Global warming debunked, again.

[Spensed]

"Party like its 1999"

Prove to me changing our wys and going cave man will save our earth from its natural cycle. Then I will cede that we are all that is evil and must be destroyed.

Ok, let's pretend you longer think like you did in kindergarten and try again.

Not everything has to be seen in terms of the goodies versus the baddies.

If we do nothing and all the scientists and government agencies, who claim that global warming is a problem, are right, the resultant problems worldwide could accelerate very quickly and could be irreversable.

If we do something and those guys are wrong, there is some expense involved but most of the things are good husbandry type of stuff that you might want to do anyway, like not spewing excessive industrial pollution into the atmosphere. The downside in doing something simply isn't that great and the upside is that it might do some good.

Given those circumstances, anyone with two active brain cells to rub together would agree that we might as well do something just in case.

See it really isn't that hard. LOL.

 

[Jannus]

Prove to me changing our wys and going cave man will save our earth from its natural cycle. Then I will cede that we are all that is evil and must be destroyed.

Climatologists at Kansas State University have come across what may, in fact, represent incontestable proof that the world is warming as a result of CO2 emissions from humans. The embarrassed climatologists recently said that it is most unusual for the world's scientific community to actually get anything correct when it comes to science, but that "everybody is going to get something right every now and then, just by pure chance." The KSU scientists denied the possibility that the world's climate scientists might actually know something of climatology.

The KSU team began hedging their climatology bets after stumbling across a little-known passage in an old meteorology textbook:

Exodus 41:112-121 - Thou shalt know that mankind hath passed into the firmament carbon of abundance which displeaseth the Lord, yay with oxygen of a double measure, after the young bush hath ruled twice, and caused much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and hath raised wars and rumors of wars over the face of the Earth. Thou wilt see thy carbon footprint is an abomination, and thou wilt feel the wrath of thy God in the heat of thy firmament and the sweat of thy brow.

Only the pure and righteous shall speak thy truth. Ignorance shall be the way of the bush-men, and thou shalt hear well their lies, and know their deceit, which is an abomination unto God.

Thou honoreth the Lord when thou makest thy print of thy foot of carbon in the least manner. Cool shall be the winds which soothe the brow of thine who tread lightly upon Creation.

"We're still trying to find some way we can interpret this passage to make it fit the Party doctrine," said KSU climatologist N.O. Klugh, "but, right now, it doesn't look that great for our side."

 

[Kulindahr]

I lost my internet connection after "only" four pages of this thread, and want to get some thoughts down while waiting for it to go live again:

First, my thanks to HenryR and Alfie, who have led the pack in making it not impossible to catch up on this thread's discussion by making a multitude of irrelevant posts I could just skip over.

Second, kudos (not) to those who consistently simplify the topic by making it a matter of either man caused it or isn't responsible at all -- false dichotomies cut through so much crap!

Third -- getting serious now -- the best posts I've read to this point have been #s 32, 67, and 127.

Fourth: that hemisphere business, how it's mostly the northern half that's warming, should tell people that what's happening is at the least extremely aggravated by human activity. I mean, really, if it's just the sun, it would be both hemispheres, if it's just a normal global cycle, it would be both hemispheres -- but it's mostly the northern one, which happens to be the more industrialized one, and since it's industrial gases that are implicated... well, it kinda makes the point.

Fifth: it's the curve, stupid. Yes, the planet has warmed in the past, but it has never done so at the current rate. The warming observed in two centuries would be considered rapid if it took place over twice that; it might be characterized as normal if it were two millennia instead. If we were looking at a normal phenomenon, we'd seek normal phenomena to explain it, but the normal phenomena can't explain it -- they're just doing their regular things -- so we seek the abnormal, and, well, there's one with such a high degree of correlation that in a court of law the jury would be out for maybe two minutes before coming back with a "Guilty!" verdict, and that's human activity, specifically activity releasing CO2 and its friends into the atmosphere.

As I've said in other threads on this topic, I don't like that. Before I saw raw data professors were wrestling with when I was at OSU, I refused to even consider global warming as real, let alone that humans were driving it -- and for that matter, some of the professors weren't happy about where the finger pointed, either. Yes, Henry, it's "only" a correlation, but it's a correlation that also fits what's know about chemistry, etc. etc. If the correlation was with something unconnected by known science to the observed effect, dismissing it would be as easy as people want to make it, but that's not the case, and dismissing it as "not really science" or some such denial is foolish.

Sixth: asking if humans "caused" global warming is useless; there are too many factors involved. By now, though, it's about as certain as can be that humans are feeding it, contributing to it, even driving it -- we may not, so to speak, have started this fire, but we've been tossing on fuel to make it burn higher. Whatever the natural curve would be right now, we're responsible for mucking it up badly, and ought to be doing something about putting it to rights.

 

[Kulindahr]

The global warming kooks don't have empirical evidence, because it doesn't exist.

Like Falwell, Robertson, and Swaggart, all they have is faith.

Empirical evidence enough to gag a major political convention exists -- and continues to accumulate.
For CO2 counts back tens of thousands of years, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of cores from ice taken from all over the world, with thousands of samples from each analyzed, the results plotted carefully by content and year.
For temperatures back thousands and more years, there are also ice cores, sediment cores, tree rings, written records, etc.
That's just the bare beginning.
Put it all together, and you get a rate of change in temperature not only never matched in the historical or geological record, but also not possible to match except by a confluence of natural events that we aren't seeing -- radical increase in solar output, and dozens of volcanoes erupting continuously, would be two.

As I said before, it's the slope, stupid -- the rate of change is much higher than anything found in historical or geological records, and further, that rate cannot be explained by natural events unless every know contributor to prior warming cycles were known to be functioning together. Since they are known to not be happening all together right now, we're left looking for some other factor. What appears, and fits the gap quite well, is the contribution of human-generated greenhouse gases to the equation.

Yes, Gore got a lot of stuff wrong in that movie, but the data remain, and they do not lie: global temperatures are increasing at a rate unexplainable by natural phenomena, and, much as is the case in astrophysics and dark matter, the nature of the beast can be delineated -- and when that is done, lo! the unknown but well-described beast matches the monster of human pollutants/additions in the atmosphere.
Science is a lot like detective work. In this case, there's a "crime" -- the unaccountable rapid increase in atmospheric temperatures -- and a "profile" -- the list of items describing the culprit. Human activity matches the profile, and thus are the "suspect"... and when the profile matches the suspect this closely, the only reasonable verdict is "guilty".

 

[Kulindahr]

"Party like its 1999"

Prove to me changing our wys and going cave man will save our earth from its natural cycle. Then I will cede that we are all that is evil and must be destroyed.

There's nothing natural about this "cycle", Mazda.
I know it isn't fun to change your mind on something like this, but do the reading of the real data, not the summaries by people with agendas. I didn't believe it, either, until I was at OSU and worked with data collected by professors who didn't want to believe it either, or didn't care one way or the other. But as points got plotted on graphs, and graphs compared to others, the conclusion became unavoidable: human activity is mucking up the planet.

Now that I look back I don't see why that was such a big leap to accept. It's obvious we've been wiping out thousands of species without regard to their value; that we might be mucking up things we hadn't thought about was just part of the picture. Of course, for researchers who had no interest either way, it wasn't as big a deal; for myself and some who didn't want humans to be implicated, it was a real pain.

Usually I find your posts intelligent for the most part, Mazda, but just think about what you wrote up there -- you're mixing fallacies in quite a tangle, and it's plainly a dodge to avoid real discussion.

The position you and others are maintaining strikes me as comparable to people riding on a train that's vibrating more and more roughly. "It's just the track; it's a little loose in the mountains", you say, "It's normal" -- but people who are measuring the sway and plotting the sounds point out, "These frequency patterns can only be accounted for by wheels coming off". You refuse to believe a wheel might be coming off, so you reply, "We've had frequencies before, and it was always the track; it's the track again! You're making stuff up!" But with both the wheels coming off, and the global weather, you're confusing these particular patterns with something more general, which in fact they don't match at all.
If the slope on the graph were going the other way, the comparison with the train could be one of rushing down a precipice -- and you're saying, "We've gone downhill before; it's normal"... while in fact it isn't normal at all.

 

[frankfrank]

Third -- getting serious now -- the best posts I've read to this point have been #s 32, 67, and 127.

And my favorite posts are probably now #205 and 206, taken as a "set."

It's great and refreshing to see there's at least one other person out there who's NOT AN ABSOLUTIST. In all of the media I consume, I have almost never heard anybody say that humans are CONTRIBUTING to global warming. All discussion, without exception, seems to fall into two camps:

(1) Global warming is real, and it's being ENTIRELY AND ONLY caused by humans.
(2) There is no possible way that human activity is causing the planet to warm up, and that's that. End of story. (In this second category are both people who acknowledge there is a form of global warming but they chalk it entirely up to natural cycles, and people who believe there's no global warming at all, or perhaps global cooling.)

The Florida example is indeed true; I have seen the citrus line move south in my lifetime. The first time I visited Florida in 1972, there were indeed citrus groves in abundance around Leesburg and Tavares, and certainly Lakeland and Orlando. The last time I was far enough south in FL to notice one way or another, it looked like Highway 60 was more or less the line of demarcation.

However, global warming also does NOT mean that absolutely every place on earth warms up. Funny, I'm not hearing any of the naysayers reconsidering today after the 122 or whatever it was in Bakersfield today, but I've heard them say that global warming is disproven when a deep cold snap brings frost to New Orleans in March, or if Poland is much colder than usual.

 

[letme]

Has anybody thought about the facts,that not only Earth,but also Mars,Jupiter,and Pluto are heating up ? Last I checked,Man has no carbon foot prints why out there.

Might ya think that the Sun i.e. the sourse of all energy and heat just might have some role in Planetary Warming ??? l

 

[Kulindahr]

It's great and refreshing to see there's at least one other person out there who's NOT AN ABSOLUTIST. In all of the media I consume, I have almost never heard anybody say that humans are CONTRIBUTING to global warming.
....

However, global warming also does NOT mean that absolutely every place on earth warms up. Funny, I'm not hearing any of the naysayers reconsidering today after the 122 or whatever it was in Bakersfield today, but I've heard them say that global warming is disproven when a deep cold snap brings frost to New Orleans in March, or if Poland is much colder than usual.

Thanks.

Most people forget that "global warming" means that energy is being pumped into a dynamic system. Addition of energy to a system in motion means that motion will increase, i.e. that things already happening will happen more vigorously. For the system we call Earth, that means that there will not only be record hot spells, but record cold, because air masses will move more vigorously, giving not just more powerful hurricanes in the hurricane zone, but also expanding the zone, giving not just more torrential rains, but more intense blizzards -- and both of those in larger regions than before.
Record snow on Easter one year followed by record heat the next, in a single location, is what would be expected from global warming -- so that deep cold snap in New Orleans not only doesn't disprove, but supports. Only over time, a LOT of time, will the whole system increase in temperature, and then the weather and the rest will calm down because it's temperature difference that drives work.

The simplistic view behind that deep cold snap "disproving" global warming comes from thinking of the Earth as though it were a one-liter pan of water on the stove, where added heat spreads quickly. A better way to picture it would be a one-billion-liter pan of water with all sorts of things thrown into it and unevenly-distributed heating sources -- the heat will spread essentially unpredictably, changing currents, moving objects, and causing things to behave strangely, in unexpected fashions. Then make the heat sources move in a regular period from one side to the other, and start spinning the pan, and put a partial, uneven lid over the middle, and...

 

[Kulindahr]

Has anybody thought about the facts,that not only Earth,but also Mars,Jupiter,and Pluto are heating up ? Last I checked,Man has no carbon foot prints why out there.

Might ya think that the Sun i.e. the sourse of all energy and heat just might have some role in Planetary Warming ??? l

I'll take that as fact.

But here's another fact: the Earth's warming rate is much higher, not only than that of the other planets, but than it's ever been before.

And another: the warming rate in the northern hemisphere is significantly higher, even radically higher, than in the southern.

One more: the northern hemisphere is far more industrialized than the southern.

Conclusion: the difference between the rates of warming in the northern and southern hemispheres of Earth, and thus between Earth as a whole and the rest of the planets, is due to that industrialization.

Support: a major result of industrialization is gases known to generate a greenhouse effect; the contribution by industrialization to the atmosphere correlates extremely well with the difference in warming rate where that contribution is present.


It's the very warming of the other planets that shows that what's happening on Earth is due to human activity, because what's happening here differs substantially, and that difference matches very nicely the things humans have done to the planet.

 

[Andreus]

thanks for coming in here and straightening all of us out, kulindahr

we cant really think without you

 

[HenryReardon]

During the period known as the Holocene Maximum, the earth was as warm as the alarmists predict that it will be around 2100. That was roughly 7,000 years ago when there were neither factories nor suvs:

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0598globalwarm.htm

 

[Andreus]

nor were there urban coastal centers

your fascination with proving that globalwarming doesnt exist is amusing, but unrealistic

you are ignoring every scientific report that doesnt agree with your political claim

 

[White Eagle]

*takes of his Mod hat*'

And allow me to add, "If my Grandmother had wheels, she'd be a rollar skate."

Why is Henry the main one saying GW isn't happening??


Allow me to add, "If frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their little bottoms when they hopped."

 

[HenryReardon]

nor were there urban coastal centers

your fascination with proving that globalwarming doesnt exist is amusing, but unrealistic

you are ignoring every scientific report that doesnt agree with your political claim

Political Claim? How droll.

It is hardly a claim, political or otherwise, to state that there is absolutely zero evidence to prove a corelation between warming and the activities of man.

It is all theory, hyperbole, and hysterial faith.

If it is so "true" why did a scientist in Canada receive death threats when he spoke out against the warming alarmists?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml

IF it is so "real" why is one fool on the weather channel demanding that any skeptical meteorologist be decertified?

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm

Sort of reminds you of the days when the Popes demanded that non-believers be burned at the stake.

 

[Andreus]

you just described your own behavior here Martha Reardon

there is ample evidence and little dispute within the scientific community that these issues are real

it is the nature of the scientific community to weigh facts

it is the nature of the political community to use the scientific discussion and warp it to fit their needs

we have gotten so far away from the original post that it is astounding

the article we are debating from the original post was of a political nature

period

 

[jackoroe]

Yep the earth is getting warmer while at the same time glaciers in Washington state are growing by about 3 feet per DAY. You can't argue the facts!

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/93350.html

 

[Spensed]

During the period known as the Holocene Maximum, the earth was as warm as the alarmists predict that it will be around 2100. That was roughly 7,000 years ago when there were neither factories nor suvs:

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0598globalwarm.htm

You're still missing the point. So let's try once again.

Nobody cares whether or not the earth goes through hot and cold cycles. The issue is whether human pollution is contributing to the current warming trend and whether anything can be done about it.

The downside of playing safe isn't that great because it's stuff that you might want to do in any case (like making the air we breathe as clean as possible). The upside is that doing something (aimed at slowing the current warming trend down) might have some success in doing so.

The downside of denying that there any problem is disastrous, if it turns out that one could have done something. The upside of denying that there's a problem? I don't see any upside.

Common sense would suggest playing safe.

People here have given you endless facts and links to scientific and government sites and rescources indicating that the human contribution to global warming is likely a problem.

You are clearly capable of Googling sources in support of your contentions, which must mean that you are deliberately ignoring the many other sources that don't.

I look forward eagerly to your next request for information that you've already been given. LOL.

 

[jackoroe]

^Nothing wrong with a cleaner earth. If you want to drive an electric car, go right ahead. If you want solar power, go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you. The problem I have with this whole charade, is that it is about the government intruding into my life more than they do now. And using what they call "science" in order to do so. Science isn't about consensus as Algore likes to call it. It is either is a fact, provable again and again irrefutably or it's nothing more than a hypothesis. If you want to believe that "science" can accurately predict the temperature five, ten or 100 years from now, when they can't accurately do so to the end of the week, be my guest. In any event, it's not the governments place to so intrude in my life choices. I will remain the master of my own destiny, thanks very much!

 

[Andreus]

or another long sighted consideration that politically motivated people do not want to see...

if this is a man made warming trend and a natural one is triggered to further the issue this will be catastrophic...

here is what discover mag has reported the scientific implications may be....


http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/it2019s-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it-and-i-er-feel-warm
......

06.15.2007 Warming May Radically Change Ecosystems

Amazonia becomes savanna. The Sahara? No one knows.

by Erica Westly
Global warming won’t just melt ice caps; it could create whole new biomes—major ecosystem types like forest, desert, grassland, and tundra—say climatologists led by John Williams at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Williams and his team used computer models to predict what will happen to the world’s ecosystems as temperatures rise.

When the researchers plugged in a global temperature increase of 1.8 to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit, a moderate estimate of the world’s expected change over the next 100 years, the models predicted landscapes the likes of which we’ve never seen before. “By the end of the 21st century, large portions of Earth’s surface could experience climates with no current analogue,” says Williams.

Surprisingly, the ecosystems most vulnerable to major biome shifts are the already hot regions around the equator. According to Williams’s model, for example, the Amazon rain forest is toast: By the end of the century, and possibly even by midcentury, tropical rain forests will be taken over by savannas—the next hottest biome—their lush trees replaced by expanses of tall grass. Williams and his team also predict big changes in the Sahara—but because the desert is already the hottest biome on Earth’s surface, there is no existing ecosystem to provide a guess at what an even hotter Sahara might look like. Changes in the cooler latitudes will be only slightly less extreme.
“We know there’s been biome displacement in the past, but those processes typically take hundreds or even thousands of years to play out,” says University of Wyoming ecologist Stephen Jackson, a colleague of Williams. Predicting exactly how plant and animal communities will change is close to impossible because of all the variables involved.

“We’re going to see this process where the existing biome undergoes some sort of collapse. That collapse may be relatively gradual, or it could be instantaneous. It could be a fire that lasts a couple of days and wipes out whole areas,” says Jackson. “The uncertainties are really the scariest part.”

 

[Andreus]

mean while...

texas is flooding.... montana hit temperatures in excess of one hundred and hurricanes are laying waste to all of the gulf coast region

but so long as the republicans dont look bad.... right?