the supreme court rules ...

[DemonKnight]

You have no clue what you are talking about. CO2 levels have been much, much higher in the past than they are now.

 

Unless, of course, you believe that the chart shows the entire timeline of the history of the Earth and the planet is only 400,000 years old...

 

 

Prove it. I think 400,000 years is a nice sample size...

[bushwacked]

Wait...bushwhacked is a 17-year old female going to class? Hawt.

 

 

 

I like corvettes and guys with small peeners.

[TimC]

I like corvettes and guys with small peeners.

 

 

Nice!

 

Meet me at the outside the dining hall at 8....I'll be the one in the raincoat and Star Trek tatoos. Hawt.

[bushwacked]

Nice!

 

Meet me at the outside the dining hall at 8....I'll be the one in the raincoat and Star Trek tatoos. Hawt.

 

 

 

Meet you there!

[Bronco Billy]

Prove it. I think 400,000 years is a nice sample size...

 

 

link to article

 

link to chart

 

 

Changes in carbon dioxide during the Phanerozoic (the last 542 million years). The recent period is located on the left-hand side of the plot, and it appears that much of the last 550 million years has experienced carbon dioxide concentrations significantly higher than the present day.

 

Welcome to the party. There are numerous sources out there that show the same thing.

Edited April 4, 2007 by Bronco Billy

[Bronco Billy]

Wow. I'm not sure if it was the introduction of a few facts into the discussion or bushwacked talking about his love of small peeners, but this thread sure got quiet in a hurry...

[Bill Swerski]

Wow. I'm not sure if it was the introduction of a few facts into the discussion or bushwacked talking about his love of small peeners, but this thread sure got quiet in a hurry...

 

I'm still waiting for somebody to provide uncertainties for these CO2 measurements. Are we to believe that scientists can measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 200,000 years ago to +/- 1% accuracy?

[Ursa Majoris]

Let me ask you a couple of simple questions:

 

1) Have historical CO2 levels ever been as high or higher than they are currently?

 

2) Is there any proof that higher CO2 levels are harmful to the environment? Is there any proof that higher CO2 levels are beneficil to the environment?

 

I think it would be useful if you'd admit that you completely missed what the chart said prior to your little rant but let's leave that aside just for now. One of the main points you were making (and this point is made over and over by people on your side of the argument) is that there are natural cycles in the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. That is absolutely true and completely born out by the chart. However, it would seem that the cycles are very similar over a period of a half million years - until now. I would suggest that it is not so much the absolute level that is of interest, although the level is indeed at a historical high for the past 500,000 years, but the rate at which it got there. To go from 280 to 377 in just a hundred years is utterly unprecedented in this time scale and it therefore points directly at the activities of the industrial age.

 

As for whether the level of CO2 is harmful or beneficial, I do not know. All I was doing was pointing out what the levels is / were and the rate of increase.

 

I'm still waiting for somebody to provide uncertainties for these CO2 measurements. Are we to believe that scientists can measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 200,000 years ago to +/- 1% accuracy?

 

Don't know. Can they be measured to within 30% accuracy might be a more interesting question because that is the departure of 377 from the more normal cyclical high of ~280.

[Bronco Billy]

I think it would be useful if you'd admit that you completely missed what the chart said prior to your little rant but let's leave that aside just for now. One of the main points you were making (and this point is made over and over by people on your side of the argument) is that there are natural cycles in the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. That is absolutely true and completely born out by the chart. However, it would seem that the cycles are very similar over a period of a half million years - until now. I would suggest that it is not so much the absolute level that is of interest, although the level is indeed at a historical high for the past 500,000 years, but the rate at which it got there. To go from 280 to 377 in just a hundred years is utterly unprecedented in this time scale and it therefore points directly at the activities of the industrial age.

 

As for whether the level of CO2 is harmful or beneficial, I do not know. All I was doing was pointing out what the levels is / were and the rate of increase.

 

 

 

That's a fair, honest, and reasonable answer.

 

[McBoog]

...I can find a climatologist who has world wide acclaimed expertise & is not more than 70 miles from here who would tell you otherwise. There are literally thousands of scientists who do not draw the same conclusions that Gore & company do. They are in the minority, but it is not an overwhelming minority by any means...

 

 

Exactly right. Many of these counter arguments are driven underground by those who control the money/funding for research. Political correctness is as much a factor as anything. Disagree with these bozos and you are chastised for being anti-Bambi!

 

A scientist by education, I know quite a few people who do their jobs in a research facility, keep their mouths closed and feed their families. Do you really think that the dean at Cal Berkley wants his agi department saying that CO2 is good for agriculture? You think an underling in a Government supported facility is going to come out, risk lively hood and question his boss over what he/she feels are questionable conclusions? Not likely!

 

What about the cattle? There are opinions (probably by PETA and vegan scientists) that are making an argument that the methane produced by our enormous cattle stock is having a significant impact as well. Where does it stop? Jump on any agenda and scream environment and you will be heard. PC baby, just too PC.

 

I agree that it makes sense to reduce emissions and recycle! Common sense! But, try to argue that to a developing nation. You can't.

 

When I say "we" are doomed by our actions, I speak of "we the species", not "we the nation". Though "we the nation" can do better, the national mentality of the people and industry is doing a pretty good job of changing methods and practice. Better than most countries.

 

By the way, I hear it is going to get a little cold, The Day After Tomorrow!

[Bill Swerski]

Don't know. Can they be measured to within 30% accuracy might be a more interesting question because that is the departure of 377 from the more normal cyclical high of ~280.

 

That's exactly what I was thinking.

 

I found an interesting analysis that discusses "data massaging" (something that scientists, unfortunately, do all of the time) with regard to temperature analysis and ignored issues in polar ice cap CO2 measurements. I don't necessarily agree with this person's analysis, but it's definitely food for thought.

[TimC]

Bushwacked...does this smell like chloroform to you? :heart:

[bushwacked]

I'm still waiting for somebody to provide uncertainties for these CO2 measurements. Are we to believe that scientists can measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 200,000 years ago to +/- 1% accuracy?

 

 

 

This chart was part of a journal write up, I don't know if it specifically mentions the accuracy of the readings....I'll try to find it later.

[DemonKnight]

link to article

 

link to chart

 

 

Changes in carbon dioxide during the Phanerozoic (the last 542 million years). The recent period is located on the left-hand side of the plot, and it appears that much of the last 550 million years has experienced carbon dioxide concentrations significantly higher than the present day.

 

Welcome to the party. There are numerous sources out there that show the same thing.

 

 

Okay from your article.

 

Carbon dioxide is manufactured mainly from six processes:[1]

 

As a byproduct in ammonia and hydrogen plants, where methane is converted to CO2;

From combustion of carbonaceous fuels;

As a byproduct of fermentation;

From thermal decomposition of CaCO3;

As a byproduct of sodium phosphate manufacture;

Directly from natural carbon dioxide gas wells.

 

So, which of these factors has increased in our recent history. We can rule out #1 because thier arent as many plants alive today then there were in 1900. Some of the spikes you can see on your chart can likely be attributed to volcanic eruption.

 

Really that chart is only significant from about 248 million years ago with the begining of the Mesozoiac era. That is when life becomes dependant on breathable oxygen and temperate climates. 2 of your 4 carbon level models have them roughly around 300-500 (hard to read that small of a chart). We have no way of knowing a dinosaurs or early plants tolerance to Co2 and heat. Prior to that, the Palezoaic Era (543-248 mya), life was restricted to the aquatic, insects and plants whicxh thrive on Co2. The only area represented on that graph in which the earth and the life on it even come close to what they are today is from 65 mya - present, the Cenozoic Era, The Age of Mammals. At that point in our planets history the Co2 on all four models are pretty steady at around 300 ppm. Linkage to a breakdown and explanation of the history of life on earth.

 

So if your point was that Co2 levels have been higher in our earths history than they are now then I concede. If your point is to suggest that our planet was inhabitable by the diverse ecosystem that now inhabits this planet when the conditions were thus then you need to watch more Discovery Channel. Its free. Use it.

[DemonKnight]

Wow. I'm not sure if it was the introduction of a few facts into the discussion or bushwacked talking about his love of small peeners, but this thread sure got quiet in a hurry...

 

 

I was doing some research to hold up my argument, unlike yourself. I agree with Bush... Will Cutler and Javon be #1 options at QB and WR next season?

[DemonKnight]

I'm still waiting for somebody to provide uncertainties for these CO2 measurements. Are we to believe that scientists can measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 200,000 years ago to +/- 1% accuracy?

 

 

Core sampling of arctic ice.

[bushwacked]

I know some of you guys heavily influenced by talk radio and like to use political/social conspiracy theories to dismiss what the experts are saying...but it's now a near certainty.

 

Rush's opinion + Bronco Billy's opinion + McBoog's opinion + an underwhelming majority of fringe scientists does not come close to equalling a scientific consensus among climatologists.

 

End of story.

 

 

Using their strongest language to date, the world's leading climate scientists are reporting today that they are basically certain that burning gasoline, coal and other fossil fuels has unnaturally heated the atmosphere -- and the effects are likely to last for centuries.

 

Their conclusions: Evidence of climate warming is unequivocal.

 

As report co-author Philip Mote, the Washington state climatologist, said in translating his fellow scientists' language about responsibility: "We did it."

 

"Scientists are pretty well done arguing about whether the warming in the last 50 years is related to burning fossil fuels," Mote said.

 

Researchers said they are more than 90 percent certain that global warming is caused by humans -- their most powerful assertion to date. And that conclusion was even stronger until last-minute maneuvering by China, whose exploding energy use stands to exacerbate the problem.

 

 

[bushwacked]

Bushwacked...does this smell like chloroform to you? :heart:

 

 

That's what cholorform smells like?

[McBoog]

Core sampling of arctic ice.

 

 

Thank You!

 

But does anyone see the irony of using arctic ice to establish this?

[TimC]

That's what cholorform smells like?

 

 

Smells like CO2.

[Ursa Majoris]

That's a fair, honest, and reasonable answer.

 

 

Thank you. I'm in IT so I'm no climatologist. What I do know is that there are things happening that have never happened during the period of humanity, which is somewhere between 400,000 and 1,000,000 years, depending on what you class as "human", I suppose. When I see spikes like the one on the chart, I perhaps leap to the obvious conclusion - that it is a direct result of the industrial age and therefore human activity.

 

It seems to me that while all facets of the data should be properly examined, it is not ridiculous to assume that the obvious conclusion is in this case the correct one - man is having an influence on the planet that is unprecedented in nature. There may or may not be consequences of this and if there are, they may or may not be catastrophic. Given the chance of catastrophe, I usually take at least some precautions against it. Reduction of these CO2 levels would be a good place to start.

[Ursa Majoris]

Exactly right. Many of these counter arguments are driven underground by those who control the money/funding for research.

 

McB, money would be a lousy place for you to hang your hat in these discussions. You must know that most industries fund so-called institutes and think tanks with smart, ecological names that are nothing more than front organizations dedicated to putting across the anti-global warming message.

 

Money isn't a reason for the arguments to be driven "underground".

[bushwacked]

Given the chance of catastrophe, I usually take at least some precautions against it. Reduction of these CO2 levels would be a good place to start.

 

 

 

Exactly, it is almost certain that human activity warms the globe and the consequences could potentially be far-reaching. So why not start seeing what practical measures we can use to reduce emissions? Unfortunately, this attitude often gets stereotyped by the right as a sky is falling mentality.

Edited April 4, 2007 by bushwacked

[McBoog]

I know some of you guys heavily influenced by talk radio and like to use political/social conspiracy theories to dismiss what the experts are saying...but it's now a near certainty.

 

Rush's opinion + Bronco Billy's opinion + McBoog's opinion + an underwhelming majority of fringe scientists does not come close to equalling a scientific consensus among climatologists.

 

End of story.

 

 

Researchers said they are more than 90 percent certain that global warming is caused by humans -- their most powerful assertion to date. And that conclusion was even stronger until last-minute maneuvering by China, whose exploding energy use stands to exacerbate the problem

 

I don't argue with any of this. I don't dispute what these guys are saying. Because I don't "agree" with you bushwacked :paranoidelitist: I am therefore against you, right? I does exclude vapor levels in the atmosphere that are even more influential in retaining heat in the atmosphere. A study that does not look at all factors in combination is basically flawed.

 

The same quote you sited is the same thing I am saying. It DOES NOT MATTER what we (the nation) do. IF we (the species) are causing this, we are pretty much fuggin doomed dipwad. You, we (the nation) and everybody else are NOT going to change their desire to achieve what we have already. Forget it. Our population in relation to he rest of the developing economies that have yet to experience their industrial coming out, is minimal. The pressure that the Chinese and soon the Indians will put on the world's oil reserves will be astronomical. All the legislation in the US is not going to put a catalytic converter on Prem or Ling's fossil fuel burning ride!

 

The US has basically been removed from the equation. Significant impact in terms of the planet lies in the direction and morality of peoples that we have no control over. Would this be something worth going to war over? Wow, the "Environmental Wars!" Now that is something we could get the elitist left to join in on!

 

Save a Tree, Kill a Human!

 

Yes, we need to smoke the peace pipe, hug each other and mate with the deer, but this does we (the species) no good if EVERYBODY doesn't play along.

[Bill Swerski]

McB, money would be a lousy place for you to hang your hat in these discussions. You must know that most industries fund so-called institutes and think tanks with smart, ecological names that are nothing more than front organizations dedicated to putting across the anti-global warming message.

 

Money isn't a reason for the arguments to be driven "underground".

 

And you must also know that if the presence of global warming and its effects on climate are diminished, the federal funding pool for the climatologists will shrink and their research programs will tank. Therefore, they have a vested interest in keeping the golden goose well-fed and healthy.

 

I'm not saying that they're fudging their results, but you need to keep this in mind. Scientists conveniently ignore data that contradicts their publishable results all of the time.