No Science To Support Climate Change

[Dr. B]

Snowing in Houston...

'nuff said

[TheScotsman]

As soon as some ball-less wonder starts falsifying evidence, and suppressing facts they don't like, just to justify their grants all their evidence is false until proven factual. To date that has not happened.

It started out global warming... when that balloon fails miserably, they change the name, hoping the sheeple will continue the koolaid. Unfortunately an all too common lib tactic, fortunately, the American public seems to have caught on, and aren't letting it happen. (like healthcare becoming insurance reform).

-14f here last night. I hate diesels, forgot to plug it in last night, so I got to stay home this morning. Not that I didn't enjoy it, but hell, this is the global warming algore's mind numbed climatebots promised me?!?!?!

[Tyler]

14 feet in one night with no front advancing over Minnesota? I call you on bullshit. Have you ever thought that YOURE the "sheeple" because you're ignoring the science behind everything?

[Dr. B]

It started out global warming... when that balloon fails miserably, they change the name, hoping the sheeple will continue the koolaid. Unfortunately an all too common lib tactic, fortunately, the American public seems to have caught on, and aren't letting it happen. (like healthcare becoming insurance reform).

that's your problem man: you think everything is about party lines and political ideologies. It aint right if it aint right-wing... right? Get a clue

[Click]

I hardly get involved in these threads.  I honestly don't know what to think about climate change.  I know humans and our emissions don't do anything to help the global climate.  Is that the main cause of global climate change?  I dunno.  If scientists are split between on climate change, clearly I don't know, not being a scientist.  I read articles that explain humans are at fault and half the world will be under water, yada yada.  Then I read articles like this, http://www.climatephysics.com/GlobalWarming/GWScience.htm

I hear two extremes and it would be ignorant for me not being a scientist which is actually studying this shit to pick a side,when the data we are given supports both sides of the argument.

[Tyler]

Humans are an INDIRECT cause, because we use factory farming and deforestization. As funny as it sounds, the cows are really to blame then the melting permafrost = methene gas galore

[Hippo_Master]

Yeah, i'm the guy on all the icebergs melting them down with a hairdryer. Eat me Ocean level (and california!)

[Pretender85]

Well, "technically" it can be said one way or the other about the weather changing..as the planet has had warming trends before...and for a quick fact check it's not "global warming" per se, the proper term is climate change...As for example, EVERY model test that has been run shows that the midwest of the US will indeed get warmer, whereas most of Europe will actually get colder. Either way, there is no definite proof that this climate change is due to humans..the reason scientists are so stressed about it is because the warming trend our planet is on now is the fastest it has ever increased in the planets history(as far back as we can tell). and the trend just happens to coincide almost exactly with the industrial revolution..which tends to raise more than a few red flags saying that dumping all that crap into the air might be having an adverse effect.

The key is, it might be the problem, and there's a chance(though likely smaller %) it might not be, but why risk ignoring the(rather obvious) data? If it isn't the cause, oh well..we made our air a bit cleaner..Whereas if it is the cause, hey, we caught the problem early and fixed it..much like the CFC problem back last century. We caught that early enough and what do you know, the ozone layer is almost completely repaired.

Also, for those of you who complain about really cold nights, you have to remember the climate change trend is read over a period of AT LEAST 30 years. a single day can be quite varying in weather, as can a single year for that matter..it has to be read as a larger overall average because our weather is very very unpredictable in the first place.

Either way I think it's something that really needs to be addressed. Anyone who doesn't believe me, go find yourself a meteorology grad or a department on a college campus. They will give you pretty much the same thing with data to back it up. I just hate all the fear mongering that people try to spread because they feel that climate change/global warming/whatever is just a liberal spin to scare people. Instead of blindly listening to what joe plumber tells you, go look up some real data and info on it and get the facts straight. Edited December 15, 2009 by Pretender85

[sjcrain]

If anyone is interested in reading up on an analysis of what the emails did/did not contain check this link: [url="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853"]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853[/url]

[Scoop]

[quote name='sjcrain' date='15 December 2009 - 12:51 PM' timestamp='1260910288' post='439325']
If anyone is interested in reading up on an analysis of what the emails did/did not contain check this link: [url="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853"]http://www.realclima...hack/#more-1853[/url]
[/quote]

coming from a global warming alarmist site this is a pretty biased reaction article about the emails.

not exactly a "what the emails did/did not contain", more like a weak defense.

[xnowandtheworldx]

Honestly I think its funny how ignorant people are when it comes to global warming, it simply DOES NOT EXIST. Mars is warming up too, is that caused by us as well?

I also find it ironic that when they were having their Copenhagen meeting that there was a snow storm and it was the worst they had in 15 years, or so I've heard, still need to delve into that, correct me if I'm wrong there.

[Dr. B]

[quote name='xnowandtheworldx' date='22 December 2009 - 04:49 AM' timestamp='1261478949' post='440932']
Honestly I think its funny how ignorant people are when it comes to global warming, it simply DOES NOT EXIST. Mars is warming up too, is that caused by us as well?

I also find it ironic that when they were having their Copenhagen meeting that there was a snow storm and it was the worst they had in 15 years, or so I've heard, still need to delve into that, correct me if I'm wrong there.
[/quote]

Dude you convinced me. How could I have been so foolish? Your comprehensive argument and supporting facts and information leave little room for dispute. I get it now!

Welcome to the serious discussion forum - this r seriouz bizness.

[LZ22]

I like how at first all the alarmists were trumping how global WARMING was a huge problem! Now, the rhetoric as switched to global CLIMATE CHANGE. Wow, theres a change in the climate?? Oh my, lets tax the hell out of everything that breaths! No shit climate changes. Climate has been changing since Earth had an atmosphere. Its gone way higher than it has now, and its gone to ice ages, and back up. Back in the 70's, everyone was freaking that an ice age was imminent and we were doomed; look how that turned out. Now, places are experiencing coldest weather in decades: must be global warming? Thats another thing. No matter WHAT happens, liberals point to global warming. Oh its hotter than average... must be global warming! Oh my thats the most snow our city has gotten in 50 years... must be global warming! Coldest June this state has seen in a century...must be global warming! Are you kidding me?

Remember last year after a few intense hurricanes, environmentalists were preaching doom and gloom about this years hurricane season and how global warming was going to make the storms so intense our coastal cities would be destroyed. It was the quietest hurricane season I can remember....must be global warming!

Unfortunately, liberals have made climate change very political. Their solution to climate change? Tax you as much as possible. Ya...thats going to change the climate all right... Cap and trade? One HUGE tax bill. Do you think the companies will just absorb those taxes? Doubt it...its going to be passed on to the consumer like me and you and we will see our energy bills skyrocket. And now, the US wants to pledge hundreds of billions of dollars to undeveloped nations to battle 'climate change'. Are you naive enough to believe that any of this money will go towards climate change in African countries where warlords control everything? Doubt it. Its all just to make our country look good. At your expense.

If our politicians and administration was so concerned with climate change, why don't they practice what they preach? Obama has to use his jet to fly to the corner has station for crying out loud. Think about all those 'carbon emissions' set off by the conference in Copenhagen. Al Gore can't even get his own facts right. He even claimed the core of the Earth is millions of degrees.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are there from natural causes. (Cows anyone? Hell, environmentalists even said that pet dogs leave a greater footprint than driving SUV's). Politicians also do not address that water vapor is a large greenhouse gas contributor...should we eliminate water?

And finally: Say global warming is occurring rapidly. Its not going to be like the movie The Day After Tomorrow. New York won't flood over night, Greenland won't melt in an hour. These processes will happen over a LOOOOONG period of time. Humans will have plenty of time to adapt to the changes. Nobody gives the planet earth enough credit. Hell, there use to be ONE continent! And they are still moving and shifting...California is on path to become an island in the pacific. Change happens...isn't that what liberals preach?

[blagage]

I am gonna go with this for the sake of conspiracy theory. ACTUALLY there are many well known scientists and meteorologists who have spoken out against global warming. The earths weather and heat fluctuates so YES there is global warming but it has lessened in the recent years and it is just a normal part of the earth. That being said there are many people making a lot of money off of global warming. Saying there is global warming, doctoring evidence showed to the UN, and forcing major companies to PAY to record their carbon output. there are many people who are going to make much money.

Any scientist who speaks out with evidence against global warming is harassed, fired, etc.. scare tactics basically

The man who was part of the UN, lead expert in climate and has been looking for anyway to start a new (not democratic) government is Maurice Strong. Global warming is Maurice Strongs way of controlling the united states in a more dictatorship government.

How can he do this you may ask. Well the answer is simple

If you control Carbon, you control the world.

Forcing everyone to check their carbon emmission can lead to how many people are allowed to be in a household, which is a limit on amount of children people are allowed to have, how much food can be made, how much people can drive.

This is essentially a complete control over human life... a Dictatorship.

Enjoy the conspiracy Theory.

[Crys]

the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence



ohh by the way....global warming = climate change.....not just stuff getting hotter


and really....why would anyone have an actual problem with investing in cleaner energy?...its not like going green is going to hurt anyone

[blagage]

[quote name='Crys' date='27 December 2009 - 02:54 PM' timestamp='1261943680' post='442023']
the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence



ohh by the way....global warming = climate change.....not just stuff getting hotter


and really....why would anyone have an actual problem with investing in cleaner energy?...its not like going green is going to hurt anyone
[/quote]

Those who oppose the theory of global warming and have evidence to support it are harassed. But they are completely not against cleaner energy. They are all for going green but are upset that global warming is being used as a means to make money and gain power.

[Sonthert]

I have a few Points I'd like to make, if I may.

Point One: I have read a great many books and collected a great quantity of information about the environment when I was younger. I have looked into this years ago. I have a degree in Chemistry and in Chemical Engineering. I have taken classes in meteorology and atmospheric chemistry. One of my chemistry specialties is in gas chemistry.

Point Two: Scientists in the 70s predicted a climate change, too. Except they predicted a new ice age. It seemed real, it was getting colder, the San Diego Chargers played the Cincinnati Bengals in the early 80s and the temperature, with wind chill was 70 below. It was not true then, it was a temporary cooling cycle that has passed and now we're in a warm cycle.

Point Three: John Coleman, weatherman for over 40 years, founder of the Weather Channel, has said categorically that the current Climate Change scare is bogus. He has a graph of the output energy of the Sun over the past 100 years or so, and showed the average temperatures and the graphs fit perfectly. The point that somebody made that Mars is getting warmer at the same time is a connection to the solar output causation. Areas of ice caps on Mars that were photographed previously years ago and then again more recently have shown melting and runoff recently, as well as other temperature data show that Mars has warmed up in the past 10 years. This is consistent with the Earth's warming trend and would add support to the argument that the Earth is warming up (and Mars) because the Sun is producing more heat.

Point Four: The record of weather data only dates back 150 years or so. Other methods for determining the temperature are certainly novel and interesting, but inconclusive.

Point Five: Carbon Dioxide is a minor Greenhouse gas. It accounts for approximately 2.5% of the greenhouse effect on the planet Earth. The greenhouse gas that is most responsible for global warming is actually water. Water is also a byproduct of combustion of fossil fuels. Of course there is so much water in the atmosphere, the amount from combustion is negligible.

Point Six: Humans are only responsible for a small fraction of the CO2 produced and the burning of Fossil Fuels is only a part. Humans produce something like 15% of the Carbon Dioxide. Presumably 200 years ago, we were producing 10% or so. A 10% increase on 2.5% of the greenhouse Effect is only a .25% increase. Volcanoes, for instance produce far more than humans do. A lot more. Presumably from the subduction of fossil fuels from the bottom of the crust of the Earth among other reasons.

Point Seven: Alarmists, if I might refer to them in the most friendly way possible, say that the addition of this or the subtraction of this is going to throw everything out of balance. There are few events in the History of the Earth that have caused this. The Earth has a number of systems that balance the overall picture out. During the Ozone hole scare, people were saying the Ozone Depletion was going to destroy the Ozone Hole forever. Its not well publicized, but since the abolition of Chloro-Fluorocarbons, the Ozone Layer has bounced back recently. The Alarmists in that one didn't know of any mechanism to replenish the Ozone Layer in the Earth's Atmosphere. As somebody pointed out, absence of evidence...So, the Earth replenishes the Ozone Layer, although we didn't know it. Its a balance. Obviously, stopping using cholor-fluorocarbons was a smart idea. We can use other things that won't harm the Ozone layer just as effectively. There are several mechanisms the Earth has to balance the temperature on the Earth. The Global Warming Scientists know this but neglect to mention it.

Point Eight: I recycle and reuse more than anybody else I know. I am not an environmentalist, per se, but I do believe in conservation (and not in the Republican manner). I waste as little as possible. I take sheets of computer paper that have one printed side and use them for scrap paper, I reuse plastic cups so I don't use disposable cups. I reuse cloth towels instead of wasting paper towels. 78% of my lightbulbs (in terms of lumens) are energy-saving compact fluorescents. Nobody made me do this, nobody gave me a cheap deal on some energy-saving light bulbs. I chose to do this without any encouragement. I don't use hot water, only cold water, because it takes more energy to make hot water. I don't use plastic forks, plastic bottles or paper plates (if it can be avoided). I use metal forks, metal plates (since they last longer and would have been trash anyways) and biodegradable bottles. I am an absolutely humorless conservationalist. I could go on for several hours about what I do to conserve resources and energy. On the other hand, I don't push my beliefs off on other people. If you throw something in the garbage, thats your choice.

Point Nine: Nobody has shown evidence to support global warming. Quite the contrary. If you follow the logical circuit of "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore, he shows a correlation between Carbon Dioxide Levels and Global Temperature. However, a causation isn't established. It could be true, but there isn't proof offered by the best authoritative sources on global warming that I read up on. It could be, on the other hand, that increasing temperatures increase Carbon Dioxide Levels (Opposite to what is presented as a fact) and still see the same correlation. They insist, without proof, much like conspiracy theorists do, that the correlation connects the way they want it to...Carbon Dioxide Levels increase temperature. In point Carbon Dioxide does, but quite weakly above certain concentrations which we are most certainly in the middle of. The studies offer an increase of 1-2.5C with a doubling of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. If humans are only contributing a fifth the current number, we would have to increase human Carbon Dioxide Emissions by a factor of 14 over our current levels to see that 1-2.5C increase. Understanding of course, that the three studies don't agree on the amount of temperature increase. Two would predict a 1-1.5C increase while the third is more extreme and predicts a higher increase (~2.5C). Refer now to my Point three.

Point Ten: I have made a personal observation that people who know what they are talking about and seek merely to inform are not intent on making people do what they want them to. People that trot out a series of points and then say "Now you should do what I say is best." have ulterior motives. Global warming is fine, to a point, when you start trotting out carbon credits and banning plasma TVs and incandescent light bulbs, then I'm suspicious of the motives and then in turn, the information presented to "lay the foundation" for changing national policy. I would also contest the "Absence of evidence is not..." when it applies to good sense or sound reasoning. If somebody can't lay out the facts and prove their point effectively, its because they can't. In terms, not being able to is evidence of absence. Abstract principles included.

Point Eleven:
I haven't been convinced yet. I don't believe Global Warming is true (under current circumstances), I think that the "perfectly" fit curve of solar output matching the temperature of the planet is far more convincing. I am suspicious of people that follow up information with vague threats about whats going to happen in 40 years.

Point Twelve: I am of the opinion that people should be informed if a scientist or a group of scientists have a concern or a worry. When it comes to national policy change, I think the burden of proof is higher. Clearly, the Cholor-fluorocarbon emissions were something to worry about. The chemistry is incontrovertible. I was skeptical due the extent of the horrific prognostications made. They were, indeed wrong. I do believe that if we can do X while producing less CO2, NO2, SO2, CH4 or what have you, we should do it, if the risks or benefits are proportionately large to the amount of costs involved in changing over. Global Warming Advocates have failed to make their point thus far, they are operating primarily on sensationalism, shady science and scare tactics. Then they try to institute policy change for the planet. Of this, I am skeptical even moreso and call their intentions into question. I would rank in more with the conservatives on this point...there is an agenda that is being pursued and I would stop short of presuming to know what that is, but I would wager it has something to do with controlling consumption of fossil fuels by developing nations or protecting the First World's interests, to keep our business interests strong and diminish theirs. There goes the liberal in me.

Point Thirteen: I would also say that any people who would claim that a person that doesn't believe in global warming doesn't know anything about meteorology is a dilettante. First off, it would be the study of atmospheric chemistry, not of meteorology. Second off, it is not accepted as fact, and in ten years I think you will find that news of our impending doom is greatly overstated.

Point fourteen: In terms of empirical observations, the Industrial Revolution began in the mid-1700s. In that same time span, we were burning wood and coal and producing tons of heavy pollutants, far more per Joule of energy being produced than we produce now. Despite this, a cold period was ending. The cold period peaked out in 1816, better known as the year without a summer. Almanacs show that it snowed several places in the United states on July 4th, 1816. Sheep froze to death in the summertime after they were normally sheared at the beginning of summer. Why is this important? wouldn't a steady increase of CO2 produce a steady increase of temperatures over 400 years? Sure. It didn't. At the same time, 1816 was caused by the eruptions of several volcanoes in 1814 and 1815.

Point fifteen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Note that global temperatures varied as an anomaly by up to 1C below "normal" our current temperatures are somewhere around .8C above normal. This would indicate the anomaly isn't too far out of the norm for the planet Earth. If we were to get to temperature averages around say 2C above normal, then we might consider something was amiss.

Point Sixteen: It has been established, not conclusively, but reasonably, that Greenland up until the early 1400s or so was largely covered not by ice, but by grass and Nordic settlers raised sheep that grazed on this grass. Sheep have hard time surviving without grass in that time period, but in terms of the Nordic colony on Greenland, they were largely independent and received few shipments, yet they raised sheep for at least 50 years. After awhile, research shows that instead of subsisting on mutton, they were existing primarily on seal meat (from their "leavings"), indicating that the grazing land presumably froze over year round and sheep were no longer feasible to raise. Shortly thereafter, the colony disappeared.

Point Seventeen: Looking at the average temperatures, from Point 15, we see that it was quite cold, relatively speaking, but not too much in terms of the 1400s. If it was primarily an anomalous temperature of -.3C that is threshold between Greenland having ice year-round and Greenland not having ice year-round, we would expect Greenland not to have ice right now. Along similar lines, we would expect there to be less ice on Antarctica, which is exactly what we are seeing as the temperature swings back above that temperature, melting ice. This could be just as easily be explained by normal cycles of the climate, since the variances are still quite slight. There is nothing to suggest that the temperature changes are abnormal...yet. The CO2 level is abnormally high, but if the studies done on the matter are right, it will have only a small impact on the global temperature...maybe imperceptible. We are not out of or nearly out of a normal temperature range for our Planet.

Point Eighteen: The Earth is largely a closed system. Cosmic rays, comets and meteors have contributed some material to our planet, but a relatively minuscule amount. The CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels, the fossil fuels come from subducted and compressed plant and animal material. The plant and animal material came from eating/producing carbohydrates when they were alive. The carbohydrates came from plants by breathing in CO2 principally. So, we are releasing CO2 into the air by burning fossil fuels that used to be in the atmosphere 200,000 years ago or so. The planet didn't die then. It won't die now. There may be some short-term effects due to the large increase in CO2, but not appreciably over the long term.

Point Nineteen: Much has been made about the damage to plants and animal species from the change in climate. This is not overblown by any means. If the climate change is not principally caused by humans, then our ability to save them is likely quite limited. More than 99% of the species that ever lived on Earth have already become extinct. Extinction is a reality at any time. Short-term changes might put stress on a species, kill ones that were weak to begin with. We should focus our efforts, as appropriate, on the species that are due to short-term changes and not weak or endangered to begin with. So, I guess I'm arguing that endangered species should be evaluated to see if their condition is due to inevitable extinction or due to short-term human meddling and then protect the ones that can be saved. The dodo bird is well known to have gone extinct. We were never sure why. It seems from newer research that the dodo bird fed primarily on a certain bush. That bush went extinct, the dodo never recovered. It was doomed.

Point Twenty: If we really knew that global warming was occurring, a sane pursuit would be to deal with the effects of global warming. If we aren't sure of the cause, it would be more sensible to deal with the effects, since we know what those are going to be. If we were to approach the problem by stopping the cause, and we were wrong about the cause and neglected to prepare for the eventualities, we would have wasted our efforts. Therefore, the cause of global warming is irrelevant in the first place. If we know its occurring, we should be preparing for the effects. If the global warming people are honest and sincere, then they would be pursuing solving what the global warming is going to affect rather than risking being wrong by going after the causes. Therefore, I would further conclude that they know global warming isn't occurring at all, they aren't just innocently mistaken and they are using the hype to further their own agendas.

Point Twenty-One: The efforts to combat global warming are useful in another arena, the depletion of non-renewable petroleum products. We need, as an intelligent race, to address declining reserves of petroleum. Most of the initiatives to combat global warming also address a reduced dependence on petroleum products. This is quite good. I, on the other hand, can not tolerate insincerity or deception, no matter how positive the effects might be. We have to address the problem correctly, honestly and in obvious manner.

[Sonthert]

Oh, by the way, I am a staunch liberal. I have voted democrat every year since I could vote. I voted for Al Gore.

[Bulldog_916]

I voted for natural gas. Just ate some beans a little bit ago. :-D I think it'll be the solution to at least half of the energy issue. We got so much of it it's practically coming out of our ears.

[blagage]

[size="7"]SCIENCE
[/size]

[Stuie]

[url="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm"]No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds[/url]

I would also like to point out that scientists have concluded there have been at least 5 "Ice Ages" on Earth. The last one being 20,000 years ago. Long before man the Industrial age for sure.

[Sonthert]

[quote name='Stuie' date='31 December 2009 - 01:49 PM' timestamp='1262292562' post='442758']
[url="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm"]No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds[/url]

I would also like to point out that scientists have concluded there have been at least 5 "Ice Ages" on Earth. The last one being 20,000 years ago. Long before man the Industrial age for sure.
[/quote]

Interesting read.

Two things could explain that, depending on which side of the fence you line up on.

The Pro-anthropogenic Global warming side could argue that the study didn't go back far enough and that the oceans were reaching a tipping point.

The anti-anthropogenic Global Warming Side could applaud it and say the Global Warming side is wrong.

Personally, I would say since man is responsible for a minority of the CO2 emitted on Earth, I would say it falls into line with my thoughts about the ability of the Earth to compensate for some changes in the biosphere and that a large increase would be necessary for the increase of atmospheric CO2 to the point that the climate would be even slightly changed. The pro-side, however is arguing that the oceans have reached a saturation point and that increases in temperature are threatening to break loose a bubble of methane from the floors of the oceans, trapped by cooler, denser seawater. I have not had time or inclination to evaluate this. There are analogous situations we observe in smaller systems, like "Killer Lakes" in Africa. I would have hoped that true science would lay everything out at first, having researched everything carefully and not keep adding late information to the argument. Science shouldn't be offering seemingly apologist information to support things that are contested.

Also, at the risk of plugging holes in my own argument, but to be completely fair and above board, John Coleman also attributes the Global Warming scare to the attempt to turn the United States into a socialist country. Kinda Alex Jones-ish and conspiracy-minded.

I think, if you'll forgive some fanciful speculation that the pro-global warming people are trying to scare people to put into place a series of legislations to address the declining reserves of petroleum. Obviously, coal can be used to run power plants. We're not short of electricity. What we are short on is transportation fuel. Converting supertankers, bulldozers and massive freighters to run on coal seems crazy on the face of it (but not impossible). There is no effective or feasible way to store electricity on such a scale as necessary to convert power energy to transportation energy. That is, batteries aren't going to bridge the gap. Hydrogen is a joke, methanol is terrible. Those are the best things we got going to convert them. So, initiatives must be put into place to limit the use of petroleum to transportation and require companies or processes that can use coal or other appropriate energy fuels to operate to do so. In short, we can't keep using natural gas and oil to run power plants and factories. Also, synthetic chemistry is predicated on petroleum. You can't substitute coal or biomass into the equation (yet?). Pesticides, and the chemical world that makes up the basis for our modern world currently needs petroleum to run. Bottom line. Everything Gore is saying is good for the future is necessary. He's using faulty science to prove it. On the other hand, we're being treated like idiots because they believe we can't face the truth and we can't see the end of the automobile and airplane travel.

[Rani]

[quote name='Sonthert' date='31 December 2009 - 01:42 PM' timestamp='1262295744' post='442771']
[quote name='Stuie' date='31 December 2009 - 01:49 PM' timestamp='1262292562' post='442758']
[url="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm"]No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds[/url]

I would also like to point out that scientists have concluded there have been at least 5 "Ice Ages" on Earth. The last one being 20,000 years ago. Long before man the Industrial age for sure.
[/quote]

Interesting read.

Two things could explain that, depending on which side of the fence you line up on.

The Pro-anthropogenic Global warming side could argue that the study didn't go back far enough and that the oceans were reaching a tipping point.

The anti-anthropogenic Global Warming Side could applaud it and say the Global Warming side is wrong.

Personally, I would say since man is responsible for a minority of the CO2 emitted on Earth, I would say it falls into line with my thoughts about the ability of the Earth to compensate for some changes in the biosphere and that a large increase would be necessary for the increase of atmospheric CO2 to the point that the climate would be even slightly changed. The pro-side, however is arguing that the oceans have reached a saturation point and that increases in temperature are threatening to break loose a bubble of methane from the floors of the oceans, trapped by cooler, denser seawater. I have not had time or inclination to evaluate this. There are analogous situations we observe in smaller systems, like "Killer Lakes" in Africa. I would have hoped that true science would lay everything out at first, having researched everything carefully and not keep adding late information to the argument. Science shouldn't be offering seemingly apologist information to support things that are contested.

Also, at the risk of plugging holes in my own argument, but to be completely fair and above board, John Coleman also attributes the Global Warming scare to the attempt to turn the United States into a socialist country. Kinda Alex Jones-ish and conspiracy-minded.

I think, if you'll forgive some fanciful speculation that the pro-global warming people are trying to scare people to put into place a series of legislations to address the declining reserves of petroleum. Obviously, coal can be used to run power plants. We're not short of electricity. What we are short on is transportation fuel. Converting supertankers, bulldozers and massive freighters to run on coal seems crazy on the face of it (but not impossible). There is no effective or feasible way to store electricity on such a scale as necessary to convert power energy to transportation energy. That is, batteries aren't going to bridge the gap. Hydrogen is a joke, methanol is terrible. Those are the best things we got going to convert them. So, initiatives must be put into place to limit the use of petroleum to transportation and require companies or processes that can use coal or other appropriate energy fuels to operate to do so. In short, we can't keep using natural gas and oil to run power plants and factories. Also, synthetic chemistry is predicated on petroleum. You can't substitute coal or biomass into the equation (yet?). Pesticides, and the chemical world that makes up the basis for our modern world currently needs petroleum to run. Bottom line. Everything Gore is saying is good for the future is necessary. He's using faulty science to prove it. On the other hand, we're being treated like idiots because they believe we can't face the truth and we can't see the end of the automobile and airplane travel.
[/quote]

I don't want to thread jack so maybe send me a long PM, but why is hydrogen a joke? Is the way we're working with it a joke? Or is it's potential as a transportation fuel a joke? 'Splain pretty please.

'Rani

[LZ22]

[quote name='Sonthert' date='31 December 2009 - 01:03 AM' timestamp='1262242996' post='442674']
Oh, by the way, I am a staunch liberal. I have voted democrat every year since I could vote. I voted for Al Gore.
[/quote]

Very good points. As a staunch conservative, I actually agree with you!

I think people underestimate how powerful the Universe and Earth really is. When you take a look at all the cosmic radiation, astronomical energy from the sun, and how Earth has rebounded every single time since its existence, Man appears to be a very very minute part of the equation.

We are not even a speck. Man is insignificant and I don't think we can give ourselves that much credit to controlling so much of the natural order.

Earth is tiny...
[url="http://wienmandu.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/the-incredible-size-of-heavenly-bodies/"]http://wienmandu.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/the-incredible-size-of-heavenly-bodies/[/url]

Our solar system is tiny...
"If our solar system was shrunk to the size of a quarter, our galaxy would be the size of the entire United States"

Our galaxy is tiny...
[url="http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/papovich/courses/abell1689_print.jpg"]http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/papovich/courses/abell1689_print.jpg[/url]
Those are all galaxies and each one contains 10s of billions-trillions of stars each. This is a single galaxy cluster located 13 billion light years away from Earth. If you travelled the speed of light it would take you 13 billion years just to reach it.

Now the point of those is to put yourself in perspective. I don't think theres enough evidence to prove that man is significant enough to cause such drastic climate change on Earth when there are so many more factors in play that are just ignored.

[joytron]

A staunch conservative and a Led Zeppelin fan... Now I have heard everything!