Can We Even Stop Global Warming?

Originally posted by Muaddib

I am pretty sure I know a thing or two about "borehole data" measurements, after all my job as a field engineer, or MWD engineer, has been to measure and interpret real time, and recorded mode data retrieved from rig sites, and part of that data is downhole temperature changes.

So you do work for the oil industry huh? Ya know that really shoots your credibility on this subject right to hell.

Originally posted by grover

So you do work for the oil industry huh? Ya know that really shoots your credibility on this subject right to hell.

That statement is not only incredibly stupid, but calling him a liar.

If his data is accurate it doesnt shoot down his credibility one iota, only YOUR PERSONAL opinion on his agenda. Anyone with an objective mindset would see the real science irrespective of their occupation and who pays them.

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Originally posted by grover

So you do work for the oil industry huh? Ya know that really shoots your credibility on this subject right to hell.

That statement is not only incredibly stupid, but calling him a liar.

If his data is accurate it doesnt shoot down his credibility one iota, only YOUR PERSONAL opinion on his agenda. Anyone with an objective mindset would see the real science irrespective of their occupation and who pays them.

I have read enough of his posts over the past four years to know he has an agenda... its pretty obvious, especially when he starts getting belligerent against anyone who dares questions his "facts", or how he interprets them.

Am I calling him a liar? No but I am saying that he has a vested interest in the matter.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by grover]

[edit on 6-2-2007 by grover]

So grover and Regenmacher, you're saying that the global warming is entierly due to human activity? Or is it a combination of increase solar activity, increase earth activity, human activity and animal increase (cow's farts). This is what I think it is.

By importance:
1. Solar activity (because of NASA data, mars, pluto and others warming)
2. Earth Activity (because of Muaddib data)
3. Methane from various sources (reports of cow farts and deposits of methane)
4. Human activity (because of greenhouse gas)

[edit on 6-2-2007 by Vitchilo]

Originally posted by Vitchilo
So grover and Regenmacher, you're saying that the global warming is entierly due to human activity? Or is it a combination of increase solar activity, increase earth activity, human activity and animal increase (cow's farts). This is what I think it is.

By importance:
1. Solar activity (because of NASA data, mars, pluto and others warming)
2. Earth Activity (because of Muaddib data)
3. Methane from various sources (reports of cow farts and deposits of methane)
4. Human activity (because of greenhouse gas)

[edit on 6-2-2007 by Vitchilo]

You can believe whatever you want

But let me spell it out this way:


1 the so-called data that other planets are warming is illrevelent simply because we only have 40 or 50 years of data to draw upon.... nowhere near enough to draw a conclusion...we have over 600,000+ to draw upon based on ice cores and the like.

2 Show me verification from other sources besides Muaddib that this has any bearing on the atmosphere whosoever, much less that it is a fact.

3 You must fart a lot.
it is CO2 and other hydrocarbons, not methane or cow gas...stop eatting so many beans.

4 Do I trust some guy in Montana (Muaddib) or the consensus of the majority of climate and environmental scientists world wide in this? Oh decisions, decisions.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
So grover and Regenmacher, you're saying that the global warming is entierly due to human activity?

Too say one parameter is the only cause is illogical, same reasoning goes in dismissing a contributing factor. Climate models don't work that way or they would become increasingly inaccurate and useless as forecasting tools.

What parameters can humanity effect change upon without destroying the global economy and/or making the climate worse is the big question.

To go back to the original question which is... can we stop global warming?

No matter whether you believe what the panels of scientists say, or what Muaddib has suggested... the answer is no, we cannot.

According to the UN report we have set in motion a sequence of events that may take up to a 1,000 years to resolve, AND that is only if we stop all hydrocarbon immissions right now... at this very minute. Which obviously is not going to happen.

According to Muaddib and the other nay sayers, assuming that they are actually onto something as opposed to having their head buried in the sand, the causes of global warming are either geothermal or solar activity or interstellar dust clouds or a bunch of cows with a bad case of gas... and the only one of those we have any control over would be corking those cows, so the short answer, there is nothing we can do either.

SO that begs the next question... if we cannot stop it, can we do anything to curb it somewhat?

As far as I am concerned the answer is absolutely... conservation would go a long way to curbing hydrocarbon immissions, and while not stop global warming, perhaps not make it any worse. Besides that the simple truth is given the finite nature of fossil fuels, we either start conserving now and seriously developing alternatives, or we are going to be up the creek without a paddle later on.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by LogansRun
Do you really think there is some mass worldwide conspiracy with all the worlds scientists collaborating with liberals on this to demonize man?? Do you realize how insane that sounds??

The answer is yes, and it hardly sounds insane for a couple reasons.

1 - This is a conspiracy website with far less plausible conspiracies put forward ...
2 - The effort to demonize mankind and especially the U.S. for causing the warming when there has yet been no real proof fits the M.O. of many liberal causes and organizations (the "eco-left") such as GreenPeace, PETA and the so-called eco-terrorists that somehow want to erase the effects of human habitation on the earth. Even though to do so, would exterminate most of the "little people" (common man) the liberals claim to be here to protect. I mention the U.S. specifically because it is assigned the lion's share of cuts, while gross polluting countries like china aren't assigned any blame for warming and don't have make any changes that would affect their economy.

The bottom line is still the fact that these warming and cooling cycles have existed for millions (billions?) of years before there were any human civilizations on this planet!. In their rush to judge mankind for any warming, no one is addressing this fact. That's why this looks like a conspiracy by the eco-left to many.

Originally posted by grover

I have read enough of his posts over the past four years to know he has an agenda... its pretty obvious, especially when he starts getting belligerent against anyone who dares questions his "facts", or how he interprets them.

Am I calling him a liar? No but I am saying that he has a vested interest in the matter.
[edit on 6-2-2007 by grover]

You've read his posts, so now the elite can make their judgement???

So what about you???

Anyone reading your posts on this board knows you also have a very strong agenda. For that reason alone, should we discount everything you say? It can be done if you agree that it's fair and creates a level playing field for this discussion. If you somehow were to feel that only you were allowed to both have an agenda and maintain your credibility, well that would be both hypocritical and elitist.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Borehole data is precise, and if the increase in temperature in the Earth's crust comes from the surface...

Bore hole data isn't precise and heat diffusion prevents putting a specific year on the data. It can be also effected by snow, ice, ground cover, soil moisture, density variance, plus the signal to noise ratio makes borehole data virtually useless going back past 4-500 years. That's why we use climate proxy indicators that are calibrated against modern instrumentation data to yield a more accurate year to year picture.

Originally posted by Muaddib
If mankind was to blame for this dramatic increase in downhole temperature, the air/surface temperatures should have increased first, then due to diffusion of heat, which would take a while to propagate through the Earth, through a medium, in this case the Earth, the temperatures underground would have steadily increased after, but that's not the case.

Yes, that is the case. The industrial era's surface temps have accelerated first, and sat data confirms more energy is being absorbed from the Sun than is emitted back to space.

Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future NOAA

ABSTRACT:
An understanding of climate history prior to industrialization is crucial to understanding the nature of the 20th century warming and to predicting the climate change in the near future. This study integrates the complementary information preserved in the global database of borehole temperatures [Huang et al., 2000], the 20th century meteorological record [Jones et al., 1999], and an annually resolved multi proxy model [Mann et al., 1999] for a more complete picture of the Northern Hemisphere temperature change over the past five centuries. The integrated reconstruction shows that the 20th century warming is a continuation to a long-term warming started before the onset of industrialization. However, the warming appears to have been accelerated towards the present day. Analysis of the reconstructed temperature and radiative forcing [Crowley, 2000] series offers an independent estimate of the transient climate-forcing response rate of 0.4 - 0.7 K per Wm-2 and predicts a temperature increase of 1.0-1.7 K in 50 years.

FIGURE 1 [reprinted from Mann et al, 2003, Eos, (C) American Geophysical Union]. Comparison of proxy-based Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperature reconstructions (Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1999; Crowley and Lowery, 2000) with model simulations of NH mean temperature changes over the past millennium based on estimated radiative forcing histories (Crowley, 2000; Gerber et al., 2002–results shown for both a 1.5oC/2xCO2 and 2.5oC/2xCO2 sensitivity; Bauer et al., 2003). Also shown are two independent reconstructions of warm-season extratropical continental NH temperatures (Briffa et al., 2001; Esper et al., 2002) and an extension back through the past two thousand years based on eight long proxy temperature series chosen for their ability to retain long-term trends (Mann and Jones, 2003). All reconstructions have been scaled to the annual, full Northern Hemisphere mean, over an overlapping period (1856-1980), using the NH instrumental record (Jones et al., 1999) for comparison, and have been smoothed on time scales of >40 years to highlight the long-term variations. The smoothed instrumental record (1856-2003) is also shown. The gray/pink shading indicates estimated two-standard error uncertainties in the Mann et al. (1999) and Mann and Jones (2003) reconstructions. Also shown are reconstructions of ground surface temperatures (GST) based on appropriately areally-averaged (Briffa and Osborn, 2002; Mann et al., 2003) continental borehole data (Huang et al., 2000), and hemispheric surface air temperature trends, determined by optimal regression (Mann et al., 2003) from the GST estimates. All series are shown with respect to the 1961-90 base period. [added 1/12/05: It should be noted (thanks to S. Huang for pointing this out), that the two borehole curves shown in this plot suffer from a small error in the areal weighting normalization. Further discussion, and corrected versions of the borehole temperature estimates can be found in Rutherford and Mann (2004) (and in the Jones and Mann, 2004 article discussed above)]

Man's influence on the climate can not be removed from the equation until man is removed from Earth, and there are other factors that contribute to global temperature rise.

What can man effect change on to reduce his risk is the question.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by grover

I have read enough of his posts over the past four years to know he has an agenda... its pretty obvious, especially when he starts getting belligerent against anyone who dares questions his "facts", or how he interprets them.

Am I calling him a liar? No but I am saying that he has a vested interest in the matter.
[edit on 6-2-2007 by grover]

You've read his posts, so now the elite can make their judgement???

So what about you???

Anyone reading your posts on this board knows you also have a very strong agenda. For that reason alone, should we discount everything you say? It can be done if you agree that it's fair and creates a level playing field for this discussion. If you somehow were to feel that only you were allowed to both have an agenda and maintain your credibility, well that would be both hypocritical and elitist.

First off Muaddib is famous for touting his "facts" and if you question his "facts" you are an idiot.... and he often gets belligerent about it... in fact this is the closest to a civil exchange he and I have had for awhile.

I never assert or imply that my viewpoint is the end all of any subject... I present my viewpoint and opinion, and make no claims about it otherwise. I am no scientist so I know I cannot reproduce their studies, but I do read about them. Also it should be noted while I accuse Muaddib of cherry picking his data I have never claimed that I do not... I know that I do and acknowledge it. As for an agenda... no i don't have one in practuilar... I have my opinions but I am not out to prove anything. That I think is the difference. Am I vocal about my opinions, absolutely.

In short while I will and do defend my viewpoint, I really don't care one way or the other whether i convince you or not. That... I think is the difference.

Even having this discussion is a Distraction... to reiterate:

"To go back to the original question which is... can we stop global warming?

No matter whether you believe what the panels of scientists say, or what Muaddib has suggested... the answer is no, we cannot.

According to the UN report we have set in motion a sequence of events that may take up to a 1,000 years to resolve, AND that is only if we stop all hydrocarbon emissions right now... at this very minute. Which obviously is not going to happen.

According to Muaddib and the other nay sayers, assuming that they are actually onto something as opposed to having their head buried in the sand, the causes of global warming are either geothermal or solar activity or interstellar dust clouds or a bunch of cows with a bad case of gas... and the only one of those we have any control over would be putting a cork in those cows, so the short answer, there is nothing we can do either from that viewpoint.

SO that begs the next question... if we cannot stop it, can we do anything to curb it somewhat?

As far as I am concerned the answer is absolutely... conservation would go a long way to curbing hydrocarbon emissions, and while not stop global warming, perhaps not make it any worse. Besides that the simple truth is given the finite nature of fossil fuels, we either start conserving now and seriously developing alternatives, or we are going to be up the creek without a paddle later on."


[edit on 6-2-2007 by grover]

[edit on 6-2-2007 by grover]

[edit on 6-2-2007 by grover]

[edit on 6-2-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by grover
and he often gets belligerent about it... in fact this is the closest to a civil exchange he and I have had for awhile.

This may come as a shock to you, but others see it in the reverse.

SO that begs the next question... if we cannot stop it, can we do anything to curb it somewhat?
[edit on 6-2-2007 by grover]

And SO, your last question again completely ignores the issue of IF the warming trend turns out not to be caused by humans, is it not ridiculous to even talk about "stopping" it? Let me pose it this way. If it turns out that the warming was caused by a combination of natural forces - the sun, the internal heat of the earth, etc. - what effect would curbing carbon dioxide emmissions have on the problem? You know the answer to that is most likely no effect.

If we can have no effect, why argue over it, why do it? This looks like another one of those "feel good" solutions the left attempts to force on all of us. Where it doesn't matter if it actually works, or what the long term ramifications are, they "feel good" just because they did "something".

Again, why not wait for the facts? Why the rush? What's the real agenda here?

Still no one has answered these basic - no required - questions before acting. We just HAVE to do SOMETHING right now! Instead, what I'm seeing is suggestions that we need to curb hydrocarbon emmissions - with all that would do to the economies of the U.S. and other developed nations - just because it MIGHT help? With no evidence to prove that the damage caused to our economy would be justified in the result? Not good enough. No sir, no way!

So, now it's sounding like your real agenda is curbing hydrocarbon usage. And your tactic is to try and promote and then couple that to a global warming scare to accomplish your agenda. Yes, that's my conspiracy theory on this.

What's next, you going to try and tell us that eating meat also causes global warming, so we all (no wait, just the U.S. people) have to stop?

[edit on 2/6/2007 by centurion1211]

you believe whatever you want to believe... its no skin off my ass...but ask marg about Muaddibs belligerence.

Anyway, we all agree that we can't stop it? And that it will take a hell lot of a time before the earth is healthy again? And humans will probably destroy themselves with nukes before they get destroyed by global climate change.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by Vitchilo]

Originally posted by centurion1211

And SO, your last question again completely ignores the issue of IF the warming trend turns out not to be caused by humans, is it not ridiculous to even talk about "stopping" it? Let me pose it this way. If it turns out that the warming was caused by a combination of natural forces - the sun, the internal heat of the earth, etc. - what effect would curbing carbon dioxide emmissions have on the problem? You know the answer to that is most likely no effect.

If we can have no effect, why argue over it, why do it? This looks like another one of those "feel good" solutions the left attempts to force on all of us. Where it doesn't matter if it actually works, or what the long term ramifications are, they "feel good" just because they did "something".

[edit on 2/6/2007 by centurion1211]

I really cannot believe that you are so ignorant.

Why should we do something? WHY?

We have been fouling our nest for too long as it is and if you haven't noticed... there is no place to go if we totally blow it here.

Venus... a serious case of greenhouse gases, 900 degrees and sulphuric acid rain.

The moon low gravity and no oxygen and all of what we need to live would have to be imported.

Mars. oxygen but not a lot, low gravity and very cold...some water we think but that is it...the other planets forget about it.

What good are property rights if the land is poisoned and cannot support life?

So Bubba this is it and if we screw this place up the gig is up.

Whole fisheries are collapsing... just ask the fishermen off of New England or the Gulf Coast.... we either over fish..I have been on the factory ships sent out by Russia and China and other places in my time in the Coast Guard and they suck up everything; or we dump so much crap in the sea that we have created dead zones where nothing grows.

Most streams in this country are not safe to drink from anymore... we have dumped toxins into the environment for so long it is in our bloodstream.

Go into the Adirondacks or the White Mountains of New Hampshire or the Smokies and see what acid rain from the crap spewed into the atmosphere by coal fired power plants have done to the environment... whole forests of dead and dying trees... one of the key parts of the lungs of our planet.

Look at the spreading deserts and the shrinking rain forests.

Look at the damn mess we are making of this place and you have the termitary to ask why should we do something about it?

Perhaps, just perhaps Muaddib is right and all the scientists are wrong but right or wrong is the wrong way to look at it... while the issue is be debated and the science is being worked out, a process that may take decades, if you guys are right and there are serious flaws in the data, isn't it prudent to at least make the effort to do something now? Is it really going to hurt us?

Hydrocarbons, global warming, whatever, we have to start someplace trying to clean up the mess that we have made here or there is not going to be much of a future for our children and our children.

Isn't it prudent to ere on the sides of caution rather than to ere on the side of recklessness?

[edit on 6-2-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by grover

So you do work for the oil industry huh? Ya know that really shoots your credibility on this subject right to hell.

If anyone's credibility is going right to hell, it is yours. Everytime you don't know how to counter an argument you do the same thing. You always make false claims about "peoples reputation" when the information being presented goes against your rantings.

The reason for you doing this everytime is simple enough, you don't know what the hell you are talking about, a simple truth which can be seen in every response you provide.

In all the time that you have been in these forums, I have never seen you once provide anything good to these forums. Not once.

Anyways, not only are you disengenious, but you have to be naive, or think people must be naive to make such a claim and think everyone will believe you. If we follow the reasoning in your false claim, unless people agree with you, most people are being paid by "Exxon, or Shell" or some other company to state their opinions....

I know and have worked with geologists, and engineers from all fields, and they all don't stand on one side in this issue. Everyone has their own opinion. I know people who have PHds, Masters, and Bachelors in Geology, Chemestry, Structural engineering, Electronics engineering, Civil engineering, etc, who don't believe in Global Warming, while others do.

I am pretty certain that most of them, and as i have said many times including me, we are not being "paid to state what oil companies want us to say", we are being paid because we are profesionals who have engineering degrees, we know what we are doing, and do a good job.

My guess is that if even a truck driver was to disagree with you, you would make exactly the same claim, after all, they are dependent on fuel to do their jobs.

Tell us grover, what job is not dependent on fuel, or oil these days?

Are you going to use the same claim everytime someone disagrees with you?....

Originally posted by grover

I have read enough of his posts over the past four years to know he has an agenda... its pretty obvious, especially when he starts getting belligerent against anyone who dares questions his "facts", or how he interprets them.

Am I calling him a liar? No but I am saying that he has a vested interest in the matter.

If I have an agenda is the simple truth that there is more than the "scientific concensus" on this issue, nothing more, and nothing less.

Anyways, I have been around these forums for two years or so, and the only thing that I have seen you do is makes claims like the above when the topic does not go as you like. I never seen you provide any relevant information.

Instead of making ad hominem attacks, why don't you discuss the topic, and if you think what I have stated and the links I have provided are false, then prove it instead of resorting to personal attacks...

But you can't can you? and the reason why is obvious.

Originally posted by grover
...............
1 the so-called data that other planets are warming is illrevelent simply because we only have 40 or 50 years of data to draw upon.... nowhere near enough to draw a conclusion...we have over 600,000+ to draw upon based on ice cores and the like.

Well, sorry to break your parade but professionals who know what they are talking about agree that Global warming is happening in other planets as we speak.

Originally posted by grover
2 Show me verification from other sources besides Muaddib that this has any bearing on the atmosphere whosoever, much less that it is a fact.

Already done it grover...dozens of times, yet you act as if it hasn't been done...

Originally posted by grover
4 Do I trust some guy in Montana (Muaddib) or the consensus of the majority of climate and environmental scientists world wide in this? Oh decisions, decisions.

Wow, I live in Wyoming... i must really be ashamed of living in Wyoming huh Grover?....

As for the concensus i think I made it clear enough that there are hundreds if not thousands of other scientists who disagree with the scientific concensus and have data that destroys, or at the least brings doubts to the claim of that "scientific concensus"...

[edit on 6-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by grover
Perhaps, just perhaps Muaddib is right and all the scientists are wrong but right or wrong is the wrong way to look at it... while the issue is be debated and the science is being worked out, a process that may take decades, if you guys are right and there are serious flaws in the data, isn't it prudent to at least make the effort to do something now? Is it really going to hurt us?

Hydrocarbons, global warming, whatever, we have to start someplace trying to clean up the mess that we have made here or there is not going to be much of a future for our children and our children.

Isn't it prudent to ere on the sides of caution rather than to ere on the side of recklessness?

[edit on 6-2-2007 by grover]

Now THIS, I couldnt agree with more! Whether or not ANY climatic shift is human induced, cyclic, or by aliens who all look like Alf..the long and short of it is, that even were nothing at all to change..prudence demands we clean up our mess.

As a side note, while I was writing this response, I think that there is wholly a misunderstanding of the difference between climate CHANGE and climate SHIFT...climate is ALWAYS changing, rarely shifting. There's an old saying amongst meteorologists "climate is what you expect, weather is what you get"


AB1

you have never understood what I am objecting to Muaddib... I am certain that you believe what you are posting and I have no problem with that...I am objecting to the notion that you push that you and your "data" are right and somehow the other scientists working specifically in this field are wrong. Considering the sheer number of scientists who have come out and said that global warming is caused (or aggravated) by human activity, i find that highly unlikely. I have said repeatedly that you might be right..... but again I doubt it... your data is too disparate and does not present a unified argument like the data supporting the human causes for global warming seems to do.