Topic: Global Warming

[Sherman Cahal]

Don't tell that to some of the privileged college kids that hear otherwise from their professors! I had a professor that clamored on for 20 minutes about global warming, and about half the class got up and left. Those were the good 'ol days before Al Gore.

[Boreas]

^Sounds like an IPCC scientist trying to save his ass after ...

One of his direct quotes:

A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.

That means that the other fifty percent of temperature rise was due to other causes: man made greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide and methane.

"Global warming" can have a "reversal", but the greenhouse gasses keep accumulating in the atmosphere.  You know what that means: when the natural cycle begins to warm again, it will add to the greenhouse effect and the next generation will see ecosystems be destroyed due to unnatural high temperatures.

[Hootenany]

^He is specifically talking about MDO's (multi-decadal oscillations) in the Atlantic Ocean when he refers to "these cycles."  That doesn't mean all of the remaining warming was due only to greenhouse gasses.  Solar variations would also account for a percentage of the temperature deviation along with the positive feedback systems that increased solar activity leads to.

Also, there is no experimental evidence that proves CO2 CAUSES an increase in global temperatures.  Just a bunch of unproven theories.  I hate that I have to keep reminding people of that.

"Global warming" can have a "reversal", but the greenhouse gasses keep accumulating in the atmosphere.  You know what that means: when the natural cycle begins to warm again, it will add to the greenhouse effect and the next generation will see ecosystems be destroyed due to unnatural high temperatures.

Give me a break.  The climate has constantly been changing for the entire history of the earth.  Ecosystems have been destroyed, shifted, and created since the beginning of time and I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

I never understood why, since we became so "self aware" of mother earth, we feel obligated to save every creature from extinction and every ecosystem from death.  Species go extinct for a variety of reasons and it's not always our fault.  That's not to say we should ignore our responsibility to protect the environment, but I don't think it's our place to decide which species survive while ignoring others.  We focus all our attention trying to save the whales, polar bears, dolphins, penguins, and manatees because they're "cute."  What about the lonely Tecopa Pupfish or Holdridge's Toad?

[shs96]

"Global warming" can have a "reversal", but the greenhouse gasses keep accumulating in the atmosphere.  You know what that means: when the natural cycle begins to warm again, it will add to the greenhouse effect and the next generation will see ecosystems be destroyed due to unnatural high temperatures.

Give me a break.  The climate has constantly been changing for the entire history of the earth.  Ecosystems have been destroyed, shifted, and created since the beginning of time and I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

I was watching something on shipwrecks in the great lakes last night and couldn't help but think what global warming supporters would be doing if they were living in the era when glaciers melted and formed these giant lakes to the north of us. 

[Boreas]

"Global warming" can have a "reversal", but the greenhouse gasses keep accumulating in the atmosphere.  You know what that means: when the natural cycle begins to warm again, it will add to the greenhouse effect and the next generation will see ecosystems be destroyed due to unnatural high temperatures.

Give me a break.  The climate has constantly been changing for the entire history of the earth.  Ecosystems have been destroyed, shifted, and created since the beginning of time and I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

You just lost the arguement

[gotribe]

"Global warming" can have a "reversal", but the greenhouse gasses keep accumulating in the atmosphere.  You know what that means: when the natural cycle begins to warm again, it will add to the greenhouse effect and the next generation will see ecosystems be destroyed due to unnatural high temperatures.

Give me a break.  The climate has constantly been changing for the entire history of the earth.  Ecosystems have been destroyed, shifted, and created since the beginning of time and I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

You just lost the arguement

No he didn't.  He is clearly stating that climate change occurs regulary throughout difrerent periods of time.  In fact, read the latest publications by the National Weather Service and Accuweather.  They are stating that we are in the midst of a cooler temperature regime presently, and that cylce looks to last for the next 10 years.  I will try to bring it back up. 

Do I believe in Global warming, absolutely not.  I have an undergraduate degree in Meteorolgy and Civil Enginnering from Valpo, so this arguement/debate can go on non-stop for me, and I can back it with sciemntific research and weather patterns, but I don't have the time for it.   Is there such thing as climate change...Yes!  The problem right now, and what is most frustrating to me in this debate is, we are in a period of slightly cooling temperatures due to the negative NAO (Northern Atlantic Oscillation) and positive PNA and on--going El Nino.  We began cooling in 2004, and the trend looks to continue. Please don't believe everything you read.  I have said it before, 89% of Global Warming publications are printed in the summer.  Does that tell you anything?

[Boreas]

You and Hootenany fill up pages on the internet by posting about side issues, non-sequiteurs and straw-man arguements.  You "refute" these "theories", but they are not the matter that demands attention and political action.

[tedolph]

I did not find it to be interesting or complete.  There is not enough metering equipment in the seas to assess temperatures at 3000 foot depths  (another budget cut by the Cheney-bush oil men).  He cannot reliably claim that he has a contrary explanation of why the 1990s were so damn hot.

Source for your claim that the Bush Cheney oil men cut funding for sub sea temperature metering equipment? I know for a fact that the U. of Washington started/completed a significant undersea monitoring system in the pacific although this may be more related to plate techtonics rather than temperature. 

[tedolph]

Good God:  "and the next generation will see ecosystems be destroyed due to unnatural high temperatures. "

And others will be created by climate change.  So what?

How many times do we have to say this.  The Earth gets hot, the Earth gets cold.  Has done so for millions of years.  Ecosystems come and go.  Seen any dinosaurs lately?   Deciduous trees in Antarctica not all that long ago.  Glaciers in Ohio in historic (pre-Summerian) times.  No more mega-fauna.  Seen any woolly mammoths lately?  Recent evidence says they were here only 6,000 years BFP.  We can and will adapt to climate change. 

We can not control the climate. 

You do not have a God given right to a constant climate. 

What am I missing?   


Boreal, we generally agree with the need for and desirability of developing zero impact energy technology.  There are many good reasons (economic, heath, etc. ) to do so.  Why try to sell that concept up with the specious Bogey Man of man made catastrophic Global Warming?

[DanB]

Boreal, we generally agree with the need for and desirability of developing zero impact energy technology.  There are many good reasons (economic, heath, etc. ) to do so.  Why try to sell that concept up with the specious Bogey Man of man made catastrophic Global Warming?

Gives him something to do between PETA meetings!

[Hts121]

We can and will adapt to climate change. 

I never bought into any extinction of the human race argument, so I totally agree.  Nor did I ever think that we would/could destroy the planet.  The late, great Geore Carlin had a good bit on that  -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Miv4NHsDo

(warning: profanity) - "the planet has been through a lot worse than us" - "the planet isn't going anywhere" - "it's a self correcting system"

The only concern I have is - at what cost will our adaptation come and how much of that cost could we reasonably avoid?  Given the coplexities of any worldwide measure (and in my mind it has to be worldwide), I don't think any drastic measures are practical now.  But I don't see anything wrong with people feeling strongly about the issue and speaking on the "potential" consequences of "non-action."

[X]

George Carlin was a brilliant man, but if someone on any side of an issue thinks Carlin agrees with them 100% then he probably is only listening to half of what Carlin said.  Carlin's quite right when he says that we can't save or destroy the planet ourselves and that if we mess up things too bad, the Earth will shake us off like a surface nuisance.  I for one would rather not be shake off.

[Scrabble]

Jim Carrey as enviromentalist guy, hilarious:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8tfuBIutLI

[tedolph]

"The only concern I have is - at what cost will our adaptation come and how much of that cost could we reasonably avoid? "  The cost will be moving some populations out of newly uninhabitable areas to habitable ones.  Depending on the polotics involved, the cost could be war, or economic boom times.  History shows that rational immigration policies related to economic refugees (e.g. Southern Europe in the 1910's, Mexico today-sort of) leads to economic growth.  Also, we really have better technology for dealing with these things today (better crops, refridgeration, antimalarial medicines, etc.) than we did in the past so there will be more time to adjust.  If things really do get warmer (I think they will get cooler) invest in Canada and Greenland!

[X]

Any activity that causes money to change hands leads to economic growth.  If we destroyed Manhattan and then built cheap concrete shelters in Jersey for those people to stay in that would be economic "growth".  Does that make it a good thing?

[tedolph]

Any activity that causes money to change hands leads to economic growth.  If we destroyed Manhattan and then built cheap concrete shelters in Jersey for those people to stay in that would be economic "growth".  Does that make it a good thing?

Not true at all.  It depends on whether the economically disadvantaged population is underutilized in their existing environment.  Obviously, not all economic dislocations are positive e.g. Greece in the 1950's, most of the flight from former communist countries.

[Hts121]

"The only concern I have is - at what cost will our adaptation come and how much of that cost could we reasonably avoid? "  The cost will be moving some populations out of newly uninhabitable areas to habitable ones.  Depending on the polotics involved, the cost could be war, or economic boom times.  History shows that rational immigration policies related to economic refugees (e.g. Southern Europe in the 1910's, Mexico today-sort of) leads to economic growth.  Also, we really have better technology for dealing with these things today (better crops, refridgeration, antimalarial medicines, etc.) than we did in the past so there will be more time to adjust.  If things really do get warmer (I think they will get cooler) invest in Canada and Greenland!

I am glad you are so certain of things that have not yet come to pass.  Just wondering, but do you ever consider the possible consequences if all you have said in this thread turns out to be wrong/innacurate?  I am not trying to get on your case, as I see you know 1000x more about the subject that I ever will, but it seems to me that you (like many on the other side) have closed your mind on the topic and fixed your position.  And that concerns me.  It is too important of an issue (either way you view it) to have our feet so dug in.

[tedolph]

"The only concern I have is - at what cost will our adaptation come and how much of that cost could we reasonably avoid? "  The cost will be moving some populations out of newly uninhabitable areas to habitable ones.  Depending on the polotics involved, the cost could be war, or economic boom times.  History shows that rational immigration policies related to economic refugees (e.g. Southern Europe in the 1910's, Mexico today-sort of) leads to economic growth.  Also, we really have better technology for dealing with these things today (better crops, refrigeration, antimalarial medicines, etc.) than we did in the past so there will be more time to adjust.  If things really do get warmer (I think they will get cooler) invest in Canada and Greenland!

I am glad you are so certain of things that have not yet come to pass.  Just wondering, but do you ever consider the possible consequences if all you have said in this thread turns out to be wrong/innacurate?  I am not trying to get on your case, as I see you know 1000x more about the subject that I ever will, but it seems to me that you (like many on the other side) have closed your mind on the topic and fixed your position.  And that concerns me.  It is too important of an issue (either way you view it) to have our feet so dug in.

You have a point that my mind is somewhat made up although I will look at any data (not opinions) anyone presents.  The reason is two fold:  i) we have millions of years of climate historical data about what is fundamentally a closed Newtonian thermodynamic system.  There is a huge dampening factor in that system and the human energy inputs are tiny-the future of a closed loop mechanical system is most likely to be similar to its past; ii) we have two experimental laboratories,Mars and Venus that we also have lots of climate data on.  Those systems show what is necessary to have divergent, open climatological feedback loops.  CO2 levels clearly do not (and Mars has lots of CO2) drive those systems- water vapor and methane do/did.  So the fundamental hypothesis of catastrophic global warming, CO2 is pretty clearly non-sense. 

Catastrophic Golbal Warming (i.e. Venus) requires that everyone was wrong and that the Earth is in fact an open loop system with positive feedback.  There is just not any evidence of that at all.  This was all looked at in detail in the 60's, 70's as the Mars/Venus data was comming back and everybody agreed neither Venus nor Mars was possible for Earth.  The most likely problem was Global Cooling (maybe Ice age) and that indeed seems to be a real possibility (natural cycle).  So, in short that is what I think.

I guess if I am wrong and Earth turns into Venus we all move to Mars and drive SUVs to terra form that planet!  After all, if it worked here it should work there!   

I think the real problem you have with my attitude is that it doesn't explain how if things are really so simple and already understood  in the 70's how do I explain the fact that  a number (I really don't know how many) of "scientists" still support the concept of catastrophic global warming in view of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 

That is a far more complex question. 

[MyTwoSense]

[tedolph]

Who's stupidity?

[Scrabble]

This guy has the best comeback images!

[sfisher]

we have two experimental laboratories,Mars and Venus that we also have lots of climate data on.  Those systems show what is necessary to have divergent, open climatological feedback loops.  CO2 levels clearly do not (and Mars has lots of CO2) drive those systems- water vapor and methane do/did.  So the fundamental hypothesis of catastrophic global warming, CO2 is pretty clearly non-sense.

You are ignoring the fact that it is trapped C02 that is thought to be a factor in the greenhouse effect. Mars' atmosphere is 1/150th the thickness of Earth's, making this a bit of a red herring.

This is also pretty interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

[Hootenany]

Who's stupidity?

I thought it was a pretty intelligent post...

[tedolph]

we have two experimental laboratories,Mars and Venus that we also have lots of climate data on.  Those systems show what is necessary to have divergent, open climatological feedback loops.  CO2 levels clearly do not (and Mars has lots of CO2) drive those systems- water vapor and methane do/did.  So the fundamental hypothesis of catastrophic global warming, CO2 is pretty clearly non-sense.

You are ignoring the fact that it is trapped C02 that is thought to be a factor in the greenhouse effect. Mars' atmosphere is 1/150th the thickness of Earth's, making this a bit of a red herring.

This is also pretty interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

You missed my point.  Mars once had an Earth like atmosphere and lost most of it.  See my previous post explaining this in detail.  It now has a substantial CO2 atmospheric component and that is not keeping it warm enough to melt the water ice at the poles which would give Mars a much denser atmosphere.  Point being that CO2 is not a very effective greenhouse gas.  Water vapor and methane are orders of magnitude more effective.  Every summer the Martian frozen CO2 melts- huge increase in CO2 and it has no effect on long term Mars global temperature which as far as we know have been relatively stable for millions of years.  It refreezes every winter at the poles leaving the water locked up.   If you looked at a graph of Martian annual temperatures and CO2 concentrations you would find that they track each other very nicely.   

The Wikipedia graph of Earth temperature and CO2 concentrations supports my contention.  The graph clearly shows that temperature and CO2 concentration are correlated.  The graph also shows that rising CO2 levels lag the corresponding temperature increases.  Thus, rising CO2 levels are a result of Global Temperature increases and can not be the cause.  This was well known in the 60's, 70's and I explain this also in more detail in one of my above posts. 

Look at the graph-pretty obvious isn't it?

Oh-to specifically answer your question, the Martian CO2 it trapped too.  It is a heavy molecule and can't escapre the Martian graviational field, just like on Earth. 

[sfisher]

The graph also shows that rising CO2 levels lag the corresponding temperature increases.  Thus, rising CO2 levels are a result of Global Temperature increases and can not be the cause.  This was well known in the 60's, 70's and I explain this also in more detail in one of my above posts. 

Isn't the concern that CO2 amplifies warming, not causes it, or has that changed since I was in school?

[tedolph]

The graph also shows that rising CO2 levels lag the corresponding temperature increases.  Thus, rising CO2 levels are a result of Global Temperature increases and can not be the cause.  This was well known in the 60's, 70's and I explain this also in more detail in one of my above posts. 

Isn't the concern that CO2 amplifies warming, not causes it, or has that changed since I was in school?

Look at the Wikipedia graph.  CO2 follows temperature very closely, no difference in amplitude.  There is one proof that CO2 really doesn't matter.  If you look at one of these graphs on a scale of 100's of millions of years this pattern is the same.  Again evidence that CO2 doesn't matter. 

[Blue Line]

The graph also shows that rising CO2 levels lag the corresponding temperature increases.  Thus, rising CO2 levels are a result of Global Temperature increases and can not be the cause.  This was well known in the 60's, 70's and I explain this also in more detail in one of my above posts. 

Isn't the concern that CO2 amplifies warming, not causes it, or has that changed since I was in school?

Look at the Wikipedia graph.  CO2 follows temperature very closely, no difference in amplitude.  There is one proof that CO2 really doesn't matter.  If you look at one of these graphs on a scale of 100's of millions of years this pattern is the same.  Again evidence that CO2 doesn't matter. 

If that helps you sleep at night.

[Blue Line]

I hate it when laymen act like they're scientists.

[tedolph]

I hate it when laymen act like they're scientists.

Not exactly a layman. B.S. Electrical Engineering and Applied physics. Also advanced degrees.   Want to stop with the Ad Hominum attacks?

[Scrabble]

I hate it when laymen act like they're scientists.

Not exactly a layman. B.S. Electrical Engineering and Applied physics. Also advanced degrees.   Want to stop with the Ad Hominum attacks?

Nice.  As a writer, I have to say that it's "ad hominem."  Your point is well taken though tedolf. 

Why doesn't anyone want to acknowledge the "hide the decline" Climategate scandal?

[tedolph]

I didn't do well in Latin.  Or English!

[Hts121]

Why doesn't anyone want to acknowledge the "hide the decline" Climategate scandal?

For me, the reasoning is similar to why I don't acknowledge the Roswell-UFO-Area 51 scandal.

Also advanced degrees.

In what field(s)?

[Scrabble]

Why doesn't anyone want to acknowledge the "hide the decline" Climategate scandal?

For me, the reasoning is similar to why I don't acknowledge the Roswell-UFO-Area 51 scandal.

I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat over global warming, but Climategate was real and "highly respected scientists" were caught lying and trying to cover up their lies.  Isn't that concerning?

[tedolph]

Why doesn't anyone want to acknowledge the "hide the decline" Climategate scandal?

For me, the reasoning is similar to why I don't acknowledge the Roswell-UFO-Area 51 scandal.

Also advanced degrees.

In what field(s)?

Law.  I am a patent attorney.  I deal with scientific/technological innovation and have done so every day for the past 25 years. 

Does it matter? How educated do you have to be to read a graph?

Obviously I have enough science/engineering/mathematics background to read a graph. 

Do you?

If so, what does the Wikipedia graph tell you?

P.S. your Area 51 comment is insulting. 

[kingfish out of water]

Why doesn't anyone want to acknowledge the "hide the decline" Climategate scandal?

For me, the reasoning is similar to why I don't acknowledge the Roswell-UFO-Area 51 scandal.

I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat over global warming, but Climategate was real and "highly respected scientists" were caught lying and trying to cover up their lies.  Isn't that concerning?

"Climategate" proved nothing of consequence, except that the laziest way to manufacture a controversy is to affix "-gate" to the end of something.