Folks, This Is Getting Serious

Originally posted by Gazrok

A) What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? i.e. where's the relevance?

Apparently you have not been following the discussion. It has a lot to do with everything. Ignorance only substantiates inaction. If people don't know what is going on, then how are they supposed to do anything at all? My point is that most people really do not have a clue as to what's going on in the world around them; hence, they act as if absolutely nothing is wrong. Ignorance is not bliss;it is the road that leads to pain and misery.

[edit on 16-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

which is the cause, and which the effect ?
if one accepts the postulate that warming is (in part or whole) caused by man, then such is an effect of our presence and activities; the magnitude of which is due to increasing numbers and increasing explotation/consumption

so global warming is merely a symptom, accept it - no, embrace it
population is the problem, and population control is taboo
and who would deny the poor a better lifestyle ?
but this too shall pass, in the meantime enjoy the roar of the chainsaws cutting the old trees and go out for a Sunday drive
- not going to affect the outcome one iota

I'll support conservation when the world supports population control/reduction
(actually education = reduction, and where is that leading us ?)

[edit on 16-9-2006 by BillA]

Originally posted by BillA
which is the cause, and which the effect ?
if one accepts the postulate that warming is (in part or whole) caused by man, then such is an effect of our presence and activities; the magnitude of which is due to increasing numbers and increasing explotation/consumption

I don't think anyone here is arguing that humanity is the sole cause of global warming. However, I sure think that humanity is a large contributor to the problem.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

I don't think anyone here is arguing that humanity is the sole cause of global warming. However, I sure think that humanity is a large contributor to the problem.

You're 100% wrong, a vast majority IS arguing that humanity is the SOLE cause of global warming.

However, SpeakerofTruth, it seems to me that you ignore posts that present scientific soundness, but have a propensity toward those that humor conjecture, commentary and argument solely. Given this, my original assessment of you seems to be correct, that you're fanatical to your cause. Fanatacism is no more healthy toward a better world than is cataclysmic climate shift. Please be open toward other ends of the discussion or at LEAST appear to be.

To address what you've said earlier with respect to the populace being 'out of touch', this doesnt necessarily hold water when looked at it from this perspective; that same populace may have a sound cognizance of the environmental issues as well as the purported solutions, yet not know who their own mayor is. Unless, of course, you would expect that ANYONE who know anything at all about the environment should inherently know who their mayor is? Hence, it's feasible that they may also not know who the VP is, why not.

You want to truly present your case in this forum with fact? Then please start researching AND presenting it, instead of only trying to stir up panic. I know I have, I would like to see you address what ive posted earlier in this thread as a counter-balance furthering your opinion.

For those who missed this one...


"Even maximal deployment of the best technology cannot stop climate change," says the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BA), Frances Cairncross, ..."policies to help societies adapt to a warmer future are badly needed."

The effects of climate change are broad - ranging from spreading infectious diseases, to making hurricanes stronger, to flooding island nations. Followed of course by the inevitable "cooling" - and an ice age.

Climate change is inevitable, and policies to help societies adapt to a warmer future are badly needed.

That is the message from the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BA), Frances Cairncross, at the BA annual festival.

She will tell delegates that even maximal deployment of the best technology cannot stop climate change.

news.bbc.co.uk...]Focus on climate adaptation urged

Why would the hell our President of the United States, Bush, once shot down the claim of global warming? I'm really disappointed in him for what he did to us. I wish we all people have the power to oust him and tell him to get out of our country and let other man who will be people's truly President who will socialize with us, focus on us and focus on our enconomy and stabilize our homeworld's greenhouse effect. I really wish we can impreach Bush for good.

Yeah, the global warming is kindoff good. But, there is good news.

Direct from nasa.gov :

08.30.06 - Study Finds Ozone Layer on the Mend
Scientists analyzed 25 years of independent ozone observations at different altitudes in Earth's stratosphere.

Ozone Zone

Originally posted by gonavy2011
Yeah, the global warming is kindoff good. But, there is good news.

SORRY, I meant global warming is kindoff BAD

Here's an idea, lets build 200 foot tall air cleaners all around the world, and pay tax's to keep them running. They could be similar to this..

www.sharperimage.com...

That will never happen in this life time, but we can always dream right?

B.T.W. Last I checked, the Earth had its own way of cleaning our air, and I think its called RAIN. The green house gas's get washed back to the ground where they came from..... You know, the gases substances were already on this Earth, we just threw them in the air. What goes up, must come down.

Originally posted by LAES YVAN

B.T.W. Last I checked, the Earth had its own way of cleaning our air, and I think its called RAIN. The green house gas's get washed back to the ground where they came from.....

Ever heard of acid rain? Chemical compounds?

Sorry - but I find your comments uneducated, and your attempts to trivialize the topic crude. To say the least.





Btw - chemicals created by man and released into the environment can come together to create all-new never seen before chemical compounds. But the ones man creates are already bad, for example.

General reference: Glossary of Environment and Microbiology Terms

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

I don't think anyone here is arguing that humanity is the sole cause of global warming. However, I sure think that humanity is a large contributor to the problem.

You're 100% wrong, a vast majority IS arguing that humanity is the SOLE cause of global warming.

However, SpeakerofTruth, it seems to me that you ignore posts that present scientific soundness, but have a propensity toward those that humor conjecture, commentary and argument solely. Given this, my original assessment of you seems to be correct, that you're fanatical to your cause. Fanatacism is no more healthy toward a better world than is cataclysmic climate shift. Please be open toward other ends of the discussion or at LEAST appear to be.

To address what you've said earlier with respect to the populace being 'out of touch', this doesnt necessarily hold water when looked at it from this perspective; that same populace may have a sound cognizance of the environmental issues as well as the purported solutions, yet not know who their own mayor is. Unless, of course, you would expect that ANYONE who know anything at all about the environment should inherently know who their mayor is? Hence, it's feasible that they may also not know who the VP is, why not.

Notice I said here, meaning on this thread. I know that there are some who claim that humanity is solely responsible.

As for your science, I find most of the "science" that the "no global warming" proponents use as biased and supported by some of the nation's biggest pollution contributors. Naturally, those "scientists",usually paid shills, are going to present "information" that will only allow more pollution. Why should I pay attention to "scientific proof" that is only supportive of the interests of those who pay them?

[edit on 17-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

After reading this, I wonder what Bush though Global Climate Change was just exactly... o.O

Will the world will get even more nerve recking I can guarntee it.

Originally posted by smalllight
Will the world will get even more nerve recking I can guarntee it.

When it comes to how bad things are getting in the world I always tell people, "You haven't seen anything yet." I truly believe that things are going to get quite a bit worse before they get better,but things will get better. Never lose sight of that.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by ThinksYouAreAnIdiot
Again explain the medievil warm period.
Or the Little ice age.
Or the fact that the geological record shows the earth has been warming consistantly except fot those two periods for 10,000 years.
None of which can be blamed on humanity.

It is accepted that there are natural non-man made phenomena that cause temperature increases. Which of them are you citing as causing the current warming trend? Why isn't teh man-made increase in atmosheric CO2 concentrations causing it?

I wonder how the buffalo herds that once wondered the US didn't kick start global warming millenia ago

Naturally produced methane, however, acts within the methane cycle, just like naturally produced CO2. The problem with burning fossil fuels is that you are talking CO2 that was locked away, basically in storage, and flooding the system with it, wrecking the current equilibrium. And this can push the system into an entirely new equilibrium, one that we can't easily get out of.

The truth is, given that we can't even predict the weather four days from now with any accuracy, I am highly suspicous of any "predictions" about the world 20 years from now, especially since the predictions made in the 70's were flat wrong.

So because the local weatherman is sometimes wrong, that means that there is no such thing as climate science?

We know periods of warming that were more intense, and faster, have happened at times when humans could not possibly be the reasons, so doesn't it stand to reason we may be as irrelevant to climatic conditions now as we were before our species evolved?

THe problem is still the same though. We know that things like natural variations in the eccentricity of the earth's orbit, or the tilt of its axis, can drive climate and 'force' warming and cooling episodes. Those known controls do not explain the current warming episode.

The Human rac e survived an Ice gae when our highest technology was a flaming stick, and there were less than 10,000 humans on the entire planet. I think we'll be OK.

Indeed. But why make things more difficult for ourselves uncessarily? Also, a change in global climate can, if nothing else, result in changes in the distribution of basic crops, what farmland today could be wasteland tommorrow. Where does that leave the US, if its more like arabia in teh future, and places like africa are the holders of the world's foods? Clearly, changes in climate can have big effects on current power structures. Man won't be annihliated, but things can still get pretty damned screwed up.

The problem is all you "true belivers" treat "global warming" like some angry god that must be appeased.

Excluding, of course, climate researchers, who study the system, how it worked in the past, how its working now, how its going to react to changes, etc.

darkbluesky
I'm in the seemingly small group that believes the change is insignificant when compared to naturally occuring climate fluctuations

Everyone agrees that the changes so far are small, compared to some of the changes in the past. This doesn't count for much, when we consider that for the past we have warming trends extending over thousands of years, whereas now we're talking about a handful of decades.

D4rk Kn1ght
There was permafrost for the last 10,000 years. Its been frozen since the last ice age, and nothing the planets natural cycles have done has EVER defrosted that permafrost.

Nothing has melted it in the past 10,000 years or so, but there have been times in the past when, beyond that, there wasn't even any ice at the poles.

sperkeroftruth
Everytime one watches the news you hear about floods,earthquakes in strage places. Hell, we just had an earthquake in Florida a few days ago....Florida!!

Earthquakes have nothing to do with global warming. And no one can actually say that global warming must be occuring because we've had floods and hurricanes, those are going to happen anyway.

I have already conceded to the fact that part of it is probably cyclical;

There is nothing the shows that the warming is even in part caused by 'natural' trends, and the known natural drivers of climate don't explain it. This leaves unknown drivers of climate and man-made drivers of climate.

[Solar effects] is actually an angle I haven't really taken into account seriously. I have thought about it, but only in passing. What you suggest is quite possible.

If you have the oppurtunity, you should try to take a climatology course at a local university, especially if its one that will go into past changes in climate. You will find out about many of these things, and it seems like you would appreciate it and find it enjoyable.

cavscout

volcano.und.edu...
The total amount of gas released during non-eruptive periods from the beginning of July to the end of October was 9.1X10^8 kg [...]
As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass cycling maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about 2.2X10^15 kg.[...]Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a (net) 17.6X10^12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere

The amount of CO2 that man released, say, this year, is something liek 4 orders of magnitude greater than that released by the Mt. St. Helen's explosion (iow, manmade emissions dwarf it, let alone all those throughough history).

Further:

volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from man-made sources

That page also cites the current amount of Co2 in the atmosphere as 2.69X10^15 kg.

Your article is false (a lie)

The US EPA is a bunch of global warming nutters who are lying???

bkcrt
There is no way we can know if this is a natural cyucle of the earth or not as our records of ice depths do not go back far enough to tell.

There are far other sources of past temperature than ice cores.

I personally think there is no evidence to suggest that anything that is happening now is unnatural because we have no counter evidence.

Excluding, of course, the rationale that man is increasing the concentration of a known greenhouse gas, and, lo and behold, the global climate is warming.

but please stop freaking out.

Indeed, global warming isn't like some 40's monster movie, lurking behind a doorway to pounce on us. But it is clearly in our best interests to see what we can do about it.

Thinker_1
I have a question - with all the ice that has already melted, why are the coasts not flooded yet?

Because not enough ice has melted to substantially increase the volume of the entire ocean and thus raise sea level.

centurion1211
Hint: Without the technology that now supports them, billions of humans on this planet would die pretty terrible deaths due to starvation, wars and disease.

Indeed, it would be an even bigger disaster, and far more sudden. BUT, still, IF we can do something to prevent, say, the weakening of America and the empowerment of some of its old enemies through changes in climate patterns, don't we have a responsibility to do something about it? Or if global warming results in warmer bottom waters in the ocean, and this permits the enourmous quantitites of frozen methane gas to be released, thus destroying ocean productivity, do we just tell the people and states that depend on fisheries to 'suck it'? If changes in ocean salinity due to melting land-ice in the arctic shut down the flow of warm water to europe, do we just abandon what people died to protect from teh nazis and communists to the tundra?

What do you propose to fix the problem,

For my own part, I would say that the biggest thing we all need to do is not let a basic scientific issue be so politicized. Climatology is a science. If we are going to need to have some sort of policy, it should merely be a scientifically informed policy.

Al Gore

is an idiot and not a climate scientist, he is utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. He is at best able to function as a 'celebrity' spokesperson, and doesn't even function as a very good one at that.
But, again, thats meaningless when it comes to the science.

Laes Yvan
can heat up our Earth and melt the ice "quicker than normal". There are many things that can explain away the heat.

Indeed, they could. Problem is, they don't. Sunspot and flare activity do not explain the warming trend.

think our Earth doesn't have a means for getting rid of heat is insane.

It definitly does have ways to get rid of it. That doesn't mean it can't or won't warm up to levels that make human life more miserable.

Also, core samples that date back millions of years can not be 100% accurate, they are just estimates.

The fact that they can't be 100% accurate 100% of the time is hardly a reason to ignore them.

Mr Peel
I know the streets of Venice are now under the lagoon surface for something like 4 months of the year...

If there is a rise in world ocean levels, it will be felt in more places than just Venice. Venice is being covered with water because the land it is built on is sinking, just like New Orleans, and lots of other cities. Heck, even Mexico City is sinking into the ground.

Muadibb
Too many environmentalists are trying to dismiss and hide such information because they want to bolster their agenda that "mankind is at fault for global warming".

That, of course, is irrelevant, when it comes to the scientific studies that show global warming is happening and that it seems to be man-made.

Rocpuck
if it was a man made issue it would not develope and accelerate in a short amount of time, our industries have been at it for well over a hundred years,

And the warming trend is co-incident with industrial emissions of CO2 gas.

Excellent post Nygdan. Thank you for the information and infusion of good sense.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght

Siberia IS caused by man - and we are the only ones that can stop it as we edge ever closer to the point of no return.

Several reports from the Pentagon and Nasa have already declared it a point of no return. Hey, it's amazing what a couple of centuries of "progress" can do to an environment. After all, real technology didn't take shape until the industrial period...so, we are only talking about a couple of centuries of ....environmental hazard.

Yet, there are people like "Thinks" who wants everyone to believe that all that is occurring is just a "blimp" on the evolutionary radar screen. I'm sorry but I'm not biting. I have heard the arguments from both sides and I am certainly not convinced by the "nothing is wrong" proponents.

I would believe it if things weren't taking place at the rate that they are taking place. However, it's gotten crazy. Everytime one watches the news you hear about floods,earthquakes in strage places. Hell, we just had an earthquake in Florida a few days ago....Florida!!

[edit on 14-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

How exactly does a earthquake prove anything in relation to global warming?

Originally posted by Mr_Peel

Originally posted by Thinker_1
I have a question - with all the ice that has already melted, why are the coasts not flooded yet? Where is the water going? Anyone know?

I believe there has been a rise in ocean level. I know the streets of Venice are now under the lagoon surface for something like 4 months of the year...

It's hard to get down to the level of year-to-year granularity, but you can see the trend is a slight acceleration here:

en.wikipedia.org...:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

Venice is sinking. Has been for hundreds of years. Thats why many of the older buildings have walled off thier basements, they are now underwater.
Incereased water levels in venice simply means that the sinking is continuing.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth


Notice I said here, meaning on this thread. I know that there are some who claim that humanity is solely responsible.

As for your science, I find most of the "science" that the "no global warming" proponents use as biased and supported by some of the nation's biggest pollution contributors. Naturally, those "scientists",usually paid shills, are going to present "information" that will only allow more pollution. Why should I pay attention to "scientific proof" that is only supportive of the interests of those who pay them?

[edit on 17-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

Tell me speaker, other than the results of his research, how do you determine a "legitimate scientist" from a "paid shill" Becuase is seems to me your criteria is whether or not his or her research provides evidence which supports your favored theory.

Originally posted by Nygdan
It is accepted that there are natural non-man made phenomena that cause temperature increases. Which of them are you citing as causing the current warming trend? Why isn't teh man-made increase in atmosheric CO2 concentrations causing it?.

You're the one making the claim not me. Its up to you to attempt to prove that the factors which led to earlier warming trends are not what are causing the current one and that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are responsible

Naturally produced methane, however, acts within the methane cycle, just like naturally produced CO2. The problem with burning fossil fuels is that you are talking CO2 that was locked away, basically in storage, and flooding the system with it, wrecking the current equilibrium. And this can push the system into an entirely new equilibrium, one that we can't easily get out of.

That is your hypothesis at any rate. Yet to be proven.

So because the local weatherman is sometimes wrong, that means that there is no such thing as climate science?

The local weatherman and the Climatologists are attempting to model something they don't understand. At best they understand some limited aspects of the whole. A model is, at its best, nothing more than an approximation of reality.Furthermore the more complex what you are trying to model is, the less accurate your model will be. When the subject is both highly complex, and not well understood, any results derrived from a model will be at best guesswork. Despite over 100 years of advancements in technology, methadology, and education, meteorologists still cant accurately model the weather more than 3 days out, because the factors affecting the weather are simply too numerous, and too complex in their interactions to be effectivley modeled. And yuet you want me to take the word of models, in reference to not just the future of global surface and water temperures, but on human kinds impact on said progected tempertures?

THe problem is still the same though. We know that things like natural variations in the eccentricity of the earth's orbit, or the tilt of its axis, can drive climate and 'force' warming and cooling episodes. Those known controls do not explain the current warming episode.

What about increased and or decreased solar output, incresased or decreased magma venting, increased magma flow near surface areas of the crust, increased or decreased reflectivity due to the percent of water vapor in the air etc. Again there are so many factors, many of whoms effect on other is not understood well if at all. Then there is the inherant inaccuracy of historic temperture measurments. Ice cores and trees ring analysis is still more subjective than objective, early human recirds are unreliable due to less precise measuring tools, even suspected trneds may simply be the heat island effect showing up as urban areas encroach on previously rural testing areas.

Indeed. But why make things more difficult for ourselves uncessarily? Also, a change in global climate can, if nothing else, result in changes in the distribution of basic crops, what farmland today could be wasteland tommorrow. Where does that leave the US, if its more like arabia in teh future, and places like africa are the holders of the world's foods? Clearly, changes in climate can have big effects on current power structures. Man won't be annihliated, but things can still get pretty damned screwed up.

We'll survive.

Excluding, of course, climate researchers, who study the system, how it worked in the past, how its working now, how its going to react to changes, etc.

Unless of course they are "hired shills"