The Great Global Warming Swindle

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: lozina
Well how do we know how co2 contributes to global warming? And is it co2 which rises which causes temps to rise or is it vice versa?

This documentary explains very well how normal solar activity is causing global warming, and the data they present is very convincing.

Please read over the article I linked to earlier in this thread.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

Most of the arguments presented are old and have since been disproved.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: JD50
Where is that list of scientists on your side that are doing all volunteer work and have absolutely nothing to gain from endorseing man made global warming?

If it was all about money, don't you think that the oil companies would have most of the scientists on their side, being that they are some of the wealthiest corporations in the world?

The fact is, most scientists that are actually publishing research on climate change in peer-reviewed journals think that much of the warming is man-made.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

I know that its not all about money. I'm not the one jumping into every global warming thread and saying that anyone that is skeptical of global warming is a paid shill from Exxon!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: lozina
Well how do we know how co2 contributes to global warming?

ASCII and you shall RECEIVII.

I Introduction

Global Warming, increase in the average temperature of the atmosphere, oceans, and landmasses of Earth. The planet has warmed (and cooled) many times during the 4.65 billion years of its history. At present Earth appears to be facing a rapid warming, which most scientists believe results, at least in part, from human activities. The chief cause of this warming is thought to be the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, which releases into the atmosphere carbon dioxide and other substances known as greenhouse gases. As the atmosphere becomes richer in these gases, it becomes a better insulator, retaining more of the heat provided to the planet by the Sun.

The average surface temperature of Earth is just below 15°C (59°F). Over the last century, this average has risen by about 0.6 Celsius degree (1 Fahrenheit degree). Scientists predict further warming of 1.4 to 5.8 Celsius degrees (2.5 to 10.4 Fahrenheit degrees) by the year 2100. This temperature rise is expected to melt polar ice caps and glaciers as well as warm the oceans, all of which will expand ocean volume and raise sea level by an estimated 9 to 100 cm (4 to 40 in), flooding some coastal regions and even entire islands. Some regions in warmer climates will receive more rainfall than before, but soils will dry out faster between storms. This soil desiccation may damage food crops, disrupting food supplies in some parts of the world. Plant and animal species will shift their ranges toward the poles or to higher elevations seeking cooler temperatures, and species that cannot do so may become extinct. The potential consequences of global warming are so great that many of the world's leading scientists have called for international cooperation and immediate action to counteract the problem.

II The Greenhouse Effect

The energy that lights and warms Earth comes from the Sun. Most of the energy that floods onto our planet is short-wave radiation, including visible light. When this energy strikes the surface of Earth, the energy changes from light to heat and warms Earth. Earth?s surface, in turn, releases some of this heat as long-wave infrared radiation.

Much of this long-wave infrared radiation makes it all the way back out to space, but a portion remains trapped in Earth?s atmosphere. Certain gases in the atmosphere, including water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane, provide the trap. Absorbing and reflecting infrared waves radiated by Earth, these gases conserve heat as the glass in a greenhouse does and are thus known as greenhouse gases. As the concentration of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases, more heat energy remains trapped below. All life on Earth relies on this greenhouse effect?without it, the planet would be colder by about 33 Celsius degrees (59 Fahrenheit degrees), and ice would cover Earth from pole to pole. However, a growing excess of greenhouse gases in Earth?s atmosphere threatens to tip the balance in the other direction?toward continual warming.

III Types of Greenhouse Gases

Greenhouse gases occur naturally in the environment and also result from human activities. By far the most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor, which reaches the atmosphere through evaporation from oceans, lakes, and rivers.

Carbon dioxide is the next most abundant greenhouse gas. It flows into the atmosphere from many natural processes, such as volcanic eruptions; the respiration of animals, which breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide; and the burning or decay of organic matter, such as plants. Carbon dioxide leaves the atmosphere when it is absorbed into ocean water and through the photosynthesis of plants, especially trees. Photosynthesis breaks up carbon dioxide, releasing oxygen into the atmosphere and incorporating the carbon into new plant tissue.

Humans escalate the amount of carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere when they burn fossil fuels, solid wastes, and wood and wood products to heat buildings, drive vehicles, and generate electricity. At the same time, the number of trees available to absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis has been greatly reduced by deforestation, the long-term destruction of forests by indiscriminate cutting of trees for lumber or to clear land for agricultural activities.

Ultimately, the oceans and other natural processes absorb excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, human activities have caused carbon dioxide to be released to the atmosphere at rates much faster than that at which Earth?s natural processes can cycle this gas. In 1750 there were about 281 molecules of carbon dioxide per million molecules of air (abbreviated as parts per million, or ppm). In 2006 two major scientific organizations?the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)?reported that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had hit a record high. Using different measurement techniques, the WMO said carbon dioxide levels had risen to 377 ppm, an annual increase of 1.8 ppm, and the NOAA reported a figure of 381 ppm for a yearly increase of 2.6 ppm. If current predictions prove accurate, by the year 2100 carbon dioxide will reach concentrations of more than 540 to 970 ppm. At the highest estimation, this concentration would be triple the levels prior to the Industrial Revolution, the widespread replacement of human labor by machines that began in Britain in the mid-18th century and soon spread to other parts of Europe and to the United States.
.
.
(article continues)

Those who still deny that global warming is real, or that human activity contributes to it, are forgetting that, in pursuing solutions to limit production of greenhouse gasses, if we're lucky, we'll have answers we need for our species to survive a little earlier than we would otherwise have them, and the worst that can happen is, we'll be too late, and we'll all lose.

If we ignore the problem, and you're wrong, the best that can happen WILL BE the WORST that can happen. :shocked:

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Kntx

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Kntx

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: shoegazer
It's the same old arguments that have been disproved over and over again. Scientific ideas are adapted to work with new research, but anti-global warming supporters just keep railing on the same old junk.

Have you seen the show? I didn't think it had aired yet.

I really don't understand the rigid, almost fanatical stand from some people on this issue. To dismiss the very real possibility that man is not the direct cause of climate change... In other words, to admit that in fact, the earth's climate is dynamic, not static seems to be almost painful for some.

Nobody says that. Nobody denies the Earth's climate is dynamic. The issue is the change occuring NOW and the predicted changes still to come that are due to man's influence.

And therein lies the rub. You seem to think this a given fact, when, in reality, it is not. The subject has been politicized by the shrill left to the point that they've lost all reasonable credibility on the subject. Despite your political or personal agenda?MANMADE GW IS NOT A FACT?it's a theory that's unproven and many highly qualified scientists disagree with this theory.

So what if it isn't a FACT? I would expect there to be dissent within the scientific community. Disagreements over the nature of gravity doesn't stop it from pulling you towards the earth. The POINT is that the body of evidence demands action. The potential consequences demand action.

If let's say climate change is not occuring. What are the negative consequences of going forward with reducing greenhouse gasses? None.

What are the negative consequences of doing nothing if in fact climate change is occuring? Potential to change life on earth as we know it.

Comparing current GW theory to gravity theory is ludicrous...surely you must know that. You say that the body of evidence demands action...would you have said that 30 years ago when the "body of evidence" suggested that global cooling was the big problem du jour? I guess we're lucky we didn't start extrordinary efforts to ramp up CO2 production back in the 70's to avoid the next ice age. You assume that we can actually control our planets climate like it was something easy to do...flip a switch here, turn a dial there. Read what the 'believers' say...the consensus is that there's a high level of doubt that we can actually make any meaningful impact that would affect the current trend. Unfortunately, that's the conscensus scientific opinion regardless of whether you're a 'believer' or 'nonbeliever'. Our climate has varied radically throughout history..is it unreasonable to expect it to continue?

So, for the sake of debate, let's say manmade GW is a proven fact and that we can actually impact our climate by drastically reducing our CO2 emissions. What do we do? How do we do it?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
dmcowen674, here's a small list for you to get started with. There are about 30 scientists on this page who are 'nonbelievers'...prove to me that they're all Exxon shills. Otherwise, retract your statement as false.

If you cannot do either...then please refrain from posting so that some honest dialog can occur in this thread.

Just a quick glance clearly shows paid shills by the Oil Barons:

George V. Chilingar, professor of civil and petroleum engineering at the University of Southern California,

David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: ( a school very close to the local Oil Industry)

Martin Keeley [27], Director of oil and gas exploration consultancy Fieldco International Ltd.:

Nice try, try again

LOL...you are sooooo lame. Time for you to leave and spread your lies elsewhere.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage FanYou say that the body of evidence demands action...would you have said that 30 years ago when the "body of evidence" suggested that global cooling was the big problem du jour? I guess we're lucky we didn't start extrordinary efforts to ramp up CO2 production back in the 70's to avoid the next ice age...

...So, for the sake of debate, let's say manmade GW is a proven fact and that we can actually impact our climate by drastically reducing our CO2 emissions. What do we do? How do we do it?

There WAS global cooling and it has largely been attributed to man-made particulate pollution (reflects light back to space). Fortunately, we actually DID do something about it as the environmental movement was beginning to take hold and the EPA and Clean Air Act were established.

What action can we take? Invest more in wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear power. Increase fuel efficiency requirement for new cars and trucks. Invest more in public transportation and offer more incentives for businesses that make efforts to reduce energy consumption. Also, invest more in science education so we'll be able to better study climate in the future and so that people stop making dumb comments like "It's hot outside today, must be that global warming."

 

[piasabird]

It is not a matter of whether a person denies that global warming may be happening. Global warming may actually be occuring. For the sake of arguments, lets say I think that it is a good possibility that global warming is occuring. What they will not tell you is that the proposed changes will have little or no effect on it whatsoever. This is the big lie that environmentalists are telling. We would have to stop using electricity, stop driving cars, and stop producing steel and all technology to have any effect at all on golabal warming. It just is not that plausible.

within a year or two China will be producing more CO2 emmissions than the USA, and they are exempt from the Kyoto Treaty! So the treaty is useless.

 

[OutHouse]

the NY Times just did a piece that questioned many points that Gore made in his film. one of them being that humas are not the leading cause of GW but commercial animal farming...

personally i think the planet is gearing up for another mini-iceage.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: Citrix
the NY Times just did a piece that questioned many points that Gore made in his film. one of them being that humans are not the leading cause of GW but commercial animal farming...

personally i think the planet is gearing up for another mini-iceage.

How is commercial animal farming not a result of humans??

And what information do you have that leads you to think we are heading towards another mini-ice age?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
dmcowen674, here's a small list for you to get started with. There are about 30 scientists on this page who are 'nonbelievers'...prove to me that they're all Exxon shills. Otherwise, retract your statement as false. If you cannot do either...then please refrain from posting so that some honest dialog can occur in this thread.

So ayabe...what is it? Another right wing Bush conspiracy? That's it...that's the ticket! :roll:

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It would be fascinating to put people who doubt global warming on a psychiatrist's couch and try to see what makes them tick. Could it be a religious belief that God gave them dominion over the earth. Could it be a childish belief in immortality that makes youth such risk takers? Could it be an egotism that can admit to no fault that their personal actions are harming others? Could it be a fear of change?

What aspect of the Greenhouse Theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that CO2 is produced in the burning of hydrocarbons is in question.?

Moonbeam, how many times do we have to go down this road? There's a high degree of legitimate dissent in the scientific community on this very complex subject. But, that particular fact seems to blow right by you...doesn't it? Instead you want to vilify, belittle and pyschoanalyze those who have the audacity to disagree with your closed minded, simplistic view of world climatology.

I don't understand why it's so hard for you to recognize and acknowledge that manmade GW is not an irrefutable fact or even close to it. There's a lot of scientists that think otherwise who are much smarter than either of us....well smarter than me anyway.

Well said blackangst1.:thumbsup:

Did I present a Personal opinion? Did I say man made global warming is a fact? I think what i said was that CO2 in the atmosphere causes the planet to heat, as far as I know, and was inviting others to challenge that assertion. Then I added that humans are burning hydrocarbons. I left it to the smart people to tell me what that means.

It goes something like this:

If CO2 causes the planet to heat and humans are creating CO2, are humans causing the planet to heat?

Moonbeam, you certainly gave that impression. So, are you telling me that agree that GW may be caused by other factors than mankind? Do you agree that people who believe this are not intellectually or morally inferior to you or to those who advocate manmade GW? I've got to ask since your previous post certainly implies the opposite.

I believe there can be many things causing GM. It has happened before humans arrived. I see nothing to be gained by calling anybody intellectually inferior though sometimes it's hard not to act like that after a lifetime of being ridiculed.

But I also think the theory of MM GW is relatively sound. I think CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that we are burning hydrocarbons on a massive scale and that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising. I am also the kind of person who is willing to pay a price for action now to prevent potential catastrophe down the road. I think the price I will have to pay is small compared to those in the hydrocarbon industry will have to pay and so I also expect some of them to do anything in their power to save a buck today over a child's live tomorrow. It's what I see in people.
The science favoring MMGW looks good to me.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: Citrix
the NY Times just did a piece that questioned many points that Gore made in his film. one of them being that humans are not the leading cause of GW but commercial animal farming...

personally i think the planet is gearing up for another mini-iceage.

How is commercial animal farming not a result of humans??

And what information do you have that leads you to think we are heading towards another mini-ice age?

Humans as in cars, factorys....

because i am in the know baby seriously though, I listen to and read other forms of scientific media that most people dont either know about because its not ithe "trendy" thing to have a jihad over, or they just dont care.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: shoegazer
There WAS global cooling and it has largely been attributed to man-made particulate pollution (reflects light back to space). Fortunately, we actually DID do something about it as the environmental movement was beginning to take hold and the EPA and Clean Air Act were established.

Hmmm...that's funny...I can't find any meaningful change in Earth Mean Albedo from 1984 to 2005. The data doesn't appear to support your claim. Perhaps you have some linkage to support your argument

Originally posted by: shoegazer
What action can we take? Invest more in wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear power. Increase fuel efficiency requirement for new cars and trucks. Invest more in public transportation and offer more incentives for businesses that make efforts to reduce energy consumption. Also, invest more in science education so we'll be able to better study climate in the future and so that people stop making dumb comments like "It's hot outside today, must be that global warming."

Wind, solar, and geothermal are all nice and a feel good response...but, in reality, it's just rhetoric and none will come even remotely close to satisfying our energy needs. That leaves nuclear energy. If the 'believers' really cared about reducing CO2 emissions, they would be going on a pro-nuclear rampage of epic proportion to eliminate all coal-fired power as soon as possible. I don't see it happening. Why is that?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: shoegazer
There WAS global cooling and it has largely been attributed to man-made particulate pollution (reflects light back to space). Fortunately, we actually DID do something about it as the environmental movement was beginning to take hold and the EPA and Clean Air Act were established.

Hmmm...that's funny...I can't find any meaningful change in Earth Mean Albedo from 1984 to 2005. The data doesn't appear to support your claim. Perhaps you have some linkage to support your argument

Originally posted by: shoegazer
What action can we take? Invest more in wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear power. Increase fuel efficiency requirement for new cars and trucks. Invest more in public transportation and offer more incentives for businesses that make efforts to reduce energy consumption. Also, invest more in science education so we'll be able to better study climate in the future and so that people stop making dumb comments like "It's hot outside today, must be that global warming."

Wind, solar, and geothermal are all nice and a feel good response...but, in reality, it's just rhetoric and none will come even remotely close to satisfying our energy needs. That leaves nuclear energy. If the 'believers' really cared about reducing CO2 emissions, they would be going on a pro-nuclear rampage of epic proportion to eliminate all coal-fired power as soon as possible. I don't see it happening. Why is that?

I am all for it just as soon as all the nuclear waste we have already created is nice and safely stored in some million year stable geological deposit. Nuclear is great except nobody will clean up the waste and nobody wants it in their back yard. Nuclear energy lies about its waste. They can easily prove they are sincere by cleaning up all existing waste before creating any more.

 

[Moonbeam]

And I disagree that solar is not enough. I believe that solar now costs 7 dollars per something or other and needs to go to 3 dollars to be cheaper than PG&E. Solar can also go on the house and run the car. A too the moon war on energy would be a war we could win. Also efficiencies are a huge source of energy savings so far largely untapped.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It would be fascinating to put people who doubt global warming on a psychiatrist's couch and try to see what makes them tick. Could it be a religious belief that God gave them dominion over the earth. Could it be a childish belief in immortality that makes youth such risk takers? Could it be an egotism that can admit to no fault that their personal actions are harming others? Could it be a fear of change?

What aspect of the Greenhouse Theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that CO2 is produced in the burning of hydrocarbons is in question.?

The fact that a 0.056% concentration of a greenhouse gas can make enough of a difference to cause any significant change at all.

Youre sidestepping the issue that CO2 is in question here, not pollutants. CO2 is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale you release CO2...

You bet your ass pollutants are bad, that isnt what we are talking about.

I am adamantly against coal energy, oil energy, natural gas energy for power production.
The enormous health costs are well documented by solid science.

However, global warming is studied in the relatively new field of climatology. Many of the factors of how our earth is warmed are not well understood, especially solar activity, our distance from the sun, localized warming, etc.

Blaming one variable for the warming of the earth is nothing short of silly.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Kntx

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Kntx

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: shoegazer
It's the same old arguments that have been disproved over and over again. Scientific ideas are adapted to work with new research, but anti-global warming supporters just keep railing on the same old junk.

Have you seen the show? I didn't think it had aired yet.

I really don't understand the rigid, almost fanatical stand from some people on this issue. To dismiss the very real possibility that man is not the direct cause of climate change... In other words, to admit that in fact, the earth's climate is dynamic, not static seems to be almost painful for some.

Nobody says that. Nobody denies the Earth's climate is dynamic. The issue is the change occuring NOW and the predicted changes still to come that are due to man's influence.

And therein lies the rub. You seem to think this a given fact, when, in reality, it is not. The subject has been politicized by the shrill left to the point that they've lost all reasonable credibility on the subject. Despite your political or personal agenda?MANMADE GW IS NOT A FACT?it's a theory that's unproven and many highly qualified scientists disagree with this theory.

So what if it isn't a FACT? I would expect there to be dissent within the scientific community. Disagreements over the nature of gravity doesn't stop it from pulling you towards the earth. The POINT is that the body of evidence demands action. The potential consequences demand action.

If let's say climate change is not occuring. What are the negative consequences of going forward with reducing greenhouse gasses? None.

What are the negative consequences of doing nothing if in fact climate change is occuring? Potential to change life on earth as we know it.

Unless we go nuclear, solar / wind / geothermal / hydro cannot provide enough power for the US to operate. Furthermore, these technologies are all very very expensive, developing countries simply cant afford them.

And thats my other part of the argument, do you really think a world avg temp increase of 1 degree is going to have a dramatic effect?

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Hmmm...that's funny...I can't find any meaningful change in Earth Mean Albedo from 1984 to 2005. The data doesn't appear to support your claim. Perhaps you have some linkage to support your argument

Wind, solar, and geothermal are all nice and a feel good response...but, in reality, it's just rhetoric and none will come even remotely close to satisfying our energy needs. That leaves nuclear energy. If the 'believers' really cared about reducing CO2 emissions, they would be going on a pro-nuclear rampage of epic proportion to eliminate all coal-fired power as soon as possible. I don't see it happening. Why is that?
[/quote]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm

But it now appears the warming from greenhouse gases has been offset by a strong cooling effect from dimming - in effect two of our pollutants have been cancelling each other out.

I'm a "believer" and I support expanding our nuclear energy program. Nuclear energy carries a stigma in the general population. The oft-delayed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain probably isn't helping and we need to start focusing more on getting it operational.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Unless we go nuclear, solar / wind / geothermal / hydro cannot provide enough power for the US to operate. Furthermore, these technologies are all very very expensive, developing countries simply cant afford them.

And thats my other part of the argument, do you really think a world avg temp increase of 1 degree is going to have a dramatic effect?

Wind, solar, hydo, and geothermal seem expensive because we are not yet paying for the environmental damage that burning fossil fuels results in. If the environmental costs were added to the price of fossil fuel energy, renewable energy would not seem so expensive.

Wealthier countries need to invest in renewable energy sources so that the technology behind them develops and becomes cheap enough for less developed nations.

The question of whether one degree matters is an attempt to relate global climate with weather. One degree difference on a localized, day to day scale is of course not that big of a deal. But, one can easily see how much of a difference to glaciers that one degree is making when it is on a long term global scale. And it's just the beginning.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: lozina
Well from reading this thread after watching the first half of the documentary I can certainly see one point proven true: the people who believe man contributes significantly to global warming take very militant, stubborn stances and are afraid to even consider the alternative let alone open up for discussion.

Alright, show that man's impact is tiny. Not by comparing his output to some other factor that is relatively constant.

If termites are to be the cause, show that 100-200 years ago, there weren't any.

No one is denying that climate changes on its own, but the 'GW doubters' are trying to pretend CO2 hasn't gone through every historical ceiling in a matter of decades, or that this wouldn't matter.

Well how do we know how co2 contributes to global warming? And is it co2 which rises which causes temps to rise or is it vice versa?

This documentary explains very well how normal solar activity is causing global warming, and the data they present is very convincing.

CO2 is not caused by GW. You can sit down and calculate how much stuff we burn in a year. It is billions and billions of just about any unit of measurement you care to use.

It isn't 'convincing', it's 'truthy', and therefore very easy to accept if it's the answer you wanted in the first place.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

showgazer, I read your link and it reeks of bias. I showed you 21 years of albedo data and it does not support your statement that global cooling prior to the mid-70s was caused by man-made particulate pollution reflecting light back to space (i.e. albedo). If you statement is correct, the data should show a steady decrease in albedo from 1984 to 2005. It doesn't. 21 years of particulate reduction efforts by the EPA and Clean Air Act does not appear to have affected the albedo one iota. The data is the data. Res ipsa loquitur.

I'm glad to you say that you support nuclear...all true GW "believers" who think we face eminent catastrophic consequences should fully support nuclear. Those who talk of impending doom and don't support nuclear live in a fantasy world where everyone gets "their money for nothing and their chicks for free". I wish it was so.

 

[Kntx]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Unless we go nuclear, solar / wind / geothermal / hydro cannot provide enough power for the US to operate. Furthermore, these technologies are all very very expensive, developing countries simply cant afford them.

And thats my other part of the argument, do you really think a world avg temp increase of 1 degree is going to have a dramatic effect?

I don't know. A lot of knowledgeable people seem to think it will. Are you so sure that it won't? Is it worth the risk to your kids? To the future of Western Civilization? I don't think so.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Those who talk of impending doom and don't support nuclear live in a fantasy world where everyone gets "their money for nothing and their chicks for free". I wish it was so.

When I was a professional musician, that's the way it was. Maybe we could solve the energy problem by playing more music.

I don't support nuclear power, right now, and I won't until the technological problems of dealing with waste and nuclear leakage are completely solved. With nukes, the results of the word, oops can last for thousands of years and render areas the size of a mid sized state uninhabitable. Just ask the former residents of Chernobyl.

Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are usually the civilian nuclear accidents that come to mind, but they're not the only ones. See this list from the 1950's to the present.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
If you statement is correct, the data should show a steady decrease in albedo from 1984 to 2005. It doesn't. 21 years of particulate reduction efforts by the EPA and Clean Air Act does not appear to have affected the albedo one iota. The data is the data. Res ipsa loquitur.

I'm glad to you say that you support nuclear...all true GW "believers" who think we face eminent catastrophic consequences should fully support nuclear. Those who talk of impending doom and don't support nuclear live in a fantasy world where everyone gets "their money for nothing and their chicks for free". I wish it was so.

There does not need to be a steady decrease in albedo form 1984 to 2005 for the statements in the BBC article to be true. Particulate pollution is not the only factor that affects albedo and other factors like forest and ice cover may be playing a role. The decrease in albedo due to falling particulate pollution may be balanced by an increase in albedo elsewhere. Also, particulate pollution though reduced in the U.S. may very well be rising in heavily polluted nations like China. Perhaps a rise in albedo there is balanced by a fall in albedo due to melting ice cover.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

The fact that a 0.056% concentration of a greenhouse gas can make enough of a difference to cause any significant change at all.

Youre sidestepping the issue that CO2 is in question here, not pollutants. CO2 is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale you release CO2...

You bet your ass pollutants are bad, that isnt what we are talking about.

I am adamantly against coal energy, oil energy, natural gas energy for power production.
The enormous health costs are well documented by solid science.

However, global warming is studied in the relatively new field of climatology. Many of the factors of how our earth is warmed are not well understood, especially solar activity, our distance from the sun, localized warming, etc.

Blaming one variable for the warming of the earth is nothing short of silly.

First of all, just because we breathe something out does not mean its not a pollutant. The definition of pollution is waste matter that contaminates the water, air, or soil. CO2 certainly qualifies. If a room was filled with nothing but CO2 you'd probably consider it a pretty big pollutant in your few remaining minutes of life. So your assertion about CO2 is incorrect.

If you read the science you will see that they do not blame it on one variable. CO2 is just the variable we have the most control over, and so it is the one they urge action on. I feel like we've been over this before. Solar activity is not significant enough to explain all the warming that has taken place over the last 30 years. Also, the perihelion and obliquity cycles (which is what I imagine you are talking about when you mention the distance to the sun) are on a 20,000 and 40,000 year cycle respectively. The amount of warming in the amount of time we've seen is too much for them to be the cause.

I'm not going to get into another Global Warming discussion here because you guys are immune to reason. Just going to correct some misinformation that you are putting out.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Kntx

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Unless we go nuclear, solar / wind / geothermal / hydro cannot provide enough power for the US to operate. Furthermore, these technologies are all very very expensive, developing countries simply cant afford them.

And thats my other part of the argument, do you really think a world avg temp increase of 1 degree is going to have a dramatic effect?

I don't know. A lot of knowledgeable people seem to think it will. Are you so sure that it won't? Is it worth the risk to your kids? To the future of Western Civilization? I don't think so.

It is when people cant prove to you otherwise.

I dont recall any biblical-type disasters during the medieval warm period.