Irony of ironies, Gore's hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record... - Page 4

**deafskeptic** · 07-24-2009, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

Interesting and worth to remember. In the link I provided that you commentet two posts up, 489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union was asked about climate. 84 percent of them belived that human activities have contributed to warming. In 1991 it was only 61 percent of them who belived the temperature was rising.

I think I'll go read the whole article.

**Jiro** · 07-24-2009, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

Interesting and worth to remember. In the link I provided that you commentet two posts up, 489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union was asked about climate. 84 percent of them belived that human activities have contributed to warming. In 1991 it was only 61 percent of them who belived the temperature was rising.

it is no brainer that human activities do contribute to warming. So do our livestock, cockroach, and just about every living thing. As kokonut points out few time - the crux of the issue is whether global warming is man-caused.

Yes men contributed to it but it's minuscule. So minuscule that it's not even a CAUSE of global warming.

C.C.Sinned · 07-24-2009, 11:41 AM

the climate has been changing since the plant formed. it will always continue to change. the sahara desert was once a swamp. maybe it will be one again someday.... when humans cease to exist the planet will continue to change...

darkdog · 07-24-2009, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

Here is a link:
Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN.com

Your example of cannibalism is not very useful for comparision. Another example of precautions that fits climate more;
A doctor tells his patient in ill shape that he has to eat this and that food to avoid serious health issues. The patient refuse to do so because "there is no hard evidence this and that food is bad and scientists seems to disagree".

Is the patient a smartass or not?

Nah, I think my example fits better for several reasons.

1. It involves a very scary scenario- just like global warming.
2. We didn't ask and we haven't noticed any problems. They just tell us the problems are coming- just like global warming.
3. The only solution seems to involve us trashing our economy and handing over our personal freedoms to an elite group- just like global warming.
4. Those who dare question the alarmists are demonized- just like global warming.

Your doctor example would fit better if, say, I were walking down the street eating dark chocolate and a doctor came up and said "You have to stop eating chocolate! It's loaded with saturated fat and it's gonna give you high cholesterol and heart attacks and blocked arteries! You have to go to the doctor everyday to get your heart checked up! If you don't, you're a Luddite flat-earther fascist!"

"Um, no"

(By the way, chocolate is loaded with saturated fat, but numerous studies indicate it's actually good for the heart- not bad, so my rejection would be warranted, even if I was unaware of the benefits of chocolate.)

As for that poll, 97% of climate scientists agree that human activity has had a significant factor in changing mean temperatures. Whereas most lay people would probably take that to mean major, scientists would probably take that to mean statistically significant- i.e. having some noticeable effect. It doesn't follow that they agree as to how significant it is, what the consequences will be, and our prospects for fixing it. The survey doesn't bother asking that.

If, indeed, it is a huge problem, I find it very difficult to believe that our half-assed attempts at cutting carbon emissions through cap and trade will do anything to fix it. I can only see such attempts actually hurting us. If we throw ourselves into economic depression, then we'll be very ill-prepared to deal with the catastrophes. Then we'll have the dire costs of the solution plus the costs of the problem with no benefit. It seems to me that the only way to fix it is to do everything possible to keep the economy chugging along, create incentives for new energy sources that can compete with fossil fuels without subsidies (and create those incentives in a way that doesn't burden the market), and develop ways to adapt to the problems.

kokonut · 07-24-2009, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

I'm afraid you're mistaken on this one.

Actually, no. The issue has always been about global warming per se, and not "cllimate change" which attempts to deflect the issue away from that the whole Earth is warming up. Not so.

**sequoias** · 07-24-2009, 12:20 PM

A hiccup might destroy a quarter of the world's population and reduce the population big time, like a major castrophophic earthquake or a major weather event. You never know what tricks Earth can play. There may be 1000 year Earthquakes, 1000 year weather events, etc

C.C.Sinned · 07-24-2009, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sequoias

A hiccup might destroy a quarter of the world's population and reduce the population big time, like a major castrophophic earthquake or a major weather event. You never know what tricks Earth can play. There may be 1000 year Earthquakes, 1000 year weather events, etc

let's see if there becomes a volcanic event like the krakatoa. that eruption catastrophic environmental changes...

**sequoias** · 07-24-2009, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C.C.Sinned

let's see if there becomes a volcanic event like the krakatoa. that eruption catastrophic environmental changes...

Interesting read. Yea or the catastrophic volcanic events, too.

kokonut · 07-24-2009, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

You questioning if mankind is responsible for 30% of CO2 i the air is hard evidence how little you really know of CO2 and the science behind it. People who knows what CO2 really is, can detect the babyscience talk you are doing on CO2 here.

Again, questioning is a part of any scientific debate. What you are trying to do is squelch the debate through belittling and ad homenim attacks which signify and underlying insecurity issue. I am open to debate these figures and claims. You are making the assertion that this number you gave is conclusive and cannot be debate. Despite the fact that current understanding on the dyanmics of Earth and sun continues to evolve. The example I gave points this out when there is new understanding of how Earth pumps CO2 into the atmosphere from the ocean in massive quantities in a 65 year cycle. Do you know what a gigaton is? Compared to man's output of CO2 is very small compared to what the Earth puts out (and absorb). And what about volcanoes? "If each of the 1511 active land-volcanoes on Earth emits 5.000 tons C-equivalents of CO2 each day => 7,5 million tons per day. If 4 times more from subaerial volcanoes => 37,5 Mtons total, approx. the double amount vs. burning of fossil fuels (<20 Mtons per day)." (see http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/n..._Segalstad.ppt ). And the somber fact is that these figures are for land based volcanos and not submarine volcanoes and that the ocean covers 70% of the earth. What do we really know about these underwater volcanos and the amount of CO2 it emits and how much of it gets degassed at the surface? Lots of unknowns, uncertainties and so forth.

Again, (yes, I read your links), here's the link that I suggested you read. Did you? It explains in one of the presentation slide that the proportion of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere from fossil fuel and biomass burning is only 4% (rather than 30%). It explains why.

http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/n...d_Goldberg.ppt (warning: 20 mb)

Again, consensus is not science.

“Scientific integrity is not determined by a show of hands” - Dr Tim Ball, Canada.

“Many experiments may prove me right, but it takes only one to prove me wrong”- Dr Albert Einstein.

Einstein puts it well. There is a large scientific body that says otherwise about global warming (as caused by man). They let the science do the talking, not the policy of politics. What you are doing is a rush to judgement when in fact the science is still young and that there is much to learn about this complex system that is very dynamic. And yet, I suppose professionalism means that any disagreement in a scientific debate allows a person to use hominem attacks, be called "deniers" (as an implied reference to Holocaust deniers), belittling and so on.

Exactly, Flip, what is your professional science background? Any science background at all like, say, a college degree?

**Jiro** · 07-24-2009, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Again, questioning is a part of any scientific debate. What you are trying to do is squelch the debate through belittling and ad homenim attacks which signify and underlying insecurity issue. I am open to debate these figures and claims. You are making the assertion that this number you gave is conclusive and cannot be debate.

that sounds familiar........ oh yea - Al Gore. the one with Pulitzer Prize which is not to be confused with Nobel Prize or Ph.D or scientific background/degree. yep the same man who said - "The debate in the scientific community is over."

kokonut · 07-24-2009, 01:42 PM

The salient question is whether warming comes first and then CO2 follows with increasing ppm concentration or is it the other way around? Lag time is hardly even discussed when it has been shown through isotope studies that temperature rise first and then C02 follows. Seeing it on graph on a scale of tens of thousand of years, hundreds or even millions of years does not do justice when lag time is takes a few hundred years to manifest itself in the form of rising CO2 concentration. Makes sense when you consider the ocean as one big CO2 sink that can only hold so much CO2 and if ocean temp goes up the ocean cannot absorb any CO2 and the rest is outgassed at the surface. And the ocean is one of the biggest CO2 emitter and absorber of CO2. One thing though, water vapor holds much more heat energy and makes up about 3 to 4 percent of the green house gas by volume compared to CO2 at .038 percent....one hundred times less by volume compared to water vapor. A cloudy or cloudless sky has a much more profound effect on surface heating and cooling that CO2 could.

***naisho*** · 07-24-2009, 02:32 PM

After reading through 4 pages of this..
Where are the scientists (or the real science)? Why is all this dabble on personal opinions, random remarks along with quick links from searches to back up statements?

There seems to be relatively little correlation going on in trying to evaluate overall causes of global warming. The point should be to work together to figure out the overall cause.

ch4, NO's, SF, and C/HFC's were not even mentioned once in all 100 posts. I looked at every one of them.. even the link spam.
These gases are widely known to anyone proficient or with merit in the topic of greenhouse emissions.
Those are also known as methane, nitrous oxides, sulfur fluorides, chloroflurocarbon/hydroflurocarbon's for the non-chemists. Production of these have greatly increased since the stone age, since, well, mostly humans have the means to be able to produce these along with some animals.

If we discuss technics, then get technical and cover all the bases rather than going simple and marking CO2 and the sun/sun spots.

The whole system of greenhouse emissions is completely complex, I don't think any discussion (whether of personal opinion or based off another site's) on alldeaf.com along with links provided can prove just about anything. You can educate another, but I highly doubt anyone at this time can just yet prove anything.

kokonut · 07-24-2009, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naisho

After reading through 4 pages of this..
Where are the scientists (or the real science)? Why is all this dabble on personal opinions, random remarks along with quick links from searches to back up statements?

There seems to be relatively little correlation going on in trying to evaluate overall causes of global warming. The point should be to work together to figure out the overall cause.

ch4, NO's, SF, and C/HFC's were not even mentioned once in all 100 posts. I looked at every one of them.. even the link spam.
These gases are widely known to anyone proficient or with merit in the topic of greenhouse emissions.
Those are also known as methane, nitrous oxides, sulfuric fluorides, chloroflurocarbon/hydroflurocarbon's for the non-chemists. Production of these have greatly increased since the stone age, since, well, mostly humans have the means to be able to produce these along with some animals.

If we discuss technics, then get technical and cover all the bases rather than going simple and marking CO2 and the sun/sun spots.

The whole system of greenhouse emissions is completely complex, I don't think any discussion (whether of personal opinion or based off another site's) on alldeaf.com along with links provided can prove just about anything. You can educate another, but I highly doubt anyone at this time can just yet prove anything.

Because the claim all along is prefaced with idea that CO2 is the culprit (ie man-made) for global warming. Hence, the ongoing topic relating to CO2. Not methane, chloroflurocarbon, and such. Though that's another topic in of itself.

No one here (?) is claiming that the dynamics of climate change is simple and not complex. The issue here is the idea that "the debate is over" which isn't true at all. Or that there is a "overwhelming" majority (i.e. consensus) about global warming when consensus has nothing to do with science. The dangerous game becomes when govt uses science as a club as a justification to make policy changes and new laws while at the same time go after scientists who show otherwise with hard data and studies by calling them "flat earthers" or "deniers." But I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of population simply do not understand science or the facts/fiction behind global warming. Only because the dynamics of Earth, sun, the atmosphere, the ocean and what have you are extremely complex and cannot be predicted with such accuracy into the future. Uknown and known variables shift constantly. That what makes this so interesting.

netrox · 07-24-2009, 02:57 PM

The reason for CO2 being blamed for the current global warming is that we produce a lot of CO2 while we produce less of other known chemicals although we do NEED to look at methane and other gases because they are actually much more potent than CO2.

Also, keep in mind if the CO2 level was not increased in the past few decades, the climate would be colder than what we are experiencing right now. It's all about assuming that other factors stay the same but a lot can change. If we have a massive volcano, we will experience global cooling and that's because of the gases trapping heat BUT it does NOT prove that CO2 is not the cause of current global warming. It still stays the same. Without the increased CO2, it could be much colder.

So, it's easy to be deluded when we're "cooling" and say, "See! We didn't cause global warming!" If the cooling is caused by the sun activity, then we are truly lucky this time.

kokonut · 07-24-2009, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

The reason for CO2 being blamed for the current global warming is that we produce a lot of CO2 while we produce less of other known chemicals although we do NEED to look at methane and other gases because they are actually much more potent than CO2.

Also, keep in mind if the CO2 level was not increased in the past few decades, the climate would be colder than what we are experiencing right now. It's all about assuming that other factors stay the same but a lot can change. If we have a massive volcano, we will experience global cooling and that's because of the gases trapping heat BUT it does NOT prove that CO2 is not the cause of current global warming. It still stays the same. Without the increased CO2, it could be much colder.

So, it's easy to be deluded when we're "cooling" and say, "See! We didn't cause global warming!" If the cooling is caused by the sun activity, then we are truly lucky this time.

Er, CO2 is essential for life. Secondly, there is this lag time between temperature changes and changes in CO2 concentration. Thirdly, about volcanoes, no, it's not because of trapping heat but the dust, ash and aerosol thrown into the air that deflect incoming infrared rays that heats the surface of the Earth.

"Without the increased CO2, it could be much colder." You're making the claim that CO2 is the main culprit and controller of temperature change. There is no proof of that. It's a theory you're pushing. And lastly, the sun has a major input (and influence) on climate change and weather patterns because the sun is never static when it comes to energy output and fluxes aimed directly at Earth. And then you have many, many other variables and factors that come into play influencing climate change and weather patterns when it comes to cooling and warming, increase or decrease in precipition or none at all.

netrox · 07-24-2009, 03:41 PM

The whole point is that the CO2 is believed to be the culprit for the *CURRENT* global warming! Never once did I suggest that the sun or other factors has nothing to do with this climate nor did I suggest that CO2 is the main factor for the whole climate!

Suppose a massive volcano erupts and cools the earth, what's the main culprit for that climate change? Gases from volcano is the main culprit for the cooling, assuming that the other factors are NOT changed.

It's the same with CO2. I am NOT ignoring other factors involved in climate changes. You are the one that ignore CO2 as a signficant factor for THIS current global warming.

Don't tell me about what CO2 is. I know what it is. I know it's essential for life. So is heat. So is water. But it doesn't mean that we can have too much of them!

darkdog · 07-24-2009, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naisho

The whole system of greenhouse emissions is completely complex, I don't think any discussion (whether of personal opinion or based off another site's) on alldeaf.com along with links provided can prove just about anything. You can educate another, but I highly doubt anyone at this time can just yet prove anything.

This is why I don't delve into the science itself too much. Because I just don't know much about it. It's not my specialty. Most people who get into these internet arguments really don't either, whether they want to admit it or not. It usually turns into long-winded debates with both sides pulling stuff off their favorite websites. For that reason, I think it's more productive to talk about what our response to the whole thing should be.

**shel90** · 07-24-2009, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkdog

This is why I don't delve into the science itself too much. Because I just don't know much about it. It's not my specialty. Most people who get into these internet arguments really don't either, whether they want to admit it or not. It usually turns into long-winded debates with both sides pulling stuff off their favorite websites. For that reason, I think it's more productive to talk about what our response to the whole thing should be.

I was reading thru this thread and I just see the same too. I am not an expert on science but I understand that there are always conflicting views in this field.

I just know that pollution is created by man and I am pretty sure it does have an effect on the environment. Cause climate changes, who knows?

**saywhatkid** · 07-24-2009, 05:09 PM

Sometimes I am simply amazed at how diligent these anti-Democrats are! A large group of the world's top scientific minds cannot decide if this is really happening. However, because Al Gore said he thinks it is, and because Nashville set a cold temperature record, this somehow proves, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Democrats are complete idiots, and Republicans are superior? That is the veiled and implied ideology here. Do you fear Al Gore, the real winner in the 2000 election? Why not try your hand at sports reporting next? It is all about picking an opinion and shouting louder than the others. Who was a better hitter: Ty Cobb or Ted Williams? Holy Cow!

**saywhatkid** · 07-24-2009, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naisho

After reading through 4 pages of this..
Where are the scientists (or the real science)? Why is all this dabble on personal opinions, random remarks along with quick links from searches to back up statements?

There seems to be relatively little correlation going on in trying to evaluate overall causes of global warming. The point should be to work together to figure out the overall cause.

ch4, NO's, SF, and C/HFC's were not even mentioned once in all 100 posts. I looked at every one of them.. even the link spam.
These gases are widely known to anyone proficient or with merit in the topic of greenhouse emissions.
Those are also known as methane, nitrous oxides, sulfur fluorides, chloroflurocarbon/hydroflurocarbon's for the non-chemists. Production of these have greatly increased since the stone age, since, well, mostly humans have the means to be able to produce these along with some animals.

If we discuss technics, then get technical and cover all the bases rather than going simple and marking CO2 and the sun/sun spots.

The whole system of greenhouse emissions is completely complex, I don't think any discussion (whether of personal opinion or based off another site's) on alldeaf.com along with links provided can prove just about anything. You can educate another, but I highly doubt anyone at this time can just yet prove anything.

Their point is; how can we find what causes something that ain't happening? A typical "me first" thought pattern common among Republican hard liners. Let's drill the crap out of this country so we can keep filling our Hummers for less than $40. Let those oil companies continue to increase prices so they can let us pay for their investing into more lobbying and oil exploration, but keep hounding the tree huggers on how we need to break free of foreign oil, yet we get gouged at home by Exxon-Mobil, so they can reclaim the top spot on the Fortune 500 list. Tell me how they need my help when they make more money than Wal-Mart.

My rant is done.

I made the longest sentence in AD today!

kokonut · 07-24-2009, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

Suppose a massive volcano erupts and cools the earth, what's the main culprit for that climate change? Gases from volcano is the main culprit for the cooling, assuming that the other factors are NOT changed.

It's the same with CO2. I am NOT ignoring other factors involved in climate changes. You are the one that ignore CO2 as a signficant factor for THIS current global warming.

Don't tell me about what CO2 is. I know what it is. I know it's essential for life. So is heat. So is water. But it doesn't mean that we can have too much of them!

From a massive volcano eruption (i.e. anything bigger from Pinatubo and up)? It'd be ashes, other fine aerosols and sulfur dioxide that would be the primary culprit causing a temporary drop in global cooling due to the reduced filtration of sunlight reaching the ground. Not gases.
CVO Website - Volcanoes and Weather

CO2 has never been known to be a "significant" factor influencing changes in temperature. Some influence, sure, but not significant to the same degree as, say, wator vapor or ashes thrown into the stratosphere.

Too much of CO2? Now, now, CO2 concentration has always gone up and down without man's help. Even in greenhouses where CO2 is around 1000 ppm, the higher CO2 concentration does not harm people working in there and the plants love it. From a paleoclimate viewpoint, the current ppm is really, really low. Yet plants and animal species have lived quite well with CO2 concentration up to a few thousand ppm. Even at 6000 ppm, too. It may sound alot but it's not when you look at the scale of things. 6000 ppm is only .6 percent of the total atmospheric gases by volume. We're at .038 percent right now but water vapor is at 3 percent.

kokonut · 07-24-2009, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

Their point is; how can we find what causes something that ain't happening? A typical "me first" thought pattern common among Republican hard liners. Let's drill the crap out of this country so we can keep filling our Hummers for less than $40. Let those oil companies continue to increase prices so they can let us pay for their investing into more lobbying and oil exploration, but keep hounding the tree huggers on how we need to break free of foreign oil, yet we get gouged at home by Exxon-Mobil, so they can reclaim the top spot on the Fortune 500 list. Tell me how they need my help when they make more money than Wal-Mart.

My rant is done.

I made the longest sentence in AD today!

You're committing a Red Herring there.

So, you're not in favor of cheap gas prices?

BTW, oil companies do not "control" prices. The market does through supply and demand, and any future uncertainties that may cause an upward blip in oil prices (e.g oil futures). Good thing you're not living in Europe where gas prices are currently 2 to 2 1/2 times our prices in the US. Now, we don't have "big" oil companies in the U.S. Almost 80% of the oil market is held by foreign national oil companies such as Saudi Arabian Co., National Iranian Oil Co., and the Iraq National Oil Co. And 70 percent of our oil is imported oil mostly coming from places like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and such. Good thing Canada is our number one oil importer.

kokonut · 07-24-2009, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

Sometimes I am simply amazed at how diligent these anti-Democrats are! Not anti-Democrats, there are some great conservative Democrats out there. A large group of the world's top scientific minds cannot decide if this is really happening. However, because Al Gore said he thinks it is, and because Nashville set a cold temperature record, this somehow proves, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Democrats are complete idiots, and Republicans are superior? Only if they (both Dems and Reps) think that Earth is gonna boil over if more CO2 is emitted. That is the veiled and implied ideology here. Do you fear Al Gore, the real winner in the 2000 election? Never been the case. The court made sure of that. Why not try your hand at sports reporting next? Not really exciting thing to do unless perhaps if its a strongman competition. It is all about picking an opinion and shouting louder than the others. Not shouting louder but the ones that make the most sense...common sense that is. Who was a better hitter: Ty Cobb or Ted Williams? Holy Cow!

flip · 07-24-2009, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Again, questioning is a part of any scientific debate. What you are trying to do is squelch the debate through belittling and ad homenim attacks which signify and underlying insecurity issue. I am open to debate these figures and claims. You are making the assertion that this number you gave is conclusive and cannot be debate. Despite the fact that current understanding on the dyanmics of Earth and sun continues to evolve. The example I gave points this out when there is new understanding of how Earth pumps CO2 into the atmosphere from the ocean in massive quantities in a 65 year cycle. Do you know what a gigaton is? Compared to man's output of CO2 is very small compared to what the Earth puts out (and absorb). And what about volcanoes? "If each of the 1511 active land-volcanoes on Earth emits 5.000 tons C-equivalents of CO2 each day => 7,5 million tons per day. If 4 times more from subaerial volcanoes => 37,5 Mtons total, approx. the double amount vs. burning of fossil fuels (<20 Mtons per day)." (see http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/n..._Segalstad.ppt ). And the somber fact is that these figures are for land based volcanos and not submarine volcanoes and that the ocean covers 70% of the earth. What do we really know about these underwater volcanos and the amount of CO2 it emits and how much of it gets degassed at the surface? Lots of unknowns, uncertainties and so forth.

Again, (yes, I read your links), here's the link that I suggested you read. Did you? It explains in one of the presentation slide that the proportion of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere from fossil fuel and biomass burning is only 4% (rather than 30%). It explains why.

http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/n...d_Goldberg.ppt (warning: 20 mb)

Again, consensus is not science.

“Scientific integrity is not determined by a show of hands” - Dr Tim Ball, Canada.

“Many experiments may prove me right, but it takes only one to prove me wrong”- Dr Albert Einstein.

Einstein puts it well. There is a large scientific body that says otherwise about global warming (as caused by man). They let the science do the talking, not the policy of politics. What you are doing is a rush to judgement when in fact the science is still young and that there is much to learn about this complex system that is very dynamic. And yet, I suppose professionalism means that any disagreement in a scientific debate allows a person to use hominem attacks, be called "deniers" (as an implied reference to Holocaust deniers), belittling and so on.

Exactly, Flip, what is your professional science background? Any science background at all like, say, a college degree?

I did read it, and nowhere it explains why human have contributed with 4 percent. Do you know why it's 4 percent? The problem with junk science from heartland institute is that it's so far out it's not possible to prove anything they are claiming. What they are doing is to create alternative climate models that have a small small change of beeing right, but laughed at by over 95 percent of climate scientists. Unfortunately, the average joe, wrongly thinking that climate politics will ruin his wealth, buy these models without any hestitation.

With chemistry, one can track where CO2 comes from. Here is a link to what your goverment and REAL scientists says about CO2.

"Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent."

NOAA News Online (Story 2412)

From my years at the university, I know that an university degree have little to do with turning people into skilled scientists.

Why are you asking by the way, to belittle?

flip · 07-24-2009, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Because the claim all along is prefaced with idea that CO2 is the culprit (ie man-made) for global warming. Hence, the ongoing topic relating to CO2. Not methane, chloroflurocarbon, and such. Though that's another topic in of itself.

No one here (?) is claiming that the dynamics of climate change is simple and not complex. The issue here is the idea that "the debate is over" which isn't true at all. Or that there is a "overwhelming" majority (i.e. consensus) about global warming when consensus has nothing to do with science. The dangerous game becomes when govt uses science as a club as a justification to make policy changes and new laws while at the same time go after scientists who show otherwise with hard data and studies by calling them "flat earthers" or "deniers." But I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of population simply do not understand science or the facts/fiction behind global warming. Only because the dynamics of Earth, sun, the atmosphere, the ocean and what have you are extremely complex and cannot be predicted with such accuracy into the future. Uknown and known variables shift constantly. That what makes this so interesting.

Goverment going after scientists sounds like a x-file episode. It's really the other way around. Those scientist keep on sending open funny letters to the goverment. The goverment would have it much easier if global warming was a hoax. But they have to talk to real scientists with real credit, and have to follow the law. No responsible goverment would dream of making up boards with memebers from lobbying institutes like heartland.

flip · 07-24-2009, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

The salient question is whether warming comes first and then CO2 follows with increasing ppm concentration or is it the other way around? Lag time is hardly even discussed when it has been shown through isotope studies that temperature rise first and then C02 follows. Seeing it on graph on a scale of tens of thousand of years, hundreds or even millions of years does not do justice when lag time is takes a few hundred years to manifest itself in the form of rising CO2 concentration. Makes sense when you consider the ocean as one big CO2 sink that can only hold so much CO2 and if ocean temp goes up the ocean cannot absorb any CO2 and the rest is outgassed at the surface. And the ocean is one of the biggest CO2 emitter and absorber of CO2. One thing though, water vapor holds much more heat energy and makes up about 3 to 4 percent of the green house gas by volume compared to CO2 at .038 percent....one hundred times less by volume compared to water vapor. A cloudy or cloudless sky has a much more profound effect on surface heating and cooling that CO2 could.

Again, revealing lack of common knowledge. Hint, water vapor and CO2 are connected to each other.

flip · 07-24-2009, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

From a massive volcano eruption (i.e. anything bigger from Pinatubo and up)? It'd be ashes, other fine aerosols and sulfur dioxide that would be the primary culprit causing a temporary drop in global cooling due to the reduced filtration of sunlight reaching the ground. Not gases.
CVO Website - Volcanoes and Weather

CO2 has never been known to be a "significant" factor influencing changes in temperature. Some influence, sure, but not significant to the same degree as, say, wator vapor or ashes thrown into the stratosphere.

Too much of CO2? Now, now, CO2 concentration has always gone up and down without man's help. Even in greenhouses where CO2 is around 1000 ppm, the higher CO2 concentration does not harm people working in there and the plants love it. From a paleoclimate viewpoint, the current ppm is really, really low. Yet plants and animal species have lived quite well with CO2 concentration up to a few thousand ppm. Even at 6000 ppm, too. It may sound alot but it's not when you look at the scale of things. 6000 ppm is only .6 percent of the total atmospheric gases by volume. We're at .038 percent right now but water vapor is at 3 percent.

You are ruining your health if you stroll around in an atmosphere with 5000 ppm of CO2. Sure you know this much about CO2 as you belive?

kokonut · 07-24-2009, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkdog

This is why I don't delve into the science itself too much. Because I just don't know much about it. It's not my specialty. Most people who get into these internet arguments really don't either, whether they want to admit it or not. It usually turns into long-winded debates with both sides pulling stuff off their favorite websites. For that reason, I think it's more productive to talk about what our response to the whole thing should be.

My opinion on what we should do about CO2? Nothing.

Now, in terms of actual pollution control (CO2 is NOT a pollutant so leave that one out) that affects readily at the local and regional scale we should continue to try and reduce acid rain, ozone pollution (at ground level), smog and so on because those things do immediately impact people directly and even indirectly (e.g. acidic stream waters).

If you want to pursue "green technology" then that's fine, too but not under the guise of fear about rising CO2 and that people must pay taxes for that. Heck, China and India want nothing to do with any protocols relating to "global warming." Why should they knee-cap themselves economically when they are growing prosperously each day? Just as we grew prosperously each day and now we're at a point where we can "afford" to look into other cleaner energy technology. Not that it's the answer but it gives us a bigger platter to make our choices from. Punishment is not the answer. Yet people are suggesting that we, too, must pay more in taxes for China's and India's growths.

What we have is a bunch of morons at the White House and Congress. Plain and simple.

**saywhatkid** · 07-24-2009, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

No need to quote myself with your Teacher corrections in red. Name a few Democrats you like. And the courts saved the day? It was a money thing. Re-pubes have the money on their side. You ain't gonna change my mind, no matter how often you take apart my every word. Does not matter. Sit back and enjoy your superiority complex. Red Herrings abound when you cast your net in uncharted waters. Great retort that is....

**saywhatkid** · 07-24-2009, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

What we have is a bunch of morons at the White House and Congress. Plain and simple.

And nearly half of them are Conservatives.

07-24-2009, 01:42 PM	#101 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	The salient question is whether warming comes first and then CO2 follows with increasing ppm concentration or is it the other way around? Lag time is hardly even discussed when it has been shown through isotope studies that temperature rise first and then C02 follows. Seeing it on graph on a scale of tens of thousand of years, hundreds or even millions of years does not do justice when lag time is takes a few hundred years to manifest itself in the form of rising CO2 concentration. Makes sense when you consider the ocean as one big CO2 sink that can only hold so much CO2 and if ocean temp goes up the ocean cannot absorb any CO2 and the rest is outgassed at the surface. And the ocean is one of the biggest CO2 emitter and absorber of CO2. One thing though, water vapor holds much more heat energy and makes up about 3 to 4 percent of the green house gas by volume compared to CO2 at .038 percent....one hundred times less by volume compared to water vapor. A cloudy or cloudless sky has a much more profound effect on surface heating and cooling that CO2 could. __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

07-24-2009, 05:09 PM	#109 (permalink)
saywhatkid Emerging from the sun Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In space Posts: 7,242 Blog Entries: 2	Sometimes I am simply amazed at how diligent these anti-Democrats are! A large group of the world's top scientific minds cannot decide if this is really happening. However, because Al Gore said he thinks it is, and because Nashville set a cold temperature record, this somehow proves, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Democrats are complete idiots, and Republicans are superior? That is the veiled and implied ideology here. Do you fear Al Gore, the real winner in the 2000 election? Why not try your hand at sports reporting next? It is all about picking an opinion and shouting louder than the others. Who was a better hitter: Ty Cobb or Ted Williams? Holy Cow! __________________ "Be faithful in small things because it is in them that your strength lies." ~ Mother Teresa

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

07-24-2009, 11:41 AM	#93 (permalink)
C.C.Sinned Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,476	the climate has been changing since the plant formed. it will always continue to change. the sahara desert was once a swamp. maybe it will be one again someday.... when humans cease to exist the planet will continue to change...

07-24-2009, 12:20 PM	#96 (permalink)
sequoias Premium Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Iowa, the land of the cornfields and pigs Posts: 21,867	A hiccup might destroy a quarter of the world's population and reduce the population big time, like a major castrophophic earthquake or a major weather event. You never know what tricks Earth can play. There may be 1000 year Earthquakes, 1000 year weather events, etc

07-24-2009, 02:32 PM	#102 (permalink)
*naisho* Forum Disorders M.D.,Ph.D Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 127.0.0.1 Posts: 6,162	After reading through 4 pages of this.. Where are the scientists (or the real science)? Why is all this dabble on personal opinions, random remarks along with quick links from searches to back up statements? There seems to be relatively little correlation going on in trying to evaluate overall causes of global warming. The point should be to work together to figure out the overall cause. ch4, NO's, SF, and C/HFC's were not even mentioned once in all 100 posts. I looked at every one of them.. even the link spam. These gases are widely known to anyone proficient or with merit in the topic of greenhouse emissions. Those are also known as methane, nitrous oxides, sulfur fluorides, chloroflurocarbon/hydroflurocarbon's for the non-chemists. Production of these have greatly increased since the stone age, since, well, mostly humans have the means to be able to produce these along with some animals. If we discuss technics, then get technical and cover all the bases rather than going simple and marking CO2 and the sun/sun spots. The whole system of greenhouse emissions is completely complex, I don't think any discussion (whether of personal opinion or based off another site's) on alldeaf.com along with links provided can prove just about anything. You can educate another, but I highly doubt anyone at this time can just yet prove anything.

07-24-2009, 02:57 PM	#104 (permalink)
netrox Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 4,780	The reason for CO2 being blamed for the current global warming is that we produce a lot of CO2 while we produce less of other known chemicals although we do NEED to look at methane and other gases because they are actually much more potent than CO2. Also, keep in mind if the CO2 level was not increased in the past few decades, the climate would be colder than what we are experiencing right now. It's all about assuming that other factors stay the same but a lot can change. If we have a massive volcano, we will experience global cooling and that's because of the gases trapping heat BUT it does NOT prove that CO2 is not the cause of current global warming. It still stays the same. Without the increased CO2, it could be much colder. So, it's easy to be deluded when we're "cooling" and say, "See! We didn't cause global warming!" If the cooling is caused by the sun activity, then we are truly lucky this time.

07-24-2009, 03:41 PM	#106 (permalink)
netrox Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 4,780	The whole point is that the CO2 is believed to be the culprit for the CURRENT global warming! Never once did I suggest that the sun or other factors has nothing to do with this climate nor did I suggest that CO2 is the main factor for the whole climate! Suppose a massive volcano erupts and cools the earth, what's the main culprit for that climate change? Gases from volcano is the main culprit for the cooling, assuming that the other factors are NOT changed. It's the same with CO2. I am NOT ignoring other factors involved in climate changes. You are the one that ignore CO2 as a signficant factor for THIS current global warming. Don't tell me about what CO2 is. I know what it is. I know it's essential for life. So is heat. So is water. But it doesn't mean that we can have too much of them!