What if global-warming fears are overblown?

[bpwallace49]

Mcboog, how is H8 denying that man has any change in the nvironment any different than people that beleive Al Gore?

 

They are both extremists, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle . . . .

[McBoog]

Mcboog, how is H8 denying that man has any change in the nvironment any different than people that beleive Al Gore?

 

They are both extremists, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle . . . .

 

I don't understand your point. Sorry!

 

Starting my Collegiate education in Botany and Ecosystem science and ending with a BS - Pre-Med, here is my viewpoint in a nutshell (as in the multiple past posts on the topic):

 

1) I have no doubt that man is causing harm to the environment and we should live as clean as possible.

2) I do not believe that CO2 has major, if any, driving force in climate change based on what I have seen from all sides, though I leave the possibility open. Only about 0.03 percent (three one hundredths of one percent) of the Earth's atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively). I am not a climate expert, but my background helps me to understand the science presented on both sides. I have seen no hypothesis properly presented or tested on either side. Just a lot of speculative argument. The "hokey stick" has already been abandoned because it was proven to be bad science/analysis. What next?

3) Doing something at the expense of creating greater stress on a world economy for "somewhere in the middle" seems extremely radical. The people that will be hurt the most by "going green" the way the radical left proposes are the poorest in the world.

4) The world will get hot and cold and hot and cold and hot and cold, with or without us. It always has and always will. Just ask Megaladon!

5) Warm periods are generally associated with greater plant growth / crop production and a cleansing of the atmosphere do to increased plant activity and growth. Is this really a bad thing?

6) Any position that is so intolerant of dissension from their position and unwilling to allow for other possibilities is a red flag to me personally. The Climal Warnging believers only allow you to agree with them if you agree completely with them, i.e. causal factors. I am in essence in favor of many of the technologies and goals of the "greenies", but my similar ultimate desires for a cleaner world are drawn from different pools of thought and studies, therefore I am the "enemy", because my method does not match theirs politically.

7) I am more concerned about the cause and effect of our actions, like polluting the sea with all the fertilizer being used to grow extra corn and stressing world grain markets. Do we really want a bunch of morons throwing "earth friendly" light bulbs in the trash and creating an environmental nightmare in the future with mercury poisoning?

8) I think actual poison like acid rain and chemicals being pumped into our air and water is much more of a threat to all life than CO2 ever will be.

9) Vehicle emissions are poisonous and we need to clean them. If you don't believe me, turn your car on in the garage, close the door and see how long you last before you start getting woozy.

10) Dihydrogen Monoxide must be completely eliminated!

[H8tank]

Throw this in the 'yeah, but what do they know' bin.

 

Report indicates solar cycle has been impacting Earth since the Industrial Revolution

 

Some researchers believe that the solar cycle influences global climate changes. They attribute recent warming trends to cyclic variation. Skeptics, though, argue that there's little hard evidence of a solar hand in recent climate changes.

 

Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest. A study from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth's climate. The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.

 

http://www.dailytech.com/NASA%20Study%20Ac...rticle15310.htm

 

Yeah, man is so powerful.

[H8tank]

:crickets:

 

As Congress debates global warming legislation that would raise energy costs to consumers by hundreds of billions of dollars, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has released an 880-page book challenging the scientific basis of concerns that global warming is either man-made or would have harmful effects.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Throw this in the 'yeah, but what do they know' bin.

 

 

 

http://www.dailytech.com/NASA%20Study%20Ac...rticle15310.htm

 

Yeah, man is so powerful.

 

Which is now going through a cooling type cycle, right? And yet the earth is warming up. Which was my point before.

[bpwallace49]

Which is now going through a cooling type cycle, right? And yet the earth is warming up. Which was my point before.

 

Dont confuse him with facts.

[H8tank]

And yet the earth is warming up

 

No. It. Is. Not.

[Avernus]

No. It. Is. Not.

 

I dunno...I walked around barefoot outside last week and it felt pretty hot...

 

........you sure about that?

[McBoog]

:crickets:

 

As Congress debates global warming legislation that would raise energy costs to consumers by hundreds of billions of dollars, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has released an 880-page book challenging the scientific basis of concerns that global warming is either man-made or would have harmful effects.

 

From link.

 

* Biofuels compete with livestock growers and food processors for corn, soybeans, and other feedstocks, leading to higher food prices. Rising food prices in 2008 led to food riots in several developing countries. The production of biofuels also consumes enormous quantities of water compared with the production of gasoline.

 

* There can be little doubt that ethanol mandates and subsidies have made both food and energy more, not less, expensive and therefore less available to a growing population. The extensive damage to natural ecosystems already caused by this poor policy decision, and the much greater destruction yet to come, are a high price to pay for refusing to understand and utilize the true science of climate change.

 

The IPCC cites as evidence of modern global warming data from surface-based recording stations yielding a 1905-2005 temperature increase of 0.74ºC +/- 0.18ºC. But this temperature record is known to be positively biased by insufficient corrections for the non-greenhouse-gas-induced urban heat island (UHI) effect. It may be impossible to make proper corrections for this deficiency, as the UHI of even small towns dwarfs any concomitant augmented greenhouse effect that may be present.

[Clubfoothead]

Pollution is Yummy.

 

I'm trying to figure out where one might find greenhouse gases in their largets concentrations? Who requires more energy thereby creating more greenhouse gas emmissions from power plants?

 

I swear, some of you don't even look forward when you are walking down the street.

[Azazello1313]

umm, I don't think you understand how the greenhouse effect supposedly works. it's gases way up to the troposphere, and throughout the whole atmosphere there is negligible difference in CO2 concentration. "urban heat islands" are about the same temp as surrounding areas during the day, but then they are significantly warmer during the night. that is because all the asphalt and stuff is retaining heat. if the greenhouse effect were causing it, the temperature relationship would be reversed -- the difference would be greater during the day, while the sun was shining, and the difference would be less at night.

 

here's the wikipedia page on urban heat islands. you'll notice the greenhouse effect is mentioned nowhere on the page.

[Perchoutofwater]

Coolest June in AZ on record since 1913!

[H8tank]

Answer 3 questions:

 

1. Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?

 

2. Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth's history? If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?

 

3. Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming were followed by ten years of stasis and cooling?

 

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?a...9075&page=0

[Avernus]

Answer 3 questions:

 

1. Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?

 

2. Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth's history? If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?

 

3. Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming were followed by ten years of stasis and cooling?

 

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?a...9075&page=0

 

 

I'm not real big on global warming....I have been interested in the topic and I still believe we need to clean up our way of living because it's just downright filthy in some areas of the world...

 

but I can answer #2...

 

the CO2 emissions that are occurring now are exponentially higher than they have ever been....dating back to the earliest point that the ice caps allow us to uncover....

 

I don't think we need to change our lifestyles due to global warming....we should do it to stop taking a big dump on earth..

[Bronco Billy]

Which is now going through a cooling type cycle, right? And yet the earth is warming up. Which was my point before.

 

 

Dont confuse him with facts.

 

Correct. The Earth is currently in a cooling cycle. This has resulted in the documented regular events called ice ages. In between these ice ages are periods called interglacials. By definition, the first part of an interglacial is a period where temperatures warm, followed by a period where the temperatures drop and the Earth falls back into another ice age.

 

The Earth is currently in the warming portion of an interglacial period.

 

Those are the facts. I hope it didn't confuse you.

[Bronco Billy]

the CO2 emissions that are occurring now are exponentially higher than they have ever been....dating back to the earliest point that the ice caps allow us to uncover....

 

Thi is not true. While CO2 levels are relatively high, there have been periods in the history of the Earth where CO2 levels have been much higher.

 

In fact, the only time in the last 600 million years that both atmospheric CO2 levels and mean temperature levels were as low as they are today were during a 45 million year period during the late Carboniferous to early Permian period.

[Avernus]

Thi is not true. While CO2 levels are relatively high, there have been periods in the history of the Earth where CO2 levels have been much higher.

 

In fact, the only time in the last 600 million years that both atmospheric CO2 levels and mean temperature levels were as low as they are today were during a 45 million year period during the late Carboniferous to early Permian period.

 

when was the last time CO2 emissions were this high or higher?

[Bronco Billy]

Answer 3 questions:

 

1. Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?

 

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?a...9075&page=0

 

CO2 is a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator, of temperture change. In other words, elevated temperatures result in increased CO2 levels, not the other way around.

 

2. Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth's history? If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?

 

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?a...9075&page=0

 

Because "scientists" who want to skew the data are willing to use what is an extremely short period of time (100 years, give or take) to "prove" their theory of global warming. 100 years is not representative of anything in regard to climate and temperture changes throughout the existence of the Earth.

 

3. Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming were followed by ten years of stasis and cooling?

 

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?a...9075&page=0

 

Climate models are notoriously inaccurate and often have been proven to have been designed by working backwards from a predetermined outcome to a very short previous time period that happens to fit the extremely limited data used.

[Bronco Billy]

when was the last time CO2 emissions were this high or higher?

 

Emissions by what? Plants? Animals? Tectonic processes?

 

Here's a pretty good table showing the CO2 levels and temperatures throughout the Earth's history:

 

Link

 

By the earth's standards, current CO2 levels are extremely low.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Bronco Billy

[bushwacked]

Because "scientists" who want to skew the data are willing to use what is an extremely short period of time (100 years, give or take) to "prove" their theory of global warming. 100 years is not representative of anything in regard to climate and temperture changes throughout the existence of the Earth.

 

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/articlefil...limatechart.pdf

[Bronco Billy]

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/articlefil...limatechart.pdf

 

Check the link I posted above, laughing boy. The data is a bit more extended.

 

Oh, and great thanks for underscoring exactly what I talked about in regard to the regularly periodic ice ages and interglacials that I spoke to earlier. That chart you provided shows exactly that.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Bronco Billy

[bushwacked]

Link

 

 

Good unbiased non-politicized scientific source.

 

Scientists and science writers have argued the term is used, by Milloy and others, almost exclusively to "denigrate scientists and studies whose findings do not serve the corporate cause," in the words of David Michaels.[10] In an editorial in Chemical and Engineering News, Editor-in-Chief Rudy Baum called Milloy's junkscience.com website "the best known" example of "a right wing effort in the U.S. to discredit widely accepted science, technology and medicine."

 

 

In April 1998 Milloy was part of the Global Climate Science Team (GCST), which was founded in part by ExxonMobil to work out a strategy to influence the media to "understand (recognize) uncertainties in climate science."[5] The Union of Concerned Scientists reported that Milloy helped develop the GCST action plan, which involved "invest[ing] millions of dollars to manufacture uncertainty on the issue of global warming."[5] In 2005, it was reported that non-profit organizations operating out of Milloy's home, and in some cases employing no staff, have received large payments from ExxonMobil during his tenure with Fox News.[6][3][5] A Fox News spokesperson stated that Milloy is "... affiliated with several not-for-profit groups that possibly may receive funding from Exxon, but he certainly does not receive funding directly from Exxon."[6]

[Bronco Billy]

Good unbiased non-politicized scientific source.

 

Oh - I've got it. If pro-AGW "scientists" use factual data from a period over the last 110 years, it's gospel, but if other scientists who can easily and readily rebut the arguments use factual data from a much longer time period (several millions of years) then they must be evil liars...

 

Good work there, Sherlock.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Oh - I've got it. If pro-AGW "scientists" use factual data from a period over the last 110 years, it's gospel, but if other scientists who can easily and readily rebut the arguments use factual data from a much longer time period (several millions of years) then they must be evil liars...

 

Good work there, Sherlock.

 

I think he was referring to ExxonMobil's tobacco industry like attempts to influence the public image of it's products.

[Bronco Billy]

I think he was referring to ExxonMobil's tobacco industry like attempts to influence the public image of it's products.

 

As opposed to the eviro-extremists and their attempts to paint a very false picture of man's impact on the climate?