Compelling evidence for Global Warming?

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Have you ever considered that the third rock from the Sun goes through periodic changes in climate that have nothing to do with the pissants that populate its surface?

Have you ever stopped to consider these scientists who have IQ's, education, and validity a little bit higher than you average Joe have factored in that variable before comming to thier conclusions?

Natural variability may be behind the changes, but human activity might also be to blame, scientists said.

At least this set of scientists is not dismissing that possibility. The geologic record certainly makes a case for periodic swings in temperature.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
In the '70's the same scientists who are proclaiming global warming now were the same ones who were crying about the end of mankind because of global cooling.

Leave it alone. Planet Earth can take care of itself.

How many of you believe that Mankind has the "right" to exist forever? Considering the age of the Univeerse we aren't even a pimple on the ass of time. If we cease to exist the cosmos will not implode.

Yes because the earth is a big ball of magic that has a consciousness and the ability to take care of itself.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Have you ever considered that the third rock from the Sun goes through periodic changes in climate that have nothing to do with the pissants that populate its surface?

Have you ever stopped to consider these scientists who have IQ's, education, and validity a little bit higher than you average Joe have factored in that variable before comming to thier conclusions?

Natural variability may be behind the changes, but human activity might also be to blame, scientists said.

At least this set of scientists is not dismissing that possibility. The geologic record certainly makes a case for periodic swings in temperature.

Obviously there are swings. This has been discussed. Scientists are smart. They take these into account.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: charrison<Only problem is for every scientist that says man is causing the warming, you can find one with a different natural opinion. There is no scientific consensus on why the warming is occuring.

These same scientist can predict the weather for next week, much less 100 years out.

.

This is just flat out wrong. I assume you are familiar with the National Academies of Science. NAS was created in 1863 by the US Congress, in order to provide advice to the goverment in scientific and techinal issues. NAS presently has about 2200 members, elected on merit in science. (Check their member list and you will recognise many famous names from many fields.) Thus, the NAS is an expert organ, and is reflecting mainstream (as opposed to highly unusual or highly controversial) science. Since NAS is the official scientific organ advicing the US government, the NAS has recommended the US government to curb greenhouse gases because there is indeed global warming. Along with every credible peer-reviewed journal such as Nature and Science. Sure you might find one waco outside the realm of scrutiny of other scientists to support some thoery of global cooling but he has no creedance among his peers nor the government.

As for scientists changing from one week to the next. Science is a method for describing how the world works. It's a self revising process. If you're looking for everlasting truths, science can't help you. Static systems like religion are much better suited for that.

 

[petrek]

Link

While I disagree with their dates as such, a quick skim of their website gave me the impression that they have some valid points.

D

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Have you ever considered that the third rock from the Sun goes through periodic changes in climate that have nothing to do with the pissants that populate its surface?

Have you ever stopped to consider these scientists who have IQ's, education, and validity a little bit higher than you average Joe have factored in that variable before comming to thier conclusions?

Natural variability may be behind the changes, but human activity might also be to blame, scientists said.

A new five-year research plan presented this week by scientists and government officials meeting in Washington, D.C., asserts that people clearly are agents of environmental change, though it is still unclear how much human activity contributes.

Sure sounds like they're just saying the earth is heating up at the poles, but they don't know why. Pollution may be 99% of it, or it may be 0.01% of it. The earth DOES go through natural heating/cooling cycles, and I've actually heard that the average temperature of the earth is slowly DECREASING. This study only deals with data collected at the poles.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: charrison<Only problem is for every scientist that says man is causing the warming, you can find one with a different natural opinion. There is no scientific consensus on why the warming is occuring.

These same scientist can predict the weather for next week, much less 100 years out.

.

This is just flat out wrong. I assume you are familiar with the National Academies of Science. NAS was created in 1863 by the US Congress, in order to provide advice to the goverment in scientific and techinal issues. NAS presently has about 2200 members, elected on merit in science. (Check their member list and you will recognise many famous names from many fields.) Thus, the NAS is an expert organ, and is reflecting mainstream (as opposed to highly unusual or highly controversial) science. Since NAS is the official scientific organ advicing the US government, the NAS has recommended the US government to curb greenhouse gases because there is indeed global warming. Along with every credible peer-reviewed journal such as Nature and Science. Sure you might find one waco outside the realm of scrutiny of other scientists to support some thoery of global cooling but he has no creedance among his peers nor the government.

As for scientists changing from one week to the next. Science is a method for describing how the world works. It's a self revising process. If you're looking for everlasting truths, science can't help you. Static systems like religion are much better suited for that.

Nice to paint those that disagree as wackos. I dont think you will find anyone here that thinks we should pollute
more. I would assume most people agree that resonable cost effective measure for pollution control should be put in place.

I dont buy that humans are souly responsable for global warming, we without doubt contribute to the warming of the earth. But the question that remains unanswered is how much. That is the question that has not been answered. Few scientist will say the earth is not getting warm, but few can agree on what the cause is.

 

[Random Variable]

Greenland is experiencing a warm spell unseen since the 1930s.

The warm spell of the '30's can be dismissed as an abberation, but the warm spell today can't? WTF? Oh, and another way to look at this data is to realize that there has NOT been a net increase in temperature over the past 70 years.

Satellite data show the greatest area of melt across its mammoth ice sheet in 24 years of measurements occurred this year.

How the in the world can you draw conclusions based on 24-years of data? How do you develop a baseline?

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Crimson
Seems like busmaster is more interested in calling people names than debating this topic... which points to his true motives.

Which would be what, to flamebait? Please. Personally I respect everyone here enough by default - until they prove otherwise.

I do admit to having political motivations (obviously) but they all stem from my frustrations over not only what good they have not done, but what good they have undone to the environment all because the Republican Congress loves to be in the back pocket of big industry.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/07/polar.warming.ap/index.html

For those of you with an open mind. Conservatives, tree-bashers, loggers, etc. - please, continue to dismiss, as you've always done...

Just because one is conservative doesn't mean that one's mind can't be changed on a single issue, given enough evidence.

 

[kherman]

To those of you thinking global warming is real, please come to CT and take your jacket off.

Actually, there's two sides to the story. If you look at old trees, a cyclical pattern of warming and cooling can be seen. It's slow though and these days, it appears we are in a "warming" stage.

Anyways...

 

[Tominator]

From the article...

Natural variability may be behind the changes, but human activity might also be to blame, scientists said.

In other words they do not know why.

And then it might be cooling off next year....

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Sid59
Global Warming is mostly due to the pollution and CFCs in the atmosphere, which can't go anywhere.

Global warming has progressively gotten worse. The Earth's population has progressivley gotten bigger.

If the tree huggers don't care for the Earth and push Grass Root Assemblies into Congress, who will?

Most people just don't care. That's the sad truth to it all.

This isn't very scientific, but I was curious and looked some stuff up quickly.

Mt. Saint Helens released 2,000,000 tons of Sulfur Dioxide: Link
There are 50-60 volcanic eruptions each year: Link
US annual Sulfur Dioxide production is ~11,000,000 tons: Link

Ok, so

50 eruptions x 2,000,000 tons Sulfur Dioxide = 100,000,000 tons of Sulfur Dioxide/year by volcanoes. Let's be conservative, and say 75,000,000. That's still more than 6 times the amount released now by the United States.

Let's get really bold and say, for sake of argument, that we've been releasing that much since, say, 1852. That's 1,650,000,000 tons for America over the course of our Industrial Revolution.

Volcanoes have released 11,250,000,000 tons in that time. That is, however, only in 150 years. Volcanoes have been around for billions. So, let's say that volcanic activity is fairly regular. Over 1 billion years:

Sulfur Dioxide released by America: 1,650,000,000 tons
Sulfur Dioxide released by volcanoes: 11,250,000,000,000,000,000 tons

That's 1.65 billion tons vs 11.25 quintillion tons.

We all know that the Sulfur Dioxide is staying on earth, because it can't go anywhere else. So over the course of a billion years, the earth was fine. Now we release 1/6,000,000,000 th of the amount of sulfur dioxide, and all of the sudden we're killing the earth. Does that make sense?

This is a serious post, and I want to see what you have to say. I'm not trolling here.

 

[busmaster11]

Chaotic,

Though I seem to recall that sulfur dioxide is one of those greenhouse gases that is much more potent than CO2 in terms of its ability to prevent radiant heat from escaping the atmosphere, in terms percentage in the atmosphere it is but a tiny fraction of the CO2 in the atmosphere, which is still around 1 percent or less, as I recall. By sheer volume alone, CO2 will do immeasurably more damage.

I do not how how the earth is in relation to its ability right now to recover from what we're doing to it. If we stopped cutting down trees and burning fossil fuels immediately, I think it will recover in time.

But it is very apparent the reckless and irresponsible manner in which we looted the environment, and the percentages of forests which have been cleared and the list of animals and plants which have become extinct due to hunting and loss of habitat.

Those SO2 numbers you've calculated may seem right, I don't know. But they are figures I faithfully believe scientists take into account before they tell us, that indeed, there is a global warming underway.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
Chaotic,

Though I seem to recall that sulfur dioxide is one of those greenhouse gases that is much more potent than CO2 in terms of its ability to prevent radiant heat from escaping the atmosphere, in terms percentage in the atmosphere it is but a tiny fraction of the CO2 in the atmosphere, which is still around 1 percent or less, as I recall. By sheer volume alone, CO2 will do immeasurably more damage.

I do not how how the earth is in relation to its ability right now to recover from what we're doing to it. If we stopped cutting down trees and burning fossil fuels immediately, I think it will recover in time.

But it is very apparent the reckless and irresponsible manner in which we looted the environment, and the percentages of forests which have been cleared and the list of animals and plants which have become extinct due to hunting and loss of habitat.

Those SO2 numbers you've calculated may seem right, I don't know. But they are figures I faithfully believe scientists take into account before they tell us, that indeed, there is a global warming underway.

What about the natural coal fires in china that produce more co2 than all the cars the US?

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
Chaotic,

Though I seem to recall that sulfur dioxide is one of those greenhouse gases that is much more potent than CO2 in terms of its ability to prevent radiant heat from escaping the atmosphere, in terms percentage in the atmosphere it is but a tiny fraction of the CO2 in the atmosphere, which is still around 1 percent or less, as I recall. By sheer volume alone, CO2 will do immeasurably more damage.

I do not how how the earth is in relation to its ability right now to recover from what we're doing to it. If we stopped cutting down trees and burning fossil fuels immediately, I think it will recover in time.

But it is very apparent the reckless and irresponsible manner in which we looted the environment, and the percentages of forests which have been cleared and the list of animals and plants which have become extinct due to hunting and loss of habitat.

Those SO2 numbers you've calculated may seem right, I don't know. But they are figures I faithfully believe scientists take into account before they tell us, that indeed, there is a global warming underway.

There are more trees on this earth NOW than at anytime in recorded history. You need to make up some other excuse as this one don't fly!

 

[busmaster11]

I'm not sure about that...

http://www.itc.nl/personal/coalfire/problem/china_coalfire.html

In any case, there's the occasional natural fire, but the vast majority would not ocur if it weren't for the mining.

Originally posted by: charrison
What about the natural coal fires in china that produce more co2 than all the cars the US?

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Tominator
There are more trees on this earth NOW than at anytime in recorded history. You need to make up some other excuse as this one don't fly!

In the Amazon basin? In Africa? In Indonesia/Sumatra/PauPau New Guinea? In any area in or between the tropics? Please. Show me some numbers.

There may be more trees on the pole side of the tropics, but if anything that's more evidence for global warming.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: Tominator
There are more trees on this earth NOW than at anytime in recorded history. You need to make up some other excuse as this one don't fly!

In the Amazon basin? In Africa? In Indonesia/Sumatra/PauPau New Guinea? In any area in or between the tropics? Please. Show me some numbers.

There may be more trees on the pole side of the tropics, but if anything that's more evidence for global warming.

I'm talking on earth. Besides, this subject has been beaten to death. Use the search option...

Did I say that trees can CAUSE pollution?....I just did!

 

[rgwalt]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Have you ever considered that the third rock from the Sun goes through periodic changes in climate that have nothing to do with the pissants that populate its surface?

Have you ever stopped to consider these scientists who have IQ's, education, and validity a little bit higher than you average Joe have factored in that variable before comming to thier conclusions?

Natural variability may be behind the changes, but human activity might also be to blame, scientists said.

At least this set of scientists is not dismissing that possibility. The geologic record certainly makes a case for periodic swings in temperature.

Obviously there are swings. This has been discussed. Scientists are smart. They take these into account.

Assuming scientists are smart is a poor assumption. Many scientists who speak out against global warming lose funding. Global warming is a hot topic, and if you aren't on the band-wagon, you don't get funded. The fact remains that global climate prediction is a science in its infancy. The climate models used DO NOT predict climate trends when run in reverse. These models are taylored to show warming trends. Furthermore, we only have 20 to 30 years of really accurate climate data to base our models on. We have climate data going further into the past, but to feed a global model, we must have accurate data, in 3 dimensions through the atmosphere, over the entire globe. At this point, I don't think we have the data, let alone the correct model, to predict global changes in climate for the next 10 to 50 years.

Scientists tend to selectively ignore problems or holes in their research. One reason why data indicates a warming trend is the "urban heat island" effect. Cities tend to be as much as 5 or more degrees warmer than the surrounding country-side. This is due to all of the concrete and asphault absorbing solar energy and radiating it back into the air.

However, if you are *reallY* worried about global warming, start throwing away more organic-based garbage. Send paper and plastics to the landfill rather than to the recycling center. In doing so, you are preventing the carbon in these items from ending up in the atmosphere as the green-house gas C02.

Ryan

 

[rgwalt]

Originally posted by: Sid59
Global Warming is mostly due to the pollution and CFCs in the atmosphere, which can't go anywhere.

Global warming has progressively gotten worse. The Earth's population has progressivley gotten bigger.

If the tree huggers don't care for the Earth and push Grass Root Assemblies into Congress, who will?

Most people just don't care. That's the sad truth to it all.

CFCs don't cause global warming. I'm not trying to put you down or to sound smart, but you are wrong here. This is a common mis-conception that we should try and disspell. CFCs do destroy the ozone layer, but recent publications indicate that the ozone layer is regenerating itself. Now, my question is this... If CFCs persist in the atmosphere for 50 to 200 years, and we stopped using CFCs only 30 years ago (more like 20), how can the ozone layer be improving already?

Ryan

 

[Sid59]

Nah ... the CFC trap the heat and doesn't let longwave radiation leave the upper atmosphere. Keeping the heat in.

The ozone layer is not regenerating, it's moving, so the hole appears to be covering or regenerating.

Of course, as mentioned throughout the thread, all expert opinions and data are skewed in some manor.

 

[charrison]

Linkage

While the world focuses its attention on more visible crises, China's underground fires are quietly consuming up to 200 million tons of coal each year. The fires spew nearly as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as do all the cars in the United States


.....
Some fires started naturally by lightning or spontaneous combustion, others as a result of coal mining.
.....

Deeper fires, some of which have persisted for centuries

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
I'm not sure about that...

http://www.itc.nl/personal/coalfire/problem/china_coalfire.html

In any case, there's the occasional natural fire, but the vast majority would not ocur if it weren't for the mining.

Originally posted by: charrison
What about the natural coal fires in china that produce more co2 than all the cars the US?

According to your link.


Linkages

Spontaneous combustion:
Spontaneous combustion is one of the most frequent reasons for coal fires. The term 'spontaneous combustion' means that coal can start to burn without any recognizable outer influence. It is caused by coals ability to react with oxygen contained in the air. As a result of the oxidation process the temperature of the coal starts to rise. If the temperature reaches a certain temperature noxious gases are produced such as carbon dioxide. Finally, if the temperature still continues to rise the coal reaches the flash point and starts to burn.

Spontaneous combustion depends, amongst others:

on coal type,
temperature,
availability of oxygen,
exposure to surface,
thickness of coal seam,
as well as methods of mining.

Linkage

By visual inspection one can easily tell that about 1/2 the coal fires are not caused by mining.

 

[busmaster11]

Charrison,

So whats the point? If you're getting technical, it still doesn't claim anywhere that it produces more CO2 than all the cars in America combined as you say. If you're trying to show that there are natural causes to many of the pollutants in our environment, go for it, because I've never disputed that.

My main point: Mankind is being very irresponsible with the environment and its natural resources. The US is the most prosperous country in the world, and we should be taking the lead in working to reduce that, and we're clearing not doing so.

My other point: There is a noticeable impact on the environment caused by man, and the evidence is increasing. At some point it will overcome the natural fluctuations in the climate such that even those of us with our heads buried in the sand will notice the trend. If that point ever comes, trust me - I won't be here celebrating, saying I told you so.