Global Warming Cont...

[ARKDAWG02]

[quote=MattB;441946]So all of these world renowned scientist have finally come out today and said that we are the main driving force behind GW, and STILL some of you guys think it's BS. I love you guys but you are Nucking Futs.:icon_wink: I'm sure some of you can, and will dig up another article about how GW is crap, but I will take the word of these guys over some hired gun from Exxon.[/quote


Even though I don't have any research to back this up I would expect there are as many prominent scientists that don't sign onto the global warming theory being caused by man made activities.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Did you see Bill Nye the so-called science guy get his butt handed to him on Larry king Wed night? Even you left wing dems could have seen how articulately and accurately the MIT explained that global warming is little more than fear mongering.

It was great and he is right. No different than Global Cooling. The earth gets warm and the earth cools over long periods of time. Period! Nothing but made up politics by the tree huggers, liberal educators (most all scientist are wrapped up in universities and the liberal garbage they spew) and politicians. And before anyone starts, yes I believe dearly in taking care of God's creation.

[altadawg]

[quote=ARKDAWG02;442000]

So all of these world renowned scientist have finally come out today and said that we are the main driving force behind GW, and STILL some of you guys think it's BS. I love you guys but you are Nucking Futs.:icon_wink: I'm sure some of you can, and will dig up another article about how GW is crap, but I will take the word of these guys over some hired gun from Exxon.[/quote


Even though I don't have any research to back this up I would expect there are as many prominent scientists that don't sign onto the global warming theory being caused by man made activities.

LOL. Lets see, I dont have any evidence or research but Im gonna say that many prominent scientist dont "sign on".

Actually, no



http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science...ort/index.html


"the group of climate experts unanimously linked the increase of average global temperatures since the mid-20th century to the increase of manmade greenhouse gases in the atmosphere"

Story Highlights

• Report scientist: Evidence of warming on the planet is unequivocal

• Scientists predict global temperature increases of 3.2-7.1 degrees F by 2100 (not exactly normal heating and cooling of the earth, Tyler )

• Sea levels could rise between 7 and 23 inches by the end of the century

[Dirtydawg]

[quote=altadawg;442046]

LOL. Lets see, I dont have any evidence or research but Im gonna say that many prominent scientist dont "sign on".

Actually, no



http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science...ort/index.html


"the group of climate experts unanimously linked the increase of average global temperatures since the mid-20th century to the increase of manmade greenhouse gases in the atmosphere"

Story Highlights

• Report scientist: Evidence of warming on the planet is unequivocal

• Scientists predict global temperature increases of 3.2-7.1 degrees F by 2100 (not exactly normal heating and cooling of the earth, Tyler )

• Sea levels could rise between 7 and 23 inches by the end of the century

Good points, alta. Now what are you going to do to help stop gw?

[aubunique]

White House Rejects Mandatory CO2 Caps
By John Heilprin
The Associated Press

Friday 02 February 2007

Washington - Despite a strongly worded global warming report from the world's top climate scientists, the Bush administration expressed continued opposition Friday to mandatory reductions in heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases.

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman warned against "unintended consequences" - including job losses - that he said might result if the government requires economy-wide caps on carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

"There is a concern within this administration, which I support, that the imposition of a carbon cap in this country would - may - lead to the transfer of jobs and industry abroad (to nations) that do not have such a carbon cap," Bodman said. "You would then have the U.S. economy damaged, on the one hand, and the same emissions, potentially even worse emissions."

President Bush used the same economic reasoning when he rejected the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, an international treaty requiring 35 industrial nations to cut their global-warming gases by 5 percent on average below 1990 levels by 2012. The White House has said the treaty would have cost 5 million U.S. jobs.

"Even if we were successful in accomplishing some kind of debate and discussion about what caps might be here in the United States, we are a small contributor to the overall, when you look at the rest of the world. And so it's really got to be a global solution," Bodman said.

The United States each year contributes about a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, though the share from China, India and other developing countries also is growing.

Bodman said he would make the same argument against carbon caps even if the U.S. share were larger. He and other administration officials at a news conference praised the report Friday by a United Nations- sponsored panel of hundreds of climate scientists from 113 governments, who said there is little doubt the earth is warming as a result of man-made emissions.

But Bodman said technology advancements that will cut the amount of carbon emissions, promote energy conservation, and hasten development of non-fossil fuels can address the problem.

"This administration's aggressive, yet practical strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is delivering real results," added Stephen Johnson, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

More than a half-dozen bills have been introduced, mostly by Democrats, calling for some form of mandatory carbon controls in the United States. Democrats newly in control of Congress and other critics of Bush's environmental policies pounced on the long-awaited U.N. report like fresh meat.

"This puts the final nail in denial's coffin," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., head of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a senior member of House panels on energy and natural resources, said he hoped it wouldn't take until Groundhog Day two years from now, when a new president is in the White House, to alter course in the United States.

"It sounds like the Bush administration, having seen the very real shadow of scientific evidence of global warming, has chosen to go back into its hole of denial by saying that it will not support measures to reduce global warming and its disastrous affects on our economy and environment," Markey said.

The White House issued a statement less than four hours after the report's release defending Bush's six-year record on global climate change, beginning with his acknowledgment in 2001 that the increase in greenhouse gases is due largely to human activity.

It said Bush and his budget proposals have devoted $29 billion to climate-related science, technology, international assistance and incentive programs - "more money than any other country."

Bush has called for slowing the growth rate of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, which averages 1 percent a year, but has rejected government-ordered reductions. Last week he also called for a 20 percent reduction in U.S. gasoline consumption over the next 10 years.

"This report really provides strong weight behind those saying we need much stronger action" from the United States and other nations, said Robert Watson, the World Bank's chief spokesman on global warming and former chairman of the U.N. scientific panel responsible for evaluating the threat of climate change.

-------

Jump to today's Truthout Features:


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.

[Dirtydawg]

"It sounds like the Bush administration, having seen the very real shadow of scientific evidence of global warming, has chosen to go back into its hole of denial by saying that it will not support measures to reduce global warming and its disastrous affects on our economy and environment," Markey said.

Can someone educate me on how gw is hurting our economy-not trying to be a smart ass.

[DawgyNWindow]

[quote=altadawg;442046]

LOL. Lets see, I dont have any evidence or research but Im gonna say that many prominent scientist dont "sign on".

Actually, no



http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science...ort/index.html


"the group of climate experts unanimously linked the increase of average global temperatures since the mid-20th century to the increase of manmade greenhouse gases in the atmosphere"

Story Highlights

• Report scientist: Evidence of warming on the planet is unequivocal

• Scientists predict global temperature increases of 3.2-7.1 degrees F by 2100 (not exactly normal heating and cooling of the earth, Tyler )

• Sea levels could rise between 7 and 23 inches by the end of the century

It's out there, just many choose to ignore it.

I thought that guy on that site I linked had some pretty good stuff:

1) "The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before human's invented industrial pollution."

2) "CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks ( Figure 1). Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-industrial increases.
As illustrated in this chart of Ice Core data from the Soviet Station Vostok in Antarctica, CO2 concentrations in earth's atmosphere move with temperature. Both temperatures and CO2 have been steadily increasing for 18,000 years. Ignoring these 18,000 years of data "global warming activists" contend recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are unnatural and are the result of only 200 years or so of human pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.
Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward."

3) "Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure 2). Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% .
Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change"

4) Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants

5) At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.



That looks like some pretty good information to me (and there's much more on the same site). There are many out there saying the same thing, but the media has decided to ignore them and focus on what a bad citizen of the world the USA is.

Remember, the UN is generally anti US, so anything that comes from there should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism.

[saltydawg]

[QUOTE=DawgyNWindow;442079]

It's out there, just many choose to ignore it.

I thought that guy on that site I linked had some pretty good stuff:

1) "The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before human's invented industrial pollution."

2) "CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks ( Figure 1). Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-industrial increases.
As illustrated in this chart of Ice Core data from the Soviet Station Vostok in Antarctica, CO2 concentrations in earth's atmosphere move with temperature. Both temperatures and CO2 have been steadily increasing for 18,000 years. Ignoring these 18,000 years of data "global warming activists" contend recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are unnatural and are the result of only 200 years or so of human pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.
Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward."

3) "Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure 2). Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% .
Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change"

4) Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants

5) At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.



That looks like some pretty good information to me (and there's much more on the same site). There are many out there saying the same thing, but the media has decided to ignore them and focus on what a bad citizen of the world the USA is.

Remember, the UN is generally anti US, so anything that comes from there should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism.

DNW, mankinds contribution to gw started about 8000 to 7500 years ago when agriculture replace wandering food gathering in Mesopotamia and China. Large forests were slashed and burned for fertilizer, houses and fuel thereby put large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Nothing like today's burning of fossil fuels but still enough to affect the climate of the planet. 3000 years later mankind introduced irrigated rice fields which caused a large increase in methane, another, even more potent greehouse gas. Anyway, the historical trend for CO2 levels 8000 years ago was headed in a downward trend based on the changes in the orbital controls. Since then, CO2 levels have been rising when they should have been falling. The same hold true for methane: observed trend is up while the natural trend was down.

In the past, gw has occurred because the axis of the planet and its orbit brought it closer to the Sun. Whenever this happens every 22000 years, the global temperature goes up BUT levels of CO2 don't go up until 2000 to 4000 years later. Today, the orbit controls are such that average global temperatures should be going DOWN but in fact they are going UP and CO2 levels are going up yearly. Hence, it is easy to see that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is causing the increase in Global Temperature and not orbital controls.

The statement that Atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising for the last 18000 years is false. CO2 levels peaked at ~268 ppm around 12500 years ago and were at 260ppm 8000 years ago when mankind started burning wood on a large scale. If there had been no interference from human activities, the atmospheric CO2 level today would have been 240 ppm. Today the atmospheric CO2 level is ~383 ppm.

Without making this post too long, let just briefly touch on the carbon cycle. CO2 is the main method carbon is moved around from the oceans, land and air. The oceans contain 40,000 billion tons of carbon, fossil fuels about 4000 to 6000 billion tons, and the land (soils and plants) about 3000 billion tons. Anyway, some of this carbon is moving from one reservior to another over long time frames and not so long time frames. 60 billion tons of CO2 is released from the land by decomposition but 62 billion tons taken up by photosynthesis. 90 billion tons of CO2 is released by the oceans by waves breaking on shore but 92 billion tons is taken up by the ocean by physical and chemical processes. The reason those two segments are not balanced is because burning of fossil fuels releases 6 billion tons of CO2 and the 2 extra billion tons plus the 1.5 billin tons of CO2 from deforestation worldwide adds 3.5 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. This yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 is causing today's gw.

[saltydawg]

DnW, true that CO2 comprises a very small part of atmospheric gases. But it is a very important part. If the atmosphere had no CO2 the average global temperature would be 12F. That sounds cold to me.

[ARKDAWG02]

[quote=altadawg;442046]

LOL. Lets see, I dont have any evidence or research but Im gonna say that many prominent scientist dont "sign on".

Actually, no



http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science...ort/index.html


"the group of climate experts unanimously linked the increase of average global temperatures since the mid-20th century to the increase of manmade greenhouse gases in the atmosphere"

Story Highlights

• Report scientist: Evidence of warming on the planet is unequivocal

• Scientists predict global temperature increases of 3.2-7.1 degrees F by 2100 (not exactly normal heating and cooling of the earth, Tyler )

• Sea levels could rise between 7 and 23 inches by the end of the century

So I guess these are the only scientists in the world or are the ones that sign on to GW the only ones you give recognition to?

[arkansasbob]

[quote=ARKDAWG02;442234]

So I guess these are the only scientists in the world or are the ones that sign on to GW the only ones you give recognition to?

yes, apparently the ipcc has purged itself of the many dissenting scientists that dissagreed with their report several years ago. these people have appointed themselves as the final devine arbiters of what is and is not science.

"some of the members of the panel disagree with us, so they must not be real scientists. get rid of them and replace them with people who agree with us."

very scientific...

(now i have to change my avatar)

[TYLERTECHSAS]

The real deal?

Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists


Lawrence Solomon, National Post

Published: Friday, February 02, 2007
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.

Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.

Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.

Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.

The series (see link below to view topics)

Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X

Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.
"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."


Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.
All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.
"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."
The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.
Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."
The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.
In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.
CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.
"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."
Lawrence Solomon@nextcity.com

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...6fef8763c6&k=0

[saltydawg]

TT, if it suited your political purposes, you would probably deny that the Sun shines and would quote scientists who supported your position. The plain fact of the matter is that average global temperature is going up and sea levels are rising. Those are 2 facts you can't deny if though you constantly try to do so.. What has been the subject of debate is the cause of this global warming and it is very clear to most thinking people that our burning of large quantities of fossil fuels is the culprit. The very, very few scientists who don't agree are usually tainted by industry money $$$$.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

TT, if it suited your political purposes, you would probably deny that the Sun shines and would quote scientists who supported your position. The plain fact of the matter is that average global temperature is going up and sea levels are rising. Those are 2 facts you can't deny if though you constantly try to do so.. What has been the subject of debate is the cause of this global warming and it is very clear to most thinking people that our burning of large quantities of fossil fuels is the culprit. The very, very few scientists who don't agree are usually tainted by industry money $$$$.

I agree with all of that Salty.
My point is, as a petroleum geologist, I have studied literally hundreds of the following times in geologic history where you state:

"The plain fact of the matter is that average global temperature is going up and sea levels are rising." As well as their opposite, global temps going down and sea levels falling. These events have provided important marker beds in the subsurface as well as some present day exposures that are key in exploration and understanding the earth. It is one of the basic laws of geology. Therefore, it means little to me other than where we fit, as humans, on the earths graph of current changes. But GOD made the earth this way, as proven throughout it's geologic history in the rock record, time and time again. Now whether man is increasing that rate of change by a dangerous pitch is the question. The media and politicians using some basic science as a their own potential football and wedge against various industries as well as against evil America and it's energy consuming citizens is new.

[saltydawg]

I agree with all of that Salty.
My point is, as a petroleum geologist, I have studied literally hundreds of the following times in geologic history where you state:

"The plain fact of the matter is that average global temperature is going up and sea levels are rising." As well as their opposite, global temps going down and sea levels falling. These events have provided important marker beds in the subsurface as well as some present day exposures that are key in exploration and understanding the earth. It is one of the basic laws of geology. Therefore, it means little to me other than where we fit, as humans, on the earths graph of current changes. But GOD made the earth this way, as proven throughout it's geologic history in the rock record, time and time again. Now whether man is increasing that rate of change by a dangerous pitch is the question. The media and politicians using some basic science as a their own potential football and wedge against various industries as well as against evil America and it's energy consuming citizens is new.

i agree that global temperatures go up and down based on the orbital controls. That is the way God made things. However, God did not say in the Bible that we should dump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere the result of which is to disrupt His plan for global temperature. Like I said earlier, under God's plan global temperatures should be going down but in fact are increasing.

The real danger of this global warming event that is currently taking place is that we don't really know how the planet is going to react to the continuing rise in CO2 levels. There is a real possibility that some unforeseen change could occur that would make our forecasts of future climate not valid since they are based on increment change.

Clearly, we are going to keep using energy.....but we should develop alternative fuels and collect some of the CO2 that fossil fuels emit. In other words, slow down the rate at which we are dumping Co2 into the atmosphere.