Printable View
I present that it doesn't matter, to a degree, that the earth warms up. The world has not always been the same. There was the tropic period, the ice age, blah blah blah. It always changes and it's no big deal if it keeps changing.
It is important to develop alternatives to fossil fuels for much more important reasons than global warming.
I agree that global warming isn't the ONLY good reason for ending dependence on fossil fuel.
However, can you tell me how many periods of temperature extremes have occurred during the evolution of human beings? What extremes can we survive? What changes will we be able to adapt to? Our lives are all about soil, water and air. The plants and animals we depend on have to survive for us to survive.
Mankind survives in deserts, islands, frozen wastelands, paradise, and moderate temperate zones.Quote:
Originally Posted by aubunique
It's no question as to whether we would survive. The question is whether we would stomach the changing natural environment, ie the tropic zone plants and animals would be able to flourish in a wider range, etc.
The problem with your theory is that this MAN MADE change is exponentially greater than natural changes in the past. It's not even comparable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken_Horndawgs
And this is by far the largest flaw in your reasoning. Why do you say this? What evidence do you have that makes this case, and is not made into evidence using deeply flawed assumptions, such as the ones I have attacked on the ice core measurements?Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
I agree it's not comparable - but it's not comparable because we don't have a technique to adequately compare... not because its so much greater than in the past.
Hey Salty.........
Just wondering......did you ever figure out what the "A" in AGW is???? I asked this several weeks ago and (unless I missed the answer, which is entirely possible) I still haven't received a reply.
A = Anthropocentric
Well Salty, You're right that we can't trust the "data". But the real reason is that -- even if the CO2 concentration data were real and not manufactured psuedo data -- it represents an almost infinitesimally small portion of the planet's surface. It is amazing that all of this so called CO2 data from long ago is coming from only 2 places where the ice cores were analyzed. To say that this represents the entire earth is ludicrous.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Then to come up with so called Average Temperature graphs that go back 400,000 years is even more ludicrous. First, there is no such thing as an "average earth temperature". Temperature is an INTENSIVE property. It cannot be properly averaged. There is no more an average earth temperature than there is an "average earth telephone number"!!! And that's true even if the temperatures that were averaged were real --- which they are not. When we go back to times before there were actually thermometers, most of this stuff comes from tree ring growth estimates which have ENORMOUS error bands. To say that we can detect extremely slight temperature field differences from tree ring growth is absurd. Tree ring growth can be influenced by many factors other than temperature.
This whole debate seems to be one in which the proponents have gotten so caught up in the evangelical message that a lot of seemingly intelligent people can't seem to see the forest for the trees!!! Or perhaps for the $$$$$ signs..................
Thanks... meaning 'caused by man' I suppose.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
So I guess this means that since the new rallying cry is "AGW" we are told to believe that all global warming is caused by man.
It continues to get more and more absurd.................
Your info caused me to visit another source and I found this as another interretation of the "A"..................anthropogenic .................... essentially means the same thing.
Sorry, you are right - Anthropogenic is the word for human-caused. Anthropocentric is the word used to express a human-centered (some say biased) view of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
I was watching the Discovery-Science Channel, a show called "The Real Mars" (as if someone was out there promoting a fake Mars, or something). Anyway, the cold surface temps on Mars, the show stated, is due in part to the high concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which can not hold in the heat. Now! admittedly I was distracted as I was also looking at some of my work, but I could have sworn that's what was stated.
Isn't part of the whole GW hysteria over the increasing % of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere that traps heat?
Of course, it's interesting to note that Earth's atmosphere is basically 79% N2 gas, 20% O2 gas (that adds to 99% for you mathematically challenged folks), and traces of other gasses, which includes, in tiny amounts CO2 gas. So, my question is, even if CO2 doubled...that would mean it might go from being .2% to .4% how much difference can that make...really?
Now, Venus really enjoys the greenhouse effect! I need to research it, to find out the composition of Venus' atmosphere. Is it methane gas? Maybe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Martian atmosphere and temperatures.
Quote:
Atmosphere
Mars has an atmosphere that’s very thin compared to Earth’s. Mars’s atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide, about 3% nitrogen, and about 2% argon. Also, there are traces of other gases such as oxygen, carbon monoxide, and water vapor. Earth’s atmosphere is quite different. It’s 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, .9% argon, and .3% carbon dioxide along with traces of other gases.
Mars has three different types of clouds: large pink clouds made up of dust, blue clouds which scientists think are made up of ice crystals, and white clouds which are thought to be made up of water vapor.
Quote:
What is the typical temperature on Mars?
The daytime SURFACE temperature is about 80 F during rare summer days, to
-200 F at the poles in winter. The AIR temperature, however, rarely gets much above 32 F.
The temperatures on the two Viking landers, measured at 1.5 meters above the surface, range from + 1° F, ( -17.2° C) to -178° F (-107° C). However, the temperature of the surface at the winter polar caps drop to -225° F, (-143° C) while the warmest soil occasionally reaches +81° F (27° C) as estimated from Viking Orbiter Infrared Thermal Mapper.
In 2004, the Spirit rover recorded the warmest temperature around +5 C and the coldest is -15 Celsius in the Guisev Crater.
Thanks Double D!
So, Mar's atmosphere is 95% CO2 and its mostly very cold. That's interesting. Of course it is 50% further away from the sun than the Earth, which places it about 140 million miles from the sun (the Earth is 93 million miles) thus it receives less direct solar energy. But! Venus is further from the sun than Mercury and Venus has higher surface temps.
How laughable this seems when you look at the above numbers or the numbers on this chart:
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html
CO2 is only THREE HUNDRETHS of a percent of the atmosphere! It's crazy to suggest that the small percentage of CO2 levels caused by man can affect the earth in a major fashion! Seriously will .03% or .033% cause the temperature spikes Gore predicts over the next 20 years? LAUGHABLE.