Ok, I disagree with that statement but let's assume it's true. What's wrong with taking a precaution and trying to lower our CO2 emission?


Plain and simple, because the up and coming industrial nations like India and China, ESPECIALLY China, are not going to follow any kind of CO2 reduction treaties while the U.S. gets penalized and that's all that's going to happen. The penalizing of the U.S. through a Kyoto type treaty and a tax on fossil fuels that will do nothing but harm the U.S. economy while other countries that are not going to give a damn about CO2 emmissions will be let off the hook free.

Dammit.

So because you fear that China won't do anything about their emmissions and you fear that any effort to cut CO2 emmissions is some sort of "punishment" against corporations, you don't think we should do anything whatsoever to cut our emmissions.

Talk about suicidal tendancies.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050930_sun_effect.html

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050505_earth_bright.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm


I'd say these are all fairly impartial sources. I'm not saying that greenhouse gases don't play a part, but I don't think we need to get into a panic.

My real quibble with this whole thing is that everybody is jumping to apocalyptic conclusions based on a bare minimum amount of data. Further proof that the discussion has moved from a scientific one to a political one. Even using 2000 year old ice core samples is insufficient. Not only is the time frame ludicrously small, that data also fails to illuminate the underlying factors. You can't necissarily determine the causes by looking at the result.

The only "fact" about this whole thing is that we know absolutely nothing. We have theories and guesses, but that's all they amount to. In general we have very little knowlege about the planet. Right now, the magnetic poles are weakening, and will soon flip, and we haven't got a clue as to the cause. If I looked on the news and saw that there was a murder in a nearby county, and I went out and sealed my house, bought body armor and a cache of automatic weapons, that response would not be unfounded, but still rediculously extreme. Why should we behave the same way here?
polar shifts happen, they've been happening, and will continue to happen until our planet's core solidifies like Mars' did and the solar wind rips our atmosphere away. then we won't have to worry about anything.

~sigh~

So because you fear that China won't do anything about their emmissions

There is no "fear" in China's actions. China simply isn't going to make an effort to curb CO2 emmissions. They've already said so, dammit.


you fear that any effort to cut CO2 emmissions is some sort of "punishment" against corporations

What I "fear" is that the only efforts that will be done about CO2 emmissions is a punitive tax on fossil fuels. Which will kill our economy, corporations or no corporations.

Dammit.

you don't think we should do anything whatsoever to cut our emmissions.

I've stated some 35 times what can be done to meet our energy needs without killing our economy. I tire of having to repeat myself, dammit.

There is no "fear" in China's actions. China simply isn't going to make an effort to curb CO2 emmissions. They've already said so, dammit.

You ought to do a little more research before spouting off.

Report Says China is cutting Emmissions. (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-11/17/content_735500.htm)




What I "fear" is that the only efforts that will be done about CO2 emmissions is a punitive tax on fossil fuels.

So oppose that one particular strategy. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Personally I think you are being alarmist. I think it will be a boom to our economy, creating new industries and new jobs.

Dammit.



I've stated some 35 times what can be done to meet our energy needs without killing our economy. I tire of having to repeat myself, dammit.

I think you are lying.

Add a (j/k) or a smiley face or something.
Pfft, learn how to read.

Bum's stuff........

You ought to do a little more research before spouting off.

You mean like this?

Two links pointing to China's use of coal and it's effects.......

http://healthandenergy.com/china_burning_more_coal.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.html?ex=1307678400en=e9ac1f6255a24fd8e i=5088partner=rssnytemc=rss&pagewanted=all


And a third link where China states that it's the job of DEVELOPED nations to curb CO2 emmissions while evading whether they'll accept greehouse gas caps.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070206/ts_nm/globalwarming_china_dc


So oppose that one particular strategy. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

That "one particular strategy" is the lynchpin of the environmantalist wackos and the Democrat party. They've got zero plans to improve infrastructure or open any kind of new power plants and refineries.

Personally I think you are being alarmist.

That tends to happen when you start reading what Kyoto is all about and wht the envronmentalist wackos have been screaming for a decade now, dammit.

I think it will be a boom to our economy, creating new industries and new jobs.

Useless "alternative energy" schemes and punitive taxes on fossil fuels will just kill our economy, dammit.

I think you are lying.

:rolleyes:

Could someone provide a source, besides Decka or Trav, for why this is a "fact?" How bright the sun was a 1000 years ago sounds like a tough thing to study.

Btw, brightness of a star is not the same as how hot a star is.

Look at post 26

You ought to do a little more research before spouting off.


You mean like this?

Two links pointing to China's use of coal and it's effects.......

http://healthandenergy.com/china_burning_more_coal.htm

No. Not like that at all.

The link above not ONLY fails to bolster your assertion that --""China simply isn't going to make an effort to curb CO2 emmissions. They've already said so"", it actually says the OPPOSITE.

From the link---

""...Chinese emissions per person are...much lower than those in the developed world, (1/8th that of the U.S.) and ... China has been trying with some success to improve the energy efficiency of its industries. ""






You mean like this? ..................http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.html?ex=1307678400en=e9ac1f6255a24fd8e i=5088partner=rssnytemc=rss&pagewanted=all

No. Not like that either.

The link above not ONLY fails to bolster your claim that --""China simply isn't going to make an effort to curb CO2 emmissions. They've already said so"", it actually says the OPPOSITE.

From the link---

Aware of the country's growing reliance on coal and of the dangers from burning so much of it, China's leaders have vowed to improve the nation's energy efficiency.


And a third link where China states that it's the job of DEVELOPED nations to curb CO2 emmissions while evading whether they'll accept greehouse gas caps.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070206/ts_nm/globalwarming_china_dc

Nope. Not like that either.

The third link fails to bolster your claim that --""China simply isn't going to make an effort to curb CO2 emmissions. They've already said so"".

It simply noted that --

""....neither Jiang nor China's top climate official would directly say whether China would accept mandatory emissions caps""

It says absolutely nothing to suggest that anyone in China has stated that they will ""make no effort to curb CO2 emmissions"".

You're 0 for fucking 3, poopsie.

Have to agree with Darth on this one, the US and Europe are gonna run with the Green issue, while China gets away with murder, they're already taxing Europe out of the game now.

You mean like this?

No, I said "research" not propaganda and rumor.

The point of the report you are trying to ignore is that China is, in fact, reducing their emmissions, which you said they would never do.

As Freethinker showed, you didn't even read your own links before copying and pasting.



That "one particular strategy" is the lynchpin of the environmantalist wackos and the Democrat party. They've got zero plans to improve infrastructure or open any kind of new power plants and refineries.

Gimme a break. Thats such a transparent lie.
There are all sorts of plans for alternative and improved energy. Wind, Solar, Hydro, Geothermal, etc.



Useless "alternative energy" schemes and punitive taxes on fossil fuels will just kill our economy, dammit.

You and your wacko conspiracy theories about "taxes" from the UN crack me up. Were you wearing your tin-foil hat when you wrote that?

:rolleyes:

You're 0 for fucking 3, poopsie.

And he lost the debate long before that post.

Have to agree with Darth on this one, the US and Europe are gonna run with the Green issue, while China gets away with murder, they're already taxing Europe out of the game now.

International agreements that don't include developing countries will not be approved by the U.S. Senate, so they become exercises in America bashing rather than honest efforts to deal with the problem.

Canada is finding it is in the same boat as the Europeans--the Kobe agreement is not workable.

The Chinese have taken a few measures this week--at least they have said they will take a few measures--often enough what they say and what they do are different. One of them is a ban on more small coal-fired electricity plants. I suppose that means in future they will all be big.

I also read an article in the Scientific America web site to the effect that Asia is contributing the most toward worldwide pollution, and not Japan, but mainly China and Indonesia. Burning coal and burning forests doesn't help the world breathe.

Look at post 26

Ok, that post (which provides no link and appears to be an editorial about a study) said the sun has hardly changed over the past 60 years. Yet, the Earth has been warming over that period.

So, if the sun hasn't been brighter, even according to your own post, how do you explain the heating in the past 60 years?

OK, that post (which provides no link and appears to be an editorial about a study) said the sun has hardly changed over the past 60 years. Yet, the Earth has been warming over that period.

So, if the sun hasn't been brighter, even according to your own post, how do you explain the heating in the past 60 years?

I'd like to take a crack at that one--the sun has been getting hotter. I remember in high school learning about sunspot cycles, and you could see even then on the chart that the peaks seemed to be getting bigger. I remember asking and the teacher saying she didn't know.

The warming effect has just got to be at least partly caused by greenhouse gasses, but I must admit the exchange here has been helpful in causing me to realize that they really have no direct causal evidence for a link between these gases and global warming. The reason they think it is a problem is theory based on lab studies of these gases, but in "the wild" the story could be very different.

I suppose one could say "Better safe than sorry," except that it doesn't seem there is anything realistic to be done anyway and that "sorry" may not be all that bad, and even have positive aspects.

The warming effect has just got to be at least partly caused by greenhouse gasses, but I must admit the exchange here has been helpful in causing me to realize that they really have no direct causal evidence for a link between these gases and global warming. The reason they think it is a problem is theory based on lab studies of these gases, but in "the wild" the story could be very different.

Venus is a perfect example of what happens when there's too much of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Venus is a perfect example of what happens when there's too much of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

That may or may not be a good model.

There are a number of other factors involved. Venus is closer, has less tilt and a retrograde rotation that is incredibly slow (243 days), so that its "day" is actually longer than its "year".

Also, the magnetic field is several orders of magnitude weaker than the Earth's, and, being closer to the sun, a heating effect from solar particle radiation and effects from the sun's magnetosphere (similar to what heats the corona) would be expected.

The earth is mostly ocean, with polar caps and a biosphere. Water is missing from the Venus atmosphere.

These may all play a differntiating role. I would really like to see direct evidence of the role on the Earth.

I will not argue, however, that most astronomers think it is the CO2. It only now occurs to me that that could be an unproven assumption for a much more complex situation.

No. Not like that at all.

The link above not ONLY fails to bolster your assertion that --""China simply isn't going to make an effort to curb CO2 emmissions. They've already said so"", it actually says the OPPOSITE.

From the link---

""...Chinese emissions per person are...much lower than those in the developed world, (1/8th that of the U.S.) and ... China has been trying with some success to improve the energy efficiency of its industries. ""







No. Not like that either.

The link above not ONLY fails to bolster your claim that --""China simply isn't going to make an effort to curb CO2 emmissions. They've already said so"", it actually says the OPPOSITE.

From the link---

Aware of the country's growing reliance on coal and of the dangers from burning so much of it, China's leaders have vowed to improve the nation's energy efficiency.




Nope. Not like that either.

The third link fails to bolster your claim that --""China simply isn't going to make an effort to curb CO2 emmissions. They've already said so"".

It simply noted that --

""....neither Jiang nor China's top climate official would directly say whether China would accept mandatory emissions caps""

It says absolutely nothing to suggest that anyone in China has stated that they will ""make no effort to curb CO2 emmissions"".

You're 0 for fucking 3, poopsie.

and as we all know to a lib vowing to do something is better then actually doing it. Freethinkers the kind of tard who looks past all the good things the US has actually done in cleaning up our factories and emissions and praises China for vowing to do something. Unbelievable.

That may or may not be a good model.

There are a number of other factors involved. Venus is closer, has less tilt and a retrograde rotation that is incredibly slow (243 days), so that its "day" is actually longer than its "year".

Also, the magnetic field is several orders of magnitude weaker than the Earth's, and, being closer to the sun, a heating effect from solar particle radiation and effects from the sun's magnetosphere (similar to what heats the corona) would be expected.

The earth is mostly ocean, with polar caps and a biosphere. Water is missing from the Venus atmosphere.

These may all play a differntiating role. I would really like to see direct evidence of the role on the Earth.

I will not argue, however, that most astronomers think it is the CO2. It only now occurs to me that that could be an unproven assumption for a much more complex situation.

there are no plants on venus either, and plants play a big roll in CO2 reduction. The biggest actually. And really trees and plants are a small part of it, phytoplankton in the ocean consume the greatest amount of CO2 on earth, and produce the most oxygen.

and as we all know to a lib vowing to do something is better then actually doing it. Freethinkers the kind of tard who looks past all the good things the US has actually done in cleaning up our factories and emissions and praises China for vowing to do something. Unbelievable.


The only thing *unbelieveable* is that you come on here like a complete imbecile and claim that I am "praising China".

I have never ---not once in well over 3000 posts-- said one word in *praise* of China. I pointed out what was said in the news articles about China as it regards emissions.....I offered no judgement or criticism one way or another on what they have done or said they will do.

I am simply pointing out that Darth's claim that --""China simply isn't going to make an effort to curb CO2 emmissions. They've already said so""-- is patently and demonstrably false.

Anyone with the slightest bit of ability in reading comprehension would recognize that.

I'd like to take a crack at that one--the sun has been getting hotter.

But even the study everyone seems to rely on says that the sun hasn't been getting hotter for 60 years....

As for adverse effects of global warming, that subject has been well covered...sea level rise will have tremendous consequences alone. Species extinction, human health problems, aggravation of air quality, changing patterns in ocean currents (cause region-specific extreme climate change)and aggravated extreme weather conditions are all problems one can expect from climate change.

Sure, there'll be some pros as well as cons....for instance, large areas of tundra will probably become more habitable. However, the pros are of a fractional value when compared to the cons.

I'd also like to add that everytime a study like this surfaces, it is splashed all over the media as if there is equal evidence on both sides of the issue. The reality of the situation however is that every study that even casts a little doubt on global warming is blown into a major, news-worthy story with the help of corporate funding, with Exxon leading the way.

In the meantime, alarming studies about global warming are quietly placed on top of the growing stack of studies telling us that global warming is a serious athropogenic problem.

There are a number of other factors involved. Venus is closer, has less tilt and a retrograde rotation that is incredibly slow (243 days), so that its "day" is actually longer than its "year".

Yet despite this, the surface temperature on Venus remains very constant. The highest surface temperature is 500 celsius, while the mean is 464 celsius. Considering how long parts of the planet go without sunlight, I find it amazing that the average temperature can remain so close to the high temperature. Even Earth has a larger temperature fluctuation at the surface despite rotating every 24 hours. I can only attribute this lack of cooling due to Venus' atmosphere.

there are no plants on venus either, and plants play a big roll in CO2 reduction. The biggest actually. And really trees and plants are a small part of it, phytoplankton in the ocean consume the greatest amount of CO2 on earth, and produce the most oxygen.

We are producing more CO2 then the plants can absorb. Surely you can see how this is a problem.

But even the study everyone seems to rely on says that the sun hasn't been getting hotter for 60 years....

As for adverse effects of global warming, that subject has been well covered...sea level rise will have tremendous consequences alone. Species extinction, human health problems, aggravation of air quality, changing patterns in ocean currents (cause region-specific extreme climate change)and aggravated extreme weather conditions are all problems one can expect from climate change.

Sure, there'll be some pros as well as cons....for instance, large areas of tundra will probably become more habitable. However, the pros are of a fractional value when compared to the cons.

I'd also like to add that everytime a study like this surfaces, it is splashed all over the media as if there is equal evidence on both sides of the issue. The reality of the situation however is that every study that even casts a little doubt on global warming is blown into a major, news-worthy story with the help of corporate funding, with Exxon leading the way.

In the meantime, alarming studies about global warming are quietly placed on top of the growing stack of studies telling us that global warming is a serious athropogenic problem.

ya, global warming storys get hidden away. what news do you watch?

Water vapor is 95% of all greenhouse gases...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif

This stuff would put Al Gore out of business...

Hmm, theres a show just started on TV here thats saying global warming is all bullshit, so I might changesides on this debate.

This show claims: During the post war economic boom, ie 1945-1975 when you would think the Earth would heat up, in fact it fell continuously until 75.

People just wanna feel in control. If it's hot one year, everyone says it's global warming. If it's cool, everyone says "global warming my ass". We really don't know anything.

Ah, some of you guys would love this show, their now saying Al Gore is full of it.
Check it out.
Channel 4.uk
The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Water vapor is 95% of all greenhouse gases...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif

This stuff would put Al Gore out of business...

Wow, that's not a misleading statistic....

You know if the Earth didn't have any of those gases, we would be dead.

This is an excellent example of why lay people shouldn't be trying to analyze this information.

if the earth didnt have the sun we would be dead too

Ah, some of you guys would love this show, their now saying Al Gore is full of it.
Check it out.
Channel 4.uk
The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Be sure and check who's sponsering the show.

I'll see if I can find a link to post.

Heres a link for the show.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

Hope you can find it, goodluck

B. Rising CO2 levels are directly causing the warming of our planet.. theory

Oh my god. WE'VE GONE OVER THIS LIKE 10 TIMES!!!

C02 is a greenhouse gas. We know what it's properties are. Larger concentrations WILL retain the heat from the sun more.

You can't prove that the rising CO2 levels are the one reason our planet is warming. It might be PART of it..
....

You just contradicted yourself. All we've been saying is that CO2 levels are one reason, one part of why temperatures are rising.

but don't scare people about CO2 levels when there is an elephant in the room named "The Sun".

Greenhouse gasses determine how much of that radiation from the sun stays with us, regardless of how hot the sun gets.

Water vapor is 95% of all greenhouse gases...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif

This stuff would put Al Gore out of business...

That's completely accurate (maybe not the %'s of what is manmade though). So what?

Oh my god. WE'VE GONE OVER THIS LIKE 10 TIMES!!!

C02 is a greenhouse gas. We know what it's properties are. Larger concentrations WILL retain the heat from the sun more.

It just so happens that CO2 makes up such a minute contribution to "greenhouse gasses" that its almost insignificant to the big picture


....

You just contradicted yourself. All we've been saying is that CO2 levels are one reason, one part of why temperatures are rising.

Never contradicted myself.. i never said CO2 levels have no effect on the planet.. they just happen to have the same effect on the planet as 10 workers with pick-axes trying to take down a mountain.. IMO.



Greenhouse gasses determine how much of that radiation from the sun stays with us, regardless of how hot the sun gets.

Yea, and CO2 really aint the main factor.. maybe money makers like Al Gore should start trying to cut back Water Vapor.. THAT would be a good cause LOL.

these damn hydrogen engines are putting off to much water vapor and causing global warming!

Oh my god. WE'VE GONE OVER THIS LIKE 10 TIMES!!!

C02 is a greenhouse gas. We know what it's properties are. Larger concentrations WILL retain the heat from the sun more.

Greenhouse gasses determine how much of that radiation from the sun stays with us, regardless of how hot the sun gets.

But WindWip, you're not considering that in the past 2000 years, the Earth has moved one hundred thousand miles closer to the center of the Milky Way! That means that the Earth is getting more heat from the center of the galaxy....And my gut tells me that can't compare a little heat trapped from CO2 to the heat of the billions of stars at the center of the galaxy!

But WindWip, you're not considering that in the past 2000 years, the Earth has moved one hundred thousand miles closer to the center of the Milky Way! That means that the Earth is getting more heat from the center of the galaxy....And my gut tells me that can't compare a little heat trapped from CO2 to the heat of the billions of stars at the center of the galaxy!

you know, discounting forces outside our atmosphere is just as dumb as you saying CO2 is irrelevant

The only thing *unbelieveable* is that you come on here like a complete imbecile and claim that I am "praising China".

Trav actually gets more pathetic the more he posts.

It is like watching a car wreck in progress.

you know, discounting forces outside our atmosphere is just as dumb as you saying CO2 is irrelevant

Assuming all climate change is because of the sun pretty fuckin' dumb as well. Does the sun get colder during the winter?

Trav actually gets more pathetic the more he posts.

It is like watching a car wreck in progress.

If we are using your mentioned "pathetic scale"... and Trav is a "car wreck in progress", which really isn't that pathetic and is actually just more unfortunate.. than you must be somewhere in between sending messages to 16 year olds on myspace and staying in on friday to watch Dragonball Z...

Now THAT is pathetic.

You are sad Decka.

OK. I dont think anyone is discounting CO2, however, what is being discussed is it's comparison to the heat from the sun. If CO2 levels triple, but it only accounts for a 10% change in temperature, then it isn't as big of a problem as we think.

OK. I dont think anyone is discounting CO2, however, what is being discussed is it's comparison to the heat from the sun. If CO2 levels triple, but it only accounts for a 10% change in temperature, then it isn't as big of a problem as we think.
Even if it's barely a problem at all, we can't do anything about the sun's heat. We can do something about CO2 levels.

Indeed, but I dont think we need to take panicked drastic measures by thinking "OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!"

Indeed, but I dont think we need to take panicked drastic measures by thinking "OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!"
I don't think anyone here thinks that.

Indeed, but I dont think we need to take panicked drastic measures by thinking "OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!"

Not even Al Gore has ever said that.

I don't think anyone here thinks that.

I think people who make money off of the threat of global warming exaggerate the effects of it, and gather true yet misleading data which scientists back and then the people proclaim it as fact. Problem is, the scientists might agree with the half of the story they heard, but disagree with the other half. Also, many scientists have alot to gain from global warming as well, "whether" its funding, recognition, future business etc....

I think people who make money off of the threat of global warming exaggerate the effects of it, and gather true yet misleading data which scientists back and then the people proclaim it as fact. Problem is, the scientists might agree with the half of the story they heard, but disagree with the other half. Also, many scientists have alot to gain from global warming as well, "whether" its funding, recognition, future business etc....
OH MY GOD, PEOPLE ARE MAKING MONEY OFF OF SOMETHING.

Not only that, politicians are exaggerating something for -gasp- POLITICAL GAIN!
:eek:

I think people who make money off of the threat of global warming exaggerate the effects of it, and gather true yet misleading data which scientists back and then the people proclaim it as fact. Problem is, the scientists might agree with the half of the story they heard, but disagree with the other half. Also, many scientists have alot to gain from global warming as well, "whether" its funding, recognition, future business etc....
Yes, the scientists could introduce personal bias into their measurements. That's why there is the whole concept of peer review in science, i.e. every experiment is performed by more than one person. Just because there could be gain in it for them doesn't disprove the results. The consensus is that man-made global warming is a potential reality and steps should be taken to avoid this reality. Does this improve profit forecasts for the industry that sells "green" things? Yes. Should you be skeptical because of this? Yes. Should you completely discount the entire idea because of this? No.

I think people who make money off of the threat of global warming exaggerate the effects of it, and gather true yet misleading data which scientists back and then the people proclaim it as fact. Problem is, the scientists might agree with the half of the story they heard, but disagree with the other half. Also, many scientists have alot to gain from global warming as well, "whether" its funding, recognition, future business etc....

How the hell does believing in global warming equal getting money and recognition? At this point, scientists would have more to gain by disproving global warming as most scientists think global warming is occurring.

I mean, think about it. I believe in gravity, no grants have come my way. Now, if someone disproved gravity, don't you think he or she would get tons of money and recognition?

How the hell does believing in global warming equal getting money and recognition? At this point, scientists would have more to gain by disproving global warming as most scientists think global warming is occurring.


Especially when rightwing think tanks are offering $10,000 to any scientist who will write any article disputing global warming.

But even the study everyone seems to rely on says that the sun hasn't been getting hotter for 60 years....

<<My understanding is that the sun has been warming ever since the Maunder minimum.>>

As for adverse effects of global warming, that subject has been well covered...sea level rise will have tremendous consequences alone. Species extinction, human health problems, aggravation of air quality, changing patterns in ocean currents (cause region-specific extreme climate change)and aggravated extreme weather conditions are all problems one can expect from climate change.

<<Stated in a few brief sentences, things can be made to seem dire or seem trivial. In your case you opted for dire. Regarding sea levels, I will have to prepare a separate message since this would take awhile to discuss. Species extinction of animals in the wild--especially North Polar species such as the polar bear and arctic fox, could happen. South polar species are doing fine. With zoo care and wildlife management total extinction can be avoided--probably even extinction in the wild. Seen this way, "species extinction" does not seem all that dire.

<<I am not quite sure what you could mean by "human health problems. Pollution causes health problems, but not greenhouse gasses (well maybe methane does but that is not at issue), and I don't see how overall temperatures being a few degrees warmer would have any particular health effect. The same could be said of your "aggravation of air quality." These things are not related to the global warming issue--there is too much a tendency to confuse general pollution issues with the specific issue of human release of greenhouse gasses.

<<As far as "changing ocean currents," we know far too little of what goes on to be dogmatic, and most of what I have seen is scare mongering. I have even seen people say that the ocean's current system would "shut down." Such ideas ignore the fundamental physics of fluid motion and differential heating. (A side note here--I really liked one "Discovery Channel" documentary that showed pictures of earthquakes while discussing global warming. That had me jumping up and down for half an hour.)

Sure, there'll be some pros as well as cons....for instance, large areas of tundra will probably become more habitable. However, the pros are of a fractional value when compared to the cons.

<<Your assertion that the pros are trivial is not supportable. Navigable arctic ports and an arctic shipping route across Arctic Sea (a "Northwest Passage") would have tremendous benefit. So also would the more rapid growth of vegetation and the opening up of vast lands in Siberia and Canada to agriculture. Ocean blooms would also increase fish production in the oceans.>>

I'd also like to add that every time a study like this surfaces, it is splashed all over the media as if there is equal evidence on both sides of the issue. The reality of the situation however is that every study that even casts a little doubt on global warming is blown into a major, news-worthy story with the help of corporate funding, with Exxon leading the way.

<<That is not true. In fact the exact opposite is the case--most of the media hardly at all report people--competent scientists--who don't like the propaganda and scare mongering, and when they do report their work, they manage to insert a false statement to the effect that credible scientists think otherwise. (There are a couple of exceptions in the media, of course, since the media is not a homogeneous thing). Especially unfortunate is the repeated claim that scientific opinion in unanimous, when it is not. I see you managed to slip in a little anti-oil company dig into this--beside the point.

<<Your last words were rhetoric and need no comment.>>

--Martin

Assuming all climate change is because of the sun pretty fuckin' dumb as well. Does the sun get colder during the winter?

did I ever say it was all because of the sun?

I am as lazy as the next person, so I've decided to just offer a couple links with a few of my observations, and see where the discussion goes from there.

"It is likely that much of the rise in sea level has been related to the concurrent rise in global temperature over the last 100 years. On this time scale, the warming and the consequent thermal expansion of the oceans may account for about 2-7 cm of the observed sea level rise, while the observed retreat of glaciers and ice caps may account for about 2-5 cm. Other factors are more difficult to quantify. The rate of observed sea level rise suggests that there has been a net positive contribution from the huge ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, but observations of the ice sheets do not yet allow meaningful quantitative estimates of their separate contributions. The ice sheets remain a major source of uncertainty in accounting for past changes in sea level because of insufficient data about these ice sheets over the last 100 years."

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/19.htm

We see that sea level rise from global warming comes from two sources--melt of ice over land and thermal expansion of the water. (Sea ice melting has no effect since floating ice displaces as much water as it traps).
We also see that sea level rise so far has been around 10 cm.

If you go to the web site, there is a chart showing worst-case outcomes of about 100 cm., with more expected estimates closer to 25-50. This will cause serious problems, although nowhere near the scope of the problems that would be cause by the herculean measures needed in a successful effort to prevent it.
The destruction of New Orleans in the hurricane is the scale of the problem, although it would take place over the course of a century. The Dutch have already made their preparations, but countries like Bangla Desh probably cannot. I think it behooves the world to start preparing for what is probably unpreventable.
An objective discussion of the problems to the United States can be found at this site.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsSeaLevelRiseIndex.html

Stated in a few brief sentences, things can be made to seem dire or seem trivial
I rather enjoy this aspect of rhetoric, myself, and just how persuasive such things can be. Sometimes I'll play a game with myself, couching a line of argument in language that would give completely different conceptions and change the entire face of the argument. The stuff you put out there to grab people's attention, while you're sneaking in precepts that would have otherwise gone unchallenged, it's a truly fascinating thing. You can turn an entire debate around by leading with one hand and sneaking in stuff with the other, and building upon it until you're opponent is like, "What the hell? How did it get like this?" By the time they've realized your game, the debate is over.

I rather enjoy this aspect of rhetoric, myself, and just how persuasive such things can be. Sometimes I'll play a game with myself, couching a line of argument in language that would give completely different conceptions and change the entire face of the argument.

Yea--I think educators should force students to present talks and write essays defending positions they oppose, if for no other reason than to gain in intuitive understanding of how slant and emphasis can lead in such diverse directions.

A more important reason for this, however, would be to force students to learn to see issues from other perspectives.

Wow, i didn't know my post would produce such a response!



OH MY GOD, PEOPLE ARE MAKING MONEY OFF OF SOMETHING.

Not only that, politicians are exaggerating something for -gasp- POLITICAL GAIN!
:eek:

Yes, i know it's not uncommon.. but don't try to cram it down my throat as fact either... Global warming may be occuring, but it's not because we drive SUV's.

As for money... people like Al Gore recieve TONS of money for funding.. from lobbyists and political fundraisers... so hell it could be COLD FACT that global warming is natural and he will still stand his ground because if he didn't he'd lose his money and profits.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Yes, the scientists could introduce personal bias into their measurements. That's why there is the whole concept of peer review in science

Peer review isn't worth much when the peers who are doing the reviewing have the same bias as the person being reviewed. It also doesn't help in what is basically a subjective, not an objective study.

Yes, the scientists could introduce personal bias into their measurements. That's why there is the whole concept of peer review in science

Peer review isn't worth much when the peers who are doing the reviewing have the same bias as the person being reviewed. It also doesn't help in what is basically a subjective, not an objective study.

I think that applies more to opponents of global warming who ignore data and the general scientific consensus because of their own personal views.

I think that applies more to opponents of global warming who ignore data and the general scientific consensus because of their own personal views.
In other words scientists you disagree with are not following proper scientific procedure. Only those who agree with the media-declared "consensus" (absent among objective scientists) are to be listened to.

Your attitude, and, indeed, the attitude of environmental extremists in general, is more a case of shout down opposition, not listen to them and try to get at the real truth rather than ideological "truth."

I think that applies more to opponents of global warming who ignore data and the general scientific consensus because of their own personal views.

of course you do.

Wow, i didn't know my post would produce such a response!

Yeah, it's kindof like the response generated when the president of Iran denies the Holocaust, isn't it?


Yes, i know it's not uncommon.. but don't try to cram it down my throat as fact either... Global warming may be occuring, but it's not because we drive SUV's.

Fact: Increased CO2 causes global warming.

Fact: Burning Gasoline Releases CO2 into the atmosphere.

Fact: SUVs Burn Gasoline.

Fact: C02 Concentration in the atmosphere has been on a steady increase for at least decades.

Irrefutable Conclusion No Matter How Many Contradictory Studies You Find: SUVS contribute to global warming.

As for money... people like Al Gore recieve TONS of money for funding.. from lobbyists and political fundraisers... so hell it could be COLD FACT that global warming is natural and he will still stand his ground because if he didn't he'd lose his money and profits.

Acting like concern about global warming is a profitable venture just boggles my mind. You do realize that the most profitable corporation (Exxon) in human history is throwing all of the money it can towards people who challenge global warming in any way, don't you?

The money Al Gore has just isn't comparable to the money oil corporations have. In fact, it would be a down right silly if you measured the wealth on each side of the issue.

If Al Gore was really in it to make money, he could tell Exxon that "I will change my opinion for $100 million dollars" and I don't think he would have any trouble getting that amount of money.

In other words scientists you disagree with are not following proper scientific procedure. Only those who agree with the media-declared "consensus" (absent among objective scientists) are to be listened to.

I never said that. Frogger claimed that people who think global warming is real have bias, and that it affects their ability to be objective. I made the counter-point that people who disagree with global warming have that exact problem. Feel free to point out where I said or implied that scientists against global warming shouldn't be heard.

Your attitude, and, indeed, the attitude of environmental extremists in general, is more a case of shout down opposition, not listen to them and try to get at the real truth rather than ideological "truth."

Excuse me? This is clearly the attitude of the opponents of global warming. They're trying to discredit scientists by claiming they have bias and that they have "something to gain" by supporting global warming. Instead of, you know, actually looking at the evidence and trying to refute it.

There's a fair amount of evidence supporting global warming, some of which is in this thread. The people against global warming have not produced anything refuting these claims; only that the sun might be getting hotter so we shouldn't try to control our CO2 emission.

When the opponents of global warming start producing solid evidence to support their case, I'll start believing they are acting less on their bias and more on science.

Have any of the global warming deniers here seen this survey?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The study surveyed 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1998 and 2003 which contained the words "climate change."

First off, it's not easy to get something published in a scientific journal...you have to be highly-qualified and there's typically an extraordinarily picky committee of experts monitoring what gets published.

Second, of all the papers, 75% either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view that there is anthropogenic climate change; 25% took no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, NONE of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

If you're really trying to disagree with this sort of scientific consensus, you better have damn good qualifications or you're an idiot because you don't know how to listen to people who know what they're talking about.

no dissenting scientist got a single paper published? there's a shocker.

If you love your home, if you love your family, if you love your pets, read this post:


Just kiddin, but I feel like we're talking in circles. We all seem to be agreeing, but arguing nonetheless. Nobody is denying that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming. Nobody is denying that it would be a good idea to cut down on these emissions. Still, nobody is claiming that this is a crisis situation. Still, nobody is claiming that extreme measures are needed.

So, as a solution, why don't we just say that while we should push for more green technology, we shouldn't go out of our way to cut down on CO2 emissions by taking steps that would inhibit the economy? Does that sound like a good plan?

We neither confirm nor deny the specific impact which CO2 has, yet, we still cover our bases anyway.

Just my 3 cents.

The thing is Homer, in Europe all the Governments are jumping on the bandwagon, infact today the German Chanceller, Frau Merkle announced recycling 20% in EU in the next ten years I think it is, we're being taxed out of existence.
PS. I dont like my home, and would like a plastic goldfish for a pet.

Second, of all the papers, 75% either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view that there is anthropogenic climate change; 25% took no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, NONE of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

That survey doesn't seem to have made any attempt to distinguish between journals dealing with climate science and journals dealing with any other scientific topics. So if you're a zoologist and you publish an article saying you think global warming is caused by man and it's killing butterflys, that survey lists you as a scientist that agree with man causing global warming. Even though as a zoologist you're completely unqualified to assess the cause.

That survey doesn't seem to have made any attempt to distinguish between journals dealing with climate science and journals dealing with any other scientific topics. So if you're a zoologist and you publish an article saying you think global warming is caused by man and it's killing butterflies, that survey lists you as a scientist that agree with man causing global warming. Even though as a zoologist you're completely unqualified to assess the cause.

I can't help but observe that Leper seems to be unwilling to engage in serious discussion, and is only interested in political scare mongering. He fed me a line of hyperbole about the harm to come from global warming. I did some research and prepared a detailed response (messages 155 and 157). While I don't think it is necessary that all my messages be answered, I also can draw reasonable inferences when someone makes claims and then ignores challenges to the claims.

I read something else interesting yesterday. It seems that geological times of higher temperatures have been accompanied by lower, not higher, sea levels, in spite of melting ice and thermal expansion of the water. It seems that the oceans are more complicated than the environmental extremists think, and there are feedback mechanisms.

The explanation, however, is a little scary--rising temperatures cause hydrates in the sea bed to melt, and this results in space available that the water flows into. Of course the fear is that these hydrates would only add to the warming, although this is not sure and does not seem to have happened in the past.

Come on man, you are smarter than that.

The sun does not get colder in winter. Our part of the Earth is just farther away from the sun during winter.

You didn't refute anything. Thanx for playin!


Assuming all climate change is because of the sun pretty fuckin' dumb as well. Does the sun get colder during the winter?

Our part of the Earth is just farther away from the sun during winter.This is true. In winter Australia is several million miles closer to the sun than we are.

That's why it's warmer there. See?

Several million miles, whew. It takes 23 hours to fly there, now I know why.

If you love your home, if you love your family, if you love your pets, read this post:


Just kiddin, but I feel like we're talking in circles. We all seem to be agreeing, but arguing nonetheless. Nobody is denying that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming. Nobody is denying that it would be a good idea to cut down on these emissions. Still, nobody is claiming that this is a crisis situation. Still, nobody is claiming that extreme measures are needed.

So, as a solution, why don't we just say that while we should push for more green technology, we shouldn't go out of our way to cut down on CO2 emissions by taking steps that would inhibit the economy? Does that sound like a good plan?

We neither confirm nor deny the specific impact which CO2 has, yet, we still cover our bases anyway.

Just my 3 cents.

I agree... all i've ever said is that the amount of "CO2 Mania" that is sweeping the nation does not coincide with the actual percentage of greenhouse gases or effect it has on warming our planet.

Its like gay people on TV... they make up about 25% of the on air talent, but make up about 2% of our population.

I fully support green businesses(Like the Great Lakes Brewery, look em up), and would never buy an SUV.. but i think "CO2 Mania" is overexaggerated.. we can do our part, but there's no reason to evacuate the house because a few cockroaches are crawling around.

but there's no reason to evacuate the house because a few cockroaches are crawling around.
We disagree here. :D

Come on man, you are smarter than that.

The sun does not get colder in winter. Our part of the Earth is just farther away from the sun during winter.

You didn't refute anything. Thanx for playin!

The reason for seasonal change has to do with the tilt of the earth, not the distance from the sun. The northern hemisphere is actually closer to the sun during our winter months.

If you don't understand simple concepts such as seasonal changes, you really shouldn't have a formed opinion on global warming.

The reason for seasonal change has to do with the tilt of the earth, not the distance from the sun. The northern hemisphere is actually closer to the sun during our winter months.

If you don't understand simple concepts such as seasonal changes, you really shouldn't have a formed opinion on global warming.

actually... the earth is technically on an ellipse.. and while its eccentricity is very close to zero, meaning its close to being completely circular... there are times where the earth is further away than at other times.

actually... the earth is technically on an ellipse.. and while its eccentricity is very close to zero, meaning its close to being completely circular... there are times where the earth is further away than at other times.

Didn't I say the same thing? I'm confused.

Didn't I say the same thing? I'm confused.

you were talking about the "tilt of the earth, not the distance of the sun"... i'm not saying you DIDN'T say that the earth varies in distance from the sun, i was just making sure people didn't think it was all earth tilt.

you were talking about the "tilt of the earth, not the distance of the sun"... i'm not saying you DIDN'T say that the earth varies in distance from the sun, i was just making sure people didn't think it was all earth tilt.

It basically is all the earth's tilt. Of course, the closer to the sun the more intense the sun's rays will be. However, the variance in the earth's revolution is only about 3 million miles, and since we are farthest away from the sun during the summer and closest during the winter (in the northern hemisphere)...it's obvious which one has a far greater impact.

Only those who agree with the media-declared "consensus" ......

Just so I understand you here, are you asserting that there is no consensus, but the media is merely 'declaring' a consensus among the scientific community?

......the media-declared "consensus" (absent among objective scientists)

Ok.

You claim that consensus is *absent among "objective scientists"*.

You are thus asserting here that the 2500 or so scientists that make up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are *not objective*....................correct??

None of them?

Your attitude, and, indeed, the attitude of environmental extremists in general, is more a case of shout down opposition....

I'd say you have the two sides exactly reversed.

You seemingly think your own views on global warming are more accurate than the consensus (sorry, but despite your lie that there is "no consensus", there is one) of 2500 scientific researchers.

Interesting.

You are --in the intellectual sense-- being incredibly dishonest in regards to this issue.

I often hear people comply with a phantom panel of scientists.. who make up the majority... where is this "vote" on global warming? People often seal off a discussion on the topic by saying "i'll listen to the majority of scientists who blah blah blah"... does anyone have an OVERCAST poll of the ENTIRE scientific community? On such a political issue, i would be quite certain a fair one would be hard to come by.

Interesting.

You are --in the intellectual sense-- being incredibly dishonest in regards to this issue.

No you are either dishonest or naive about it. I don't know what your 2500 scientists number comes from; that sounds like propaganda. I do know that the scientific literature is far more careful about these issues.

It basically is all the earth's tilt. Of course, the closer to the sun the more intense the sun's rays will be. However, the variance in the earth's revolution is only about 3 million miles, and since we are farthest away from the sun during the summer and closest during the winter (in the northern hemisphere)...it's obvious which one has a far greater impact.

Absolutely. However, the elliptical nature of the earth's orbit (not a perfect circle so that for half the year we are about 5% closer to the sun than we are during the other half, is not without consequences).

Another complication is that the earth's orientation precesses on a cycle that is a little over 20,000 years. While Australia is close to the sun in winter now, in 10,000 years the opposite will be the case.

There have been attempts to find an association between this and the coming and going of ice ages, and some of the associations are suggestive, but the matter is plainly far more complicated.

An even further complication is the fact that the tilt of the planet is known to change, and in fact we are not at close to the maximum tilt. The episodes of ice ages (but not individual ice ages) are thought to probably result from this.

I did some research and prepared a detailed response (messages 155 and 157). While I don't think it is necessary that all my messages be answered, I also can draw reasonable inferences when someone makes claims and then ignores challenges to the claims.


Sometimes that just means I have a limited amount of time with which to address your concerns. The fact that you do a google search to find the figures most favorable to you does not make you qualified to challenge the people who spend their lives studying the issue.

If you really want answers to the issue. Here's a link to answer your questions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: http://www.ipcc.ch/

P.S. Here's also a link to the IPCC report for policy makers (i.e. The brief version): http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

It's a good read if you want to know what is really going on with global warming. The report acknowledges areas where the data is weak or unreliable, and tells you the areas where the data is very certain. And the report is a far more reliable source of information than Rush Limbaugh or Fox News reporters.

If you have any doubt about the legitimacy of the IPCC, here's an example of what they've done in the past. They issued their first report in 1990 and estimated from a .15 to .30 Celsius degree increase per decade. From that time to 2005, the rate of temperature increase has been .2 degrees Celsius per decade. These are assessments by experts around the world who look at ALL of the data; They know their shit better than any other organization, and certainly better than anyone on this board.

P.P.S. Water rats response below indicates all you need to know about why there is an issue in the U.S. He has made a judgment about the report without ever taking the time to read it. The report is composed by experts, not poiticians. The report is made for policy makers to read (e.g. politicians).

P.P.P.S. Okay, I've had a chance to look at your websites. I congratulate you on finding some sources worth looking at. One site looks at projected rises in sea level for the next 100 years. You know, the problem does not stop 100 years from now. If you look at the IPCC report, paleoclimatological data suggests that sea levels have historically (125K years ago) increased by approximately 6 meters with conditions like the ones humanity is causing. That may just be a matter of time, but shouldn't we address the problem before it becomes any worse?

Curbing greenhouse emissions is not some hopelessly "herculean" effort that you think it is. Converting to non-fossil fuel sources (e.g. wind power, nuclear power, solar power) rather than fossil fuel is certainly a project, but a project that is comparible to the project of supplying our nation with billions of barrels of oil from countries that are hostile to us. Unfortunately, the latter project is making, and has made, a lot of people rich, and those people will do everything in their power to stop the former project.

Also, you've ignored other problems from global warming: drought, storm intensity increase, species extinction, etc. I would get into it more but I don't have the time.

If you really want answers to the issue. Here's a link to answer your questions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: http://www.ipcc.ch/

You have got to be kidding. Even the scientists that provided the info to the IPCC are now complaining that the politicians (in the IPCC) who take the data from the scientists have completely misrepresented the scientists conclusions. THe emphasis given to man-produced carbon emissions over nature were completely misinterpreted.

No good science ever emanated from a politician.