PDA

View Full Version : Global Climate Change



Pages : [1] 2

pizza-is-good
December 12th, 2009, 09:11 PM
Hey, I'm just wandering, with all the issues regarding if global climate change is man-made or not, what most people actually think.

I find it hard to decide on way or the other, there seems to be evidence and educated people with good arguments for both sides.

Any comments?

The Toxic Mite
December 12th, 2009, 09:13 PM
Climate chaos has been happening since the dinosaurs were wiped out.

That's all I have to say.

FuturePilot
December 12th, 2009, 09:15 PM
Climate chaos has been happening since the dinosaurs were wiped out.

That's all I have to say.

This

era86
December 12th, 2009, 09:17 PM
Al Gore said it's real, and he's a politician. And politicians never lie....

Actually, it's just the matrix so who cares.

Chronon
December 12th, 2009, 09:21 PM
I think it's a bit of a false dichotomy. The climate consists of a set of interacting systems driven by solar irradiance. Natural factors certainly can and do contribute to changes in climate. However, in the context of current carbon dioxide levels, I think it's not too disputable that this is primarily anthropogenic.

Simian Man
December 12th, 2009, 09:26 PM
It's definitely predominately man-made. This thread will eventually be closed :).

alphaniner
December 12th, 2009, 09:29 PM
I'm a 'denaaher'.

The Toxic Mite
December 12th, 2009, 09:30 PM
It's definitely predominately man-made. This thread will eventually be closed :).

O RLY?!

Care to think about poor Mother Nature here? I am disappoint :|

SunnyRabbiera
December 12th, 2009, 09:32 PM
Al Gore said it's real, and he's a politician. And politicians never lie....

But you cant deny our presense on the planet is causing havoc on every other race on the planet, we pollute and pour garbage into the air land and sea.
To deny we dont have anything to do with making some change to the climate is foolish.
We are a stupid species by nature, we could use all this trash and garbage and recycle it and reprocess it and make a cleaner world but we dont.
the day we are wiped off the face of the planet i think would be a blessing to the world as a whole.

lisati
December 12th, 2009, 09:34 PM
The hype is definitely man made, sifting through it all to get a useful picture of what's really going on is another story. Y2K had its origins in something real, but a lot of nonsense was spoken about it.

The Toxic Mite
December 12th, 2009, 09:35 PM
But you cant deny our presense on the planet is causing havoc on every other race on the planet, we pollute and pour garbage into the air land and sea.
To deny we dont have anything to do with making some change to the climate is foolish.
We are a stupid species by nature, we could use all this trash and garbage and recycle it and reprocess it and make a cleaner world but we dont.
the day we are wiped off the face of the planet i think would be a blessing to the world as a whole.

That's debatable...

soni1770
December 12th, 2009, 09:39 PM
no, pollution is good for the earth, just like cigarettes are good for humans, just ask the Marlboro man. he always smokes a 20 deck before herding up the stock and riding into the sunset.

The Toxic Mite
December 12th, 2009, 09:40 PM
no, pollution is good for the earth, just like cigarettes are good for humans, just ask the Marlboro man. he always smokes a 20 deck before herding up the stock and riding into the sunset.

Touché... :|

soni1770
December 12th, 2009, 09:45 PM
for sure, all those people geting sick with some sort of coughing sickness would have got sick anyways, people have been geting sick forever, if they smoked more it would clear there lungs out, just think of the facts, the dinosaurs Didn't smoke.... and look what happend them

lisati
December 12th, 2009, 09:47 PM
no, pollution is good for the earth, just like cigarettes are good for humans, just ask the Marlboro man. he always smokes a 20 deck before herding up the stock and riding into the sunset.

More information can be found at http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=cigarette%20AND%20mediatype%3Amov ies

SunnyRabbiera
December 12th, 2009, 09:51 PM
For me the issue of global climate change is very real, and I do think we have at least some contribution to the matter.
We screwed things up in the past and we will screw up again, the great human race feh we act so smart yet we are dumb as sticks.
We overproduce, we tear down ecosystems, we pollute the environment, we wreck the populations of other animals on this planet and yet we think we are so brilliant because we can build houses and nuclear missiles.
Feh on the human race, someone stop the planet I want to get off.

inobe
December 12th, 2009, 09:56 PM
climate change is a has been, pumping chemicals into the atmosphere speeds up the process "what is claimed"

i am no scientist and can only assume it would not hurt to cross over to clean renewable energy regardless of what scientists believe.

by the way, this is about science an not politics........

please go elsewhere with political beliefs.

predominately is an overstatement, partially sounds best.

mybodymyself
December 12th, 2009, 10:00 PM
Voted for the 1st choice (It is predominately man-made) then anything else. I'm getting tired of this and wish others do the same and etc.

The Toxic Mite
December 12th, 2009, 10:04 PM
Voted for the 1st choice (It is predominately man-made) then anything else. I'm getting tired of this and wish others do the same and etc.


Err... we are entitled to our own opinion, you know.

SuperSonic4
December 12th, 2009, 10:05 PM
IR data shows that the C=O bond absorbs the wavelength in the IR part of the spectrum which is what the sun gives out. CO2 molecules absorb this as does the C-H bond and the O-H bond in water.

Burnings masses of fossil fuels releases lots of CO2 (One mole of octane releases 8 moles of CO2)

Therefore the two are linked

inobe
December 12th, 2009, 10:07 PM
i guess it would be predominately only because the ice contains carbons, this ice melting at a faster rate releasing these carbons causing a chain reaction.


it all points to fossil fuels, more than 54% of u.s. power grid is powered with coal and their are over 350 million vehicles on the road at any given time.

this is not including the rest of the world, china is also known for pumping chemicals into the atmosphere as well as india.

some countries have diesel power plants.

alphaniner
December 12th, 2009, 10:17 PM
In a book I read years ago called the Millennial Project, the author suggested cultivating algae and dumping it into the ocean. I'm definitely no biochemist, but it seems like a reasonable course of action to me. Unfortunately, it won't make Al Gore insanely rich or give any would-be despots absolute control over people's lives, so apparently it's a non-starter.

nubimax
December 12th, 2009, 10:33 PM
It is happening, and one of the things that make it confusing is that at the moment, the sun has entered a Maunder minimum. (how many have to look that up) This will last about 17/18 years on average then the sun will go back to normal and the temperature will also go up at a faster rate.
M.

inobe
December 12th, 2009, 10:58 PM
It is happening, and one of the things that make it confusing is that at the moment, the sun has entered a Maunder minimum. (how many have to look that up) This will last about 17/18 years on average then the sun will go back to normal and the temperature will also go up at a faster rate.
M.

an alternative candidate but i see a problem, i see a huge excuse to deter our attention from the obvious !

that is an attempt to start outside, sort of like painting a room and starting from the bottom and the bottom is a different color from the top... it doesn't seem logical.

it also states that nothing should be done then, no change in how we use energy, following that alternative theory may possibly do more harm than good.

now i can see this being informative after 20 to 30 years use of clean renewable energy without results.

we must try somethings first before we give in to a theory that cannot be changed or manipulated.

LinuxFanBoi
December 12th, 2009, 11:09 PM
The one thing that both sides of the debate have in common is that both either side stands to loose a lot of money depending on what the policies of the major world powers are.

The current power structure is centered around the production, and sale of fossil fuels for profit. One thing is certain, Their supply is finite, and barring diversification into other forms of energy production so are their profits.

The aspiring power structure is from the renewable energy producers, who for the time being are getting their funding predominately from government grants for research and development. And yes, people can become wealthy working on publicly funded projects.

Either side will fight tooth and nail to protect their financial future regardless of their impact, both positive and negative on the environment.

Uncle Spellbinder
December 12th, 2009, 11:17 PM
Climate chaos has been happening since the dinosaurs were wiped out.

That's all I have to say.

You are correct, of course. But anyone who thinks that humankind has not at least had a lasting influence on the climate of Earth is either naive or completely oblivious to the obvious.

murderslastcrow
December 12th, 2009, 11:25 PM
There are several experts who have studied this subject for decades (it's their job), and who have determined that the majority of the chemicals in the air that are causing these changes are produced naturally, without any help from us. As in we do contribute about 2 percent of it, and if you think taking away that 2 percent will change anything, then go ahead and do it.

I'm more worried about pollution and clear skies than I am about exploding death rays from the Sun at this point. It's become a rather sensationalistic approach, and I think if our notion of Global Warming is based on science, we should do our best to verify and solidify the sciences that propagate these claims, since to my knowledge, we aren't experiencing global warming so much yet, at least in my area.

This is not to say we shouldn't clean up our environment and pollute less. I'm all for it. I just think there are better reasons to use renewable energy and clean up the air than "OMG IF WE DON'T ALL MANKIND WILL CEASE TO EXIST!!" Do we really need to be scared into making the right decisions?

73ckn797
December 12th, 2009, 11:30 PM
Climate chaos has been happening since the dinosaurs were wiped out.

That's all I have to say.


I am assuming what you mean and agree with it completely.

One volcano eruption puts more in the atmosphere than we can do over many years.

inobe
December 12th, 2009, 11:39 PM
This is not to say we shouldn't clean up our environment and pollute less. I'm all for it. I just think there are better reasons to use renewable energy and clean up the air than "OMG IF WE DON'T ALL MANKIND WILL CEASE TO EXIST!!" Do we really need to be scared into making the right decisions?

very interesting, i think that would depend how you obtained the information that lead to that notion, or merely misinterpreting what scientists are saying.

i don't see it as fear mongering, at least from where i get my information.

would your source be the media ?

here are some shocking images in regards to the environment http://www.asianoffbeat.com/default.asp?display=993

forrestcupp
December 12th, 2009, 11:47 PM
Where is the option that "Global Climate Change is a hoax and it's not really happening at all in the way that it is being publicized, neither naturally nor man-made"?

Here is the web site (http://www.petitionproject.org/) for the petition that over 31,000 scientists have signed that shows their opposition to global warming theories.


It's definitely predominately man-made. This thread will eventually be closed :).That's why Mars is also showing signs of climate change. And I'm surprised the thread hasn't been closed yet.


The hype is definitely man made, sifting through it all to get a useful picture of what's really going on is another story. Y2K had its origins in something real, but a lot of nonsense was spoken about it.Exactly!

soni1770
December 12th, 2009, 11:49 PM
I am assuming what you mean and agree with it completely.

One volcano eruption puts more in the atmosphere than we can do over many years.

no snowflake thinks it's responsible for the avalanche

markp1989
December 12th, 2009, 11:50 PM
global warming has been happening since the last ice age (we have sped it up abit, but its not all man made)

there have been multiple ice ages in the past, so eventualy it will just go full circle.

inobe
December 12th, 2009, 11:58 PM
[url=http://www.petitionproject.org/]

read that petition carefully if you will.


And I'm surprised the thread hasn't been closed yet.



why should it be closed ?

alphaniner
December 13th, 2009, 12:07 AM
read that petition carefully if you will.

I read the petition. What is your point?


why should it be closed ?


The Community Cafe
The Community Chat area is for lighthearted and enjoyable discussions, like you might find around a water cooler at work.

Almost any non-tech-support topic may be discussed here. Discussions on religion and politics are not allowed, except for politics directly related to free and open source issues. Any topic or discussion that causes problems or drama will be closed. This area is intended for fun and community building, not arguments. Please take those elsewhere. Thanks!


But the mods are pretty generous sometimes, so long as things don't get nasty.

blur xc
December 13th, 2009, 12:12 AM
[quote=alphaniner;8487285Unfortunately, it won't make Al Gore insanely rich or give any would-be despots absolute control over people's lives, so apparently it's a non-starter.[/quote]

+1 to that

Global warming / climate change is just leverage to make people rich and/or give them more power. Take both of those incentives away and you wouldn't see it on the evening news anymore. The problem may or may not persist, but it won't be an issue on the ballot.

Hasn't anyone followed the news regarding the climatologists email getting hacked? Proof that they were exaggerating data and all that jazz?

BM

edit- in before it's closed

inobe
December 13th, 2009, 12:14 AM
I read the petition. What is your point?

the u.s. is the only country that failed to sign the kyoto treaty






But the mods are pretty generous sometimes, so long as things don't get nasty.

it's about science, politics shouldn't even be considered, i would hope those eager to discuss politics follow the forum rules.

AlanR8
December 13th, 2009, 12:20 AM
Odd how here in the UK everyone NOW talks about climate change NOT global warming.

Wise.

Global warming is commercial.

Climate change is natural.

alphaniner
December 13th, 2009, 12:21 AM
Odd how here in the UK everyone NOW talks about climate change NOT global warming.

It's the same here in the states.

SuperSonic4
December 13th, 2009, 12:32 AM
Hasn't anyone followed the news regarding the climatologists email getting hacked? Proof that they were exaggerating data and all that jazz?

If you were truly paying attention you'd know that two other sources confirm exactly the same trend. But then that doesn't make good headlines does it?

Also the last 10 years have been the hottest on record

inobe
December 13th, 2009, 12:32 AM
not taking part in the kyoto protocol insults the intelligence of renown scientists around the world, i find this troubling.

SuperSonic4
December 13th, 2009, 12:34 AM
+1 to that

Global warming / climate change is just leverage to make people rich and/or give them more power. Take both of those incentives away and you wouldn't see it on the evening news anymore. The problem may or may not persist, but it won't be an issue on the ballot.

Hasn't anyone followed the news regarding the climatologists email getting hacked? Proof that they were exaggerating data and all that jazz?

BM

edit- in before it's closed

I believe the US signed but did not ratify it because it didn't get through Congress. Likely because the US care more about money than the world!

Go to a Pacific Island and ask them if Climate Change is real.

inobe
December 13th, 2009, 12:37 AM
I believe the US signed but did not ratify it


to the best of my knowledge they did not sign and are completely ignoring the protocol.

starcannon
December 13th, 2009, 12:37 AM
Warming and Cooling trends exist. No one denies that. I believe the boiled down deal is this, how much did we speed up the cycle.

I believe that the evidence shows that we sped the cycle up a lot. But, I also believe that the planet has been around a lot longer than we have, and that it will be here long after we are gone. So, the ethical and moral issue is, what kind of planet do we want to live on while were here. Take warming and cooling out of the picture, it still makes sense to have a clean environment to live in; there is no defense for trashing the earth.

SuperSonic4
December 13th, 2009, 12:39 AM
to the best of my knowledge they did not sign and are completely ignoring the protocol.

Nah they signed but aren't going to ratify it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#United_States

Therefore the signing is largely symbolic

Exodist
December 13th, 2009, 12:42 AM
It happens in cycles about every ~10,000 years. Yea I believe pollution has speed it up earlier by say a thousand years sooner. But it would happen anyway.
No offense to anyone, but what I want is the CNN footage of all the mexicans running 'back" across the boarder this time.. hehe :)

inobe
December 13th, 2009, 12:46 AM
Nah they signed but aren't going to ratify it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#United_States

Therefore the signing is largely symbolic

much appreciated for the information.


about the only sense i get from this besides insulting scientists around the world is that the u.s. is far more dependent on fossil fuels, that mixed with oil companies campaigns against global warming/ climate change produces a much clearer picture.

SuperSonic4
December 13th, 2009, 12:49 AM
much appreciated for the information.


about the only sense i get from this besides insulting scientists around the world is that the u.s. is far more dependent on fossil fuels, that mixed with oil companies campaigns against global warming/ climate change produces a much clearer picture.

It is not helped by having it in the Northern Hemisphere's winter. I read a story today about masses of snow in the US and Canada. What is not understood is that Climate Change can mean parts of the world get cooler (hence why it's climate change and not global warming - science is about progression and questioning itself. If parts of the world gets cooler this means it's misleading to name it global warming)

Also, it's my opinion that the US has long has it's own agenda - climate isolationism if you will. Unfortunately this is a global problem and the US is a big emitter of CO2

sdowney717
December 13th, 2009, 12:52 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1234515/Copenhagen-climate-change-summit-The-world-COOLING-warming-says-scientist-Peter-Taylor---prepared.html

a cooling trend will start and then you will wisk there was more co2 in the air to warm things up!
what this all tells me is no one knows the future and people who tell you otherwise have agendas to pursue.

inobe
December 13th, 2009, 12:55 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1234515/Copenhagen-climate-change-summit-The-world-COOLING-warming-says-scientist-Peter-Taylor---prepared.html

a cooling trend will start and then you will wisk there was more co2 in the air to warm things up!
what this all tells me is no one knows the future and people who tell you otherwise have agendas to pursue.

read post #47

-=hazard=-
December 13th, 2009, 01:01 AM
Sure it's predominately man-made. And yes it's true when someone said here that climate change has started till dinosaur epoch, but if you make a simple mathematic calculation you can find that, from dinosaur epoch till non industrialized era, the clime changed very very slowly, I mean in million of years, and if you see how much it has changed in this last 60 years.... you can clearly understand that its predominately man-made. How can we deny this?

-=hazard=-
December 13th, 2009, 01:04 AM
Nah they signed but aren't going to ratify it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#United_States

Therefore the signing is largely symbolic

Sure they didn't sign that. How would then americans buy 4 liters of diesel for just 1 buck?... and here in Europe we buy 1.3 euro/liter...

Dennis N
December 13th, 2009, 01:09 AM
Suggested Readings are on Dr. Hansen's Web Page:

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

sdowney717
December 13th, 2009, 01:12 AM
http://businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2008/GlobalWarmingCensored/GlobalWarmingCensored_execsum.asp

your being manipulated by the media to believe in global warming

Keep on hitting normal people with facts, true or not, contrary to their opinions and you can change their opinions. that is what propaganda machine is all about. educating the masses towards your point of view . people who are suffering from bad climate are more likely to believe in worldwide man made climate change.

BBC is really bad about this.

Ric_NYC
December 13th, 2009, 01:12 AM
If we destroy forests... It is obvious that something changes in the atmosphere.

Do you really believe that a world covered by concrete and asphalt is going to have the same weather of a world that had forests?

inobe
December 13th, 2009, 01:14 AM
Sure it's predominately man-made. And yes it's true when someone said here that climate change has started till dinosaur epoch, but if you make a simple mathematic calculation you can find that, from dinosaur epoch till non industrialized era, the clime changed very very slowly, I mean in million of years, and if you see how much it has changed in this last 60 years.... you can clearly understand that its predominately man-made. How can we deny this?

i totally agree, the thickness of arctic ice in the last decade decline more then any other time known in human history, this has been proven.

in fact' wild life adapted to these conditions for millions of years, considering it happening so quickly' wild life cannot adapt to the rapid changes.

Chronon
December 13th, 2009, 01:15 AM
I am assuming what you mean and agree with it completely.

One volcano eruption puts more in the atmosphere than we can do over many years.

In fact, this conventional wisdom is false. Volcanic output is estimated at less than 1% of our current output of carbon dioxide.

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/education/gases/man.html
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

JDorfler
December 13th, 2009, 01:16 AM
Be careful before you take a sip of the Global Warming Kool Aid. Follow the money and try to figure out who will lose the most and gain the most with all of this. It's just a way of trying to make money out of nothing (carbon). It's a scam and too many people are falling for it.

Chronon
December 13th, 2009, 01:20 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1234515/Copenhagen-climate-change-summit-The-world-COOLING-warming-says-scientist-Peter-Taylor---prepared.html

a cooling trend will start and then you will wisk there was more co2 in the air to warm things up!
what this all tells me is no one knows the future and people who tell you otherwise have agendas to pursue.

It is plausible that our descendants, who have to live through the next ice age, will curse us for having burned up so much fossil fuels and squandering greenhouse gases that they could sorely use.

Exodist
December 13th, 2009, 01:23 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1234515/Copenhagen-climate-change-summit-The-world-COOLING-warming-says-scientist-Peter-Taylor---prepared.html

a cooling trend will start and then you will wisk there was more co2 in the air to warm things up!
what this all tells me is no one knows the future and people who tell you otherwise have agendas to pursue.
Studies have shown even during the ice age the Earth didnt become a Hoth planet. Mostly just the northern continents where covered in ice and snow. The regions around the equator like the baron desert regions of Norther Africa for example where covered in a lush green forest during those times.

So you may have to move. But humanity will survive another ice age as it has in the past.

Ric_NYC
December 13th, 2009, 01:24 AM
Right-wingers controlled by the corporations... They will always deny the climate change... Ask the pro-coal lobby.

Chronon
December 13th, 2009, 01:25 AM
Sure it's predominately man-made. And yes it's true when someone said here that climate change has started till dinosaur epoch, but if you make a simple mathematic calculation you can find that, from dinosaur epoch till non industrialized era, the clime changed very very slowly, I mean in million of years, and if you see how much it has changed in this last 60 years.... you can clearly understand that its predominately man-made. How can we deny this?

Actually, Earth has experienced quite a few ice ages over the last million years.

wewantutopia
December 13th, 2009, 01:29 AM
I'm curious if the people who say humans have no impact on the Earth's climate know anything about the carbon cycle? If they do, I wonder where they think all the excess carbon that has been buried for eons goes and what effect it has?

inobe
December 13th, 2009, 01:37 AM
Actually, Earth has experienced quite a few ice ages over the last million years.

the norwegion polar institute study proved this ice being 47 million years old.

bonfire89
December 13th, 2009, 01:39 AM
Probably is man made... but


I really don't care if it is or isn't... we need green technologies to keep our air CLEAN not just to keep temperatures in check.

-=hazard=-
December 13th, 2009, 01:52 AM
in fact, this conventional wisdom is false. Volcanic output is estimated at less than 1% of our current output of carbon dioxide.

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/education/gases/man.html
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

+1

-=hazard=-
December 13th, 2009, 01:53 AM
Actually, Earth has experienced quite a few ice ages over the last million years.

I know, but it never did experienced an ice age in 60 years!

cmat
December 13th, 2009, 01:54 AM
And this has what to do with open source software / Ubuntu?

Irihapeti
December 13th, 2009, 01:56 AM
Not much point my saying anything. I've received money from Big Oil.

I used to work for a gas/petrol station.

-=hazard=-
December 13th, 2009, 01:57 AM
http://businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2008/GlobalWarmingCensored/GlobalWarmingCensored_execsum.asp

your being manipulated by the media to believe in global warming

Keep on hitting normal people with facts, true or not, contrary to their opinions and you can change their opinions. that is what propaganda machine is all about. educating the masses towards your point of view . people who are suffering from bad climate are more likely to believe in worldwide man made climate change.

BBC is really bad about this.

OMG where do you live? In some 101% asphalted city and you have never seen a green world? How old are you 15? If yes you are right then. You must be at least more than 22 to notice some deep differences of clime in this last 15 years!

Please inform your self before talking about something that is very clear and dramatic.

inobe
December 13th, 2009, 02:01 AM
the northwest passage and the way the ice rapidly shrunk in 07" alone is shocking, a passage virtually impassable during the winter months suddenly opened up.

-=hazard=-
December 13th, 2009, 02:03 AM
the northwest passage and the way the ice rapidly shrunk in 07" alone is shocking, a passage virtually impassable during the winter months suddenly opened up.

I know, and I feel good when I see people like you that, at least are conscious for what is happening, and how much we are going to pay if we don't do something Now!

-=hazard=-
December 13th, 2009, 02:07 AM
I'm curious if the people who say humans have no impact on the Earth's climate know anything about the carbon cycle? If they do, I wonder where they think all the excess carbon that has been buried for eons goes and what effect it has?

It's all about background, intellect and personal culture to understand that, what this people doesn't have.

stinger30au
December 13th, 2009, 02:07 AM
i reckon the earths temp is changing from the big yellow thing in the sky thats a few hundred million degrees hot.... i believe its called the sun

i also reckon its a woy for governments of the world to start and move us off fossil fuels and on to other souces of energy as sooner or later fossil fuels will run out.

-=hazard=-
December 13th, 2009, 02:14 AM
i reckon the earths temp is changing from the big yellow thing in the sky thats a few hundred million degrees hot.... i believe its called the sun

i also reckon its a woy for governments of the world to start and move us off fossil fuels and on to other souces of energy as sooner or later fossil fuels will run out.

So what you mean is that the sun in this last 60 years have increased it's activity? That there are more solar flares around it and much more solar winds that in the past? Where did you get this info? I'm curious.

alphaniner
December 13th, 2009, 02:54 AM
It's all about background, intellect and personal culture to understand that, what this people doesn't have.

Congratulations, you've won the :KS of bigotry.

MasterNetra
December 13th, 2009, 03:18 AM
Let it happen I say. Climates change all the time (maybe not so much during a humans lifespan but it has happen plenty of times throughout earths life). Plus there was a time when temps where really high (back during the reign of the dinos) and life thrived. Reason I'm for renewables personally is not because of climate change but because its stupid to base a civilization on a resource that your not able to renew or can't do so adequately. I mean eventually that resource is going to run out completely and your going to have to make a change anyway and waiting until then will be devastating to the civilization.

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 03:34 AM
I don't believe global warming is anthropogenic.

Heck, Mars is warming and from what I know there are no people there!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Carbon Dioxide is a necessary gas for photosynthesis and plants grow more robustly and produce more luscious fruit in higher CO2 environments.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-02/uoia-hcb020609.php
So CO2 isn't bad and is still a relative trace gas in the atmosphere.

Furthermore, Carbon Dixoide levels have been higher in the past even before we were here.
Were we responsible for past Ice Ages and the subsequent warming that ended them?
I believe the Earth and Sun go through cycles and if it suits them to warm up we'll just have to roll with it.

Any time I hear about Carbon footprint, blah, blah, blah, my eyes get a clear view of my grey matter.
Attaching penalties to CO2 production is tantamount to instituting sanctions against our very breath and the raw material of our very sustenance.
IMO, the 'green' movement should be more concerned with keeping natural forests and greenery in tact to maintain proper balance
than it is with trying to attach penalties to a gas that is used and consumed by so many natural processes.
There are many outright toxic and carcinogenic chemicals that are being released into the environment and into our water and administered in vaccines
that are not attracting half as much attention as innocuous CO2 that my own body and that of almost every respiring organism releases into the environment.

But hey, no one can tax me for Mercury production but I do produce CO2!
Power and money grab.
Give me a break!

sdowney717
December 13th, 2009, 03:38 AM
suns output decreasing???

http://www.rightsidenews.com/200908155991/energy-and-environment/astronomers-suns-output-may-decline-significantly-inducing-another-little-ice-age-on-the-earth.html

get ready for new ice age, you will wish we had some global warming

"During a period from 1645 to 1715 the Sun entered an extended period of low activity known as the Maunder Minimum. For a time equivalent to several sunspot cycles the Sun displayed few sunspots. Models of the Sun's irradiance suggest that the solar energy input to the Earth decreased during that epoch, and that this lull in solar activity may explain the low temperatures recorded in Europe during the Little Ice Age."

this is confirmed, solar activity affects the climate

SaintDanBert
December 13th, 2009, 03:47 AM
When you can predict the week's and month's weather with very high accuracy, I'll start listening to predictions about next year and 20+ years out.

One volcano spews more junk in hours than people do in years, but people are "the main culprit"? I'm not convinced.

I was schooled in husbandry and believe in conservation. It is foolish to be wasteful of anything ... including human potential.

~~~ 0;-Dan

inobe
December 13th, 2009, 03:48 AM
I don't believe global warming is anthropogenic.

Heck, Mars is warming and from what I know there are no people there!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Carbon Dioxide is a necessary gas for photosynthesis
Give me a break!

95% of mars atmosphere is in fact CO2, that said the poles being in absolute darkness over the martian winters' 25% of that CO2 condenses into solid CO2 "dry ice" at the poles, so what i see in the link is a false contradiction when nasa discovered liquid frozen water "beneath the surface" in 08" around the northern pole region.

any surface water evaporated long ago !

sdowney717
December 13th, 2009, 03:50 AM
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3390-wild-coal-fires-are-a-global-catastrophe.html
"Estimates for the carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere from underground fires in China are equivalent to the emissions from all motor vehicles in the US," Stracher told delegates at the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Denver.

you know what else? Co2 production if you believe is the cause of warming, then seeing how the entire Siberian area when it warms will release so much methane that your puny efforts to reduce co2 will be obliterated. methane is seven to 10 times the power of co2 for warming

http://www.terranature.org/methaneSiberia.htm

sdowney717
December 13th, 2009, 03:58 AM
man thinks he is so powerful and has it all figured out.


Global warming gases trapped in the soil are being released from thawing permafrost at five times the rate previously thought. Researchers warn it may set off a climate change time bomb.

the climate is always changing and frankly even if global warming was man made, the earth and nature will take over the process and it is already too late to have any effect. mass hysteria is everywhere.

alphaniner
December 13th, 2009, 04:01 AM
95% of mars atmosphere is in fact CO2, that said the poles being in absolute darkness over the martian winters' 25% of that CO2 condenses into solid CO2 "dry ice" at the poles, so what i see in the link is a false contradiction when nasa discovered liquid frozen water "beneath the surface" in 08" around the northern pole region.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, but I think you are mistaken about the polar caps:


The knowledge that the martian polar caps consist almost entirely of water ice goes back only a few years. Until recently, it was thought that both polar caps consisted largely of frozen carbon dioxide, with a small amount of water ice. This idea dates back to 1966, when the first Mars spacecraft determined that the martian atmosphere was largely carbon dioxide. Scientists at the time argued that the ice caps themselves were solid carbon dioxide and that the caps regulate the atmospheric pressure by evaporation and condensation.

Later observations by the Viking orbiters showed that the north polar cap contained water ice underneath its dry ice covering; however, experts continued to believe that the south polar cap was made of dry ice. In 2003, California Institute of Technology researchers Andy Ingersoll and Shane Byrne argued, on the basis of high-resolution and thermal images from Mars Global Surveyor and Mars Odyssey, respectively, that the martian polar ice caps are made almost entirely of water ice – with just a smattering of frozen carbon dioxide at the surface.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Marspoles.html

inobe
December 13th, 2009, 04:08 AM
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, but I think you are mistaken about the polar caps:



http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Marspoles.html

in 08" the nasa phoenix mission confirmed sub-surface water ice in the northern pole region.


dry ice and water are totally different, the poles are in fact solid CO2.

alphaniner
December 13th, 2009, 04:12 AM
in 08" the nasa phoenix mission confirmed sub-surface water ice in the northern pole region.


dry ice and water are totally different, the poles are in fact solid CO2.

I know the difference between water ice and dry ice. I just think your facts are incorrect. I wasn't sure myself, but the latest stuff I can find through Google suggests that current data points to water ice comprising the majority of both poles.*

*I apologize for this grammatically horrid sentence.

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 04:14 AM
Active hurricane seasons often result in many sensationalist stories about how they're caused by rising temperatures.
Therefore, it is interesting to note also that the Atlantic hurricane season this year has been one of the tamest in recent memory.
We must not cherry pick evidence and I feel a lot of that happens with the global warming hype.

As an aside, it is often said that Al Gore, as the spokesman for anthropogenic global warming, would contribute more to it than the average person does.
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/02/gores_carbon_fo.html


Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

It just goes to show that some will be quick to terrify ordinary people into making sacrifices in aid of a dubious cause but they seldom do.
IMO, it must be because they are insincere and do not truly believe the hype and propaganda they're aiming at the public.

And in another aside wrt to the truth about the Inconvenient Truth:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2633838.ece


Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”
[...]
“It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.”

nckevin@inbox.com
December 13th, 2009, 04:16 AM
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/01/20/lots-of-pure-water-ice-at-mars-north-pole/

inobe
December 13th, 2009, 04:18 AM
Active hurricane seasons often result in many sensationalist stories about how they're caused by rising temperatures.
Therefore, it is interesting to note also that the Atlantic hurricane season this year has been one of the tamest in recent memory.
We must not cherry pick evidence and I feel a lot of that happens with the global warming hype.

As an aside, it is often said that Al Gore, as the spokesman for anthropogenic global warming, would contribute more to it than the average person does.
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/02/gores_carbon_fo.html

It just goes to show that some will be quick to terrify ordinary people into making sacrifices in aid of a dubious cause but they seldom do.
IMO, it must be because they are insincere and do not truly believe the hype and propaganda they're aiming at the public.

And in another aside wrt to the truth about the Inconvenient Truth:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2633838.ece

please' lets leave out politics as it has no place in science !

please follow forum rules.

alphaniner
December 13th, 2009, 04:19 AM
Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

I hereby present the :KS of hypocrisy to Al Gore.

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 04:21 AM
please' lets leave out politics as it has no place in science !

please follow forum rules.

I am quoting the Judge.
Typing the word 'political' or 'politics' is not against the forum rules or else the rules themselves could not be written and your post would also be in violation.

fancypiper
December 13th, 2009, 04:38 AM
Also the last 10 years have been the hottest on recordThat is incorrect. It was rather hotter during the Medieval Warm Period (950-1400 AD) and the Roman Warm Period (200 B.C. to A.D. 600). There were no SUVs, coal fired electrical generators, airplanes, etc. used then.

handy
December 13th, 2009, 05:16 AM
Currently in Copenhagen there is a conference which has an enormous amount of tension it, & the tensions are rising.

On one side are those that are attempting to come to an international legally binding agreement, where the developed world commits to cleaning up its act & to helping the developing world clean up its act as well.

On the other side are those that keep trying to shift the goal posts into the distance & are trying to call the Copenhagen conference just a 1st step of many.

I expect that primarily due to the effects of the powerful industrial interests lobby on right wing governments in countries like the U.S. (in particular) the results of this Copenhagen conference will be far from what they could have been.

This will therefore mean that so much life (not just human) on Earth will be lost in the future that could have been saved. All this due to the existence of powers on this planet that won't start taking the problem seriously until it is undeniable. After which it is of course too late to turn back the clock, so the future for the biosphere will be nowhere near as comfortable as it could have been. (understatement)

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 05:34 AM
If someone says I have cancer and should amputate my arm and stop eating oranges or I'll get it in the other arm too they have to prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.
So I actually believe things should be done on the basis of fact not fear.

handy
December 13th, 2009, 05:51 AM
If someone says I have cancer and should amputate my arm and stop eating oranges or I'll get it in the other arm too they have to prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.
So I actually believe things should be done on the basis of fact not fear.

De Nile is a really big river.

It all comes down to counting the cost of going either way.

If money is spent cleaning up our act, & we find that man made climate change is a fallacy, then we have learned to use our limited resources & energy better; better meaning more effectively, efficiently & cleanly. Having developed & implemented these & other positive for the health of all on the planet technologies & life styles, will have an enormous effect on the health (on a variety of levels) of humanity & the rest of the biosphere.

Humanities population is expected to peak at a approx' 9.3 billion around 2050. The increased pressure on this tiny planet needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

It is also predicted that by 2050 we will have caused over 50% of the species on the planet to have become extinct. The effects of which will be hugely complex.

On a side note; the Bee population of the world is disappearing in many locations. It is thought to be primarily due to EMF from mobile phone networks. In parts of China they have to fertilise fruit orchards by hand!

Albert Einstein once said, that if we loose the Bee population, humanity will be finished inside of 4 years.

I think it would be so ironic, to see humanity with all of its technological know how, decimated due to the effects of that know how, on one single species of wildlife.

When it comes to nature, we mostly haven't got a clue of the effects that we are having.

Gizenshya
December 13th, 2009, 06:39 AM
If you want the right answer, you must first ask the right question.

Our goal is to maintain the status quo on our planet Earth. There are many things we can do to change many things about our Earth.

Global climate change needs to be watched. We have figured out enough about the factors that go into it to know that the R-squared value for human impact on it is at least 3%. This amounts to a huge figure, and the status quo will certainly change with that added 3%. This is the most conservative scientific estimate (as often quoted on FOX news).

There are many natural events that cause warming, including the natural release of warming gases. If the cycle gets out of whack either way, it is highly likely (by all viewpoints) that it will cause a chain reaction that would be out of our power to stop. Then we would have to wait for the earth to naturally heal its wounds, which could take thousands of years.

These things are accepted. The questions relate to what the normal range is, how much we can change the trends, and how long we have before it is out of our hands to change it. Essentially, the questions all relate to what should be done about it, given the knowledge we now have. There is also the viewpoint that we should not do anything. They maintain that the Earth has natural hot and cold stages that last thousands of years (this much everyone agrees with), and we should adjust to the Earth, instead of adjusting the Earth to our needs.

There are also people out there who completely misunderstand everything and have rediculous views on the subject that have nothing to do with any actual data on the subject. These people generally fall into 2 categories: The Catastrophists-- those who hold a religious belief that global warming will be the end of the Earth. There are many subgroups (like the Jehovah's Witnesses, and Al Gore), but they are bonded by their pessimism. Interestingly, the feces of all of these subgroups smell of roses. Some also refer to this category as the Colonials, because they are often affected by a disorder where their head is so far up their own butt that their colon merges with their cranial cavity. Then there are the Denialists-- those who hold a religious belief that the Earth has forever been and will forever be in its current form, no matter what we do to it. These people are the direct decendents of the people who used to believe that extenction didn't happen anymore, and that "the best solution to pollution is dilution." Two other common terms for these people are "stupid" and "American," for good reason.

The only problem is that we only have one Earth, and one chance to do something (or nothing). A lack of action is a choice as well, but one must be made. In other words, whether we want to or not, with everything we do, we are 'voting' on what becomes of us and our neighbors in the coming decades.

/rant

[/tongue-in-cheek]

crimesaucer
December 13th, 2009, 06:44 AM
I voted that "It is predominately man-made". (if you can actually call these people that knowingly do such hurtful things to our planet "humans")

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 07:09 AM
De Nile is a really big river.

It all comes down to counting the cost of going either way.

If money is spent cleaning up our act, & we find that man made climate change is a fallacy, then we have learned to use our limited resources & energy better; better meaning more effectively, efficiently & cleanly. Having developed & implemented these & other positive for the health of all on the planet technologies & life styles, will have an enormous effect on the health (on a variety of levels) of humanity & the rest of the biosphere.

Humanities population is expected to peak at a approx' 9.3 billion around 2050. The increased pressure on this tiny planet needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

It is also predicted that by 2050 we will have caused over 50% of the species on the planet to have become extinct. The effects of which will be hugely complex.

On a side note; the Bee population of the world is disappearing in many locations. It is thought to be primarily due to EMF from mobile phone networks. In parts of China they have to fertilise fruit orchards by hand!

Albert Einstein once said, that if we loose the Bee population, humanity will be finished inside of 4 years.

I think it would be so ironic, to see humanity with all of its technological know how, decimated due to the effects of that know how, on one single species of wildlife.

When it comes to nature, we mostly haven't got a clue of the effects that we are having.

So how are knee-jerk reactions going to accomplish anything if we don't have a full understanding of the causes and effects?

People love to say that we need to "do something" and they don't even have a firm idea of what this "something" should be.

What would be interesting to know is how much of the CO2 emmitted into the atmosphere comes from human activities (excluding respiration) versus natural processes.

I think you'll find that 96% of CO2 emmission into the atmosphere would still take place even if all of us were dead.

nmccrina
December 13th, 2009, 07:17 AM
I can't make a decision about this, because people on both sides seem to have made it more a religious war than a simple matter of looking at data and applying common sense. Now, I can't even trust the data. So I am going to stick a thermometer in the yard. I figure that in about 10 years I'll be able to make a decision on this. :)

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 07:45 AM
Interestingly, world population would not even be so much of a problem if our societies were not so poorly constructed.
The entire world's population could be shoved into an area the size of Texas and everyone would still have about 3x3 feet standing room.
So it goes to show that the earth is not *that* small and we are nowhere near stumbling over each other.

We just have poorly distributed population and poorly distributed resources.
We stumble over each other in our cities and drive into the country without seeing another person for miles.
People go where jobs and opportunity exist and since our economic system is inimical to independent enterprise people go to work for Megacorps in the cities.

nmccrina
December 13th, 2009, 07:51 AM
Interestingly, world population would not even be so much of a problem if our societies were not so poorly constructed.
The entire world's population could be shoved into an area the size of Texas and everyone would still have about 3x3 feet standing room.
So it goes to show that the earth is not *that* small and we are nowhere near stumbling over each other.

We just have poorly distributed population and poorly distributed resources.
We stumble over each other in our cities and drive into the country without seeing another person for miles.
People go where jobs and opportunity exist and since our economic system has killed independent enterprise people go to work for Megacorps in the cities.

That's a good point, but I think part of the reason people migrate towards cities is to facilitate distribution. (And to work for MegaCorp.)

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 08:00 AM
That's a good point, but I think part of the reason people migrate towards cities is to facilitate distribution. (And to work for MegaCorp.)

But it is, unfortunately, a positive feedback loop.
Because even if you do not work for Megacorp you might need to move to where people are living to sell your wares or conduct your business.
In 2007, it was said that over 50% of the world's population lived in cities for the first time in history.
IMO, that's where the population pressure is coming from *not* from the sheer number of people that are alive.

nmccrina
December 13th, 2009, 08:10 AM
Do you think that if the population of the world were more evenly spread out, it would improve the environmental situation? Or is it better to have the people concentrated in a "few" (relatively) large hubs, allowing more of the outlying land to be natural? Ignoring all resource distribution concerns.

To me, it almost seems like large cities are a help, though it kind of sucks to live in them.

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 08:18 AM
I'm interested in indicating that there is not necessarily a 'consensus' that humans cause global warming.



Enclosed is a twelve-page review of information on the subject of "global warming," a petition in the form of a reply card, and a return envelope. Please consider these materials carefully.

The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.

It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.

We urge you to sign and return the petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.

Frederick Seitz
Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University


Below is the relevant petition page which has attracted over 30,000 signatures including 9000+ with PhDs.
http://www.petitionproject.org/

In addition there is a peer reviewed paper on the providing a different view of the data often interpreted as evidence of anthropogenic global warming.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Message5976

I hoenstly think most ordinary people are well meaning in their views on global warming but some might be swayed by how one-sided the information often is.
Those might wish to hear the views of those who think differently.

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 08:26 AM
Do you think that if the population of the world were more evenly spread out, it would improve the environmental situation? Or is it better to have the people concentrated in a "few" (relatively) large hubs, allowing more of the outlying land to be natural? Ignoring all resource distribution concerns.

To me, it almost seems like large cities are a help, though it kind of sucks to live in them.

Well, I was speaking from the standpoint of whether the Earth is absolutely overpopulated and I do not think it is.
Many of our cities are, however, straining to support their populations which results in more pollution and other problems.

Remember that the earth is interconnected so if a city on a river is overpopulated and causing pollution, this will have effects on ecosystems miles downstream.
Furthermore, urban areas inevitably sprawl into their environs in such a way that extends the problems more than it relieves them.

Bigtime_Scrub
December 13th, 2009, 08:28 AM
I am surprised that the % of people that think global warming (climate change) is man made is as high as it is. After the hacked emails out of East Anglia U. proved that the data was fudged and opposing views were being silenced.

Chronon
December 13th, 2009, 08:30 AM
Do you think that if the population of the world were more evenly spread out, it would improve the environmental situation? Or is it better to have the people concentrated in a "few" (relatively) large hubs, allowing more of the outlying land to be natural? Ignoring all resource distribution concerns.

To me, it almost seems like large cities are a help, though it kind of sucks to live in them.

I do not. Living in a city (as you suggest) is an environmentally sound choice. The biggest factor in most people's carbon footprint is the type of car they drive and how much they drive it. Living in cities allows people to minimize driving and allows efficient distribution of goods and services. Living in the country and having to drive a large distance to get to work won't help matters.

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 08:33 AM
I do not. Living in a city (as you suggest) is an environmentally sound choice. The biggest factor in most people's carbon footprint is the type of car they drive and how much they drive it. Living in cities allows people to minimize driving and allows efficient distribution of goods and services. Living in the country and having to drive a large distance to get to work won't help matters.

Well, if all the work is in the cities, environment aside, living there will save you money.
So I am in agreement that our system favours life in the city and overpopulation in cities.

Chronon
December 13th, 2009, 08:33 AM
I am surprised that the % of people that think global warming (climate change) is man made is as high as it is. After the hacked emails out of East Anglia U. proved that the data was fudged and opposing views were being silenced.

Bah. That only has bearing on the actions of those with a vested interest in the hockey-stick graph. I have never put much merit in that graph and consider that temperature will continue to fluctuate, even as climate changes. Global average temperature != climate.

hobo14
December 13th, 2009, 08:35 AM
That is incorrect. It was rather hotter during the Medieval Warm Period (950-1400 AD) and the Roman Warm Period (200 B.C. to A.D. 600). There were no SUVs, coal fired electrical generators, airplanes, etc. used then.
You are incorrect.
And, for your benefit, here is a visual comparison between the Medieval Warm Period temperature anomalies and the last 10 years:http://www.skepticalscience.com/Was-there-a-Medieval-Warm-Period.html



I think you'll find that 96% of CO2 emmission into the atmosphere would still take place even if all of us were dead.
I think you'll find they wouldn't.
Don't you realise that CO2 in the atmosphere can be measured, human activity aggregated, and CO2 emissions for different human activities measured?
That leaves a bit of simple arithmetic showing what percentage of CO2 emissions are manmade, and the percentage that aren't.



Interestingly, world population would not even be so much of a problem if our societies were not so poorly constructed.
The entire world's population could be shoved into an area the size of Texas and everyone would still have about 3x3 feet standing room.
So it goes to show that the earth is not *that* small and we are nowhere near stumbling over each other.
The point isn't the area we each have to live in, it's the area required to sustain each of us.

Gizenshya
December 13th, 2009, 08:36 AM
... including 9000+ with PhDs. ...


These are the colonialists I spoke of before.

Chronon
December 13th, 2009, 08:36 AM
Well, if all the work is in the cities, environment aside, living there will save you money.
So I am in agreement that our system favours life in the city and overpopulation in cities.

Living close to each other facilitates efficient distribution of goods. Living in the country is environmentally sound insofar as you can self-sustain on your own property. If you have to drive 30 miles to go to the store on a regular basis or get gas or. . . then it would be more efficient to live closer to these commodities and spare the driving time.

In my experience, most people who live in the country are not self supporting. They need to buy gas, take kids to school, buy groceries, etc.

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 08:39 AM
You are incorrect.



I think you'll find they wouldn't.
Don't you realise that CO2 in the atmosphere can be measured, human activity aggregated, and CO2 emissions for different human activities measured?
That leaves a bit of simple arithmetic showing what percentage of CO2 emissions are manmade, and the percentage that aren't.


I wasn't guessing.
95-96% of CO2 emissions have nothing to do with man.
If you look it up you will find this to be the case.




The point isn't the area we each have to live in, it's the area required to sustain each of us.

If we could all fit in Texas what do you think is left over?

Bigtime_Scrub
December 13th, 2009, 08:40 AM
Bah. That only has bearing on the actions of those with a vested interest in the hockey-stick graph. I have never put much merit in that graph and consider that temperature will continue to fluctuate, even as climate changes. Global average temperature != climate.


That is true but it does mean they had a financial/political agenda. What Climate scientists are asking everyone to do will destroy jobs and push the U.S. economy further down the abyss it is already in.

Plus, I find it ridiculous that more people don't think it cannot be natural, when it has happened before in the distant past. We also ignore our biggest global warmer, the sun itself, which goes through cycles. There is a lot we don't know.

Any kind of cap and trade deal or the Kyoto protocol would wreck the economy, so we better be very certain before anything is done.

hobo14
December 13th, 2009, 08:48 AM
I'm interested in indicating that there is not necessarily a 'consensus' that humans cause global warming.



Below is the relevant petition page which has attracted over 30,000 signatures including 9000+ with PhDs.
http://www.petitionproject.org/

In addition there is a peer reviewed paper on the providing a different view of the data often interpreted as evidence of anthropogenic global warming.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Message5976

I hoenstly think most ordinary people are well meaning in their views on global warming but some might be swayed by how one-sided the information often is.
Those might wish to hear the views of those who think differently.

Unfortunately, that petition accepts cards signed by anyone who claims to have a science degree of any sort (even if not climate related), without any formal checking procedures.

Do you know how many scientists there are in the US? About 3.5 million.
And in the world? Around 90 million. If you're one of the 30k, these figures show you're a nutcase.

Gizenshya
December 13th, 2009, 08:48 AM
Methuselah, I bet youalso believe people can live for hundreds of years, too!

:p

hobo14
December 13th, 2009, 08:52 AM
I wasn't guessing.
95-96% of CO2 emissions have nothing to do with man.
If you look it up you will find this to be the case.
CO2 has been holding steady for the last one or two hundred million years: naturally emitted, naturally absorbed. Now, all the extra CO2 (man-made) is what's giving us the greenhouse effect.




If we could all fit in Texas what do you think is left over?
;) Yes, and...? So what was the point you were trying to make in the first place?

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 08:56 AM
Living close to each other facilitates efficient distribution of goods. Living in the country is environmentally sound insofar as you can self-sustain on your own property. If you have to drive 30 miles to go to the store on a regular basis or get gas or. . . then it would be more efficient to live closer to these commodities and spare the driving time.

In my experience, most people who live in the country are not self supporting. They need to buy gas, take kids to school, buy groceries, etc.

The self-sustaining lifestyle of small self sustaining communities has been destroyed.
What has replaced it is urbanization which is a natural consequence of the prevailing realities.
This process has gone as far as to prompt migration from rural areas of one country to the cities of another,
The result is a strain on urban infrastructure including its ability to stay clean and sustain itself.

Living outside the city and travelling to the city for everything essentially enlarges its borders (and the city proper will eventually catch up).
I'm an not arguing that it's better or worse to do that than to live in the city.
Rather, I am saying that urban areas are generally growing faster than the world's population and that is more of an issue both environmentally and socially.

quinnten83
December 13th, 2009, 08:57 AM
The one thing that both sides of the debate have in common is that both either side stands to loose a lot of money depending on what the policies of the major world powers are.

The current power structure is centered around the production, and sale of fossil fuels for profit. One thing is certain, Their supply is finite, and barring diversification into other forms of energy production so are their profits.

The aspiring power structure is from the renewable energy producers, who for the time being are getting their funding predominately from government grants for research and development. And yes, people can become wealthy working on publicly funded projects.

Either side will fight tooth and nail to protect their financial future regardless of their impact, both positive and negative on the environment.

Agreed!
See, people do suck!
It always comes down to money.
Same reason linux get no love from corporations.

fancypiper
December 13th, 2009, 08:57 AM
I trust the petition signers more than I do politicians.

There is still no evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was caused by CO2 emissions, so I still reject the premises that CO2 is a pollutant. Our sun is the major cause of warming/cooling and we don't have the thermostat.

CO2 Science (http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeuropemed.php)

Bigtime_Scrub
December 13th, 2009, 09:01 AM
I trust the petition signers more than I do politicians.

There is still no evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was caused by CO2 emissions, so I still reject the premises that CO2 is a pollutant. Our sun is the major cause of warming/cooling and we don't have the thermostat.

CO2 Science (http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeuropemed.php)

If Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant than people are pollutant because each of us makes it every time we breathe.

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 09:03 AM
Unfortunately, that petition accepts cards signed by anyone who claims to have a science degree of any sort (even if not climate related), without any formal checking procedures.

Do you know how many scientists there are in the US? About 3.5 million.
And in the world? Around 90 million. If you're one of the 30k, these figures show you're a nutcase.

These are the indicated procedures:



This petition is primarily circulated by U. S. Postal Service mailing to scientists. Included in this mailing are the petition card, the letter from Frederick Seitz, the review article, and a return envelope. If a scientist wishes to sign, he fills out the petition and mails it to the project by first class mail.

Additionally, many petition signers obtain petition cards from their colleagues, who request these cards from the project.

A scientist can also obtain a copy of the petition from this Internet website, sign, and mail it. Fewer than 5% of the current signatories obtained their petition in this way.

Petition project volunteers evaluate each signers's credentials, verify signer identities, and, if appropriate, add the signer's name to the petition list.


So show me that 90 million scientists have done research on Global Warming and conclude it is caused by humans.
Oh yes, you just pulled that information out of nowhere!
But is seems anthropogenic global warming enthusiasts are inclined to do that so you are excused. ;)
I expect little else.

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 09:05 AM
CO2 has been holding steady for the last one or two hundred million years: naturally emitted, naturally absorbed. Now, all the extra CO2 (man-made) is what's giving us the greenhouse effect.




;) Yes, and...? So what was the point you were trying to make in the first place?

CO2 was varying even before we were here.
95% of it doesn't even have anything to do with us since natural processes also create and replenish it with the ability of the oceans to retain it also depending on solar activity.

As for your second point/question, I'd rather not assume that subtraction is beyond you so I will not elaborate any further.

hobo14
December 13th, 2009, 09:06 AM
I trust the petition signers more than I do politicians.
The fact that you can easily become one of the petition signers if you wish should worry you.


There is still no evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was caused by CO2 emissions, so I still reject the premises that CO2 is a pollutant. Our sun is the major cause of warming/cooling and we don't have the thermostat.

CO2 Science (http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeuropemed.php)
!!! Medieval Warm Period caused by CO2? What are you talking about? Perhaps it was, but not manmade CO2. You have gone off on a tangent.

Our sun accounts for about 1 tenth of 1 percent (0.1%), and only temporarily, on an 11 year cycle.

hobo14
December 13th, 2009, 09:10 AM
CO2 was varying even before we were here.
95% of it doesn't even have anything to do with us since natural processes also create and replenish it with the ability of the oceans to retain it also depending on solar activity.

As for your second point/question, I'd rather not assume that subtraction is beyond you so I will not elaborate any further.

In the last couple of centuries, CO2 has gone up to 380ppm. For the previous half a million years, it never went above 300ppm.

hobo14
December 13th, 2009, 09:17 AM
These are the indicated procedures:



So show me that 90 million scientists have done research on Global Warming and conclude it is caused by humans.
Oh yes, you just pulled that information out of nowhere!
But is seems anthropogenic global warming enthusiasts are inclined to do that so you are excused. ;)
I expect little else.

Are you joking?
Volunteers "check credentials and signatures"? Is that really your idea of a formal checking process?
How many volunteers, working how many man hours? How do you think they manage to get the information they need? How do you think they can verify signatures? You are deluding yourself.

90 million is the approximate number of scientists in the world. All but 30,000 have not signed the petition. Even if only US scientists can sign the petition (don't know if that is the case) less than 1% have signed.

I think you meant to say "I expected little more."

fancypiper
December 13th, 2009, 09:17 AM
The fact that you can easily become one of the petition signers if you wish should worry you.Not a bit! I qualify. I have a BS in chemistry and math.
!!! Medieval Warm Period caused by CO2? What are you talking about? Perhaps it was, but not manmade CO2. You have gone off on a tangent.No, I am pointing out that CO2 is not a leading indicator of global warming. It is actually a following indicator. With high school chemistry lab equipment, you can design an experiment to prove that.

Try drinking a soft drink after it has warmed up. What's missing that causes the flat taste instead of the "sparkle" you were expecting?


Our sun accounts for about 1 tenth of 1 percent (0.1%), and only temporarily, on an 11 year cycle.Really? Any evidence to back that up?

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 09:19 AM
In the last couple of centuries, CO2 has gone up to 380ppm. For the previous half a million years, it never went above 300ppm.

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html
Fred Flinstone's car must have had some wicked emissions 125,000 years ago! I'm guessing flatulence.
IMO, we're going through a natural warming cycle and since I hate the cold I'd say the timing is right...lol

Bigtime_Scrub
December 13th, 2009, 09:19 AM
In the last couple of centuries, CO2 has gone up to 380ppm. For the previous half a million years, it never went above 300ppm.

Even if all of this were 100% true, which again is very debatable, what good does imposing ridiculous economic hardship on the United States which is in a very bad recession do, when China is the worst offender? No can force China to adhere to this so it is really a huge waste of time anyway.

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 09:20 AM
Are you joking?
Volunteers "check credentials and signatures"? Is that really your idea of a formal checking process?
How many volunteers, working how many man hours? How do you think they manage to get the information they need? How do you think they can verify signatures? You are deluding yourself.

90 million is the approximate number of scientists in the world. All but 30,000 have not signed the petition. Even if only US scientists can sign the petition (don't know if that is the case) less than 1% have signed.

I think you meant to say "I expected little more."

So the 90 million, according to your estimate, that didn't sign the petition support anthropogenic global warming or even have an opinion.
That you seem intent on exposing my credulity yet you could make such a leap is a bit shocking.

hobo14
December 13th, 2009, 09:26 AM
Not a bit! I qualify. I have a BS in chemistry and math.No, I am pointing out that CO2 is not a leading indicator of global warming. It is actually a following indicator. With high school chemistry lab equipment, you can design an experiment to prove that.

Try drinking a soft drink after it has warmed up. What's missing that causes the flat taste instead of the "sparkle" you were expecting?
Hmm, I'll say it differently: the fact that by their standards you are qualified should worry you. The fact that the homeless guy under the bridge down the road could sign should worry you.

Your proposed experiment is fun, I'm sure, but not relevant. Perhaps you should have paid more attention in physics class. You do know that CO2 is not a good reflector of visible light, but is a good reflector of infra red, don't you?



Really? Any evidence to back that up?

Here's a quick one: http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

hobo14
December 13th, 2009, 09:30 AM
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html
Fred Flinstone's car must have had some wicked emissions 125,000 years ago! I'm guessing flatulence.
IMO, we're going through a natural warming cycle and since I hate the cold I'd say the timing is right...lol

Your article shows exactly what I just wrote: 180 to 300 ppm.
Your point is lost, once again.

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 09:30 AM
I am pointing out that CO2 is not a leading indicator of global warming. It is actually a following indicator. With high school chemistry lab equipment, you can design an experiment to prove that.

Try drinking a soft drink after it has warmed up. What's missing that causes the flat taste instead of the "sparkle" you were expecting?


Good point.
It degasses from the oceans when tempatures rise much like fizz from your soft drink.
"Following indicator" is a great way of putting it.

Chronon
December 13th, 2009, 09:33 AM
Rather, I am saying that urban areas are generally growing faster than the world's population and that is more of an issue both environmentally and socially.
Really? AFAIK, cities in the USA have been losing population lately. I don't know anything about global trends. Also, there's nothing intrinsic about a city that makes it an environmental issue. You have a better chance at mitigating waste when it's aggregated in one place than when it's being uniformly dumped without treatment.

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 09:37 AM
Your article shows exactly what I just wrote: 180 to 300 ppm.
Your point is lost, once again.

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html

Don't you see a trend?

How much higher are CO2 concentrations and temperatures now than they were during the previous peak at about the 125,000 year mark.
Did humans have an industrial society that brought it to that point 125,000 years ago.

What followed was a net decline before an upward trending resumed about 20,000 years ago.
What was human civilization doing then that would have caused this?
So in our era, CO2 concentrations are about as high as they were 125,000 years and temperatures about as hot.

IMO, the 'anthropogenic' part is threatened by the time scales over which these variations have been occurring.
Furthermore, at this point, levels are not much higher than the previous high in the last 140,000 years.

hobo14
December 13th, 2009, 09:37 AM
So the 90 million, according to your estimate, that didn't sign the petition support anthropogenic global warming or even have an opinion.
That you seem intent on exposing my credulity yet you could make such a leap is a bit shocking.

What a convincing argument.
We can argue semantics all day, but it won't change the relative insignificance of 30,000 in 3.5 million, let alone in 90 million.



Even if all of this were 100% true, which again is very debatable, what good does imposing ridiculous economic hardship on the United States which is in a very bad recession do, when China is the worst offender? No can force China to adhere to this so it is really a huge waste of time anyway.
It's not debatable in the slightest.
You're descending into politics there. I won't follow you, I'll just say that (any)two countries not doing enough is worse than only one not doing enough.

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 09:40 AM
Really? AFAIK, cities in the USA have been losing population lately. I don't know anything about global trends. Also, there's nothing intrinsic about a city that makes it an environmental issue. You have a better chance at mitigating waste when it's aggregated in one place than when it's being uniformly dumped without treatment.

Overpopulated and strained cities are an environmental and social issue.
But I don't want to go on about this because it is peripheral to this thread anyway.
My last word there.

hobo14
December 13th, 2009, 09:41 AM
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html

Don't you see a trend?

How much higher are CO2 concentrations and temperatures now than they were during the previous peak at about the 125,000 year mark.
Did humans have an industrial society that brought it to that point 125,000 years ago.

What followed was a net decline before an upward trending resumed about 20,000 years ago.
What was human civilization doing then that would have caused this?
So in our era, CO2 concentrations are about as high as they were 125,000 years and temperatures about as hot.

IMO, the 'anthropogenic' part is threatened by the time scales over which these variations have been occurring.
Furthermore, at this point, levels are not much higher than the previous high in the last 140,000 years.

"Not much higher"? 27% above a half million year peak?
Can I have some of what you're having?

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 09:42 AM
What a convincing argument.
We can argue semantics all day, but it won't change the relative insignificance of 30,00 in 3.5 million, let alone in 90 million.


You have no point here and you should be able to see this.
I could likewise claim that 90% of that 90 million just don't know of the petition but share the sentiments of the other signatories.
My position would have as much logical value as yours.
That is, none.

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 09:43 AM
"Not much higher"? 27% above a half million year peak?
Can I have some of what you're having?

CO2 is the middle graph.

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html

It doesn't even matter anyway whether the CO2 levels are unprecedented or not.
The most recent trend of increasing temperature and CO2 levels started 20,000 years ago long before we had a civilization that could have been having any impact.
Even if the next peak surpasses the previous, it is no proof at all that human civilization is causing it.

fancypiper
December 13th, 2009, 09:44 AM
Hmm, I'll say it differently: the fact that by their standards you are qualified should worry you. The fact that the homeless guy under the bridge down the road could sign should worry you.Freedom of speech concerns me (I want to keep it), but why in the world would I be concerned that I qualify? Does the homeless guy have a science degree? If so, he qualifies.

Your proposed experiment is fun, I'm sure, but not relevant. Perhaps you should have paid more attention in physics class. You do know that CO2 is not a good reflector of visible light, but is a good reflector of infra red, don't you?Yes I do and I also know the solubility of CO2 in water (80% of the earth) and it's various forms in minerals. The earth as a whole is a huge buffer for atmospheric CO2. Also, CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere and "human caused" CO2 is a tiny part of that.

If the earth were that fragile, we would not be here today.

The whole idea of controlling global temperature by controlling CO2 is based on CO2 being a leading indicator of warming and it is not. It lags.

hobo14
December 13th, 2009, 09:47 AM
Good point.
It degasses from the oceans when tempatures rise much like fizz from your soft drink.
"Following indicator" is a great way of putting it.

Perhaps you and fancypiper can take your physics classes together.



CO2 is the middle graph.
Yes.
380 is 27% above 300.



You have no point here and you should be able to see this.
I could likewise claim that 90% of that 90 million just don't know of the petition but share the sentiments of the other signatories.
My position would have as much logical value as yours.
That is, none.
Does "30,000" suddenly becoming "less than 1%" sting a little? You sound like it does.

Bigtime_Scrub
December 13th, 2009, 09:48 AM
What a convincing argument.
We can argue semantics all day, but it won't change the relative insignificance of 30,000 in 3.5 million, let alone in 90 million.



It's not debatable in the slightest.
You're descending into politics there. I won't follow you, I'll just say that (any)two countries not doing enough is worse than only one not doing enough.

Well this issue is a political one driven by money and power, pretending it is not is naive.

Chronon
December 13th, 2009, 09:51 AM
Freedom of speech concerns me (I want to keep it), but why in the world would I be concerned that I qualify? Does the homeless guy have a science degree? If so, he qualifies.
Yes I do and I also know the solubility of CO2 in water (80% of the earth) and it's various forms in minerals. The earth as a whole is a huge buffer for atmospheric CO2. Also, CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere and "human caused" CO2 is a tiny part of that.

If the earth were that fragile, we would not be here today.

The whole idea of controlling global temperature by controlling CO2 is based on CO2 being a leading indicator of warming and it is not. It lags.

Perhaps under free evolution it lags. However, climate is a coupled system. I think that most scientists would find it plausible that controlling the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide would have an effect on climate. If enough carbon dioxide is forced into the atmosphere this will force the climate onto a new trajectory. We have no idea how the new trajectory will behave.

hobo14
December 13th, 2009, 09:51 AM
Yes I do
Then please explain here to Methuselah how CO2 has a greenhouse effect.


and I also know the solubility of CO2 in water (80% of the earth) and it's various forms in minerals. The earth as a whole is a huge buffer for atmospheric CO2. Also, CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere and "human caused" CO2 is a tiny part of that.

If the earth were that fragile, we would not be here today.

The whole idea of controlling global temperature by controlling CO2 is based on CO2 being a leading indicator of warming and it is not. It lags.
The oceans were acting as a buffer before humans started pumping out huge amounts of CO2. Their ability to buffer doesn't expand to match our CO2 output.

hobo14
December 13th, 2009, 09:55 AM
Well this issue is a political one driven by money and power, pretending it is not is naive.

On one side it is. Scientists don't stand to benefit by pointing out climate change, except that their descendants might not have to live with the consequences.

The green energy and green tech industries that are emerging arrived long after scientists started talking about global warming.

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 09:56 AM
Yes.
380 is 27% above 300.




I was using a different year zero.
Anyway as I said, the absolute level it doesn't really matter if you look at the trend.

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html

The whole temperature and CO2 curve turned around abruptly about 20,000 years ago after a period of general cooling.
20,000 years ago is long before we had factories or automobiles so I do not believe we precipitated the swing.
In fact, it is a surprising match to a similar swing about 140,000 years ago that culminated in the high point at the 125,000 year mark.
Even if the next high exceeds the previous high (in the last 140,000 years) natural factors seem to be at play.

Bigtime_Scrub
December 13th, 2009, 09:57 AM
On one side it is. Scientists don't stand to benefit by pointing out climate change, except that their descendants might not have to live with the consequences.

The green energy and green tech industries that are emerging arrived long after scientists started talking about global warming.

Scientists get grant money that keeps food on their table. They have an interest to skew the science in one direction or the another. They are human and fallible and there is already some evidence to prove that.

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 09:59 AM
Scientists get grant money that keeps food on their table. They have an interest to skew the science in one direction or the another. They are human and fallible and there is already some evidence to prove that.

Yup, some of them lose funding or cannot get funding for certain kinds of reserach.
Unfortunately, they cannot always live up to the ideals though many still try.

fancypiper
December 13th, 2009, 10:06 AM
Possibly we should pay more attention to the homeless scientists. http://www.icalledit.com/forums/images/smilies/undwech.gif

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 10:07 AM
Possibly we should pay more attention to the homeless scientists. http://www.icalledit.com/forums/images/smilies/undwech.gif

lol...like the ones telling us 2012 is the end?

Bigtime_Scrub
December 13th, 2009, 10:07 AM
Yup, some of them lose funding or cannot get funding for certain kinds of reserach.
Unfortunately, they cannot always live up to the ideals though many still try.

So if if a scientist fudges around a hockey stick graph here or stop others from voicing a dissenting opinion there they can get more grant money and say the sky is falling and the world will end. And guess what? They can find a solution with a little more grant money for a little more research! Politicians love these people because they can appropriate the cash and when elections come they can declare, "I helped save the planet! What have you done?"

A nice and tidy arrangement.

hobo14
December 13th, 2009, 11:24 AM
Scientists get grant money that keeps food on their table. They have an interest to skew the science in one direction or the another. They are human and fallible and there is already some evidence to prove that.

I think I've heard this one before: aliens in area 51, mind reading satellites, NSA backdoor in every pc.



lol...like the ones telling us 2012 is the end?
Yet again, no obvious point. Surely not even you would suggest scientists claim the world will end in 2012?



I was using a different year zero.
Anyway as I said, the absolute level it doesn't really matter if you look at the trend.

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html

The whole temperature and CO2 curve turned around abruptly about 20,000 years ago after a period of general cooling.
20,000 years ago is long before we had factories or automobiles so I do not believe we precipitated the swing.
In fact, it is a surprising match to a similar swing about 140,000 years ago that culminated in the high point at the 125,000 year mark.
Even if the next high exceeds the previous high (in the last 140,000 years) natural factors seem to be at play.
You apparently need me to point out that a few hundred years is a tiny fraction of a pixel on that image.
The vertical leap to 380ppm is far, far beyond the natural cycle shown in the image.

As for your beliefs on the matter, fortunately they are irrelevant. Science shows that you are incorrect.

Bigtime_Scrub
December 13th, 2009, 11:36 AM
I think I've heard this one before: aliens in area 51, mind reading satellites, NSA backdoor in every pc.





No. More like American Politics 101.

...but since you bring it up what sounds more ridiculous?

Scientists wanting more money and making up lies which we have proof?

OR

The world is gonna end because of Global Warming, caused by CO2, which we as people breathe?

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 11:48 AM
I think I've heard this one before: aliens in area 51, mind reading satellites, NSA backdoor in every pc.



Yet again, no obvious point. Surely not even you would suggest scientists claim the world will end in 2012?



You apparently need me to point out that a few hundred years is a tiny fraction of a pixel on that image.
The vertical leap to 380ppm is far, far beyond the natural cycle shown in the image.

As for your beliefs on the matter, fortunately they are irrelevant. Science shows that you are incorrect.

A vertical leap to 380ppm from where?
The turning point was 20,000 years ago, and as you yourself suggest, the historical data is not high-resolution enough to even determine whether there were similar small-scale rates of increase as you contend have occurred in recent times.
What is clear is that we are in an epoch characterized by a broad trend of increase spanning thousands of years which is ongoing and which was clearly not precipitated by human activity.
Of course you're free to ignore the data and come to unsubstantied conclusions that man is the primary cause of increasing CO2 levels that started to occur 20 millennia ago.
I have no intention of denying you the right to be wrong.

Also, lest you forget, in the context of this thread my belief and that of everyone else is very much relevant.
In fact it's the whole point of the poll.
So yeah, that's another point you're wrong on. ;)

Methuselah
December 13th, 2009, 12:17 PM
BTW, and interesting point from the same link:

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html


Fig 1 also shows that carbon dioxide and methane (main greenhouse gases) occur in higher concentrations during warm periods; the two variables, temperature and greenhouse gas concentration, are clearly consistent, yet it is not clear what drives what. The correlation coefficient is 0.81 between CO2 content and apparent temperature, on the whole. During deglaciation the two varied simultaneously, but during times of cooling the CO2 changed after the temperature change, by up to 1000 years. This order of events is not what one would expect from the enhanced greenhouse effect.


So during cooling periods the earth cooled down *then* CO2 levels fell, tracking up to 1000 years behind the temperature graph!
As the text correctly says, it's not what we would expect if rising CO2 levels had caused the earth to heat up during the deglaciation periods.
Naturally, we'd expect any subsequent decrease of earth's temperature to lag behind CO2 levels if it were the causal factor.

Looking at data like this, trying to explain it and acknowledging when it does not fit the current theory, which might therefore be flawed, is my idea of science.
I started out looking at the whole debate with an open mind then concluded that the pressure to accept anthropogenic global warming is out of harmony with the body of evidence supporting it.

A small increase in the amount of CO2 natural processes add to the atmosphere will have a much greater effect, if any, than a relatively large increase in our output because our output is a small fraction of the total.
Furthermore, since CO2 levels have, in the past, lagged behind temperature decreases we are not even sure of getting the desired effect if we managed to significantly decrease our CO2 output.
The global temperature apparently fell 'when it wanted to' and CO2 levels followed rather than the other way around.
Certainly, if some solar or geological cycle is causing climate change anything we do is urinating in the sea.

IMO, more uncompromised research that is free of special interests is needed so I am not in favour of the knee-jerk reactions.
I believe that there are extra-scientific motivations for a lot of that.

hobo14
December 13th, 2009, 12:46 PM
No. More like American Politics 101.
...but since you bring it up what sounds more ridiculous?

Scientists wanting more money and making up lies which we have proof?
OR
The world is gonna end because of Global Warming, caused by CO2, which we as people breathe?
That's a real easy question to answer.
EDIT: just noticed the "American" in there. You don't think this is limited to America do you? Governments and scientists of the whole world are talking about what to do about climate change.


A vertical leap to 380ppm from where?
By your graph, about 280 ppm.


The turning point was 20,000 years ago, and as you yourself suggest, the historical data is not high-resolution enough to even determine whether there were similar small-scale rates of increase as you contend have occurred in recent times.
Correction: a turning point occurred 20,000 years ago.
No-one is suggesting any "small scale" rates of increase.


What is clear is that we are in an epoch characterized by a broad trend of increase spanning thousands of years which is ongoing and which was clearly not precipitated by human activity.
What this data shows is a cyclic trend between 180 and 300 ppm for the last half million years.
In the last few hundred years, that has changed, and we are now at 380 ppm.
You seem to be having a little trouble coming to grips with it.
Allow me to illustrate:

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/1097/image17v.png



Of course you're free to ignore the data and come to unsubstantied conclusions that man is the primary cause of increasing CO2 levels that started to occur 20 millennia ago.
Naughty, naughty.
You're going to have to choose between denying current CO2 levels, or denying the fact that they're man-made.
They can't both be lies now, can they?


I have no intention of denying you the right to be wrong.

Also, lest you forget, in the context of this thread my belief and that of everyone else is very much relevant.
In fact it's the whole point of the poll.
So yeah, that's another point you're wrong on. ;)
Not quite. Some people here are sharing their beliefs, others are sharing data.

hobo14
December 13th, 2009, 12:58 PM
BTW, and interesting point from the same link:

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html

So during cooling periods the earth cooled down *then* CO2 levels fell, tracking up to 1000 years behind the temperature graph!
As the text correctly says, it's not what we would expect if rising CO2 levels had caused the earth to heat up during the deglaciation periods.
Naturally, we'd expect any subsequent decrease of earth's temperature to lag behind CO2 levels if it were the causal factor.

Looking at data like this, trying to explain it and acknowledging when it does not fit the current theory, which might therefore be flawed, is my idea of science.
I started out looking at the whole debate with an open mind then concluded that the pressure to accept anthropogenic global warming is out of harmony with the body of evidence supporting it.

A small increase in the amount of CO2 natural processes add to the atmosphere will have a much greater effect, if any, than a relatively large increase in our output because our output is a small fraction of the total.
Furthermore, since CO2 levels have, in the past, lagged behind temperature decreases we are not even sure of getting the desired effect if we managed to significantly decrease our CO2 output.
The global temperature apparently fell 'when it wanted to' and CO2 levels followed rather than the other way around.
Certainly, if some solar or geological cycle is causing climate change anything we do is urinating in the sea.

IMO, more uncompromised research that is free of special interests is needed so I am not in favour of the knee-jerk reactions.
I believe that there are extra-scientific motivations for a lot of that.

Actually, what the article means is that rises in temperature after ice ages precede C02 increases by around 800 years.
This is thanks to Milankovitch cycles. They cause a temperature increase, which releases CO2 into the atmosphere, and then you have positive feedback; the CO2 increases the temperature, which releases more CO2.
But it takes man to get the CO2 to 380ppm.

Your post seems to have added a third denial to your repertoire: "CO2 doesn't cause warming". You really need to choose just one of the three (true CO2 levels, man-made/not, effect/no effect) if you'd like to be taken even slightly seriously.

Your mention of solar activity shows that you know nothing about it, and simple measurement of our CO2 output shows that we can in fact change atmospheric CO2 levels.

SuperSonic4
December 13th, 2009, 02:29 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1234515/Copenhagen-climate-change-summit-The-world-COOLING-warming-says-scientist-Peter-Taylor---prepared.html

a cooling trend will start and then you will wisk there was more co2 in the air to warm things up!
what this all tells me is no one knows the future and people who tell you otherwise have agendas to pursue.


http://businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2008/GlobalWarmingCensored/GlobalWarmingCensored_execsum.asp

your being manipulated by the media to believe in global warming

Keep on hitting normal people with facts, true or not, contrary to their opinions and you can change their opinions. that is what propaganda machine is all about. educating the masses towards your point of view . people who are suffering from bad climate are more likely to believe in worldwide man made climate change.

BBC is really bad about this.

You're telling us the media is manipulating us and you cite the daily mail?! The Daily mail would blame climate change on immigrants and labour given half the chance

ikt
December 13th, 2009, 03:14 PM
You're telling us the media is manipulating us and you cite the daily mail?! The Daily mail would blame climate change on immigrants and labour given half the chance

That's hilarious, I'm not even from your country but even I'm aware of the reputation the daily mail has, I hear fox news is very accurate with their news reports as well! ;)

-=hazard=-
December 13th, 2009, 03:27 PM
I wouldn't blame the media for the climate change articles. Climate change is a fact, and can't be manipulated.

inobe
December 13th, 2009, 03:31 PM
That's hilarious, I'm not even from your country but even I'm aware of the reputation the daily mail has, I hear fox news is very accurate with their news reports as well! ;)

haha i hope that's sarcasm.


edit: there is no accurate networks in the u.s.

-=hazard=-
December 13th, 2009, 03:34 PM
The cycle of global warming, the natural one, is clear. And is clear that have happened in the past. But we must understand one thing, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are very high and we are contributing to a much faster global warming. It's like when you make a fire. When you don't pour petrol, fire continues slowly, when pour petrol, fire continues quickly. I don't think is difficult to understand...

-=hazard=-
December 13th, 2009, 03:35 PM
haha i hope that's sarcasm.


edit: there is no accurate networks in the u.s.

Especially Fox News :P (Joke)

Edit: ABC network I would say it's a good one.

sdowney717
December 13th, 2009, 03:44 PM
http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx

CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant'
Network's second meteorologist to challenge notion man can alter climate.

some people have their own common sense and others have other people's misguided sense.
but perhaps it is fate driving the climate fiend lemmings down the path of disaster.

-=hazard=-
December 13th, 2009, 03:58 PM
http://businessandmedia.org/articles...218205953.aspx
“You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said. “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure.”

The lack of fresh water or ocean acidification or two serious and dramatic results of global warming. So we are gonna suffer from global warming results, isn't that the same? Maybe this Myers was drunk when gave this interview?!

inobe
December 13th, 2009, 04:19 PM
I wouldn't blame the media for the climate change articles. Climate change is a fact, and can't be manipulated.

it looks like the u.s. is finally taken initiatives


that will lead to ratifying the kyoto protocol

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8400323.stm

Bigtime_Scrub
December 13th, 2009, 04:32 PM
it looks like the u.s. is finally taken initiatives


that will lead to ratifying the kyoto protocol

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8400323.stm

O God I hope not. I don't want to get taxed in some baloney scheme to make Al Gore rich.

inobe
December 13th, 2009, 04:36 PM
O God I hope not. I don't want to get taxed in some baloney scheme to make Al Gore rich.

and when everyone was paying almost 5 dollars for a gallon of gas a few years ago doesn't count ?


this isn't about al gore, al is a politician and this debate is about science, if you don't like his book' don't buy it.

Bigtime_Scrub
December 13th, 2009, 04:37 PM
and when everyone was paying almost 5 dollars for a gallon of gas a few years ago doesn't count ?


this isn't about al gore, al is a politician and this debate is about science, if you don't like his book' don't buy it.

That had nothing to do with a global warming hoax.

inobe
December 13th, 2009, 04:46 PM
Especially Fox News :P (Joke)

Edit: ABC network I would say it's a good one.

well i can agree to a point, it's just the way media presents information and how they wish that information to appear in their favor.


the u.s. trusts in it's media, i did some years ago until i researched their findings, only then i realized the information was skewed.

take this article for example, the video makes it priceless.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8400323.stm

ikt
December 13th, 2009, 06:13 PM
Maybe this Myers was drunk when gave this interview?!


“We have 100 years worth of data, not millions of years that the world’s been around,” Myers continued.

I think so..

Gee wilikers isn't it amazing that NASA know the age of the universe even though it's only been barely 50 years since man first went into outer space!

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

Technology is amazing =o

inobe
December 13th, 2009, 06:31 PM
on to the kyoto protocol, it appears the u.s. will ratify and reduce emissions however they will still burn fossil fuels !

i guess what this in tels is clean coal, they will use mechanisms in power plants' like a catalyst to to capture the harmful emissions, and during this time look onward to renewable sources.

i checked the energy departments website and noticed they found a way to produce hydrogen with coal with virtually no pollution.


so it appears our dependencies for coal still holds' at least in this decade.

-=hazard=-
December 13th, 2009, 07:09 PM
on to the kyoto protocol, it appears the u.s. will ratify and reduce emissions however they will still burn fossil fuels !

i guess what this in tels is clean coal, they will use mechanisms in power plants' like a catalyst to to capture the harmful emissions, and during this time look onward to renewable sources.

i checked the energy departments website and noticed they found a way to produce hydrogen with coal with virtually no pollution.


so it appears our dependencies for coal still holds' at least in this decade.

Its only politics. America should have ratified Kyoto till the first summit, not now. USA will reduce 20% of its emissions counting the 2005 levels, and Europe with other developing countries 20% cutting with levels of 1990. Do you think this is fair? I don't.
And this news http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8400323.stm its from 5 days ago if I'm not wrong.
Under title: "The US government has declared that greenhouse gases threaten human health". (Didn't they already know this on 1999?...)

XubuRoxMySox
December 13th, 2009, 07:17 PM
Isn't it amazing that NASA know the age of the universe even though it's only been barely 50 years since man first went into outer space!

I heard that once when the Soviets had some guys in orbit who looked out the window and then reported back, "There is no God."

A decade or two later, God looked down on several emerging democracies in Eastern Europe and declared, "There is no Soviet Union."

-Robin

ssam
December 13th, 2009, 07:33 PM
When you can predict the week's and month's weather with very high accuracy, I'll start listening to predictions about next year and 20+ years out.


there is a big difference between weather an climate.

if you role a dice, i could not guess what the next few numbers would be.

if you roll a dice 100 times, i could make a very good guess at the average number that you would get.

SuperSonic4
December 13th, 2009, 07:44 PM
on to the kyoto protocol, it appears the u.s. will ratify and reduce emissions however they will still burn fossil fuels !

To be fair nearly all countries have this problem. Biodiesel does not work in my opinion, simply because you're diverting food from crops and it still needs to be refined. Better to grow food.


i guess what this in tels is clean coal, they will use mechanisms in power plants' like a catalyst to to capture the harmful emissions, and during this time look onward to renewable sources.

It's better than a kick in the teeth I suppose. In the UK they already have to have filters to stop SO2 getting out. From my understanding the US has large parts of uninhabited desert which gets sunny - good for solar power.


i checked the energy departments website and noticed they found a way to produce hydrogen with coal with virtually no pollution.

That's rather interesting, especially considering coal is largely carbon and contains no hydrogen. I suppose it could be used as fuel for the electrolysis of water (itself an intensive process). I feel this is a false avenue especially as hydrogen comes mainly from the steam reformation of methane and electrolysing substances with hydrogen in (bound to be water) is energy intensive.



so it appears our dependencies for coal still holds' at least in this decade.

I thought the US used oil rather than coal (same with most developed countries)



there is a big difference between weather an climate.

if you role a dice, i could not guess what the next few numbers would be.

if you roll a dice 100 times, i could make a very good guess at the average number that you would get.

I get your point but it doesn't follow from a mathematical standpoint. Do you mean you could make a good guess at the chance of a particular number coming up or you could guess the mean of the numbers which does follow from large number behaviour. Anyway, I'm just being silly xD

inobe
December 13th, 2009, 07:50 PM
USA will reduce 20% of its emissions counting the 2005 levels, and Europe with other developing countries 20% cutting with levels of 1990. Do you think this is fair? I don't.
And this news http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8400323.stm its from 5 days ago if I'm not wrong.
Under title: "The US government has declared that greenhouse gases threaten human health". (Didn't they already know this on 1999?...)

yes the news is almost a week old.


Its only politics.

i won't go there because of forum rules.


America should have ratified Kyoto till the first summit, not now.

i can only assume that the u.s. dependency of foreign fossil fuel was too great and moving to quickly would have had devastating affects, ultimately it appears to be a slow transitional phase or strategy to avoid adverse affects.

for example GM has already produced vehicles that do not need refueling, these vehicles are considered prototypes however they have been made available a few years ago, whether the petro companies have involvement or at least caused the delay to protect profits this five day old news is a start.

i did notice an article related to coal imports, during the of 08"


Imports. U.S. coal imports declined in 2008 for the first time in six years. Total coal imports were 34.2 million short tons, a decrease of 5.9 percent, or 2.1 million short tons. Coal imports represent a small portion of the domestic coal consumption, averaging about 3 percent of total U.S. coal consumption.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/special/exports_imports.html

so as it appears the u.s. is in fact trying to reduce imports.

NCLI
December 13th, 2009, 08:01 PM
The majority of scientists who do climate research agree that it is accelerated by man, AKA predominantly man-made. As I do not know enough about the subject to justify disagreeing with them, I agree.
I think it's very stupid and conceited to disagree with the majority of the scientific community.

Anyway, this is a touchy subject for some, so this thread should be closed.

inobe
December 13th, 2009, 08:02 PM
It's better than a kick in the teeth I suppose. In the UK they already have to have filters to stop SO2 getting out. From my understanding the US has large parts of uninhabited desert which gets sunny - good for solar power.

we have lots of desert land



That's rather interesting, especially considering coal is largely carbon and contains no hydrogen. I suppose it could be used as fuel for the electrolysis of water (itself an intensive process). I feel this is a false avenue especially as hydrogen comes mainly from the steam reformation of methane and electrolysing substances with hydrogen in (bound to be water) is energy intensive.

yes it is interesting but the coal itself will reduce the cost producing hydrogen 25% less expensive compared to conventional methods.

http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/fuels/hydrogen/Hydrogen_from_Coal_R&D.html


By 2016, prove the feasibility of a 60 percent efficient, near-zero emissions, coal-fueled hydrogen and power co-production facility which reduces the cost of hydrogen by 25 percent compared to current coal-based technology.






I thought the US used oil rather than coal (same with most developed countries)

their are over 350 million vehicles on the u.s. roads at any given time, the cost and demand is too high and energy companies don't see it as a viable source.

-=hazard=-
December 13th, 2009, 08:06 PM
Their first problem are the cars they use. I don't get it, they can simply make and use cars that consume let's say a medium, 8 liters of diesel in 100 km, like in Europe, but they don't and the fuel there is even cheep. And in Europe we pay 2 dollars for 1 liter...

inobe
December 13th, 2009, 08:17 PM
Their first problem are the cars they use. I don't get it, they can simply make and use cars that consume let's say a medium, 8 liters of diesel in 100 km, like in Europe, but they don't and the fuel there is even cheep. And in Europe we pay 2 dollars for 1 liter...

yes it's unfair that GM can produce a vehicle in another country that gets 68 miles to a gallon of diesel, this vehicle is not produced in the u.s. for whatever reason.

here is an incredible car

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jHFT1X1JDI

that's what everyone needs.

yester64
December 13th, 2009, 08:35 PM
In the end it does not matter if everyone agrees on if the climatechange is manmade or not.
What matter is, that it changes.

Northern Europe has warmer and warmer winters. Other species migrate to formerly alien regions. One must be blindsided to not acknowledge that things change.

We are guests on this planet and our duty is to take care of the place we live on.

gn2
December 13th, 2009, 09:22 PM
One day the Sun will collapse and all life on Earth will be over.

Whether all life ends before this is largely irrelevant.

hobo14
December 13th, 2009, 11:21 PM
One day the Sun will collapse and all life on Earth will be over.

Whether all life ends before this is largely irrelevant.

Yes, it's irrelevant from the earth's point of view.

But from our point of view, and out children's point of view, and our grand-children's point of view, climate change is already relevant. We are feeling effects now, and without action we will suffer massive effects in the next 50 years.

-=hazard=-
December 13th, 2009, 11:30 PM
yes it's unfair that GM can produce a vehicle in another country that gets 68 miles to a gallon of diesel, this vehicle is not produced in the u.s. for whatever reason.

here is an incredible car

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jHFT1X1JDI

that's what everyone needs.

I know. And she seems a very nice car. The problem is that we need some time to adapt with those cars, the technology must be wide spreaded, not only to GM, the costs must be low, like this days cars. And more important is that, when we decide to start using them, all car producers must not produce anymore cars with internal combustion engines.
Anyway, till that day comes, I think that the best thing is to produce only cars with a normal engine, not like GM do (6000 CC, 5500 CC, 4000 CC), because it doesn't worth it.

kentechy
December 13th, 2009, 11:43 PM
You know, of course, that there is no mother nature, only God and in the Greek or Hebrew, God is a male...

inobe
December 14th, 2009, 12:04 AM
I know. And she seems a very nice car. The problem is that we need some time to adapt with those cars, the technology must be wide spreaded, not only to GM,



yes' we have "opensource" to thank for that literally.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/16/hydrogen-car-open-source

it's not the best looking porsche' but it never looks good at first.



the costs must be low, like this days cars. And more important is that, when we decide to start using them, all car producers must not produce anymore cars with internal combustion engines.

the price is high for that car, it was 5 million quid, but every prototype made in history costs loads of cash, eventually when enough models are produced and marketed they wouldn't cost much more than the vehicles on the roads today.

for vehicles with combustion engines, i have noticed that sales have picked up on hybrids, electric & fuel.

i also noticed combustible hydrogen vehicles, they have a 3 psi hydrogen tank, enough fuel to drive hundreds of miles before the need to refuel, the only downside is lack of hydrogen fueling stations.

in fact' tom cruise buys them every year and spends a fortune doing it, i have to respect the man for that, thumbs up to him.

i seen him on tv several years back complaining about the lack of hydrogen fueling stations in the u.s., keep up the great work tom.

Uncle Spellbinder
December 14th, 2009, 12:18 AM
To those of you who are so sure that mankind has had little or no effect on Earth's climate, even if you are right, I prefer to er on the side of caution. Because of you are all wrong, and nothing is done. Then we are all doomed.

And by the way, it's only the smart thing to do, protect the environment on Earth as well as the atmosphere. I mean, who the hell actually wants to live in thick, unbreathable air, dirty water?

inobe
December 14th, 2009, 12:29 AM
And by the way, it's only the smart thing to do, protect the environment on Earth as well as the atmosphere. I mean, who the hell actually wants to live in thick, unbreathable air, dirty water?

texas is pretty bad, it has more than 40 coal fire power plants in just twenty locations, people there are pleading to energy companies in order to stop building these coal power plants because of the immense pollution plaguing the area.

Methuselah
December 14th, 2009, 12:29 AM
yes it's unfair that GM can produce a vehicle in another country that gets 68 miles to a gallon of diesel, this vehicle is not produced in the u.s. for whatever reason.

here is an incredible car

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jHFT1X1JDI

that's what everyone needs.

Cool car.
However, Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars are only as 'green' as the technique used to produce the hydrogen.

inobe
December 14th, 2009, 12:36 AM
Cool car.
However, Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars are only as 'green' as the technique used to produce the hydrogen.

wind mills can generate enough energy to produce hydrogen as well as solar.

some pages back i produced a link from the department of energy, they found a way to produce hydrogen with coal with virtually no harmful emissions.

spottedhog
December 14th, 2009, 12:38 AM
CO2 is plant food. CO2 info/links (http://grandpoobah.us/forum/index.php?board=6.0)

The reason GM does not have that engine here is because of the autoworkers union here. Ford has a similar and slightly more efficient engine but again, the autoworkers will not let the engine be imported here.

Man-made Global Warming is a hoax. The climate models are proven to be flawed because they do not take into consideration the ocean's effect on temperature. Only 3 Siberian trees were used in the climate model.

I could go on...

inobe
December 14th, 2009, 12:47 AM
The reason GM does not have that engine here is because of the autoworkers union here. Ford has a similar and slightly more efficient engine but again, the autoworkers will not let the engine be imported here.



so your saying the engine is too expensive to produce in the united states ?

Devport
December 14th, 2009, 12:50 AM
I really cant believe that so many people are so uneducated ( especially in one big country that has some of the best scientists but as well the most inhabitants negating science as soon as they don`t like the results ... last hint : Charles Darwin ) that they believe the climate is not influenced by mankind.

Sit down in your car, close the windows, lead the exhaust gas into it and measure how long it takes until you are dead. Pretty lethal isn't it ?

What do you think how much pollution is required to poison the whole planet ? Well we are on the best way to find it out.

User3k
December 14th, 2009, 12:53 AM
I really cant believe that so many people are so uneducated ( especially in one big country that has some of the best scientists but as well the most inhabitants negating science as soon as they don`t like the results ... last hint : Charles Darwin ) that they believe the climate is not influenced by mankind.

Sit down in your car, close the windows, lead the exhaust gas into it and measure how long it takes until you are dead. Pretty lethal isn't it ?

What do you think how much pollution is required to poison the whole planet ? Well we are on the best way to find it out.


Love the way that you put that. In other words if people disagree then they are idiots.

Tell me this. What about all the scientists that say that global warming is a hoax? That our climate goes through natural changes?

While I agree that pollution is bad for us and that needs to be changed. I agree with the scientists that say that global warming is not happening or if there is climate change it is natural.

Do a Google search, you will find scientists that say that.

Exodist
December 14th, 2009, 12:58 AM
Cool car.
However, Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars are only as 'green' as the technique used to produce the hydrogen.
Very true.

The prefered "green" way would be to use solar energy to break up H2O into Hyrogen and Oxygen.

inobe
December 14th, 2009, 01:06 AM
While I agree that pollution is bad for us and that needs to be changed. I agree with the scientists that say that global warming is not happening or if there is climate change it is natural.


each and every scientists will believe they have all the answers, a good number of scientists will disagree with the others, it becomes a big spectacle of best guesses, this is common in the science community.

but while the oil companies are launching a campaign against global warming says one thing, they must protect profits and their best interests and they will do "anything" to prevent the u.s. to ratify the kyoto protocol.

Methuselah
December 14th, 2009, 01:07 AM
wind mills can generate enough energy to produce hydrogen as well as solar.

some pages back i produced a link from the department of energy, they found a way to produce hydrogen with coal with virtually no harmful emissions.

I am a big wind energy fan, especially for personal use in powering homes.
I'm quite sure it can be used to produce hydrogen but is it?
I'm not opposed to moving away from fossil fuels as they're exhaustible anyway.

CO2 and Carbon hysteria I am very opposed to, however, as these are essential and innocuous substances.
Hysteria, in general, is dangerous but hysteria surrounding substances biology must necessarily produce and consume is even worse.

user1397
December 14th, 2009, 01:10 AM
Very true.

The prefered "green" way would be to use solar energy to break up H2O into Hyrogen and Oxygen.
Hydrogen fuel cells is a complete bogus idea. It is like having an unnecessary step. Why can't we just have renewable sources of energy providing electricity which powers 100% clean electric cars...No hydrogen needed...

Methuselah
December 14th, 2009, 01:17 AM
Hydrogen fuel cells is a complete bogus idea. It is like having an unnecessary step. Why can't we just have renewable sources of energy providing electricity which powers 100% clean electric cars...No hydrogen needed...

I think the main issue cited is the limitation of battery technology.

BigCityCat
December 14th, 2009, 01:18 AM
Just pushed it to it's not man made. In fact it's been getting colder the last ten years.

I feel it's a ploy by globalist socialists for a local and global tax increase designed to increase the power and size of local and global governments. If successful it will lead to increased poverty, tyranny and will be a huge loss of freedom. The fact that the media is ignoring the email story should be an indication to many that they have an agenda.

spottedhog
December 14th, 2009, 01:31 AM
so your saying the engine is too expensive to produce in the united states ?

No, I am saying the Auto workers union in their contract will not allow that engine to be imported and placed into american made GM or Ford autos.

Methuselah
December 14th, 2009, 01:34 AM
China vegitative production increasing with increasing CO2 concentrations.
How green is that? :)
CO2 = green.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nkma7RO4Q24&feature=player_embedded#

spottedhog
December 14th, 2009, 01:34 AM
I think the main issue cited is the limitation of battery technology.
very correct. The hydrogen cars must have a battery to store the electrical energy, which is expensive along with low raw material resources.

inobe
December 14th, 2009, 01:34 AM
Hydrogen fuel cells is a complete bogus idea. It is like having an unnecessary step. Why can't we just have renewable sources of energy providing electricity which powers 100% clean electric cars...No hydrogen needed...

chrysler is already on the bandwagon for electric vehicles.

an american made battery that can power beautiful cars.

http://industry.bnet.com/auto/1000544/detroit-auto-show-for-chrysler-batteries-born-in-the-usa/

inobe
December 14th, 2009, 01:40 AM
No, I am saying the Auto workers union in their contract will not allow that engine to be imported and placed into american made GM or Ford autos.

what could be done to have these engines either imported or produced in the united states, also what type of technology do these engines offer ?

spottedhog
December 14th, 2009, 01:44 AM
what could be done to have these engines either imported or produced in the united states, also what type of technology do these engines offer ?
It is not a technology issue. The issue is the auto workers union do not want the engines imported because that would mean job losses to the rank and file union members.

The only thing that can be done is to rewrite the union contract, which will not happen.

inobe
December 14th, 2009, 01:49 AM
It is not a technology issue. The issue is the auto workers union do not want the engines imported because that would mean job losses to the rank and file union members.

The only thing that can be done is to rewrite the union contract, which will not happen.

i'm slightly confused and i hope you can kindly guide me here, i guess what i am not understanding is why can't the engines be produced in the united states eliminating imports ?

thanks

User3k
December 14th, 2009, 01:54 AM
i'm slightly confused and i hope you can kindly guide me here, i guess what i am not understanding is why can't the engines be produced in the united states eliminating imports ?

thanks


It is cheaper for the corporations to outsource to other, poorer, countries at extremely low pay, while they keep the cost of purchasing at the maximum. They don't need to treat those workers like humans either.

Methuselah
December 14th, 2009, 02:49 AM
This guy (weather channel founder) sums up things very nicely.
Everything from historical trends, to failed predictions to Climategate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gwmz79hVyos&feature=channel

hobo14
December 14th, 2009, 02:57 AM
CO2 is plant food. CO2 info/links (http://grandpoobah.us/forum/index.php?board=6.0)

Man-made Global Warming is a hoax. The climate models are proven to be flawed because they do not take into consideration the ocean's effect on temperature. Only 3 Siberian trees were used in the climate model.

I could go on...
That is simply incorrect. If you feel you are able to go on, please do.



Tell me this. What about all the scientists that say that global warming is a hoax? That our climate goes through natural changes?

While I agree that pollution is bad for us and that needs to be changed. I agree with the scientists that say that global warming is not happening or if there is climate change it is natural.

Do a Google search, you will find scientists that say that.
You mean the 30,000 people (scientists [in a related field or not] or not) who signed the petition?
There are around 3.5 million scientists in the US. Even if all the signatures were both valid and relevant, it's still less than 1% of scientists denying climate change.



CO2 and Carbon hysteria I am very opposed to, however, as these are essential and innocuous substances.
Hysteria, in general, is dangerous but hysteria surrounding substances biology must necessarily produce and consume is even worse.
Concern about CO2 is justified and supported by science.
There is no concern about carbon on it's own, it is a harmless substance.



Just pushed it to it's not man made. In fact it's been getting colder the last ten years.
1998 was the hottest year ever recorded. 2005 was the hottest year ever recorded.



China vegitative production increasing with increasing CO2 concentrations.
How green is that? :)
CO2 = green.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nkma7RO4Q24&feature=player_embedded#
A small benefit does not outweigh massive disadvantages.

Methuselah
December 14th, 2009, 03:26 AM
Warmth is better than Cold since Cold has generally been more harsh on life and human civilization.

Also, it is estimated that 125,000 years ago the earth was 1-2 degrees C warmer than it is today.
Even the most alarmist measurments have as warming by at most a half of 1 degree in recent times.

Periods of warmth are associated with a general increase in biomass and plant growth.
This is what the fossil record and the history of the earth reveals.
That history also reveals we are in a cyclical period of general warming that commenced 20 millenia ago (with smaller variations in between) and thus was not initiated by man.

The ppm measurements also give an interesting view of what kind of a trace gas CO2 really is.
380 ppm of CO2 means that if you could capture 1,000,000 molecules of air, a mere 380 of them would be CO2 molecules of which a further tiny fraction would have been introduced by the activities of human civilization.
Since plants need CO2 as the source of Carbon to produce sugars it is no wonder that they thrive in conditions of improved availability.

Indeed, as one scientist (Dr Sherwood Idso) said, to declare CO2 a threat is an "affront to all logic and a complete disavowal of reality".

ice60
December 14th, 2009, 03:29 AM
not only is it a scam, there are now huge money making scams working from it. as someone put in the comments here
"A scam based on a scam!" LOL

Copenhagen climate summit: Carbon trading fraudsters in Europe pocket €5bn...Carbon trading fraudsters may have accounted for up to 90pc of all market activity in some European countries, with criminals pocketing an estimated €5bn (£4.5bn)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6778003/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Carbon-trading-fraudsters-in-Europe-pocket-5bn.html

inobe
December 14th, 2009, 03:34 AM
You mean the 30,000 people (scientists [in a related field or not] or not) who signed the petition?
There are around 3.5 million scientists in the US. Even if all the signatures were both valid and relevant, it's still less than 1% of scientists denying climate change.


nicely said, earlier i brought up the kyoto protocol, the u.s. is the only country that failed to ratify the kyoto protocol, i think this insults the intelligence of scientists around the world.

and the rogue scientists in the u.s. appear to be creating a side show to deflect the interests in actually dealing with climate change and ultimately tried to lead the u.s. in yet another delay into taking action reducing emissions.

Methuselah
December 14th, 2009, 03:36 AM
not only is it a scam, there are now huge money making scams working from it. as someone put in the comments here
"A scam based on a scam!" LOL

Copenhagen climate summit: Carbon trading fraudsters in Europe pocket €5bn...Carbon trading fraudsters may have accounted for up to 90pc of all market activity in some European countries, with criminals pocketing an estimated €5bn (£4.5bn)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6778003/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Carbon-trading-fraudsters-in-Europe-pocket-5bn.html

Scam indeed.
Taxing CO2 is like taxing food before it even becomes food.
Almost every single Carbon atom in the sugar molecules in your apple was once floating around as CO2.

Bigtime_Scrub
December 14th, 2009, 03:41 AM
nicely said, earlier i brought up the kyoto protocol, the u.s. is the only country that failed to ratify the kyoto protocol, i think this insults the intelligence of scientists around the world.

and the rogue scientists in the u.s. appear to be creating a side show to deflect the interests in actually dealing with climate change and ultimately tried to lead the u.s. in yet another delay into taking action reducing emissions.

As an American I am glad the U.S. did not follow that protocol. It hurts my country economically and unfairly places restrictions on us, while other countries that are worse offenders are ignored.

inobe
December 14th, 2009, 03:46 AM
Scam indeed.
Taxing CO2 is like taxing food before it even becomes food.

taxing CO2 emissions is key to getting energy companies to take the initiatives.

reduce emissions and burn more coal, what's the big deal ?

inobe
December 14th, 2009, 03:48 AM
As an American I am glad the U.S. did not follow that protocol. It hurts my country economically and unfairly places restrictions on us, while other countries that are worse offenders are ignored.

they will be ratifying the protocol.

Bigtime_Scrub
December 14th, 2009, 03:48 AM
taxing CO2 emissions is key to getting energy companies to take the initiatives.

reduce emissions and burn more coal, what's the big deal ?

What about all the jobs that will be lost from this. This is classic Ivory Tower thinking with no real world forethought.

inobe
December 14th, 2009, 03:50 AM
What about all the jobs that will be lost from this. This is classic Ivory Tower thinking with no real world forethought.

it's actually the opposite, it creates jobs.

ice60
December 14th, 2009, 03:52 AM
i remembered this documentary all about the Climate Change swindle from when we talked about Climate Change here a few years a go. back then only a few of us were wise to the con, it seems more people are seeing it now. of course i was never fooled lol :D
The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeY8oqAGhyA

User3k
December 14th, 2009, 03:52 AM
The top, leading minds of another past time use to think the world was flat. Good thing there was a tiny, maybe 1% of other leading minds that said otherwise. After all I would hate to be on a boat and fall of the ends of the earth.

dmizer
December 14th, 2009, 03:54 AM
Hello,

This is just a friendly reminder to refrain from bringing up politics during the discussion of this topic.


Discussions on religion and politics are not allowed, except for politics directly related to free and open source issues. Any topic or discussion that causes problems or drama will be closed.

Thank you.

hobo14
December 14th, 2009, 03:55 AM
Warmth is better than Cold since Cold has generally been more harsh on life and human civilization.
When you go back to school for physics lessons, take some logic lessons too.


Also, it is estimated that 125,000 years ago the earth was 1-2 degrees C warmer than it is today.
Even the most alarmist measurments have as warming by at most a half of 1 degree in recent times.
The point isn't how much temperatures have already risen, it's how much they will rise in the next 50-100 years.


Periods of warmth are associated with a general increase in biomass and plant growth.
This is what the fossil record and the history of the earth reveals.
That history also reveals we are in a cyclical period of general warming that commenced 20 millenia ago (with smaller variations in between) and thus was not initiated by man.
Yes plants like warmth. They don't, however, like droughts and other extreme weather.
The current unforeseen, incredibly fast warming that we are now seeing is thanks to the level of CO2 now in the atmosphere, a level 27% above the maximum in at least the last half million years. CO2 produced by man.



The ppm measurements also give an interesting view of what kind of a trace gas CO2 really is.
380 ppm of CO2 means that if you could capture 1,000,000 molecules of air, a mere 380 of them would be CO2 molecules of which a further tiny fraction would have been introduced by the activities of human civilization.
Since plants need CO2 as the source of Carbon to produce sugars it is no wonder that they thrive in conditions of improved availability.
380 ppm is not "mere". If it had colour, you would now see the atmosphere. If it had flavour, you would now taste the atmosphere.
More than 27% are attributable to the production of CO2 by man.
Plants enjoying warmer, carbon rich environments is irrelevant.
The problem is the rising sea levels and extreme changes to the weather.



Indeed, as one scientist (Dr Sherwood Idso) said, to declare CO2 a threat is an "affront to all logic and a complete disavowal of reality".
He is President of the "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change", which is funded by - you guessed it- oil companies (Exxon, to name one).



Scam indeed.
Taxing CO2 is like taxing food before it even becomes food.
Almost every single Carbon atom in the sugar molecules in your apple was once floating around as CO2.
I beg your pardon?
Do you even understand how ridiculous that statement is?
Human bodies are also predominately carbon. All those atoms were once atmospheric CO2 too.
It's utterly irrelevant.

Methuselah
December 14th, 2009, 03:56 AM
Hello,

This is just a friendly reminder to refrain from bringing up politics during the discussion of this topic.



Thank you.

Thanks for the reminder.
I think that this thread is a good one overall and would hate for it to be closed.

Atzu
December 14th, 2009, 03:57 AM
Global warming if that's what you talking about I'd say is caused by nature itself... but since humans started messing around it increased a lot faster so i'd say human-made :p at least that's how I see it...

It's true that there are natural process which alter global climate but humans are making it faster than it should.

Or maybe it's not that dramatic like people says it... Long time ago i got tired of reading all that -_-

ice60
December 14th, 2009, 03:58 AM
this is my last post, i'm going to watch a movie :D anyway, this blog has a lot of facts
http://wattsupwiththat.com/

i'm pretty sure they have correct graphs showing the daily global weather patterns, and they show how the earth has cooled in the last 10 years or so. i remember reading that's one of the reasons the name changed from "global warming" to "Climate Change" because global warming doesn't make sense when huge parts of the world are cooling i suppose.

just read through some of the posts, i'm pretty sure they back everything up with facts (i haven't read much of it because i don't need my mind changing)

inobe
December 14th, 2009, 04:07 AM
i'm pretty sure they have correct graphs showing the daily global weather patterns, and they show how the earth has cooled in the last 10 years or so.

you probably didn't see this fine piece (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8400323.stm)

Methuselah
December 14th, 2009, 04:11 AM
When you go back to school for physics lessons, take some logic lessons too.


Ad hominem has even less logical content than anything else.



The point isn't how much temperatures have already risen, it's how much they will rise in the next 50-100 years.


How accurate have the computer models been some far?
That is an interesting topic.



Yes plants like warmth. They don't, however, like droughts and other extreme weather.
The current unforeseen, incredibly fast warming that we are now seeing is thanks to the level of CO2 now in the atmosphere, a level 27% above the maximum in at least the last half million years. CO2 produced by man.


Many apocalyptic predictions have not come to pass.
Look how mild this hurricane season has been despite pre-season predictions.
This "blame CO2/Temperature" status quo is a highly simplistic and flawed way to look at climate.



More than 27% have been produced by man.
Plants enjoying warmer, carbon rich environments is irrelevant.
The problem is the rising sea levels and extreme changes to the weather.


So what?
Sea levels were higher 125,000 years ago as well.
For the most part, natural processes are driving the temperature changes so we'd best relocate if it become necessary.



He is President of the "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change", which is funded by - you guessed it- oil companies (Exxon, to name one).

Need I remind you about Climategate and the clear attempts to skew results revealed by released documents?
So while you suggest that he's corrupt there is also evidence of corruption on the other side.
Who funds his organization is irrelevant as the quote is absolutely spot on: CO2 and H20 are the very basis of our food supply.

Methuselah
December 14th, 2009, 04:15 AM
I beg your pardon?
Do you even understand how ridiculous that statement is?
Human bodies are also predominately carbon. All those atoms were once atmospheric CO2 too.
It's utterly irrelevant.

The carbon in human bodies all came from what we take in as food which came ultimately from photosynthetic producers which rely on atmospheric CO2.
If you are shocked by this 'revelation', I suggest you do a little more research.

ice60
December 14th, 2009, 04:17 AM
you probably didn't see this fine piece (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8400323.stm)
no, i actually was editting my above post while you posted and explained i don't take much notice as i didn't believe in global warming in the first place.

anyway, you probably didn't see my fine pieces on what i think about the bbc?
http://ubuntu-virginia.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=5719236&postcount=10
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=2918927&postcount=17
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=2916731&postcount=46

inobe
December 14th, 2009, 04:22 AM
no, i actually was editting my above post while you posted and explained i don't take much notice as i didn't believe in global warming in the first place.

anyway, you probably didn't see my fine pieces on what i think about the bbc?


duly noted, ignore the network and view the video footage then put two and two together, in fact the video can be seen on almost any network ;)

spottedhog
December 14th, 2009, 04:29 AM
again, CO2 is plant food. Freakin' plant food! Plants need CO2 to survive. In reality, plants are currently deprived of CO2. Plants need more CO2, not less.

Plants need more CO2, not less (http://grandpoobah.us/forum/index.php?topic=90.0)

It is the ultimate of arrogance to think man can change world weather. If man could influence weather, why can't man stop droughts or stop hurricanes?

Man-made Global Warming is a hoax for wealth redistribution and a power takeover by the extreme liberal leftists of the world.

The USA will NOT ratify any treaty. We passed a law against entering into such a treaty when Kyoto was first introduced. That law was passed unanimously.

Now President Obama may make all kinds of lofty speeches, but there is no way he can guarantee anything to anyone. Too many Americans are becoming more aware of the hoax of a century this AGW is. Do you think you see some nasty protests going on now at Copenhagen? You will see true revolution if Obama tries to force this upon Americans. It would be the beginning of Civil War II.

Saying that CO2 levels influence world temperatures is only a scientific theory that has yet to be proven or passed effective peer review. Again, it is a theory. Only a theory... with NO scientific proof. The ClimateGate emails prove the data was fudged and the scientists were at the very least unethical, and maybe criminal in what they did.

CO2 is not now, nor ever has been a pollutant.


CO2 levels in the atmosphere today are NOT at record high levels. Carbon Dioxide is such a small component of Earth's atmosphere (380 ppmv) that the "slice" it represents in charts is really only a "line" about 1/2 as thick as a line can be shown. Compared to former geologic times, Earth's atmosphere is "CO2 impoverished."

In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm, except during periods of glacial expansion during ice ages.

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period). Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example:

* During the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.
* The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
* The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today.
* To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today -- 4400 ppm.

According to the greenhouse theory you hear from the alarmists, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, when CO2 levels were at their highest, global temperatures were no warmer than today or often lower.


Again, man-made global warming is a hoax. CO2 levels are actually too low.

ice60
December 14th, 2009, 04:35 AM
duly noted, ignore the network and view the video footage then put two and two together, in fact the video can be seen on almost any network ;)

this is a bit OT, but you should have mentioned the video, i haven't globally enabled javascript for years so didn't even see it until you mentioned a video.

i'm not arguing for the sake of it, i don't much like the bbc. just take the first link i gave in this thread for example. i haven't checked, but i bet you'd be hard pushed to find this on the bbc
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8494798&postcount=213

i think that's awful if it's not there, i think it should be.

inobe
December 14th, 2009, 04:40 AM
Again, man-made global warming is a hoax. CO2 levels are actually too low.

exxon mobil says the same thing :lolflag:

Gizenshya
December 14th, 2009, 04:41 AM
nicely said, earlier i brought up the kyoto protocol, the u.s. is the only country that failed to ratify the kyoto protocol, i think this insults the intelligence of scientists around the world.

and the rogue scientists in the u.s. appear to be creating a side show to deflect the interests in actually dealing with climate change and ultimately tried to lead the u.s. in yet another delay into taking action reducing emissions.

You are making some strong assumptions and false accusations there...

The US was not oppossed to the principles or science of the Kyoto protocols. It did not sign on because the kyoto protocol exempted China, as it is a developing country, despite its huge influence on greenhouse gasses. The US administration at the time felt that such exemptions undercut the efforts of the protocol itself, and made it little more than a circle-jerk. Bush also claimed the goals set for non-exempt countries were not aggressive enough. He soon set even goals for the US that were tougher than those that the Kyoto Protocol would have required. The whole non-signing issue was basically a public statement against China/CCP.

Whether or not such exemptions are justified, among other issues, are political matters. I'm just stating the US's rationale behind not signing it, and Bush's claims. Obama just has a different way of attacking the issue. He tries to not step on toes quite as much, at the risk of possibly giving someone more credit than they deserve. It is his position that eventually that attitude will pay off more than Bush's way. Whether or not such is actually the case is anyone's guess.

Think of the save the whales campaign. Their treaty was retified by pretty much everyone, including Japan. But the treaty basically said, anyone who still wants to continue hunting is allowed to regulate theirself and continue unobstructed, so long as their campaigns are officially for "research." Research was left up to the individual countries to define, as well. In other words it was, and still is, a big, meaningless document. Lots of countries did significantly reduce or effectively eliminate hunting of the endangered species, but others, most notably Japan, chose not to. Again, I'm not justifying anything, just pointing out that some documents can be mere political statements.

In the end, all that means nothing. Documents mean nothing. What really matters is action. The US has been on the leading edge of renewable resource development since... forever. Yeah, there are forces that are trying to stop it or slow it down, but they have had only moderate success. There have been marked improvements in effeciency and pollution reduction (including greenhouse gasses) across the US for decades.

Methuselah
December 14th, 2009, 04:43 AM
I honestly think we'd be better off labelling water vapor a pollutant and regulating its production since it's the most abundant greenhouse gas by far.
It's funny but the greenhouse effect is absolutely essential to life since it keeps the earth warm enough by retarding heat dissipation into space.
It's quite providential indeed that some of the most essential molecules for life also provide this indispensable service.

spottedhog
December 14th, 2009, 04:46 AM
exxon mobil says the same thing :lolflag:

So what? Maybe it means it is true.

Exxon Mobile is not the enemy. They are a publically held company with their stock being traded on the New York Stock exchange. Anyone can buy their stock and either make or lose money. Many many many US retirement funds own Exxon and other energy stocks. This is called capitalism. It is a way to make some money, to grow wealth so a person can retire in comfort.

If a person works for a national corporation or belong to a union, their pension owns stock in Exxon and other oil companies.

It is normal...

And people have the choice of owning something or not.

inobe
December 14th, 2009, 04:50 AM
So what? Maybe it means it is true.

Exxon Mobile is not the enemy. They are a publically held company with their stock being traded on the New York Stock exchange. Anyone can buy their stock and either make or lose money. Many many many US retirement funds own Exxon and other energy stocks. This is called capitalism. It is a way to make some money, to grow wealth so a person can retire in comfort.

If a person works for a national corporation or belong to a union, their pension owns stock in Exxon and other oil companies.

It is normal...

And people have the choice of owning something or not.


http://www.google.com/search?q=invest+in+renewable+energy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

okay then why not buy stock and invest into renewable "american" energy ?

hobo14
December 14th, 2009, 04:51 AM
Ad hominem has even less logical content than anything else.

How accurate have the computer models been some far?
That is an interesting topic.
At least try to state a "fact", or refute one I've posted.



Many apocalyptic predictions have not come to pass.
Look how mild this hurricane season has been despite pre-season predictions.
This "blame CO2/Temperature" status quo is a highly simplistic and flawed way to look at climate.
Perhaps your living room has had nicer weather lately too. Or even your whole street...
This is a global phenomenon, and a long term (as in decades, not months) one.
What happened in your corner of the world is not enough to balance out the rest of the world.
What happens this year is not as important as what will happen in the future.
99% of climatologists will be happy to tell you that temperature has a massive effect on the weather. It is easily one of the largest single factors in weather.




So what?
Sea levels were higher 125,000 years ago as well.
For the most part, natural processes are driving the temperature changes so we'd best relocate if it become necessary.
What happened 125,000 years ago is only of concern to people who lived 125,000 years ago.
What happens in the future is the concern.



Need I remind you about Climategate and the clear attempts to skew results revealed by released documents?
So while you suggest that he's corrupt there is also evidence of corruption on the other side.
Who funds his organization is irrelevant as the quote is absolutely spot on: CO2 and H20 are the very basis of our food supply.
I'm glad that you agree he's probably corrupt.
You obviously haven't researched those emails. What they(the scientists in question) did was to replace data obtained from tree ring showing that temperatures had fallen at the end of the 20th century (which up until recently they had assumed was correct), and replaced it with data from actual direct measurements of temperature taken at the end of the last century.
Up until the 1960s there has been a very strong correlation between tree ring data and measured temperatures (as you pointed out, plants grow faster in warmer weather) but after the 60's the correlation started to wane. So instead of relying on proxy data (tree rings) the used actual data (direct measurements).
Nothing to be excited about.

BigCityCat
December 14th, 2009, 04:53 AM
What cracks me up about the socialist is that they do the same thing these "scientists" did in their emails. Try and shut down and denigrate opposing view points and call themselves "open minded". Labelling people "deniers" and "flat earthers" as if you can not call into question the science, but isn't that what science is all about? This is about politics, not science. This is a global scam.

Gizenshya
December 14th, 2009, 04:55 AM
again, CO2 is plant food. Freakin' plant food! Plants need CO2 to survive. In reality, plants are currently deprived of CO2. Plants need more CO2, not less.

Plants need more CO2, not less (http://grandpoobah.us/forum/index.php?topic=90.0)

It is the ultimate of arrogance to think man can change world weather. If man could influence weather, why can't man stop droughts or stop hurricanes?

Man-made Global Warming is a hoax for wealth redistribution and a power takeover by the extreme liberal leftists of the world.

The USA will NOT ratify any treaty. We passed a law against entering into such a treaty when Kyoto was first introduced. That law was passed unanimously.

Now President Obama may make all kinds of lofty speeches, but there is no way he can guarantee anything to anyone. Too many Americans are becoming more aware of the hoax of a century this AGW is. Do you think you see some nasty protests going on now at Copenhagen? You will see true revolution if Obama tries to force this upon Americans. It would be the beginning of Civil War II.

Saying that CO2 levels influence world temperatures is only a scientific theory that has yet to be proven or passed effective peer review. Again, it is a theory. Only a theory... with NO scientific proof. The ClimateGate emails prove the data was fudged and the scientists were at the very least unethical, and maybe criminal in what they did.

CO2 is not now, nor ever has been a pollutant.


CO2 levels in the atmosphere today are NOT at record high levels. Carbon Dioxide is such a small component of Earth's atmosphere (380 ppmv) that the "slice" it represents in charts is really only a "line" about 1/2 as thick as a line can be shown. Compared to former geologic times, Earth's atmosphere is "CO2 impoverished."

In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm, except during periods of glacial expansion during ice ages.

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period). Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example:

* During the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.
* The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
* The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today.
* To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today -- 4400 ppm.

According to the greenhouse theory you hear from the alarmists, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, when CO2 levels were at their highest, global temperatures were no warmer than today or often lower.


Again, man-made global warming is a hoax. CO2 levels are actually too low.

uhh... what is your point? You like dinosaurs and want them back? People weren't alive back then, nor were basically any of the plants and animals that are alive today. The climate was far different back then.

What you're basically saying is this: The earth had extremely high co2 levels a long time ago, therefore, if they increased to that level, our climate would stay the exact same.

That makes no sense whatsoever. What exactly do you think is the opposing viewpoint? Nobody is saying that the world or all life will end over a co2 increase. They are just saying, with a lot of evidence to back it up, that we are changing the world. Everyone knows this.

The two viewpoints are this:

1. We are changing our planet, but if would be better off if we didn't, so lets maintain the status quo.

2. We are changing our planet, but the Earth changes all the time, and we should go with the flow, and we should change to suit our changing world-- not the other way around.

There are some in-between views (wait til we get more data to see what we should do, or differences of opinion about how to change), but nobody is saying that the world will end because of global warming. And nobody is saying that we aren't changing our world.

spottedhog
December 14th, 2009, 04:57 AM
okay then why not buy stock and invest into renewable "american" energy ?
"Renewable energy" is not cost effective. Putting enough solar panels on a roof of a house will take 20+ years to pay off. Wind farms are hard pressed to make a profit unless they are subsidized by the government. If they are subsidized, it means they are not cost effective over the current power creating methods.

Solar panels take raw resources that are currently not plentiful. Wind mill farms are a blight to eyes, and cannot come close to supplying enough power to replace coal and nuclear power. Also, with wind mill farms, they need to be placed with not only a near constant supply of air flow, but also in proximity of wire distribution lines.

The bottom line is, renewable energy is not even close to being cost effective, which would translate into much higher electric bills and probably power shortages, which also drive up energy prices.

spottedhog
December 14th, 2009, 05:02 AM
There are some in-between views (wait til we get more data to see what we should do, or differences of opinion about how to change), but nobody is saying that the world will end because of global warming. And nobody is saying that we aren't changing our world.

Al Gore and other environmental alarmists are most definitely saying the world is going to end if we do not lower CO2 levels. This is the crisis they try to get all to rally around. This is why there is such a strong debate now...

Man-made global warming is a hoax, like many people are saying.

ice60
December 14th, 2009, 05:07 AM
you probably didn't see this fine piece (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8400323.stm)
i was looking at some of the bias-bbc sites quotes and i like this one -

"People who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that [global warming] is the consequence of our own behaviour. I assume that this is why the BBC's coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago",

Jeremy Paxman

Media Guardian, Jan 31st, 2007.

hobo14
December 14th, 2009, 05:09 AM
I honestly think we'd be better off labelling water vapor a pollutant and regulating its production since it's the most abundant greenhouse gas by far.
It's funny but the greenhouse effect is absolutely essential to life since it keeps the earth warm enough by retarding heat dissipation into space.
It's quite providential indeed that some of the most essential molecules for life also provide this indispensable service.
Again, utterly illogical.
Water vapour levels are stable.
Fire keeps you warm at night. Would you sit in it? You can have too much of anything.



again, CO2 is plant food. Freakin' plant food! Plants need CO2 to survive. In reality, plants are currently deprived of CO2. Plants need more CO2, not less.

Plants need more CO2, not less (http://grandpoobah.us/forum/index.php?topic=90.0)

It is the ultimate of arrogance to think man can change world weather. If man could influence weather, why can't man stop droughts or stop hurricanes?

//

Saying that CO2 levels influence world temperatures is only a scientific theory that has yet to be proven or passed effective peer review. Again, it is a theory. Only a theory... with NO scientific proof. The ClimateGate emails prove the data was fudged and the scientists were at the very least unethical, and maybe criminal in what they did.

CO2 is not now, nor ever has been a pollutant.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere today are NOT at record high levels. Carbon Dioxide is such a small component of Earth's atmosphere (380 ppmv) that the "slice" it represents in charts is really only a "line" about 1/2 as thick as a line can be shown. Compared to former geologic times, Earth's atmosphere is "CO2 impoverished."

You are badly misinformed.

Droughts and hurricanes will increase in size and frequency with warming.
Global Warming is scientific fact.
See my previous post re the emails.
Pollutant is just a label. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It causes a greenhouse effect.
380 ppm is a record level. For the past half million years it has not exceeded 300 ppm. The increase from 280 ppm to 380 ppm happened in just a couple hundred years - an incredible, unprecedented rate.

Forget about the past, think about the future: temperature is increasing, and less CO2 will slow/halt that increase.

Tell the Russians gearing up to drill for gas and oil in the Arctic there's no warming. Tell the Eskimos who fall through the ice, and can't use their sleds where they used to. Tell the shipping companies who say they will soon be able to use the NorthWest passage all year round. Tell the pacific islanders whose islands are being covered. Tell farmers in my state who are coping now with semi-permanent drought.
The area defined as the tropics is expanding (by that I don't mean "jungle is expanding"). Glaciers are retreating. Oceans are rising, warming and becoming more acidic. Alaskan and Siberian permafrost is melting. Ice shelves are breaking up. Hurricanes are increasing in frequency and strength.

Here's a pic of Antarctica, 2005 on the bottom, 2007 on the top:
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/640/dn182381300.jpg

Methuselah
December 14th, 2009, 05:12 AM
Water vapour levels are variable and it is the worst greenhouse gas.
I say we ban it so the earth can cool down to some arbitrary temperature that someone has decided it should be.

Gizenshya
December 14th, 2009, 05:13 AM
If you read an earlier post of mine, I put Al Gore into the irrational catastrophist category. It was in jest... but he probably deserves it anyway. I think he is one of the main reasons why people are so confused about the subject.

Renewable energy is not cost effective. But that doesn't really do the current situation justice...

Renewable resources are not (underused/under-developed) because they are not cost effective. It is the cost-effectiveness of fossil fuels that hampers renewable resources.

Several things can change this.

1. As a technology becomes more developed, costs decrease. Fossil tech is very advanced already, so there is a lot of catching up to do for renewables. But further advancement (use) will help this.

2. Subsidies make current-gen technology economically viable.

3. "Carbon taxes" and the like make fossil fuels less viable. This also makes renewable techs relatively more viable.

yester64
December 14th, 2009, 05:18 AM
I know. And she seems a very nice car. The problem is that we need some time to adapt with those cars, the technology must be wide spreaded, not only to GM, the costs must be low, like this days cars. And more important is that, when we decide to start using them, all car producers must not produce anymore cars with internal combustion engines.
Anyway, till that day comes, I think that the best thing is to produce only cars with a normal engine, not like GM do (6000 CC, 5500 CC, 4000 CC), because it doesn't worth it.

Mm.. as a european i always wondered why american are obsessed with big suv/trucks. I do like big cars too, but can't afford them and i consider them as not as very efficient.
But i have to be honest. Even in germany there are some who own a Hummer. Bad thing is, there are just to big for our small streets. Parking is a problem with that.
The thing is, that with bigger cars you pollute more and you waste more gas. Less left for future generations.
We are wasting energy as we don't care about the future generations.
I think humans are very shortsighted. Meaning we all are.
Another problem is, that american citys are build around cars and not public transportation. Even if people would like to switch to public, the public is most times unreliable.
I don't think we will solve that problem. We will have to adapt to the next change and learn living in. Because we can't reverse things.

hobo14
December 14th, 2009, 05:19 AM
Water vapour levels are variable and it is the worst greenhouse gas.
I say we ban it so the earth can cool down to some arbitrary temperature that someone has decided it should be.

Now I'm just repeating myself.
Water vapour levels are stable.
CO2 increased due to man.
The arbitrary temperature is the one at which the weather doesn't become too destructive.