in fact, indications were already pointing to a warming of the earth's climate. Outside of academia,'global cooling' didn't even gain much traction within media.

Hey, I just remember being able to make bigger snow forts every winter compared to now. Then again, I was a lot shorter then too. :)


Oh, and one thought about the number of scientists on either side of the argument; only 50% of them can graduate in the top half of their class, so are you listening to the top half, or bottom half? ;)

[alphaniner]

It's only semantics because you're arbitrarily re-defining words.

He belittles and demonizes people based on the environmental damage of the car they drive. Exactly how is calling him an environmentalist arbitrarily re-defining the word?

I'll admit, I usually spit the word. Not because I think all environmental causes are bunk, but because they are all too often coupled with calls to severely restrict individual liberty. But in that case I was being sincere that it was not intended as an insult.

[benj1]

I don't like seeing so many gas-guzzlers for no practical reason on the roads much either. If they have a reason, like large pickup trucks being used for work where they need the horsepower, carrying capacity, etc. then that is OK by me.


the problem is you dont really need a large pickup/4x4, if you need to carrying capacity get a van, in the uk im sure most 4x4s are in the suburbs where they arent needed, they only time you might need one is if youre a farmer, but even then, if you go over to europe most farmers just seem to have some battered citroen or fiat.

[Dragonbite]

the problem is you dont really need a large pickup/4x4, if you need to carrying capacity get a van, in the uk im sure most 4x4s are in the suburbs where they arent needed, they only time you might need one is if youre a farmer, but even then, if you go over to europe most farmers just seem to have some battered citroen or fiat.

Van's aren't all that much better on gas mileage, or are they? I agree, though, and it annoyed me when a co-worker had her first baby and sold their sedan for a mid-sized SUV! Until our 3rd one came, just about any car with a back seat would suffice!

I've gone though the time of having a car with "just enough power to move, but not much else" and it isn't very safe. One hot summer days there is one stretch of the highway I now drive on regularly, which going uphill my car was having problems making it. I think I'd rather have power enough to keep from getting rear-ended than save those few extra miles per gallon.

A pickup truck is the better vehicle for my father-in-law and brother-in-law because they are always hauling stuff (engines, masonry forms and shovels, etc.) and when we were living there it was handy for picking up hay for the horse. That versatility is there, but not as easy with a van.

Since I've never had a truck, though, they all seem "large" to me. If we were to get another horse I may look at a truck or SUV powerful enough to tow a trailer and w/4x4 for the few times driving to work in the winter when a storm is coming through but otherwise I favor cars and efficiency.

When I was back home where I grew up, the roads there are tight and they wind all around the place very tightly. I just loved seeing two huge SUVs coming towards each other because each one alone barely fit in the road so there's no way they are both going to fit passing each other. So somebody was going to be eating bushes (which are right up against the road)! I would park and watch. :)

[benj1]

Van's aren't all that much better on gas mileage, or are they? I agree, though, and it annoyed me when a co-worker had her first baby and sold their sedan for a mid-sized SUV! Until our 3rd one came, just about any car with a back seat would suffice!

I've gone though the time of having a car with "just enough power to move, but not much else" and it isn't very safe. One hot summer days there is one stretch of the highway I now drive on regularly, which going uphill my car was having problems making it. I think I'd rather have power enough to keep from getting rear-ended than save those few extra miles per gallon.

A pickup truck is the better vehicle for my father-in-law and brother-in-law because they are always hauling stuff (engines, masonry forms and shovels, etc.) and when we were living there it was handy for picking up hay for the horse. That versatility is there, but not as easy with a van.

for an equivalent size van i would say a van is more fuel efficient, theyre generally lighter and engines generally smaller, i agree they do have theyre place but even your examples would be easier with a van, engines are heavy and easier to get into a van because theyre lower, also if it rains a van is enclosed, and hay (assuming its in bales) wouldnt be any harder to transport.
what was your car that "has just enough power to move"? i live in the pennines (yorkshire, uk) that has a fair amount of hills and never had any problems with any car, or is that a problem with automatics ?

[Dragonbite]

for an equivalent size van i would say a van is more fuel efficient, theyre generally lighter and engines generally smaller, i agree they do have theyre place but even your examples would be easier with a van, engines are heavy and easier to get into a van because theyre lower, also if it rains a van is enclosed, and hay (assuming its in bales) wouldnt be any harder to transport.
what was your car that "has just enough power to move"? i live in the pennines (yorkshire, uk) that has a fair amount of hills and never had any problems with any car, or is that a problem with automatics ?

It was a Suzuki Swift ( basically a 4-cylinder Geo Metro) and it was a super-hot day on a steep hill during stop-and-go traffic. Oh, and it was stick shift. A good little car, it had 250k miles on it when I finally sold it and it was still running pretty good, but the convertible was a little more fun ;)

Oh, and for the bales of hay, you didn't see how high we stacked it ;)

[Xbehave]

If you go over to europe most farmers just seem to have some battered citroen or fiat.
My family own farm land (spain) and apart from the fact they often go to the farms in their usual cars, they also never use their 4x4 for everyday driving (Granted it does mean that they have a seperate "farm" car, but tbh you do need one anyway). I'm under the impression that my mate who has a farm here (uk) does exactly the same thing.

[Dragonbite]

Wow! Don't want to know how THIS is going to impact everything! I just got an email from a co-worker:

Last night, the Caribbean Petroleum (GULF) facilites in Puerto Rico (this is 10 minutes from my Home)exploted. Eleven (11) out of thirty-five (35) tanks are on fire. As of this morning, they are still working on the fire while trying to save the other tanks but the situation is very serious. Unfortunately, they believe there is criminal intent. Thanks God, so far no victims.

http://www.ireport.com/ir-topic-stories.jspa?topicId=345032 (http://www.ireport.com/ir-topic-stories.jspa?topicId=345032)

[CarpKing]

Im saying that in the long run increased co2 levels would do more good than bad. the point i was making with the africa thing is that when co2 was in higher concentrations(thousand/millions of years ago) there was more wide spread plant growth.

Just because it may allow increased plant growth doesn't mean it's good. The Mesozoic era (time of the dinosaurs) was characterized by warmer temperatures and higher levels of atmospheric oxygen, the result of more CO2 entering the atmosphere and being converted by plants. The period of rapid global warming that preceded it was accompanied (though no one knows how much it contributed) by the largest mass extinction in Earth's history.

[running_rabbit07]

Wow! Don't want to know how THIS is going to impact everything! I just got an email from a co-worker:


http://www.ireport.com/ir-topic-stories.jspa?topicId=345032 (http://www.ireport.com/ir-topic-stories.jspa?topicId=345032)


Hopefully, the price of gas will go up again. With SUV sales on the rise again, we need to see them stretching the miles again. It was nice back when gas was over 4 bucks a gallon and those people were actually going the speed limit instead of plowing through traffic with that, "I'm bigger than you attitude."

[alphaniner]

Hopefully, the price of gas will go up again. With SUV sales on the rise again, we need to see them stretching the miles again. It was nice back when gas was over 4 bucks a gallon and those people were actually going the speed limit instead of plowing through traffic with that, "I'm bigger than you attitude."

:shock:

Yeah, those benefits will definitely outweigh the increased financial strain during a period of ~10% unemployment. Have you no shame?

[Xbehave]

:shock:

Yeah, those benefits will definitely outweigh the increased financial strain during a period of ~10% unemployment. Have you no shame?
Yes they will! This is why Americans have a reputation* of being fat, selfish and lazy, because you care more about the local financial benefits of something than the global impact of your pollution.

*note i said reputation as its not always true, in fact the next post shows this

[running_rabbit07]

:shock:

Yeah, those benefits will definitely outweigh the increased financial strain during a period of ~10% unemployment. Have you no shame?

I am one of those 10 percent. They are the ones to be shamed. My car gets more than 30 miles to the gallon, I will not be affected much by that rate increase.

[alphaniner]

I'm not talking about the financial consequences to those who can afford it, but to those who can't. Wishing for higher fuel prices is wishing hardship upon them. And it's not just the cost to fill one's tank; the cost of goods and services is also affected.

But I'm the selfish one. Rrriiiight.

[running_rabbit07]

They should have been less selfish in their purchases.

[Dragonbite]

I wonder if this is going to effect home heating oil this winter or not.

[alphaniner]

If the loss is significant enough to affect gasoline prices, I suspect it will. Not good in any case, but particularly unfortunate if this winter is going to be as bad as many suspect.

[running_rabbit07]

I wonder if this is going to effect home heating oil this winter or not.

It shouldn't, but those companies love to look for excuses to raise their rates. Like after 911 when the oil companies started raising their rates out of speculation, when there was no real reason.

[cascade9]

As for your pre-industrial age was hotter claim, wrong again (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/werent-temperatures-warmer-during-the-medieval-warm-period-than-they-are-today/), the period between the 15th and the 19th century is known as the little ice age for a reason. Strike two.

Actually, 'pre-industrial' covers more than just the 15th-18th C (the 19th is well and truely industrial)-

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/Historic%20Temperatures.jpg

Its pretty warm in 900-1200 period. Which is probably part of how the vikings got across some of the nastiest bits of the atlantic in open boats, and also part of why the Greenland settlements died in the 1250-1500 period, it got a lot colder, and thats not even the nasty bit of the little ice age. But thats depending on who you use as a source. (I'm pretty sure I've seen other data that puts 1000 C.E. as over 2C warmer that present) Not that its hard to find a different set of graphs-

http://www.mongabay.com/images/2006/graphs/ipcc-temp.jpg


I'm referring to your original suggestion:
You proposed solar output as the, "likely", mechanism for current climate change, yet, in response to my request, cited the (correct) figures, indicating that solar output has been steady for the latter half of the 20th century.


Adding more CO2 will not make much difference, as there is very little radiation left to be absorbed. Its far more likely that any climate change is driven by the sun, not CO2.Well I'm glad you pointed that out, yourself. Granted, the liberal use of the word, "fraud", is the least of that's site's problems: besides the fact that it's author takes his ignorance of studies on the voluminous, temperature and atmospheric composition effects on CO2 absorption, to mean they are without merit, his argument is just too simplistic. I'm also unsure how it's meant to represent an argument against the real climate article, as from the get-go, it falls into the trap outlined in the real climate article.

You really should have just scrolled down to his bibliography (which is in itself a bit of a problem) for a more competent presentation of the same argument (http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm).

Besides ignoring other factors from the sun (e.g. magnetic feilds) you dont need to have an constant increase in solar output. If the increased solar output from the 1940s onward was enough to start melting ice, the difference in albedo might 'keep the ball rolling'. Snow/ice are very reflective, and open water, soil etc. far less so. Once you have moved off equilibrium them the trend should continue without increases in solar output.

As for the 'trap', it all depends on who you want to believe. My brain is broken @ 3AM, I'll have to try to reading them both when I'm compus mentus LOL


not all the other planets warmed up, and for those that did, there were various reasons http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm

ps the trend hasnt been down for the past decade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png, unless you start off from the 1998 high, unfortunately weather is quite complicated and things dont tend to happen in a straight line.

Looking at the outer planets really doesnt help much, I admit. But Mars is warming. We think. Not having a handy set of thermometers there we cant know for sure, but the south pole is shrinking.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/17977/Mars_Is_Warming_NASA_Scientists_Report.html

Then again, that article quote duke university scinetists and IIRC, they have lots of links to energy companies...argh!! Excessive politics.

[Chronon]

Besides ignoring other factors from the sun (e.g. magnetic feilds) you dont need to have an constant increase in solar output. If the increased solar output from the 1940s onward was enough to start melting ice, the difference in albedo might 'keep the ball rolling'. Snow/ice are very reflective, and open water, soil etc. far less so. Once you have moved off equilibrium them the trend should continue without increases in solar output.

If the feedback mechanisms were that fragile, we would have ended up with a runaway greenhouse effect, like Venus, a long time ago. There should be a temporary positive feedback regime with increased warming due to greater absorption of solar irradiance. However, eventually, water vapor will rise to the upper atmosphere and this should greatly increase albedo again, presuming the system evolves in the neighborhood of some attractor (as it has seemed to do during recorded history).

The fear isn't that we are on some unstable equilibrium point. In my view (and according to my discussions with other scientists), the danger lies in the possibility of pushing the dynamics into a chaotic regime. If that happens then all bets are off as far as predicting future climatic behavior.

[cascade9]

I can see your point Chronon, but I dont think that the feedback mechanism is that fragile. Like I posted way earlier, I think the george simpson actually had a brilliant theory on at least one possible cause of ice ages. Copy and pasted so you dont have to dig though 15 pages just to find one silly comment-

"One of the more neat explanations for this is from George Simpson (Director of the UK Meteorological Office1920-1933 ). Basically, all the high latitudes are arid. No rain or snow, so no ice. So, to get nice big glaciers to form in the high latitudes you need to move the polar front further north (in the northern hemisphere), so that snow in large amounts can fall in the places where glaciers could form (like Baffin island, Canada). To do that, you need a warmer climate, which will also cause more evaporation, and also more rain and snow, which will make heavy snowfalls in currently arid areas. The glaciers will grow and spead south, and the albedo effect will reflect away the sunlight that might have melted them otherwise. Eventually, the albedo effect from the ice will reflect away so much sunlight that the pendulum swings back the other way. Hey presto, ice age! Unproven (at least untill we get an iceage to check) but very neat theory."

I love 'runaway greenhouse' with Venus. Its possibly true, but what with Venus other freaky aspects (redrograde rotation, very long days, possibly tidally locked to earth, etc) theres other stuff going on there.

[Chronon]

That sounds reasonable and provides a good rationale for referring to climate change rather than global warming.

[Faolan84]

Just because it may allow increased plant growth doesn't mean it's good. The Mesozoic era (time of the dinosaurs) was characterized by warmer temperatures and higher levels of atmospheric oxygen, the result of more CO2 entering the atmosphere and being converted by plants. The period of rapid global warming that preceded it was accompanied (though no one knows how much it contributed) by the largest mass extinction in Earth's history.

1: The temperature increase happened slightly before the CO2 increase. Therefore increases in temperature lead to an increase in biomass output and thus CO2 output.
2: Life flourished during this time period and evolved at rapid rate. Life are far more diverse then than now.
3: Several things happened to end the Mesozoic and high CO2 was not one of them. The end of the age of the dinosars was brought on by a perfect storm of events including the joining of the American contients changing the ocean currents and creating an Ice Age.
4: Also the creation of Central America aided in the spread of species outside their normal territories. The encountered new diseases because of this.
5: The whole meteorite thing, how did you forget about that. That certainly did not help heat things up. In fact, it probably helped user in the Ice Ages to come.
6: New species such as mammals were emerging and evolving at faster rates.

[etnlIcarus]

He belittles and demonizes people based on the environmental damage of the car they drive. Exactly how is calling him an environmentalist arbitrarily re-defining the word?

I'm reluctant to risk this thread with a facepalm but if that isn't worthy of one, I'm not sure what is. I'm down-right loathed to have to define environmentalism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/environmentalism).

[staf0048]

Ok I've found some interesting information that explains why whatever force was warming the earth in the past and causing CO2 levels to rise is not at play today.

It's a long quote, but bear with me (from Wikipedia):


Studies of ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels rise and fall with or after (as much as 1000 years) temperature variations.[52] This argument assumes that current climate change can be expected to be similar to past climate change. While it is generally agreed that variations before the industrial age are mostly timed by astronomical forcing,[53] the current variations, of whatever size, are claimed to be timed by anthropogenic releases of CO2 (thus returning the argument to the importance of human CO2 emissions). Analysis of carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2 shows that the recent observed CO2 increase cannot have come from the oceans, volcanoes, or the biosphere, and thus is not a response to rising temperatures as would be required if the same processes creating past lags were active now.[54]

52. Barkov, N.I. (February 2003). "Historical carbon dioxide record from the Vostok ice core". Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm. Retrieved 2007-03-13.

53. Weart, Spencer (2006), "Past Cycles: Ice Age Speculations", in Weart, Spencer, The Discovery of Global Warming, American Institute of Physics, http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm, retrieved 2007-04-14

54. "More Notes on Global Warming". Physics Today. May 2005. http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-5/p16a.html. Retrieved 2007-09-10.

If I'm reading this correctly, to the best of our knowledge, the recent climate changes cannot be linked to anything other than human factors.

The article went on to say


Carbon dioxide accounts for about 383 parts per million by volume (ppm) of the Earth's atmosphere, increasing from 278 ppm in the 1880s to over 380 ppm in 2005. Carbon dioxide causes between 9 and 26% of the natural greenhouse effect.

However, there was no reference, so who knows where the data actually came from.

Here's the link to the Wikipedia article, lots of interesting information related specifically to this debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#cite_ref-53

[murderslastcrow]

Looks like we need to ask God for a real answer, and hope He cites several reliable sources for the athiests.

[CarpKing]

1: The temperature increase happened slightly before the CO2 increase. Therefore increases in temperature lead to an increase in biomass output and thus CO2 output.
2: Life flourished during this time period and evolved at rapid rate. Life are far more diverse then than now.
3: Several things happened to end the Mesozoic and high CO2 was not one of them. The end of the age of the dinosars was brought on by a perfect storm of events including the joining of the American contients changing the ocean currents and creating an Ice Age.
4: Also the creation of Central America aided in the spread of species outside their normal territories. The encountered new diseases because of this.
5: The whole meteorite thing, how did you forget about that. That certainly did not help heat things up. In fact, it probably helped user in the Ice Ages to come.
6: New species such as mammals were emerging and evolving at faster rates.

Wrong extinction! The dinosaurs lived during the Mesozoic, a warm period overall. Clearing the way for the rise of the dinosaurs was the Permian/Triassic extinction, which killed off a much higher percentage of life on Earth than the more famous Cretaceous/Tertiary extinction, which ended the dinosaurs. It was the Permian/Triassic extinction that was characterized by runaway global warming. Certainly this allowed for the development of great new diversity, but that was irrelevant if you were one of the 70% of terrestrial vertebrates and 96% of marine life that went extinct.

[Dragonbite]

Wrong extinction! The dinosaurs lived during the Mesozoic, a warm period overall. Clearing the way for the rise of the dinosaurs was the Permian/Triassic extinction, which killed off a much higher percentage of life on Earth than the more famous Cretaceous/Tertiary extinction, which ended the dinosaurs. It was the Permian/Triassic extinction that was characterized by runaway global warming. Certainly this allowed for the development of great new diversity, but that was irrelevant if you were one of the 70% of terrestrial vertebrates and 96% of marine life that went extinct.

When does the meteor theory fall in? (pun intended ;) )

[Johnsie]

Facts:

Climate Changes
It has done for many years. The idea of attempting to stop it from changing or keeping some sort of static level is proposterous. It's a natural process and it would be pretty difficult to control as there are many factors which affect it, ie orbit of the sun etc.

Climate change has increased its pace since the industrial revolution -
mmmm... yes but corellation is not always the same as causation. Any scientist or stactician will admit that. Climate change has never held a steady pace. The pace increases and decreases for many reasons, not necessarily because of CO2 produced by mankind.

The North Pole is Shrinking
Every summer alot of the ice melts. This is normal. In winter re-freezing occurs and the ice sheet takes a different shape from what it was the year before. There are plenty of satellite images which show this. Sometimes it's bigger, other times not but one thing that is certain, it will never be the same shape the next year. So the man from the BBC could go somewhere one year, see it frozen... and then the next year it's not frozen. If he blames global warming then he's ignoring the possibility that the ice sheet has taken a different shape that year.

[etnlIcarus]

http://uyac.com.au/forum/images/smilies/psyduck.gif

Dare I say this thread has run it's course?

[Dragonbite]

http://uyac.com.au/forum/images/smilies/psyduck.gif

dare i say this thread has run it's course?

+1

[benj1]

The North Pole is Shrinking
Every summer alot of the ice melts. This is normal. In winter re-freezing occurs and the ice sheet takes a different shape from what it was the year before. There are plenty of satellite images which show this. Sometimes it's bigger, other times not but one thing that is certain, it will never be the same shape the next year. So the man from the BBC could go somewhere one year, see it frozen... and then the next year it's not frozen. If he blames global warming then he's ignoring the possibility that the ice sheet has taken a different shape that year.
your first two points were good, but this is wrong

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
this even has a nice little slide show showing shifting and shrinking sea ice
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7461707.stm

[Faolan84]

Has anyone ever stopped to think that global warming might actually be benefical to mankind and life on Earth? Yes, some coastal areas might be devestated if the sea-levels rise, but sea-levels have risen and fell (drastically in someplaces creating mega-floods) over the last several thousand years.

One benefit I can think of a slightly warmer climate would be extended growing seasons, which could help curve world hunger.

Yes, it may cause a lot of destruction in the mid-term (next 150 years) if it is true, but what will be planet be like 300 years from now assuming the theory is true. There is a very good possibility that a hotter climate would not cause desertification and would make the world a wetter place.

Just some food for thought.

[benj1]

Has anyone ever stopped to think that global warming might actually be benefical to mankind and life on Earth? Yes, some coastal areas might be devestated if the sea-levels rise, but sea-levels have risen and fell (drastically in someplaces creating mega-floods) over the last several thousand years.

One benefit I can think of a slightly warmer climate would be extended growing seasons, which could help curve world hunger.

Yes, it may cause a lot of destruction in the mid-term (next 150 years) if it is true, but what will be planet be like 300 years from now assuming the theory is true. There is a very good possibility that a hotter climate would not cause desertification and would make the world a wetter place.

Just some food for thought.
well considering a disproportionate number of people and cities are near the coast, no, plus theres issues such as most of the large rivers are fed by melt water from large mountain ranges, which would be bound to decrease, with increasing temperature.
heres a nice map of what might be flooded
http://flood.firetree.net/

[etnlIcarus]

your first two points were goodThey really weren't.


Yes, some coastal areas might be devestated if the sea-levels riseThat's a gross understatement. Coastal regions all over the world are under threat, as are entire nations.


One benefit I can think of a slightly warmer climate would be extended growing seasons, which could help curve world hunger.Firstly, we already have everything we need to cure world hunger. Secondly, an extended growing season ain't much good when agriculturally viable land is shifting and becoming rarefied, which is a much bigger factor for much of the world's agricultural belt.


Just some food for thought.I hope that's all it is.

[Faolan84]

I was trying to play devil advocate here, but I think you've tried to make an insinuation here :P Anyways, I was going for an "ends to justify the means" approach, not that I advocate that type of thinking. However, it's always good to throw in those ideas because it is a good teast of conviction.

Of course I'd never actually advocate for a massive rise in sea level :P We're already teetering the edge of another world war... that would cause a situtation to go nuclear so fast I don't want to think about it.

[benj1]

They really weren't.

i meant good as in valid, not that i necessarily agree with them, dont complain, its better than "polar bears can swim 300 miles"

@Faolan Devyn Aodfin
wouldnt a better "the ends justify the means" approach be killing the first born, or some other population control method, that would be much better at cutting co2


<completely off topic>
just discovered ctrl-b inserts bold tags and ctrl-i inserts italics oo underline, unfortunately ctrl-q doesnt do quotes.
ahh you learn something new every day :)
<\completely off topic>

[Cope57]

Carbon Dioxide is a gas which plants need to survive, we remove it the plants die that provide us with oxygen.

Global warming is a hoax...

[etnlIcarus]

Must. Resist. Urge. To. Facepalm.jpg

[scrogster]

Carbon Dioxide is a gas which plants need to survive, we remove it the plants die that provide us with oxygen.

Global warming is a hoax...

Water is a liquid which humans need to survive, so I'll see you at the bottom of the sea. ](*,)Seriously, if that's the best argument you have....

[MasterNetra]

Back in the time of the dinosaurs global temps where much higher then they are now. For me at least Global Warming don't bother me much. I hate us using Oil and such because its not a renewable resource. And I'm more concerned with our polluting, enviromental destruction, and other such things.

[etnlIcarus]

Back in the time of the dinosaurs global temps where much higher then they are now.There was also only one continent, for starters.

Water is a liquid which humans need to survive, so I'll see you at the bottom of the sea. ](*,)Seriously, if that's the best argument you have....
Under the seaaaa...
Under the seaaaa...
There'll be not accusations,
Just friendly crustaceans,
Under the seaaa...

[KiwiNZ]

Carbon Dioxide is a gas which plants need to survive, we remove it the plants die that provide us with oxygen.

Global warming is a hoax...

It is not a hoax . But it is more that that . We are not all going to have a warm Mediterranean climate with long hot days at the beach. We are going have greatly altered growing seasons , very unstable weather with extreme storms becoming more and frequent. Less and less viable water, As it progresses less viable land which of course will lessen food supply .

CO2 is just one part of the Climate change equation.

[hobo14]

a single volcano going off gives off more co2 than the human race has ever made in its entire existence.

Er, this is not even close to true.


if it is caused by man, than why have they stopped calling it global warming now that its colder, and now say its "climate change" as if though we're only supposed to have a single season and temp. they said we were causing a green house effect with co2. now our co2 is cooling the earth?

CO2 is not cooling the earth. I guess the change in terms was to more accurately reflect the seriousness of this phenomenon. It could end up being a whole lot worse than some pleasant sounding "warming".


well, there are about 10,000-20,000 scientists saying global/climate change is bull.

Rubbish. You mean some people with bachelors degrees in a science field? That's virtually worthless, especially if you look at the quantity and quality of scientists who aren't sceptics. Millions.
The largest gathering of climate change sceptics I've ever heard of was 800, most of them were not scientists, and most of the scientists were not climatologists.

[hobo14]

1st: When you take a close look at the graph doesn't it appear that the temperature line increases BEFORE the CO2 line? Would this not suggest that temperature is somehow driving CO2? The theory goes that oceans hold large amounts of CO2 naturally, but the total amount they an hold varies with temperature. As ocean temp increases the amount of CO2 it can hold decreases - thus it gets gassed out into the atmosphere.

CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas around. It's already well known that the initial warming after an ice age leads the CO2 rise by about 800 years, but after that, it's a different story.
Unfortunately for us, we aren't coming out of an ice age. Ice core samples show we were on the downwards slope towards one, before humans started pumping out CO2.



2nd: If CO2 is a strong driver of temperature, why aren't we warmer? Our total CO2 levels are higher than ever before, yet according to the graph we're still well within the normal range and seem to have leveled off for the time being. Could we maybe have been part of a natural heating cycle the past 100 years or so and will be soon experiencing global cooling (if we're not already experiencing it).

By "for the time being" you mean the last couple of years. - I'm in Australia, coming into summer, but today is cooler than yesterday. Perhaps summer is over already?
You are looking at a much too narrow piece of the graph. The trend is up, fast.
Just in case you insist at looking at short term data: as of 2007, the hottest 11 years on record had all occurred in the previous 13 years.
Without the CO2, we would be cooler.



3rd: If the current warming is due to man made CO2 emissions, what caused the fluctuation of CO2 in the past? We were not around 600,000 years ago to dump CO2 into the atmosphere, so why did it vary?

Levels now are higher than 600,000 years ago.


4th: If the greenhouse effect caused the previous warming periods, why is it short lived? Based on current theory of the effect there is no reason why the earth should have suddenly cooled, we should have kept on warming and we would never have made it here today to worry about such things.

As per q2, short term vs long term.



I've done a lot of digging and have found very little evidence that CO2 is the actual cause of global warming - most of what I've found just takes it as fact, but provides no proof or reasoning - other than CO2 has been increasing and temperatures have been increasing, there's your proof.

The earth behaves more or less like a black body. It radiates as much energy as it absorbs, but at a different wavelength
(radiation from the sun is mostly visible spectrum, radiation from the earth is mostly infrared - this is because of the temperature of the sun, and the temperature of the earth).
CO2 is transparent to visible spectrum radiation, but not infrared, so it acts like greenhouse glass. When less infrared radiation can leave because it is reflected by more CO2, temperature rises until it reaches the point where earth's radiation is of a high enough spectrum to be able to radiate the same amount of energy as it absorbed.

So, just like a cloudy night is warmer than a clear night, an atmosphere with more CO2 is warmer than an atmosphere with less.

[Dragonbite]

How long ago was the Ice Age (the big one, when there were Mamoths)?

[benj1]

Carbon Dioxide is a gas which plants need to survive, we remove it the plants die that provide us with oxygen.

Global warming is a hoax...

i like chocolate, chocolate is brown, therefore global warming isn't a hoax.


(i love these insightful well thought out arguments )

[CJ_Hudson]

How about: "Sheep are white and fluffy, clouds are white and fluffy, therefor all sheep are clouds"? He he. (Sorry that's just me).

Seriously, one fact is for certain: until we stop fighting wars on this planet the environment is f****d. If we don't even respect a human life then how are we ever going to respect the lives of other species?

[stinger30au]

We're all worried about global warming and our carbon foot prints. Maybe we've seen that popular movie/book/lecture by a famous American Politician, or took an class on climate change and were pretty much convinced that we're killing the planet with this orderless and invisible gas known as Carbon Dioxide (CO2).



thats why you never believe everything you see/hear and especially from a politician or an ex politician either. check *many* sources and you never know what you might just find out :)

[Lucretius]

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/images/IPCC_oven.jpg

[benj1]

thats why you never believe everything you see/hear and especially from a politician or an ex politician either. check *many* sources and you never know what you might just find out :)

I agree, although i came to a different conclusion to you.


@Lucretius

i think if NASA were claiming to have broken the law of conservation of energy, climate change sceptics, and the media in general would have jumped on it to the point where i would have actually heard about it.

[t0p]

At the beginning of this thread, someone said something like "keep it scientific, not political". But almost everything posted since has been political not scientific. Why do I say this? Let me explain:


Most members haven't provided the slightest bit of scientific evidence for what they think: maybe a bit of pseudo-science about ultraviolet and the precession of the stars. Pseudo-science is fakery to try and influence others: politics;
Many members have posted "evidence" from that great store of human knowledge, Wikipedia.org. As anyone with half a brain knows: no matter what your point of view, you can find something to back it up in Wikipedia. So naturally, members have cherry-picked "evidence" that backs up what they prefer to believe: politics;
Some members have offered "evidence" on sites that profess some kind of scientific validity. Unfortunately, none of those sites are just repositories of raw data; very few, if any, are well-respected peer-reviewed studies of long standing. Most, if not all the evidence comes from sites that have been put together to promote one view or the other: politics.

I'll bet a lot of you think I'm crazy. What do I expect: world-renowned climate scientists to come here and write scholarly dissertations based on new research and publish terabytes of new, raw data for the uneducated members of this forum to study before we make up our minds? Yes, that's exactly what I'd expect from a truly scientific discussion. Anything less is politics. Ergo, this thread is politics not science.

Mods, please close this thread.

[benj1]

At the beginning of this thread, someone said something like "keep it scientific, not political". But almost everything posted since has been political not scientific. Why do I say this? Let me explain:


Most members haven't provided the slightest bit of scientific evidence for what they think: maybe a bit of pseudo-science about ultraviolet and the precession of the stars. Pseudo-science is fakery to try and influence others: politics;
Many members have posted "evidence" from that great store of human knowledge, Wikipedia.org. As anyone with half a brain knows: no matter what your point of view, you can find something to back it up in Wikipedia. So naturally, members have cherry-picked "evidence" that backs up what they prefer to believe: politics;
Some members have offered "evidence" on sites that profess some kind of scientific validity. Unfortunately, none of those sites are just repositories of raw data; very few, if any, are well-respected peer-reviewed studies of long standing. Most, if not all the evidence comes from sites that have been put together to promote one view or the other: politics.

I'll bet a lot of you think I'm crazy. What do I expect: world-renowned climate scientists to come here and write scholarly dissertations based on new research and publish terabytes of new, raw data for the uneducated members of this forum to study before we make up our minds? Yes, that's exactly what I'd expect from a truly scientific discussion. Anything less is politics. Ergo, this thread is politics not science.

Mods, please close this thread.
first, were you realy expecting this thread to remain free of politics ?

I do agree that it would be nice to have one unbiased site that covered everything, unfortunately that isn't the case, i don't think it would resolve the disagreements anyway, some one would still debate its validity. The same would happen if raw data was published, add to that the fact that data probably isn't straight forward, involving a lot of variables from different sources etc etc.

I have to disagree about wikipedia, yes it sometimes has inaccuracies (what doesn't) but it isn't the work of one biased, or supposedly non biased organisation, its the work of many people from both sides of the debate, if you want you can view the history of the article, and discussions on the writing of it, and it has probably been written by highly knowledgeable people, considering wikipedia is probably the biggest knowledge repository on earth, i think many scientists would be interested in making sure its accurate.

[t0p]

first, were you realy expecting this thread to remain free of politics?

Of course not. But I do expect the moderators to treat this thread the same as others. I have been told off for making a political joke, in passing, in other threads. I have good reason to believe that if I started a discussion here on a subject with political overtones (or even undertones) the thread would be closed and I'd be "punished". Yet this thread, on one of the most divisive subjects in recent times, is allowed to continue. Why? Because it's important? So are other political subjects. Because it also has scientific interest? So do many other political subjects.




I have to disagree about wikipedia, yes it sometimes has inaccuracies (what doesn't) but it isn't the work of one biased, or supposedly non biased organisation, its the work of many people from both sides of the debate, if you want you can view the history of the article, and discussions on the writing of it, and it has probably been written by highly knowledgeable people, considering wikipedia is probably the biggest knowledge repository on earth, i think many scientists would be interested in making sure its accurate.

Have you read the discussion pages for any of the pertinant Wikipedia articles? You can see the frenzied edits these articles go through, all the time, by one or another side. Of course you're right when you say "many scientists would be interested in making sure its accurate" - but different scientists have different views on what is accurate. And when you say "it has probably been written by highly knowledgeable people" - how would you know? Edits are made by people using usernames, or anonymous people identified only by IP address. We don't necessarily know if any of these editors is "highly knowledgeable". In fact, just about the only thing we know about the editors is that they all seem to disagree with each other. So some of them must be not "highly knowledgeable", don't you think? In fact, I have difficulty believing you are serious when you say the fact it's written by so many people makes it somehow more accurate. One day it says X, the next it says Y. X and Y are utterly opposed. So how can it be accurate?

Either you're disingenuous, and therefore dishonest, or you have difficulty grasping just how divisive this subject is. I would contend that it's all but impossible for laymen to have a meaningful discussion about this without politics intruding to a ridiculous extent. And since these are not the politics of open source/free software or computing, they have no place in this forum.

[sdowney717]

Gore says the debate is over, now is the time for one world government to push co2 regulation regardless of any price or consequence.
you can not change anyones mind. People want to embrace causes and have power over others.

[t0p]

.
you can not change anyones mind. People want to embrace causes and have power over others.

You're right. And I'd say that's an excellent reason why this thread should be closed. This isn't an honest exchange of ideas that might actually help someone get a better view of the subject and come to an opinion. You either believe in man-made climate change, or you don't.

The only thing to talk about is: what should we do about the present situation? And that's politics.

[etnlIcarus]

t0p, the wikipedia argument isn't really one you're going to win. It's use in this thread, as best I can tell, has been pretty much exclusively to catch-up the less informed amongst us. Like any general encyclopaedia, it's a secondary source. I'm also not sure why wikipedia would be a problem, regardless of how it's employed, anyway: surely if it's inaccurate, threads like these are where you're going to find out about wikipedia's 'liberal bias', or whatever you're getting at.

That said, I agree with you on the inconsistent moderation front and this thread probably should be locked - if only because most of us CBFed putting people like sdowney717 in their place, anymore.


This isn't an honest exchange of ideas that might actually help someone get a better view of the subject and come to an opinion.I'd be quite curious to hear the OP's take on this.

[t0p]

t0p, the wikipedia argument isn't really one you're going to win. It's use in this thread, as best I can tell, has been pretty much exclusively to catch-up the less informed amongst us. Like any general encyclopaedia, it's a secondary source. I'm also not sure why wikipedia would be a problem, regardless of how it's employed, anyway: surely if it's inaccurate, threads like these are where you're going to find out about wikipedia's 'liberal bias', or whatever you're getting at.

No no, you misunderstand me. For a start, I'm not accusing Wikipedia of "liberal" bias or "illiberal" bias. I have tried to ensure that my view on the question of man-made climate change is not revealed in my post. My point is that Wikipedia has both biases. In one place you'll see stuff "proving" the hypothesis; in another, you'll see info "disproving" it. So Wikipedia is not being used as an impartial source - it can be used by anyone, to "prove" anything. But because it's called an encyclopedia, both sides can use it to give their posts the illusion of science.

But really, I don't care if anyone agrees with me about Wikipedia. If everyone wants to view it as the repository of all human knowledge, that's fine by me. So long as this thread gets closed for political content.



That said, I agree with you on the inconsistent moderation front and this thread probably should be locked - if only because most of us CBFed putting people like sdowney717 in their place, anymore.

I'd be quite curious to hear the OP's take on this.

I'd like to hear some admin views.

[etnlIcarus]

You really cannot use wikipedia to, "prove anything". Even without taking that statement literally, it's still a pretty ridiculous call. Unless you're talking about more generically taking passages out of context, which is a problematic criticism in itself.

[hobo14]

retracted.

[etnlIcarus]

I dunno. There's probably an equal chance t0p doesn't have a problem with the content of this thread and is just butthurt about these warnings he got.

[alphaniner]

If there were ever any doubt that climate change was just about politics, the Copenhagen Conference should have cleared it up.

What more do you need to see than Hugo Chavez getting an ovation for quoting Marx and blaming climate change on capitalism? Science my hairy white hiney. Green is just the new red.

[etnlIcarus]

What's more, Chavez bathes regularly. Climate change and hygiene: the two cruellest hoaxes perpetrated against man.

[ibuclaw]

All I see here is rantings over an old/once sleeping thread. So am closing.