Latest news on Global Warming......More bad news

[Sentientbydesign]

(You can read the entire article if you wish: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/d....html )

Here's my points:

1. I'm not a scientist or anything (just a freshman college student) but I seriously doubt the earth could have any gravitational influence on the sun.

2. WTF does gravitational influence have to do with global warming?

3.

The carbon came from the earth to start with, it's not a foreign substance. Do you seriously think you can kill nature with one of her own substances? Who the hell do you think you are?

4. My point is that a volcano puts out hundreds of thousands times more carbon then cars ever could and you're saying that the Earth can just barely handle it all that one single little drop more is going to put it over the edge?

5. Relative comparison? I'm saying that nature handles so much carbon that a few drops more from combustion engines could not possibly make any difference.

No offense, but you just proved your own ignorance.

1. YOU have gravitational influence on the Sun. Go take an elementary physics or astronomy course in addition to all of your breadth to learn abou this.

2. The point of Chano's analogy (another writing style you'll learn this quarter/semester or next) is to show that even something small can have a significant impact on something large.

3. Again, you have TONS to learn. It's not the carbon itself that's a problem. Charcoal is mostly carbon, a decent portion of you is carbon, there's carbon in peanut butter, diamonds, steel...etc. The issue is Carbon Dioxide and how it traps heat like a greenhouse does. Go do some reading!!!

4. REALLY time for you to go read. The earth, if left to it's own devices, is pretty good at maintaining balance, equilibrium...etc. When humans start chemically alterning crude oil, then blowing it up hundreds of times per minute, then the balance is thrown off.

Also, consider how much deforestation (time to go look up a new word) affects the earth's carbon cycle as well. If we left all of the trees alone and pumped CO2 into the atmosphere, the earth would probably still just do it's thing. We're talking about removing huge sections of earth's "recycling" and then adding a s*** ton more CO2 at the same time.

5. Few drops? No liquid CO2. You'd need 5+ atmospheres to do that and low temperatures.

Wikipedia 2006 estimated worldwide CO2 emission in METRIC TONS 28,431,741

^ few drops...

[diamondj30]

http://www.viddler.com/explore...eos/2/

The master's use harp for weather wars in my opinion.

[C-Kwik]

(You can read the entire article if you wish: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/d....html )

How many earths you can fit in the sun has nothing to do with what I posted and doesn't indicate a clear point that contradicts anything I've said.

Here's my points:

1. I'm not a scientist or anything (just a freshman college student) but I seriously doubt the earth could have any gravitational influence on the sun.

You don't need to be a scientist to understand this concept. Hell, this is something that can be learned in a high school physics course. EVERYTHING that has mass has a gravitational field. Even you. If you did not have a gravitational field, you would have floated off the face of the earth long ago. The vibration or wobble of stars indicates to astronomers that the star has bodies of mass orbiting it.

While this following article wasn't written to explain this concept, you can see that this is a real phenomenon that is used by astronomers:

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~gmarcy/sciam.html

2. WTF does gravitational influence have to do with global warming?

It doesn't. I was making the point that despite the small size of Earth relative to the sun, it has an effect on the sun. Or more simply, not to simply ignore something because it is small.

3. The carbon came from the earth to start with, it's not a foreign substance. Do you seriously think you can kill nature with one of her own substances? Who the hell do you think you are?

Yes, but like any chemical, its existence does not make it bad in that of itself. Carbon is in every living thing on the planet. But it is in a different form and trapped. MMGW supporters believe excess CO2 in the atmosphere is contributing to or causing GW. Burning carbon fuels always releases carbon as in just about any combustion reaction involving carbon fuel, the byproducts are H2O and CO2. The same can be said about burning wood. Hell, burning people would produce CO2 as well. But so lon as we don't burn everything (or cause other types of chemical reactions that produce CO2) that has carbon, the carbon remains trapped as part of something that is less likely to have any potential effects on the environment.

4. My point is that a volcano puts out hundreds of thousands times more carbon then cars ever could and you're saying that the Earth can just barely handle it all that one single little drop more is going to put it over the edge?

I never said if it can or can not in this specific case. I don't know enough about all the interactions that occur in our atmosphere to make a solid conclusion. I doubt anyone here does. My point was not to ignore the little things just because it is little.

5. Relative comparison? I'm saying that nature handles so much carbon that a few drops more from combustion engines could not possibly make any difference.

I understood what you stated just fine. But unless you understand clearly, the interaction between the carbon dioxide and the Earth environment, you can't make such a simple comparison and make a conclusion. The science we are dealing with here is a whole lot more complicated than that...

[C-Kwik]

http://www.viddler.com/explore...eos/2/

The master's use harp for weather wars in my opinion.

Ah yes, the Great Global Warming Swindle. Well put together film. But several sites debunk it. Its put together well in that it attempts more scientific explanations than Gore's movie, but until we can confirm the science in it, its no better than any other documentary (or no worse depending on how you view it).

[MinisterofDOOM]

I find your statement contradicting itself quite a bit. In the one hand, you make a really good point about keeping all scientific debates open. On the other, you state that MMGW is bullcrap and an exaggeration. Keep in mind that Gore is merely a person with political influence that put together an influential movie. The real debate is with those who are doing the research. You also state that these things were disproven by real scientist, yet ignore all the real scientists that back MMGW.

I see how it can seem self-contradictory. I'm not claiming MMGW as a whole is total bullcrap (my personal view is that it's not a problem, but again I'm open to debate). It's Gore's and other extremists' outrageous claims that I'm calling bullcrap.

From a standpoint of MMGW alone, I would agree with you. However, even if MMGW is completely false, we still need to reduce our carbon dependency. Fossil fuels are finite. And even while there is a lot of fossil fuel still out there, it gets much harder to get to (more expensive). Between rising demand and depleting resources, fossil fuels are likely to get exponentially expensive once we reach a certain point. The infrastructure needed to effectively become independent from fossil fuels is tremendous. We can choose to sit idly then try to build a huge "green" system of energy all at once, or we can build it over time and and avoid having to do it all at once, learn more about the technologies, its limitations and pitfalls, better the technology, and by reducing the use of fossil fuels, extend our fossil fuel resources to be used for things that can't be done without fossil fuels. Look beyond MMGW and you'll see plenty of reasons that we should be doing such research anyways.

I agree. But the super-hippie green path is more restrictive. Take, for instance, coal power. It's a real alternative, something that we can easily adopt and rely on for a while...help us buffer the transition period. But it's too dirty and messy according to greenies. The reality is it's nowhere near as evil as they say it is. Sure it may not be totally ideal, but this is not a perfect world. I am not content to hide from everything that might be (or even definitively is, if you want to take that route) harmful. We need to work with what we have. If the hippies want to build 100% renewable energy everywhere RIGHT NOW, they need to GTF on that. But it's not happening, so let's do what we can. Because it works, and we NEED it. We don't have the luxury of screwing around being green in the real world.I'm sick of the hippies shooting down EVERY SINGLE option that's not ultra-green. That's just not how reality works. Coal and nuclear power could carry us a long way, but it's just not good enough for the greenies and their imaginary ideal world.

[audtatious]

Ah yes, the Great Global Warming Swindle. Well put together film. But several sites debunk it. Its put together well in that it attempts more scientific explanations than Gore's movie, but until we can confirm the science in it, its no better than any other documentary (or no worse depending on how you view it).

This leads to my main issue: Should we allow politicians to force agenda down our throats on what is quite possibly "junk science"? There is as much against MMGW as for MMGW (which is me giving a whole lot more cred to the pro-MMGW stuff than I usually would), not to mention that we know for fact that the climate is cyclic by nature regardless of what we are doing.

[diamondj30]

its just something to look at.I call b.s. on gore the carbon whore.he wants a noose around my grandchildrens neck!I find this interesting,kinda ties in....http://www.infowars.com/list-of-dead-scientists/you can find others too ,just got this fast like.

[smockers83]

3.

The carbon came from the earth to start with, it's not a foreign substance. Do you seriously think you can kill nature with one of her own substances? Who the hell do you think you are?

Hmm, lets think about all the substances that can kill humans. Cocaine, lead, uranium, mercury, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, cyanide, chlorine, potassium, radon, alcohol. These are all of nature's substances, either pure elements or the result of chemical reactions, and they all have lethal capabilities.

[srellim234]

I don't see it as killing the earth. I see the earth as a living organism with living organisms on it, much like a human body. It has a life cycle and can use any of those chemicals and processes to rid itself of pests (i.e., at this point humans?). We may or may not be helping it along, but I do believe we can't continue to do what we're doing on this planet and continue to sustain the entire human population, along with the increases in global population we're seeing. I'm all for doing what we can on an individual basis to help keep the planet habitable, and even a limited amount of government intervention on a global level, but many of these Draconian measures being proposed by environmentalists go too far.

The earth may rid itself of us, but we're not going to kill it.

[C-Kwik]

I see how it can seem self-contradictory. I'm not claiming MMGW as a whole is total bullcrap (my personal view is that it's not a problem, but again I'm open to debate). It's Gore's and other extremists' outrageous claims that I'm calling bullcrap.

Well then, simply leave Gore out of it and talk about the science. These days, my observations are that the people who do not believe that MMGW is real tend to focus on Gore and the people who push it rather than the science itself. Ironically, the answer to whether or not MMGW is real or not can only be found in the science. Even Gore can't change science.

I agree. But the super-hippie green path is more restrictive. Take, for instance, coal power. It's a real alternative, something that we can easily adopt and rely on for a while...help us buffer the transition period. But it's too dirty and messy according to greenies. The reality is it's nowhere near as evil as they say it is. Sure it may not be totally ideal, but this is not a perfect world. I am not content to hide from everything that might be (or even definitively is, if you want to take that route) harmful. We need to work with what we have. If the hippies want to build 100% renewable energy everywhere RIGHT NOW, they need to GTF on that. But it's not happening, so let's do what we can. Because it works, and we NEED it. We don't have the luxury of screwing around being green in the real world.I'm sick of the hippies shooting down EVERY SINGLE option that's not ultra-green. That's just not how reality works. Coal and nuclear power could carry us a long way, but it's just not good enough for the greenies and their imaginary ideal world.

Coal is a good source of energy in that of itself, but like any fossil fuel, Coal releases a stored form of Carbon. And because of the high usage of coal, it is a leading contributor of CO2. The "dirty" aspect of coal is not limited to the MMGW debate though. Coal typically contains other chemicals that become released into the atmosphere. A notably easy one to show results for is Sulfur. When released, sulfuric acid is eventually formed. I'm not sure at what point it is produced, but this is what acid rain describes. Acid levels are higher the further east in the US you go:



Not so coincidentally, so are the number of coal burning energy plants:



There are a number of other negative aspects to using coal but this is one that can be easily observed and the results can be measured pretty directly.

As for Nuclear energy, I think most scientists recognize the benefits of it greatly. The chances of a nuclear catastrophe are pretty small. The only real drawbacks are costs associated with building the plants and the disposal of the waste.

Lastly, I would highly suggest talking to researchers or people who have ties in such research. College professors can be a great resource on this. Or if that's not so easy, try an environmental science textbook. They are much more grounded than you might think. While they would like to see green technology implemented sooner than later, they also understand the things that make immediate and widespread implementation impossible. In fact, I learned a lot about what green technologies might work and what might not from an environmental science course. Trying to find renewable energy sources that can sustain our current energy needs and then some (our needs are growing) is a difficult challenge. It needs to be started now.

This leads to my main issue: Should we allow politicians to force agenda down our throats on what is quite possibly "junk science"? There is as much against MMGW as for MMGW (which is me giving a whole lot more cred to the pro-MMGW stuff than I usually would), not to mention that we know for fact that the climate is cyclic by nature regardless of what we are doing.

I'd be the first to stand up against any kind of Junk Science. But the only way to prove or disprove science is through science itself. Consider your sources for info. While it is a political topic, listening to politicians on either side of the debate is likely to leave one less informed. Consider that as much as I might come off defending MMGW, both my physics and evironmental science professors probably think I am the biggest skeptic. Simply because I kept asking about the sciences and ultimately sought out answers to the how and why questions involved in MMGW. THIS is what people should be doing. Ultimately, that is what scientists and researchers do as well. Except they try to discover the answers themselves.

As for climate being cyclical, absolutely. And there are likely multiple cycles occurring concurrently. The question to ask then is how does MMGW fit into the known cycles and how do they know MMGW isn't just part of a normal cycle. The problem arises when people reach their conclusions based on hearing simply hearing some reasoning that supports their own preconceived conclusions (people like to hear what they want to hear) rather than having more questions to ask as a result. The MMGW issue is contentious as any major political issue, but this one is not based on ideology and morals, but is rooted deeply in science. Yet, the science discussed is likely a small part of what is actually discussed by laypersons. And going back to junk science, how does one know which argument is junk if they don't ask more questions?

[MinisterofDOOM]

Well then, simply leave Gore out of it and talk about the science. These days, my observations are that the people who do not believe that MMGW is real tend to focus on Gore and the people who push it rather than the science itself. Ironically, the answer to whether or not MMGW is real or not can only be found in the science. Even Gore can't change science.

Agreed, again. The reason I mentioned Gore here was that that was specifically the topic at hand. Gore's falsification and propagandizing of pro-MMGW pseudoscience. He's not a name I generally throw around when having genuine scientific discussions on the topic, except perhaps jokingly. I tend to refer more to long-time earth scientists who have been dependable since before MMGW became "popular." Atmospheric climatologists, oceanologists, geologists...these are the kind of scientists who think in the arenas and scales upon which the potentially scientifically viable facets of global warming are built. Anyone studying "global warming" is to be ignored. People who study the earth are the ones to listen to.

[C-Kwik]

Agreed, again. The reason I mentioned Gore here was that that was specifically the topic at hand. Gore's falsification and propagandizing of pro-MMGW pseudoscience. He's not a name I generally throw around when having genuine scientific discussions on the topic, except perhaps jokingly.

I think its fine if its in response to something specific, but note what you just did here. You labelled Gore as someone who falsifies and distributes propoganda and mentioned nothing of science. Speak of the science and at least the argument attempts at proving what you say of Gore. Hell, if you could make a good argument against MMGW scientifically, Gore becomes that much more irrelevant.

I tend to refer more to long-time earth scientists who have been dependable since before MMGW became "popular." Atmospheric climatologists, oceanologists, geologists...these are the kind of scientists who think in the arenas and scales upon which the potentially scientifically viable facets of global warming are built. Anyone studying "global warming" is to be ignored. People who study the earth are the ones to listen to.

That's great. But from my observations, many of the professionals you mention believe MMGW is a real problem. Consider that the professor Gore refers to in his movie is likely one of the people you refer to. So why ignore his message over anyone else's? The reality here is that Global Warming research is not something that defines anything specific. Its a broad label. People who research GW have specialties that only encompass a portion of the entire issue. The combination of all the research on knowledge is what Global Warming research actually is. That said, the GW researchers are the Atmospheric climatologists, oceanologists, geologists you refer to. The question then is, what makes them any less qualified than the ones you do choose to listen to? Because they are long time scientists? And how do you know they are credible? If you want to make the best decision, you have to hear all the cases. Even if you don't agree with the position. As the underlying issue is scientific in nature, prescribing to a view based on ideaologies is pointless. Science either is or isn't.

[audtatious]

Scientists are still learning about the climate and why what does what. Not everything is known at this time.

[C-Kwik]

Scientists are still learning about the climate and why what does what. Not everything is known at this time.

No doubt. But major discoveries tend to be less likely. Most discoveries these days tend to be much more minute and have less impact on the subject as a whole. Or they provide a deeper understanding at detailed levels, but don't necessarily change the major concepts. Think of it this way. Discoveries in terms of how gravity works doesn't change the fact that gravity exists. Our understanding of the science at this level is likely really good. The concepts necessary to understand climate is likely to be fairly basic compared to the quantum physics knowledge we have. But climate science involves a huge and diverse set of variables and interactions of variables. My thought is that the biggest area for any flaw is going to be in making incorrect assumptions or missing key variables. Not in the conceptual understandings of the science itself.

[audtatious]

http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wing...rmism/

"Global temperatures have held steady for several years, contrary to the expectations of statistical models. This month, a leading German user of these climate models predicted temperatures would fall for “one or two decades” to come.

Why the reprieve? The German, Mojib Latif, cited changing currents in the northern Atlantic Ocean. He even went a step further, saying the currents were also responsible for an unknown portion of the warming in the late 20th century."

So, with the IPCC he agreed with the hockey stick report and cried "warming". Now, after temps have not gone up as expected, and he has had more time to study Atlantic currents, he is now also claiming a cooling period for 10-20 (or more) years. His report at the G-20 summit also hinted that the peak temps in '98 was due to currents and not CO2.

Yeah, let's impose Cap & Trade, with all associated costs, when we are in a cooling trend and will need more heat. Makes lots of sense as well. Remember......all scientists agree.

[C-Kwik]

http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wing...rmism/

"Global temperatures have held steady for several years, contrary to the expectations of statistical models. This month, a leading German user of these climate models predicted temperatures would fall for “one or two decades” to come.

Why the reprieve? The German, Mojib Latif, cited changing currents in the northern Atlantic Ocean. He even went a step further, saying the currents were also responsible for an unknown portion of the warming in the late 20th century."

So, with the IPCC he agreed with the hockey stick report and cried "warming". Now, after temps have not gone up as expected, and he has had more time to study Atlantic currents, he is now also claiming a cooling period for 10-20 (or more) years. His report at the G-20 summit also hinted that the peak temps in '98 was due to currents and not CO2.

Yeah, let's impose Cap & Trade, with all associated costs, when we are in a cooling trend and will need more heat. Makes lots of sense as well. Remember......all scientists agree.

This only confirms what I've been saying. People latch onto what they want to hear. Google the researchers name. Poke around. Seek out what was actually said. Summararily:

"1. The work of Dr. Latif and Dr. Keenlyside in Nature “does not allow one to make any inferences about anthropogenic global warming,” as Dr. Latif put it to me.2. Their work has no forecasting skill after 2015. Indeed, Latif told me “we don’t trust our forecast beyond 2015.”3. Dr. Latif is not making any predictions about what will happen after 2015 — other than that the long-term temperature warming trend driven by anthropogenic GHGs will continue and that the near-term temperature trend must catch up with the long-term trend, likely during a period of rapid warming.4. Reporters are going to keep getting this wrong.5. Deniers are going to keep getting pretty much everything wrong."

http://climateprogress.org/200...-will/

Pay particular attention to the part I bolded. The suggestion he makes is that we will catch up with the existing models after this trend is over:



This isn't "gravity changing".

[audtatious]

I'm fully aware that he still intends that temps will pick up again after cooling is over with in 20+ years. Of course, technology will be FAR advanced by that timeframe to really have a grip on what is going on. He's already found out that "things he took for granted" concerning the oceans just a few years ago was wrong, what else is he possibly wrong about?

Can you take your chart and extrapolate it to represent a few thousand years or more? Starting at 1960 seems to be more cherry picking (not on your part, the person who made the chart to prove a point).

I did run across this link which is interesting

http://home.comcast.net/~pdral....html

[C-Kwik]

I'm fully aware that he still intends that temps will pick up again after cooling is over with in 20+ years. Of course, technology will be FAR advanced by that timeframe to really have a grip on what is going on.

Not sure what you mean when you reference technology here as it doesn't seem to make sense with the context. It sounds like you are saying that advances in technology will make it more difficult to understand climate science...

[/QUOTE]He's already found out that "things he took for granted" concerning the oceans just a few years ago was wrong, what else is he possibly wrong about?[/QUOTE]

Where did he say that (assuming the words in quotes are his)? I did a word search in the link you provided and the one I provided and neither came up with that phrase. If you are trying to paraphrase, then I think you are still misinterpreting his statement. If it is an actual quote, it would be nice to see it in context. Ultimately, the interpretation I see is that he is simply explaining an internal phenomenon that occurs in our climate. Its a relatively short term effect that has no bearing on the long term climate models. In that sense, it is not wrong, but rather provides more depth. Pretty much like how things that effect gravity on microscopic scales on earth (Gravity is not exactly equal everywhere on earth) have no effect on the gravitational interaction between the sun and the earth.

[/QUOTE]Can you take your chart and extrapolate it to represent a few thousand years or more? Starting at 1960 seems to be more cherry picking (not on your part, the person who made the chart to prove a point).[/QUOTE]

Perhaps it could be. But it was research conducted in a relative short term period as it intended to seek out an answer for the cooling trend. While he is indeed a MMGW proponent, it appears he was seeking out an explanation of the recent trend. As it was limited in scope, trying to model a time period that was too long would involve a ton of work that is unlikely to be relevant. I couldn't possibly say why he chose those particular cutoffs. But speculatively, it could just be reasonable standards for the intended scope, or perhaps other known variables existed before that period that would make it more difficult to model.

In any case, my main point was simply to show that all is not as it seems. The article you had posted misconstrued the scientists findings. How factual his findings are aren't in my realm of knowledge.

[/QUOTE]I did run across this link which is interesting

http://home.comcast.net/~pdral....html [/QUOTE]

Skimmed it, but it seems to be making the same arguments made in the Great Global Warming Swindle. A big argument they share is the 800 year lag between temperature change and CO2 levels. This argument ignores the feedback that occurs. That is that warming fuels CO2 levels and then CO2 fuels more warming and the cycle repeats. Perhaps, the CO2 induced warming also triggers other greenhouse gases. And while we do also release some of those as well, the carbon is the most significant as it is pretty much the basic element in all the fuels we use. The concern here is that we may be starting the feedback cycle:

http://www.realclimate.org/ind...cores/

http://www.realclimate.org/ind...d-co2/

[audtatious]

Not sure what you mean when you reference technology here as it doesn't seem to make sense with the context. It sounds like you are saying that advances in technology will make it more difficult to understand climate science...

No, just rambling. Technology will continue to advance in lowing our "carbon footprint" during this cooler period. There is a green movement regardless of the Gov implementing C&T. I have no issue with having things more earth friendly as long as there are no mandates imposed which will hurt the economy as a whole. With a screwed economy there is less money in which to allow research and less companies wanting to implement funds for R&D for future projects as they will be looking more short-sighted from a profits standpoint. Technological advances also help with understanding climate science.

Where did he say that (assuming the words in quotes are his)? I did a word search in the link you provided and the one I provided and neither came up with that phrase. If you are trying to paraphrase, then I think you are still misinterpreting his statement. If it is an actual quote, it would be nice to see it in context. Ultimately, the interpretation I see is that he is simply explaining an internal phenomenon that occurs in our climate. Its a relatively short term effect that has no bearing on the long term climate models. In that sense, it is not wrong, but rather provides more depth. Pretty much like how things that effect gravity on microscopic scales on earth (Gravity is not exactly equal everywhere on earth) have no effect on the gravitational interaction between the sun and the earth.

Those are my words. I believe he did state that warming will happen again afterwards but do not have a link related to it. Other pro-mmgw scientists over the last year or so have pretty much stated the same thing. Now, my take on it is he is explaining a phenomena that he was not aware of which shows the IPCC and others are acting on incomplete data and assumptions (along with cherry picked tree ring information along with others). Computer models have been historically wrong when trying to depict the climate since the first time they have attempted to do so. Want me to believe a computer model? Have them pick a point in the past and enter all their variables based from that date back and see if it predicts where we are today. Since they have never been able to show computer models to be accurate I assume they avoid documenting this exact test because the results don't match what really happens.

Not sure why you side-stepped to gravity. The poles are always moving so there will never be a constant on earth from year to year.

Perhaps it could be. But it was research conducted in a relative short term period as it intended to seek out an answer for the cooling trend. While he is indeed a MMGW proponent, it appears he was seeking out an explanation of the recent trend. As it was limited in scope, trying to model a time period that was too long would involve a ton of work that is unlikely to be relevant. I couldn't possibly say why he chose those particular cutoffs. But speculatively, it could just be reasonable standards for the intended scope, or perhaps other known variables existed before that period that would make it more difficult to model.

If we are to believe everything happening with climate at this point, and a coming global catastrophe, are due to man then I would insist the context be extrapolated to include the past. We all know climate change and global warming happens on earth. Thus far, all of their projections have been wrong. Why should I believe the MMGW proponents when other notable scientists say it's bunk, cherry picked data, ignores sun spot cycles, or uses scientists data taken out of context of their work? The hockey stick is wrong, computer models are wrong, the data is wrong or skewed.

In any case, my main point was simply to show that all is not as it seems. The article you had posted misconstrued the scientists findings. How factual his findings are aren't in my realm of knowledge.

Nothing is as it seems. He seems to have admitted an error in predicting catastrophic warming by stating Atlantic currents may have caused some of it. Thus, IMO, he has just admitted that he is making assumptions on MMGW based on incomplete information. Realize, everything was promoted as "all scientists agree" when that has never been the case. The fact that we have had no warming and are actually in a cooling cycle now, opposite of what "all scientists agreed on", makes all their claims suspect and null/void.

[/QUOTE]I did run across this link which is interesting

Skimmed it, but it seems to be making the same arguments made in the Great Global Warming Swindle. A big argument they share is the 800 year lag between temperature change and CO2 levels. This argument ignores the feedback that occurs. That is that warming fuels CO2 levels and then CO2 fuels more warming and the cycle repeats. Perhaps, the CO2 induced warming also triggers other greenhouse gases. And while we do also release some of those as well, the carbon is the most significant as it is pretty much the basic element in all the fuels we use. The concern here is that we may be starting the feedback cycle:

http://www.realclimate.org/ind...cores/

http://www.realclimate.org/ind...d-co2/

Maybe, maybe not. You and I are far from experts on it and can only discuss the topic as presented by others within those fields. IMO, take one side, compare it to another opposite viewpoint and the truth is probably somewhere in between. Do I believe man has some impact on the earth? Absolutely. Should we automatically be working to produce products and components that are more environmentally friendly? Absolutely. And we are doing just that in most fields. Is there an avenue for improvement? Yep, no arguments there.

Should we implement drastic changes that penalize everyone in order to avoid a catastrophe that the pro-MMGW environmentalists are calling for based upon their assumptions and science as presented today? Hell no

Give initiatives to companies and inventors to come up with better solutions. As time passes and technology grows there will be great strides in lowing our footprint. Penalize everyone while impeding growth is not the solution, IMO.

[C-Kwik]

No, just rambling. Technology will continue to advance in lowing our "carbon footprint" during this cooler period. There is a green movement regardless of the Gov implementing C&T. I have no issue with having things more earth friendly as long as there are no mandates imposed which will hurt the economy as a whole. With a screwed economy there is less money in which to allow research and less companies wanting to implement funds for R&D for future projects as they will be looking more short-sighted from a profits standpoint. Technological advances also help with understanding climate science.

As I've said before, global warming is not the only reason to go green. We will run out of easy to access fossil fuels. Which means we need to develop and seek out new sources of energy. It happens that finding renewable sources of energy happens to have a great effect on CO2 emissions.

Those are my words. I believe he did state that warming will happen again afterwards but do not have a link related to it. Other pro-mmgw scientists over the last year or so have pretty much stated the same thing. Now, my take on it is he is explaining a phenomena that he was not aware of which shows the IPCC and others are acting on incomplete data and assumptions (along with cherry picked tree ring information along with others). Computer models have been historically wrong when trying to depict the climate since the first time they have attempted to do so. Want me to believe a computer model? Have them pick a point in the past and enter all their variables based from that date back and see if it predicts where we are today. Since they have never been able to show computer models to be accurate I assume they avoid documenting this exact test because the results don't match what really happens.

Not sure why you side-stepped to gravity. The poles are always moving so there will never be a constant on earth from year to year.

I sidestepped to gravity to explain how understandings of minute interactions have virtually no effect on the big picture. This is to describe that just because we lack an understanding of a particular aspect of something does not render our general understanding of it wrong. We have much deeper understanding of gravity than we did when Newton made sense of it. But the underlying discovery is still just as valid in a big picture scenario. This is not to say that a big picture understanding is absolutely correct, but discounting it entirely requires proof that it was actually wrong.

As an aside, its the magnetic field that switches poles, not gravity.

If we are to believe everything happening with climate at this point, and a coming global catastrophe, are due to man then I would insist the context be extrapolated to include the past. We all know climate change and global warming happens on earth. Thus far, all of their projections have been wrong. Why should I believe the MMGW proponents when other notable scientists say it's bunk, cherry picked data, ignores sun spot cycles, or uses scientists data taken out of context of their work? The hockey stick is wrong, computer models are wrong, the data is wrong or skewed.

And how do we know its all wrong? Who do we believe. My point is and still is that we need to ask more questions. Not simply accept what we feel like believing.

Nothing is as it seems. He seems to have admitted an error in predicting catastrophic warming by stating Atlantic currents may have caused some of it. Thus, IMO, he has just admitted that he is making assumptions on MMGW based on incomplete information. Realize, everything was promoted as "all scientists agree" when that has never been the case. The fact that we have had no warming and are actually in a cooling cycle now, opposite of what "all scientists agreed on", makes all their claims suspect and null/void.

A small cooling cycle can occur within a larger warming cycle. There are likely many cycles that coexist. Some will happen together and some will cancel each other out. Think of it like waves.

Maybe, maybe not. You and I are far from experts on it and can only discuss the topic as presented by others within those fields. IMO, take one side, compare it to another opposite viewpoint and the truth is probably somewhere in between. Do I believe man has some impact on the earth? Absolutely. Should we automatically be working to produce products and components that are more environmentally friendly? Absolutely. And we are doing just that in most fields. Is there an avenue for improvement? Yep, no arguments there.

I've always contended that its unlikely that anyone here is qualified enough on this topic to render a credible conclusion. Its why I say we need to be more open minded. However, I don't necessarily believe that the truth is somewhere in between. As far as we know, the truth can be worse than anticipated by MMGW proponents, better than MMGW opponents state or somwhere in between. Science would dictate that.

Should we implement drastic changes that penalize everyone in order to avoid a catastrophe that the pro-MMGW environmentalists are calling for based upon their assumptions and science as presented today? Hell no

Depends on what it is and what it involves. As I've stated above and in prioor posts, there is another major pressing need to seek alternative energy sources. From that perspective, I wouldn't be thrilled about implementing laws that are not there to promote renewable energy, but the push to reduce the use of carbon fuels does indeed put more pressure to increase development of them.

Give initiatives to companies and inventors to come up with better solutions. As time passes and technology grows there will be great strides in lowing our footprint. Penalize everyone while impeding growth is not the solution, IMO.

What kind of economic catasptrophe will occur if we run out of fossil fuels and do not have an alternative source of energy in place?

[smockers83]

What kind of economic catasptrophe will occur if we run out of fossil fuels and do not have an alternative source of energy in place?

Well, I would have to say that since fossil fuels provide approximately 95% of our energy, I would have to say anywhere between 90-95% of the economy would just stop.

[RobPaulson]

wewt!

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation....html

lol

Quote »WASHINGTON — The number of Americans who believe there is solid evidence that the Earth is warming because of pollution is at its lowest point in three years.[/quote]

[C-Kwik]

wewt!

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation....html

lol

So do you actually have a point to make?

[RobPaulson]

So do you actually have a point to make?

nope. read the article. found it somewhat amusing. thought some people in this thread might be interested. simple as that.

[audtatious]

As I've said before, global warming is not the only reason to go green. We will run out of easy to access fossil fuels. Which means we need to develop and seek out new sources of energy. It happens that finding renewable sources of energy happens to have a great effect on CO2 emissions.

I don't have problems with "going green". I do have problems with mandating the direction when there are no viable solutions to take over for fossil fuels. Wind won't do it and neither will solar.

I sidestepped to gravity to explain how understandings of minute interactions have virtually no effect on the big picture. This is to describe that just because we lack an understanding of a particular aspect of something does not render our general understanding of it wrong. We have much deeper understanding of gravity than we did when Newton made sense of it. But the underlying discovery is still just as valid in a big picture scenario. This is not to say that a big picture understanding is absolutely correct, but discounting it entirely requires proof that it was actually wrong.

As an aside, its the magnetic field that switches poles, not gravity.

(Gravity is not exactly equal everywhere on earth)

Gravity is unequal just like the magnetic field is unequal (and moving). Just wait until the poles flip again and kill us all.

And how do we know its all wrong? Who do we believe. My point is and still is that we need to ask more questions. Not simply accept what we feel like believing.

and I agree, which is not what the current Administration is doing.

A small cooling cycle can occur within a larger warming cycle. There are likely many cycles that coexist. Some will happen together and some will cancel each other out. Think of it like waves.

Thus warming can occur during a larger cooling cycle. Remember, we were looking towards the next ice age in the 70's.

I've always contended that its unlikely that anyone here is qualified enough on this topic to render a credible conclusion. Its why I say we need to be more open minded. However, I don't necessarily believe that the truth is somewhere in between. As far as we know, the truth can be worse than anticipated by MMGW proponents, better than MMGW opponents state or somwhere in between. Science would dictate that.

So, being open minded we should go ahead and enact everything the environmentalists, UN and the current Administration wants in order to err on the side of caution? Should we also go ahead and invest trillions into a comet defense system, cuz we know it will happen at some point? What about something to keep the magnetic poles from flipping again as the north pole is weakening?

Science has come a long way in the last 400+ years when all scientists agreed the earth was flat.

Depends on what it is and what it involves. As I've stated above and in prioor posts, there is another major pressing need to seek alternative energy sources. From that perspective, I wouldn't be thrilled about implementing laws that are not there to promote renewable energy, but the push to reduce the use of carbon fuels does indeed put more pressure to increase development of them.

Realize that there is a estimated 2.8-3.3 trillion barrels of recoverable oil in oil shale. New technology makes it worthwhile and cost effective to extract today. There are also large oil deposits still being found today. Again, I have no issue with working towards technological advancement to get away from fossil fuels. But you can't mandate what has not been solved.

Nuke instead of coal power is still a viable and clean option that is constantly locked up in court via environmentalist groups. The only thing C&T will do today is punish everyone in order to fill Gov coffers.

What kind of economic catasptrophe will occur if we run out of fossil fuels and do not have an alternative source of energy in place?

It will be huge. It will be worse than C&T. We are nowhere near that from what I can tell other than those who claim we have reached "peak oil". Light sweet crude is harder to find and it's getting more expensive to pump and refine some of the newer oil fields. Oil shale may eventually be the "go to" alternative as there is quite a lot of those resources available. I believe the latest estimates on producing oil from oil shale in mass quantities will equate to less than $50/barrel.

We need to invest in technology, no argument there. We also need to free up corporations from constantly being stuck in court for tens of years fighting environmentalists. As long as they are functioning within EPA guidelines they need to STFU.

You do realize that we mostly agree and are mostly arguing semantics.

[C-Kwik]

I don't have problems with "going green". I do have problems with mandating the direction when there are no viable solutions to take over for fossil fuels. Wind won't do it and neither will solar.

There is not a single viable option as nothing beats the energy density, portability, and availability of fossil fuels. However, to address the problem with currently known technologies, we would have to use several technologies to be able to provide the energy we need. Additionally, different sources of energy would be used in different locations as different locations can use certain technologies better than others. Places like Brazil, where conditions are ideal for growing sugar cane, can use sugar ethanol. Places where there is a lot of geothermal heat can use that source. Locations abover certain lattitudes can't use solar energy effectively throughout the year. Locations inland can't use wave or tidal energies as easily. Nuclear energy is probably the most universally viable, but still has the same issues with any other energy source that produces electricity. Long distance portability will always be an issue here. I don't see much viability for planes and boats that are run on an alternative power source. At least not widespread and over long distances.

Gravity is unequal just like the magnetic field is unequal (and moving). Just wait until the poles flip again and kill us all.

But gravity has no poles.

and I agree, which is not what the current Administration is doing.

They are basing their decisions upon scientific opinions. However, my reference had to do with what laypersons tend to do. That is, they base their opinions not as much on scientific facts (or at least the bigger picture of it) but whatever tends to coincide with their own beliefs. Politicians in general, are not scientists. So they have to make their decisions based on what scientists are saying. And a majority of experts in this field are saying that MMGW is a real problem.

Thus warming can occur during a larger cooling cycle. Remember, we were looking towards the next ice age in the 70's.

Sure. And its unlikley that scientists missed that one. They don't get to become scientists without having a pretty good ability to seek out and consider all the variables. Making observations can be done by anyone. But science trys to answer the question of why things do what they do. And most climate scientists conclude MMGW is the cause and will ultimately result in an upward trend.

So, being open minded we should go ahead and enact everything the environmentalists, UN and the current Administration wants in order to err on the side of caution? Should we also go ahead and invest trillions into a comet defense system, cuz we know it will happen at some point? What about something to keep the magnetic poles from flipping again as the north pole is weakening?

Context is key my friend. I was referring again to laypersons. Scientists are in a much better position to have strong opinions. The rest of us are not. It still comes back to what I have been saying all along. That people tend to believe whatever it is they want.

Consider you are a leader of some organization. You need legal advice about some aspect of your organization. Do you take the opinion of your secretary or your lawyer? Ultimately I'll asnwer your question with another question. Do you err on the side of risk?

Science has come a long way in the last 400+ years when all scientists agreed the earth was flat.

It most certainly has. Yet we choose not to listen?

Realize that there is a estimated 2.8-3.3 trillion barrels of recoverable oil in oil shale. New technology makes it worthwhile and cost effective to extract today. There are also large oil deposits still being found today. Again, I have no issue with working towards technological advancement to get away from fossil fuels. But you can't mandate what has not been solved.

Nuke instead of coal power is still a viable and clean option that is constantly locked up in court via environmentalist groups. The only thing C&T will do today is punish everyone in order to fill Gov coffers.

I can't say for sure, but I tend to believe more and more environmentalists are starting to become more open to the idea of nuclear power. Personally, I have no beef with it at all.

It will be huge. It will be worse than C&T. We are nowhere near that from what I can tell other than those who claim we have reached "peak oil". Light sweet crude is harder to find and it's getting more expensive to pump and refine some of the newer oil fields. Oil shale may eventually be the "go to" alternative as there is quite a lot of those resources available. I believe the latest estimates on producing oil from oil shale in mass quantities will equate to less than $50/barrel.

If you seek info from sources that aren't peak oil alarmists, based on known reserves and CURRENT consumption, they estimate we will run out of easy to find oil sometime this century. While we may find more oil, consider that the rate of consumption is still increasing and its not likely we will find new sources fast enough or large enough to keep up with the demand. In any case, fossil fuels are ultimately a finite source of energy.

As for oil shale, its a potential source of additional fossil fuel, but like any other mined resource, there is a lot of solid waste and resource used to extract it. And ultimately, its still a finite resource anyways.

One thing to consider in regards to the infinite nature of fossil fuels is that if we use it all up, we leave nothing to power things that need the kind of portability that fossil fuels provide. Certainly, we can manufacture fuels that are portable, but that generally requires energy to do and results in a net loss of energy. Crop based fuels can probably work, but with the population still growing and our crop production levels being essentially maxed out, we would have to divert food that would feed people into making energy. The way I see it, the earlier we can get away from fossil fuels for most uses, the more we can save use of fossil fuels for the things that can't easily be run on alternative sources. At least extend such uses until we can find more viable alternatives...

We need to invest in technology, no argument there. We also need to free up corporations from constantly being stuck in court for tens of years fighting environmentalists. As long as they are functioning within EPA guidelines they need to STFU.

On the other hand, how many of these companies would push forward with new technologies in regards to the environment without technological forcing? Do you really think that catalytic converters would be used today if the government didn't mandate it?

[audtatious]

There is not a single viable option as nothing beats the energy density, portability, and availability of fossil fuels. However, to address the problem with currently known technologies, we would have to use several technologies to be able to provide the energy we need. Additionally, different sources of energy would be used in different locations as different locations can use certain technologies better than others. Places like Brazil, where conditions are ideal for growing sugar cane, can use sugar ethanol. Places where there is a lot of geothermal heat can use that source. Locations abover certain lattitudes can't use solar energy effectively throughout the year. Locations inland can't use wave or tidal energies as easily. Nuclear energy is probably the most universally viable, but still has the same issues with any other energy source that produces electricity. Long distance portability will always be an issue here. I don't see much viability for planes and boats that are run on an alternative power source. At least not widespread and over long distances.

I agree. My whole point is that implementing some of these technologies is expensive due to their infancy. Hydrogen cars would probably work well in CA but not in the north due to the cold. But, hydrogen cars are too expensive for "common citizens". Electric would be great, but there are environmental concerns about batteries and the expense for maintenance. More Nuke energy would help elec cars from an environmental perspective as more coal powered plants would not be needed nor would we have to divert/dam more rivers and such to add more of those plants.

When realizing that the number of "poor" is growing, to the point where 47% of our tax payers are not paying taxes, imposing higher cost is crazy.

But gravity has no poles.

You've totally missed what I was saying, but that's fine and it does not matter.

They are basing their decisions upon scientific opinions. However, my reference had to do with what laypersons tend to do. That is, they base their opinions not as much on scientific facts (or at least the bigger picture of it) but whatever tends to coincide with their own beliefs. Politicians in general, are not scientists. So they have to make their decisions based on what scientists are saying. And a majority of experts in this field are saying that MMGW is a real problem.

I disagree that the majority of experts are saying MMGW is a real problem. IPCC and some scientists extrapolated data to make that data fact. It is now known that some of the scientists cherry picked the data to come to set conclusions. That alone throws out the results. The fact that temps are not rising, the ice caps have not melted, polar bears are not going extinct, climate models have been shown as wrong, and these same scientists are starting to claim that we are going into a cooling trend is more than enough evidence to force a punt.

Sure. And its unlikley that scientists missed that one. They don't get to become scientists without having a pretty good ability to seek out and consider all the variables. Making observations can be done by anyone. But science trys to answer the question of why things do what they do. And most climate scientists conclude MMGW is the cause and will ultimately result in an upward trend.

Obviously they need more training as their fear tactics are doing nothing but get people like Gore more rich

Consider you are a leader of some organization. You need legal advice about some aspect of your organization. Do you take the opinion of your secretary or your lawyer? Ultimately I'll asnwer your question with another question. Do you err on the side of risk?

If the lawyer is crooked then the opinion of the secretary may be more aligned to the truth. Again, you are acting like the Pro-MMGW scientists have been proven correct when that is not the case at all.

I can't say for sure, but I tend to believe more and more environmentalists are starting to become more open to the idea of nuclear power. Personally, I have no beef with it at all.

Who knows. When the co-founder of GreenPeace comes out and pretty much calls all the MMGW/environmental movement of the current GreenPeace and their supporting scientists a bunch of BS artists then you really need to look deep. The far-left nut jobs are manning the boat and keeping lots of "green" projects and other exploration projects tied up in court.

If you seek info from sources that aren't peak oil alarmists, based on known reserves and CURRENT consumption, they estimate we will run out of easy to find oil sometime this century. While we may find more oil, consider that the rate of consumption is still increasing and its not likely we will find new sources fast enough or large enough to keep up with the demand. In any case, fossil fuels are ultimately a finite source of energy.

As for oil shale, its a potential source of additional fossil fuel, but like any other mined resource, there is a lot of solid waste and resource used to extract it. And ultimately, its still a finite resource anyways.

One thing to consider in regards to the infinite nature of fossil fuels is that if we use it all up, we leave nothing to power things that need the kind of portability that fossil fuels provide. Certainly, we can manufacture fuels that are portable, but that generally requires energy to do and results in a net loss of energy. Crop based fuels can probably work, but with the population still growing and our crop production levels being essentially maxed out, we would have to divert food that would feed people into making energy. The way I see it, the earlier we can get away from fossil fuels for most uses, the more we can save use of fossil fuels for the things that can't easily be run on alternative sources. At least extend such uses until we can find more viable alternatives...

Everything is finite, including the sun. There are also issues with solar and wind power in regards to the environment that are well noted. Environmentalists have been against a majority of these projects as well. As far as population, even with the influx of illegals, the US population is expected to decrease during the next six decades by about 50 percent ( http://www.census.gov/populati....html ).

On the other hand, how many of these companies would push forward with new technologies in regards to the environment without technological forcing? Do you really think that catalytic converters would be used today if the government didn't mandate it?

Because the consumers are wanting more "green" efficiencies, thus the free market ensures that R&D money is spent in order to keep their piece of the pie. What was the forcing that got us the automobile, tv, nuke power, etc?

[smockers83]

Hydrogen cars would probably work well in CA but not in the north due to the cold.

I would beg to differ. Hydrogen cars emit water vapor which is one of the more potent and most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

Here is the composition of the atmosphere (1987). Notice that CO2 is a partition of 0.03768% of the atmosphere. That's the makeup of the atmosphere if it were completely dry, meaning no water vapor whatsoever. Water vapor, globally, is 0.4% of the atmosphere (closer to the surface it ranges from 1-4%).

[audtatious]

I was talking in regards to alternative fuel methods, not environmental impact

[C-Kwik]

I agree. My whole point is that implementing some of these technologies is expensive due to their infancy. Hydrogen cars would probably work well in CA but not in the north due to the cold. But, hydrogen cars are too expensive for "common citizens". Electric would be great, but there are environmental concerns about batteries and the expense for maintenance. More Nuke energy would help elec cars from an environmental perspective as more coal powered plants would not be needed nor would we have to divert/dam more rivers and such to add more of those plants.

When realizing that the number of "poor" is growing, to the point where 47% of our tax payers are not paying taxes, imposing higher cost is crazy.

Yes, implementing new tech is expensive. But if it does not become more widely adopted, the technology grows slowly. Now would be the time to try and mature the technology so that as it grows, the price drops. We also get to see real results and impacts and can try and make adjustments to better optimize and engineer the products. Imagine the cost of waiting and then trying to implement the solutions all at once (when it became imminent that it was needed). Not only would it be difficult to deal with the demand, but the solutions would be very expensive and perhaps inefficient (or not as efficient).

I disagree that the majority of experts are saying MMGW is a real problem. IPCC and some scientists extrapolated data to make that data fact. It is now known that some of the scientists cherry picked the data to come to set conclusions. That alone throws out the results. The fact that temps are not rising, the ice caps have not melted, polar bears are not going extinct, climate models have been shown as wrong, and these same scientists are starting to claim that we are going into a cooling trend is more than enough evidence to force a punt.

Proof? The "proof" as stated in this thread is not conclusive. Nor does it attempt to allow Briffa to offer a full response. He claims he will have more evidence soon and so do those who provided the tree ring data to Briffa. Accepting the articles you initially cited reaffirms what I've been saying. People latch onto information that tends to coincide with what they want to believe.

Obviously they need more training as their fear tactics are doing nothing but get people like Gore more rich

Gore is an idiot. Try talking to experts in the field.

If the lawyer is crooked then the opinion of the secretary may be more aligned to the truth. Again, you are acting like the Pro-MMGW scientists have been proven correct when that is not the case at all.

While I have no clue if MMGW is real or not, the majority of scientists treat MMGW as a proven model. While there is always the possibility that it could be wrong, when they claim that it holds water for every test they throw at it, they go with that. I'm open to hearing all arguments as it broadens my own knowledge (through research of the arguments) but I have yet to find any major arguments from deniers that hold water.

Who knows. When the co-founder of GreenPeace comes out and pretty much calls all the MMGW/environmental movement of the current GreenPeace and their supporting scientists a bunch of BS artists then you really need to look deep. The far-left nut jobs are manning the boat and keeping lots of "green" projects and other exploration projects tied up in court.

You mean Patrick Moore?

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/...atric

And as far as I can tell, he is more of a businessman now than any kind of an environmentalist. Not to mention there is some controversy as to whether or not he was actually a co-founder or not. There is of course, no question that he was an influential member. Try not using "The Great Global Warming Swindle" as your source of info. Or perhaps, do some research and check its validity. You might be surprised at what you find. I was.

Everything is finite, including the sun. There are also issues with solar and wind power in regards to the environment that are well noted. Environmentalists have been against a majority of these projects as well. As far as population, even with the influx of illegals, the US population is expected to decrease during the next six decades by about 50 percent ( http://www.census.gov/populati....html ).

Absolutely, everything is finite. But the sun is not an immediate issue and we don't even know if we would be able to survive long enough to see the sun burn out.

Each form of alternative energy has drawbacks. We have to weight them against our current options. Basically, we pick the lesser of two evils.

As for population, industrialized countries tend to have less population growth with some actually having a decline. But the world population is still growing and expected to reach a peak sometime this century. The availability of fossil fuels is a global issue.

Because the consumers are wanting more "green" efficiencies, thus the free market ensures that R&D money is spent in order to keep their piece of the pie. What was the forcing that got us the automobile, tv, nuke power, etc?

Those had a natural demand because most people don't see what is right in front of them. Out of sight, out of mind so to speak. Environmental impacts tend to occur over a relatively long period of time and away from people's attention. So what demand is there from consumers if they can't percieve any impact? Its highly unlikely that people will act on such things until it actually affects them directly. In which case, it would probably be a long and expensive road towards a solution and perhaps there may not be a viable solution. Its like having termites in your house and waiting until your house falls on your head before you act.