significant global warming is ocurring.

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUYYou assume that there is a human controling things(car or "global warming"). You don't know if humans cause it or can even effect it(good or bad).

CsG

What difference does it matter? Without going radical can't we help to lessen our effect?

Sure, some radical liberals want humans dead. (I have a friend that DOES want humans dead to protect the environment and animals. Usually this conversation leads to, "so set an example!" He gives me a retort, we change topics, and remain friends.

But, don't you act as a conservative and make such comments without at least acknowledging that we can help the environment. Remember, conservatives must and democrats do hold conservatives to a higher standard.

 

[irwincur]

Radicals just piss normal people off. If people want to get something done - common sense and cooler tempers usually prevail. People do not like to see Hummer dealerships torched even though they can't afford one. People do not want to see idiots burining buildings and attacking police at G-8 conferences.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Radicals just piss normal people off. If people want to get something done - common sense and cooler tempers usually prevail. People do not like to see Hummer dealerships torched even though they can't afford one. People do not want to see idiots burining buildings and attacking police at G-8 conferences.

Huh?!

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: irwincur
I'm wondering if anyone could provide any long term evidence?

Thought so.

Sure. Go to Glacier National Park. Look at pictures of all the glaciers from a century ago, then look around you and notice how most of those glaciers are gone and that the rest have shrunk tremendously.

Alternatively, look at satellite photographs of Siberia from 1972 and compare them to photos today. Notice where the permafrost has melted, causing over a thousand lakes to disappear, drained into the no longer frozen soil.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: irwincur
I'm wondering if anyone could provide any long term evidence?

Thought so.

Sure. Go to Glacier National Park. Look at pictures of all the glaciers from a century ago, then look around you and notice how most of those glaciers are gone and that the rest have shrunk tremendously.

Alternatively, look at satellite photographs of Siberia from 1972 and compare them to photos today. Notice where the permafrost has melted, causing over a thousand lakes to disappear, drained into the no longer frozen soil.

Text

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Text

Junkscience.com is not a credible source. Steve Milloy, its publisher, is not a scientist and published no scientific articles. However, he has worked for a number of front groups for the Phillip Morris company that attempted to deny the harm of tobacco. He's well known for spouting anti-scientific nonsense for whoever will pay him.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Id feel better if we knew why there was global warming in the past.

but we do!

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87
Id feel better if we knew why there was global warming in the past.

Yes, there was but never on the fastest rise in temp over shortest period as we do now.

Well once we figure why it happened before maybe we will get a better picture of why it happens. Right now all we know is in the past we have had global warming, global warming is happening again(maybe), and now we are supposed to sign onto the latest envrionmental movements economic ideas.

Until we can solve the puzzle of past Global Warmings it is pretty foolish to jump head first into something.

there are lots of known reasons for past global warming.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87
Id feel better if we knew why there was global warming in the past.

Yes, there was but never on the fastest rise in temp over shortest period as we do now.

Well once we figure why it happened before maybe we will get a better picture of why it happens. Right now all we know is in the past we have had global warming, global warming is happening again(maybe), and now we are supposed to sign onto the latest envrionmental movements economic ideas.

Until we can solve the puzzle of past Global Warmings it is pretty foolish to jump head first into something.

Or we could use moderation right now while we try to figure out what is going on. Better safe than sorry.

If we knew the reason for the global warming was indeed us. If it happened in the past something tells me we are not the direct cause of it.

Why curtail economic policies based on unsubstantiated theories?

So in 100 years we destroy our economy and continue to see temps rise then what?

"something tells me" --- hmmmm....thats a very scientific way of going about things!

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87
Id feel better if we knew why there was global warming in the past.

Yes, there was but never on the fastest rise in temp over shortest period as we do now.

Of course, we don't actually know that, but it sounds good to say, doesn't it?

Crimson, they will claim that we are causing the cooling, with all mention of the previous claims of warming forgotten and removed.

Think on this people: the Mt. St. Helens eruption naturally released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than humankind has released in the last decade. Krakatoa was 1,000 bigger than Mt. St. Helens. The mesas in the desert American Southwest were caused by massive natural coal fires that burned for hundreds of thousands of years. Global warming is not science, it is politics.

have you seriously studied the science surrounding global warming, or are you just stabbing with un-educated conjectures?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87
Id feel better if we knew why there was global warming in the past.

Yes, there was but never on the fastest rise in temp over shortest period as we do now.

Of course, we don't actually know that, but it sounds good to say, doesn't it?

Crimson, they will claim that we are causing the cooling, with all mention of the previous claims of warming forgotten and removed.

This post hints at the bogus claim recently re-iterated in Crichton's recent novel that science was claiming that strong and possibly dangerous global cooling existed in the 1970s.

However, the state of science of the time wasn't what Crichton and certain columnists have claimed it was. There was a cooling trend from the 1940s and 1970s, but there were no scientists predicting an imminent ice age (though the popular press got things wrong about science then at times as they do today) and we can look to the National Academy of Sciences 1975 report for a summary of the US scientific opinion, which was that we needed to obtain more data to develop a quantitative understanding of climate change.

In summary, there weren't any dire scientific predictions, but instead a request for more extensive data which we have been gathering for the last three decades.

 

[kogase]

Wasn't that Mt. St. Helens rhetoric a key talking point of Limbaugh's, which was then debunked? Chlorine released naturally is actually soluble and is rained out of the lower atmosphere, as opposed to chlorine released with CFCs.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Or we could use moderation right now while we try to figure out what is going on. Better safe than sorry.

If we knew the reason for the global warming was indeed us. If it happened in the past something tells me we are not the direct cause of it.

That doesn't follow. Effects can have multiple, disparate causes, and the existence of one cause doesn't mean no other can exist. For example, your bones could be broken by having a tree fall on you. That doesn't prove that a person can't break your bones.

Why curtail economic policies based on unsubstantiated theories?

Let's suppose that you're right and that natural variability in climate is much stronger than climate change studies have supposed, so that we can't observe the smaller effect of humans on climate. We still have two well established facts:

(1) Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are increasing rapidly in the atmosphere due to human activity. This is a measured fact.
(2) Any increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will change the radiation balance of the Earth and increase surface temperatures. This is basic and undisputed physics.

Human production of greenhouse gasses will cause global warming. There's no question about that. The only question that remains is how large is the effect.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Vic
Think on this people: the Mt. St. Helens eruption naturally released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than humankind has released in the last decade. Krakatoa was 1,000 bigger than Mt. St. Helens.

There are two problems with this argument: 1) your numbers are dubious, and 2) you're ignoring the cooling effect of particles and other gases released by volcanic eruptions.

The largest estimate for St Helens emissions I googled was 830,000 tons of carbon, so Krakatoa would be about a billion tons of carbon. That's compared to the 500 billion tons of carbon that human civilization has added to the atmosphere (albeit over a longer period than a decade), but I suspect that your source for St Helens producing more than human activity over a decade is wrong.

Volcanoes are a poor example for denying global climate change, since they undeniably caused such changes. However, what you ignore above is the immense amount of dust and sulphur gases released by volcanoes that cause global cooling. Global temperatures were over 1C cooler after Krakatoa's eruption and remained cooler for several years afterwards. The particles sent into the atmosphere by the eruption also produced amazing sunsets for years afterwards too.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Crimson
You must believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by yuppies driving SUV's.

This statement is nonsense, but it's obvious how a limited intellect might find it meaningful.

The temperature of the earth is approximately 500 degrees Kelvin. Let us say that "natural" temperature variation across the millenia is +/- 20 degrees for any given region. At it's worst, a 20 degree variation might make, say, Los Angeles barely habitable, or might create wintery conditions in the higher US latititudes, say, 9 months out of the year.

But if human activities were to add, say, only another 10 degrees of variation over the next two hundred years, that additional variation might put us "over the top". Maybe L.A. would become completely uninhabitable, or perhaps northern latitudes in the U.S. might be in continuous wintery conditions ("climate change" can raise AND lower temperatures).

So you see, it isn't whether human behavior has "more" of an affect than the natural world. It's that the affects can be addititive, and the additional effects caused by mankind may be catastrophic.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Crimson
You must believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by yuppies driving SUV's.

This statement is nonsense, but it's obvious how a limited intellect might find it meaningful.

The temperature of the earth is approximately 500 degrees Kelvin. Let us say that "natural" temperature variation across the millenia is +/- 20 degrees for any given region. At it's worst, a 20 degree variation might make, say, Los Angeles barely habitable, or might create wintery conditions in the higher US latititudes, say, 9 months out of the year.

But if human activities were to add, say, only another 10 degrees of variation over the next two hundred years, that additional variation might put us "over the top". Maybe L.A. would become completely uninhabitable, or perhaps northern latitudes in the U.S. might be in continuous wintery conditions ("climate change" can raise AND lower temperatures).

So you see, it isn't whether human behavior has "more" of an affect than the natural world. It's that the affects can be addititive, and the additional effects caused by mankind may be catastrophic.

And? Can you show these "additive" effects? Quantify them? Even conclusively identify them?

What say you about the global cooling bleaters? Seems that used to be the environut chant of yesteryear...

CsG

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Crimson
You must believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by yuppies driving SUV's.

This statement is nonsense, but it's obvious how a limited intellect might find it meaningful.

The temperature of the earth is approximately 500 degrees Kelvin. Let us say that "natural" temperature variation across the millenia is +/- 20 degrees for any given region. At it's worst, a 20 degree variation might make, say, Los Angeles barely habitable, or might create wintery conditions in the higher US latititudes, say, 9 months out of the year.

But if human activities were to add, say, only another 10 degrees of variation over the next two hundred years, that additional variation might put us "over the top". Maybe L.A. would become completely uninhabitable, or perhaps northern latitudes in the U.S. might be in continuous wintery conditions ("climate change" can raise AND lower temperatures).

So you see, it isn't whether human behavior has "more" of an affect than the natural world. It's that the affects can be addititive, and the additional effects caused by mankind may be catastrophic.

And? Can you show these "additive" effects? Quantify them? Even conclusively identify them?

What say you about the global cooling bleaters? Seems that used to be the environut chant of yesteryear...

CsG

it seems that almost everybody here is not educated about global warming, so it is pointless to debate it.

 

[conehead433]

Coolest May we've had here in South Georgia that I can remember. Probably averaged 10 degrees cooler. Turned my AC on on June 8. Every year prior I have turned it on by May 1.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JacobJ
it seems that almost everybody here is not educated about global warming, so it is pointless to debate it.

Especially since scientists can't seem to be consistent on it.

CsG

 

[NeenerNeener]

"Think on this people: the Mt. St. Helens eruption naturally released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than humankind has released in the last decade. Krakatoa was 1,000 bigger than Mt. St. Helens. The mesas in the desert American Southwest were caused by massive natural coal fires that burned for hundreds of thousands of years. Global warming is not science, it is politics."

I heard Rush Limbaugh say that one once. He's a mis-leader. I believe it is mostly carbon particulates and not carbon dioxide that are released by a volcano, right? Ignoring evidence of global warming is politics too. Oil companies have a lot of money to lose by us moderating our usage. Last I heard, they were the largest lobby in our government. Now we all know how misleading talking heads can be. So I won't throw out a statistic that I know. But I'll implore you all to research and post the percentage of produced gasoline is consumed by the U.S. alone!

The thing is though, I think are other reasons than just the environmental to act now to decrease our dependence on oil. You gotta admit we are way too reliant on the "texas tea". Anyone noticed how oil prices affect our stock market? Plus, why do we have to be such good friends with countries that have a lot of oil to give. Didn't we prop up Hussein in the 80's because he was willing to sell us oil independently from the rest of OPEC? Saudi Arabia? Venezuela? I hate having to be friendly with the leaders of these nations.

Besides, it's obvious cars pollute the air. Ever been to LA? Any f-tard should be able to tell that this is not good for our health.

Now excuse me while I go smoke a cigarette.

 

[piasabird]

We only have Temperature records for about 200 years. What kind of evidence you got of global warming. Since this is year 2005 AD and people have been around for at least twice that long, how can we measly humans claim to know what is really going on?

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: piasabird
We only have Temperature records for about 200 years. What kind of evidence you got of global warming. Since this is year 2005 AD and people have been around for at least twice that long, how can we measly humans claim to know what is really going on?

And I'm sure this question is prompted by deep humility for your natural surroundings and not as a pathetic apology for greed and over consumption...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
"Think on this people: the Mt. St. Helens eruption naturally released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than humankind has released in the last decade. Krakatoa was 1,000 bigger than Mt. St. Helens. The mesas in the desert American Southwest were caused by massive natural coal fires that burned for hundreds of thousands of years. Global warming is not science, it is politics."

I heard Rush Limbaugh say that one once. He's a mis-leader. I believe it is mostly carbon particulates and not carbon dioxide that are released by a volcano, right? Ignoring evidence of global warming is politics too. Oil companies have a lot of money to lose by us moderating our usage. Last I heard, they were the largest lobby in our government. Now we all know how misleading talking heads can be. So I won't throw out a statistic that I know. But I'll implore you all to research and post the percentage of produced gasoline is consumed by the U.S. alone!

The thing is though, I think are other reasons than just the environmental to act now to decrease our dependence on oil. You gotta admit we are way too reliant on the "texas tea". Anyone noticed how oil prices affect our stock market? Plus, why do we have to be such good friends with countries that have a lot of oil to give. Didn't we prop up Hussein in the 80's because he was willing to sell us oil independently from the rest of OPEC? Saudi Arabia? Venezuela? I hate having to be friendly with the leaders of these nations.

Besides, it's obvious cars pollute the air. Ever been to LA? Any f-tard should be able to tell that this is not good for our health.

Now excuse me while I go smoke a cigarette.

This reminds me of something quite puzzling. In the US Oil Cos are all(pretty much) downplaying and even attempting to malign the science behind Global Climate Change. However, here in Canada Oil Cos sing the opposite tune, not denying GCC at all, just concerned that they will be run over in the process of implementing Kyoto. Often the Canadian Subsidiary of US Oil Cos agree that GCC is a major issue that needs dealt with.

Also, though the US is officially against Kyoto and the current Admin denies the existance of GCC every chance they get, behind the scenes CO2 emmissions are being lowered. Some even expect US CO2 levels will be lowered even more than what Kyoto targets would have obligated the US to meet. It seems to me that behind all the rhetoric there is genuine concern over GCC. I suspect Kyoto was rejected not for lack of scientific evidence, but for Political reasons.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Crimson
You must believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by yuppies driving SUV's.

This statement is nonsense, but it's obvious how a limited intellect might find it meaningful.

The temperature of the earth is approximately 500 degrees Kelvin. Let us say that "natural" temperature variation across the millenia is +/- 20 degrees for any given region. At it's worst, a 20 degree variation might make, say, Los Angeles barely habitable, or might create wintery conditions in the higher US latititudes, say, 9 months out of the year.

But if human activities were to add, say, only another 10 degrees of variation over the next two hundred years, that additional variation might put us "over the top". Maybe L.A. would become completely uninhabitable, or perhaps northern latitudes in the U.S. might be in continuous wintery conditions ("climate change" can raise AND lower temperatures).

So you see, it isn't whether human behavior has "more" of an affect than the natural world. It's that the affects can be addititive, and the additional effects caused by mankind may be catastrophic.

And? Can you show these "additive" effects? Quantify them? Even conclusively identify them?

What say you about the global cooling bleaters? Seems that used to be the environut chant of yesteryear...

CsG

Apparently your reading comprehension is limited, so I've bolded important portions of the posts which preceded yours to aid in your understanding.

Crimson cited the bolded statement and indicated he thinks it's appropo. I've refuted the quotation but showing how it's possible that human contributions to climate change can be less than natural variations yet still be the deciding factor in catastrophic climate change. That, in turn, demonstrates how one does not "have to believe" human contributions are greater than natural variations.

In logic or science, one disproves a statement or theory by providing a counterexample. I've provided a counterexample to Crimson's claim - my sole intention, and have therefore demonstrated that the statement was nonsense. The only assumptions that my counterexample depends on are (1) that it's possible for human contributions to add to natural variation, and (2) that it's possible that these marginal contributions could put climate "over the top". Hence my use of the words "can" and "may", rather than "are" and "will".

Now, if you want to argue that it is NOT possble for human behavior to add to natural variations, or that marginal contributions cannot be decisive, you can certainly try. But I think you're facing a huge hurdle.

Your actual question (to have me provide specific information on addititive contributions by humans) is completely irrelevant to my argument. But then, you aren't very logical, so what could I have expected.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Crimson
You must believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by yuppies driving SUV's.

This statement is nonsense, but it's obvious how a limited intellect might find it meaningful.

The temperature of the earth is approximately 500 degrees Kelvin. Let us say that "natural" temperature variation across the millenia is +/- 20 degrees for any given region. At it's worst, a 20 degree variation might make, say, Los Angeles barely habitable, or might create wintery conditions in the higher US latititudes, say, 9 months out of the year.

But if human activities were to add, say, only another 10 degrees of variation over the next two hundred years, that additional variation might put us "over the top". Maybe L.A. would become completely uninhabitable, or perhaps northern latitudes in the U.S. might be in continuous wintery conditions ("climate change" can raise AND lower temperatures).

So you see, it isn't whether human behavior has "more" of an affect than the natural world. It's that the affects can be addititive, and the additional effects caused by mankind may be catastrophic.

And? Can you show these "additive" effects? Quantify them? Even conclusively identify them?

What say you about the global cooling bleaters? Seems that used to be the environut chant of yesteryear...

CsG

Apparently your reading comprehension is limited, so I've bolded important portions of the posts which preceded yours to aid in your understanding.

Crimson cited the bolded statement and indicated he thinks it's appropo. I've refuted the quotation but showing how it's possible that human contributions to climate change can be less than natural variations yet still be the deciding factor in catastrophic climate change. That, in turn, demonstrates how one does not "have to believe" human contributions are greater than natural variations.

In logic or science, one disproves a statement or theory by providing a counterexample. I've provided a counterexample to Crimson's claim - my sole intention, and have therefore demonstrated that the statement was nonsense. The only assumptions that my counterexample depends on are (1) that it's possible for human contributions to add to natural variation, and (2) that it's possible that these marginal contributions could put climate "over the top". Hence my use of the words "can" and "may", rather than "are" and "will".

Now, if you want to argue that it is NOT possble for human behavior to add to natural variations, or that marginal contributions cannot be decisive, you can certainly try. But I think you're facing a huge hurdle.

Your actual question (to have me provide specific information on addititive contributions by humans) is completely irrelevant to my argument. But then, you aren't very logical, so what could I have expected.

Nice try but you premise is flawed -which I was pointing out. You said: "It's that the affects can be additive, and the additional effects caused by mankind may be catastrophic" - which means you assume that man causes additional effects. "Scientists" have argued that the earth was cooling - are we causing some "additional" effects in those cases too? You see -the whole issue is absurd because there is nothing showing causation by humans - let alone something quantitative(either way).

So yes, it seems one of us has problems with logic and comprehension - unfortunately for you - it is you. My questions are completely relevant to your premise - you haven't shown anything to support your "additional effects caused by mankind" premise. You just flop it out there and suggest people just nod without question.

CsG