Global Myths - My Son's Sixth-Grade Speech

[Pale RIder]

It's meant to tell you that global warming will cause another mass extinction within a century. Just because the Earth was warmer in the past doesn't mean we aren't inducing an artificial change that is at drastically higher rate than normal.

I understand perfectly that some species will die off if the earth warms up...but a rise to the normal high for the earth will not cause a mass extinction as happened at the end of the permian period..a mean temperature of 22C will make the entire earth habitable...the resulting increase in rainfall will green every desert on the face of the earth. Contrary to a mass extinction, life on the earth will bloom. We are perfectly capable of living at 22C...we will have to change, but we can survive at that temp.

And exactly because the earth was warmer in the past suggests that we are not causing anything...most of the temperature elevations in the past have been more abrupt than the one that is happening now. If you want to argue that we are causing anything, argue that we are somehow causing a dampening effect on the coming temperature rise...

What has that temperature go to do with article? How would knowing the average temperature help us to face the catastrophes that will occur if the current rise continues? If we inducing an artificial change in temperature then there most certainly is a cause for concern.

Knowing the average mean temperature would put the lie to the implied message of the article...that we are causing the earth to heat up. Knowing the average mean temperature of the earth would change the entire tone of the global warming discussion from one of "WE ARE CAUSING IT!!! IF WE STOP DRIVING CARS, IT WILL ALL GO AWAY!!!....to a discussion about a natural warming trend...a coming warming climate that is going to change the earth...a coming warming trend that we can predict, and as such can prepare for. A discussion in which we acknowledge that if the earth is going to warm, (which it has done in the past, over and over, and over) that we are powerless to change that fact, but we are not powerless to prepare to survive the change.

Your side of the conversation believes that if we just change, the earth will respond by assuring our continued survival...and if you manage to get us to change, you will sharply curtail the very technology that may be vital to our survival when the temperature continues to rise without regard for anything we have done. Your side of the conversation ignores the long warm history of the earth...your side of the conversation is completely ignoring the reality of the situation and instead claims that we are somehow entirely responsible for a completely natural event.

I don't have sufficient data to decide whether that's true or not but I'm willing to bet most of the state schools are underfunded.

Money is not the answer to our educational problems...accountability is. If we toss teachers that simply do not produce, without regard to teacher's unions, and slash the bureaucracy by 2/3 then we would be well on the way towards curing the disease that is killing the system. The problems within our public systems are problems of bureaucracy...in my local school system, (and nearly everywhere else I would suspect) there are 1.5 administrators per teacher...anyone who can't see a problem in such an upside down number is part of the problem.

[Pooeypants]

I understand perfectly that some species will die off if the earth warms up...but a rise to the normal high for the earth will not cause a mass extinction as happened at the end of the permian period..a mean temperature of 22C will make the entire earth habitable...the resulting increase in rainfall will green every desert on the face of the earth. Contrary to a mass extinction, life on the earth will bloom. We are perfectly capable of living at 22C...we will have to change, but we can survive at that temp.

A change that drastic would definitely cause a mass extinction, we might survive due to our technology. I hope you realise that evolution requires geological timescale, if our temperature rose to 22C global it'll sure as hell a large proportion of our wildlife...

And exactly because the earth was warmer in the past suggests that we are not causing anything...most of the temperature elevations in the past have been more abrupt than the one that is happening now. If you want to argue that we are causing anything, argue that we are somehow causing a dampening effect on the coming temperature rise...

Wait, if it was so obvious, wouldn't you think all the scientists would've realised by now? Or is it just you, Pale Rider who has figured it all out?

Knowing the average mean temperature would put the lie to the implied message of the article...that we are causing the earth to heat up.

Incorrect, knowing the average temperature doesn't explain the tread we are seeing.

Knowing the average mean temperature of the earth would change the entire tone of the global warming discussion from one of "WE ARE CAUSING IT!!! IF WE STOP DRIVING CARS, IT WILL ALL GO AWAY!!!....to a discussion about a natural warming trend...a coming warming climate that is going to change the earth...a coming warming trend that we can predict, and as such can prepare for. A discussion in which we acknowledge that if the earth is going to warm, (which it has done in the past, over and over, and over) that we are powerless to change that fact, but we are not powerless to prepare to survive the change.

How about we have a discussion in which we talk about the correlation between temperature rise and the rise of greenhouse gases?

Your side of the conversation believes that if we just change, the earth will respond by assuring our continued survival...and if you manage to get us to change, you will sharply curtail the very technology that may be vital to our survival when the temperature continues to rise without regard for anything we have done. Your side of the conversation ignores the long warm history of the earth...your side of the conversation is completely ignoring the reality of the situation and instead claims that we are somehow entirely responsible for a completely natural event.

Your side? Oh, you mean the majority of climate scientists and such? So what do you make of this article? Obviously, being as it is a week old it won't convince you because your mind is deadset. Apparently, you're more qualified to assess and conclude on world climate than the thousands of academics out there that study and research it everyday. Amazing isn't?

[Nono]

so your point is?

So my point is that far from being a benign event it will make human life untenable where it's densest: in the coastal strips. And there we're only talking rising sea levels. Of course a rapidly warming climate would likely cause drastic shifts of precipiation and other types of weather that could – and probably will – lead to famines, water wars, etc., i.e. large-scale human misery.

From your lofty perch you wave a jaded hand and say "Ahh! Anyway, the world's a tough place, we've seen it all before … ". Complacency is easy for some people, as long as they don't reckon anything bad's going to happen to them, in their lifetime.

By the way, your warped caricature of "IF WE STOP DRIVING CARS, IT WILL ALL GO AWAY!!!...." is just sophistry. I don't know of anybody who thinks it could all go away, just that we could avoid exacerbating it if we chose to. And that means acting promptly on obvious probabilities.

[Sonart]

You will note that I said that with one exception, most extinctions have occured during cold periods..the end of the permian period is that exception...

By "one exception" are you referring to the current extinction event?

MASS EXTINCTION UNDERWAY

That would make it a significant anomoly, wouldn't you think? Is it because of global warming or human encroachment? Both. And either way, it clearly points out that humans do indeed have the capacity to affect massive global changes in nature.

For the bulk of earth history there has been absolutely no ice at one or both of the earth's poles...warming and cooling is what the earth does...

Not on cue it doesn't.

And exactly because the earth was warmer in the past suggests that we are not causing anything..

Nonsense. This is on cue. It has been predicted -- and events are following predictions -- based on human activity, all within the geophysically minute period of a hundred years or so. Yes, nature does what nature does. This is not what nature does.

a coming warming climate that is going to change the earth...a coming warming trend that we can predict, and as such can prepare for.

A coming warming trend that has already been predicted -- based on human activity -- and which we can ameliorate. And we can do so without returning to the stoneage. "IF WE STOP DRIVING CARS, IT WILL ALL GO AWAY!!!.." is simply your own brand of fear-mongering.


.

[Pale RIder]

A change that drastic would definitely cause a mass extinction, we might survive due to our technology. I hope you realise that evolution requires geological timescale, if our temperature rose to 22C global it'll sure as hell a large proportion of our wildlife...

History shows that mass extinctions occur during cooling periods, not warming periods...and far more extinctions occur during the cooling off period, than during the warming up periods...

Wait, if it was so obvious, wouldn't you think all the scientists would've realised by now? Or is it just you, Pale Rider who has figured it all out?

The fact is that most scientists have figured it out...nearly 20 thousand of them have signed onto a petition denouncing the fraudulent IPCC report.

Incorrect, knowing the average temperature doesn't explain the tread we are seeing.

But it does explain it as a natural cycle of the earth, and not some new occurance that we must be causing..

How about we have a discussion in which we talk about the correlation between temperature rise and the rise of greenhouse gases?

Sure, can we start with explaining who is responsible for the accumulated greenhouse gasses that caused four warming trends before this one?...Also, can we begin with acknowedging the fact that water vapor, not CO2 is by far the most important of the greenhouse gases and that we have little effect upon the accumulation of water vapor in the atmosphere...also, lets admit the fact that the yearly contribution of humans to the atmospheric CO2 is less than the natural deviation from year to year..If we can begin with the facts in the matter, I am more than happy to talk to you about the correlation between temperature rise and the rise of greenhouse gases...but if you insist on blaming humans for a completely natural cycle of the earth, then I am compelled to keep pointing out that the temperature has risen many times before without the benefit of humans..

Your side? Oh, you mean the majority of climate scientists and such? So what do you make of this article? Obviously, being as it is a week old it won't convince you because your mind is deadset. Apparently, you're more qualified to assess and conclude on world climate than the thousands of academics out there that study and research it everyday. Amazing isn't?

As I said, 20 thousand plus scientists, including quite a few Nobel Prize winners (not to mention those who withdrew their support for the IPCC reports after they were altered) have signed a petition denouncing the IPCC reports and the Kyoto protocol that came from them as sloppy science that was corrupted by a political agenda..I dare say that you can't produce an equal number who support human induced global warming theory..The idea that the majority of scientists agree with your side is a myth perpetrated and repeated by your side..

[Pooeypants]

History shows that mass extinctions occur during cooling periods, not warming periods...and far more extinctions occur during the cooling off period, than during the warming up periods...

Point being? It still doesn't mean we won't witness mass extinction from artificially inflated warming.
Hey Mr Pale Rider, I'm going to reveal some myths to you.

The fact is that most scientists have figured it out...nearly 20 thousand of them have signed onto a petition denouncing the fraudulent IPCC report.

You're refering to the 1998 petition, which itself was a fraud. Funny that isn't it? I've already posted this refutation earlier but you missed it.
This is what I posted:
Read this

Allow to quote some of it

In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign, including for example Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center." Caruba has no scientific credentials whatsoever, but in addition to signing the Oregon Petition he has editorialized on his own website against the science of global warming, calling it the "biggest hoax of the decade," a "genocidal" campaign by environmentalists who believe that "humanity must be destroyed to 'Save the Earth.' . . . There is no global warming, but there is a global political agenda, comparable to the failed Soviet Union experiment with Communism, being orchestrated by the United Nations, supported by its many Green NGOs, to impose international treaties of every description that would turn the institution into a global government, superceding the sovereignty of every nation in the world."

When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology."

But it does explain it as a natural cycle of the earth, and not some new occurance that we must be causing..

Sure, can we start with explaining who is responsible for the accumulated greenhouse gasses that caused four warming trends before this one?...Also, can we begin with acknowedging the fact that water vapor, not CO2 is by far the most important of the greenhouse gases and that we have little effect upon the accumulation of water vapor in the atmosphere...also, lets admit the fact that the yearly contribution of humans to the atmospheric CO2 is less than the natural deviation from year to year..If we can begin with the facts in the matter, I am more than happy to talk to you about the correlation between temperature rise and the rise of greenhouse gases...but if you insist on blaming humans for a completely natural cycle of the earth, then I am compelled to keep pointing out that the temperature has risen many times before without the benefit of humans..

What, are you trying to tell me that the difference between carbon dioxide concentrations from the Industrial revolution until present has nothing to do with artificial activity? And that this difference in concentration does not affect our climate?
I might as well plonk in a quote:

Fact: It is indeed true that human emissions of CO2 are a small percentage of the total carbon cycled through the different components of the Earth system: plants, soils, rocks, the oceans, and the air. But these human emissions are by no means insignificant. For the last 420,000 years, until the beginning of the industrial revolution (~1750), this cycle of carbon exchange was in a quasi-stable equilibrium, i.e., the continual release and uptake of carbon kept CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere fluctuating between 180 ppm (parts per million) and 280 ppm. Since 1750, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by 31%, to a present level of 367 ppm. This increase in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels and large-scale deforestation and land-use change. These human activities have forced the carbon cycle out of the state of equilibrium and out of the known range of variation.

Source

As I said, 20 thousand plus scientists, including quite a few Nobel Prize winners (not to mention those who withdrew their support for the IPCC reports after they were altered) have signed a petition denouncing the IPCC reports and the Kyoto protocol that came from them as sloppy science that was corrupted by a political agenda..I dare say that you can't produce an equal number who support human induced global warming theory..The idea that the majority of scientists agree with your side is a myth perpetrated and repeated by your side..

Like I said, you're the one upholding the myth. It's quite funny isn't it?

[rez]

I guess its ok to see shit in the air...

Sean G I like how you say your 11 year old son wrote that because he certainly didnt. Stop trying to imply that even a 11 year old understands what the "truth" is....because even if he did write that hes only listening to exactly what his daddy said. I thought Republicans were against cloning......

So far I see that your against evolution, and shit floating in the air.......I hope your 11 year old smokes pot - make sure you catch him and then beat him for smoking that evil weed.

[Pooeypants]

I guess its ok to see shit in the air...

Sean G I like how you say your 11 year old son wrote that because he certainly didnt. Stop trying to imply that even a 11 year old understands what the "truth" is....because even if he did write that hes only listening to exactly what his daddy said. I thought Republicans were against cloning......

So far I see that your against evolution, and shit floating in the air.......I hope your 11 year old smokes pot - make sure you catch him and then beat him for smoking that evil weed.

Please refrain from insults such as these, they are not productive to the debate.

[MerlinsByte]

Please refrain from insults such as these, they are not productive to the debate.

I agree personal insults should be reserved for the flame page. I don't visit that page because rather drive nails with my head. (more productive and less painful)

I think mans contribution to global warming is minimal. Massive volcanic events, Impacts from comets, asteroids, and solar activity is the death angels that bestow extincion events not little ole' us.

note I might make an exception in the very near future. Mans mind may be able to destroy the earth, and even the universe in the very near future, if given enough time to run amuck on the world and in gods (GUAD uddsS.... Its hard to type with a southern accent!) universe(s)

mb

[Nono]

I think mans contribution to global warming is minimal. Massive volcanic events, Impacts from comets, asteroids, and solar activity is the death angels that bestow extincion events not little ole' us.

Well, Merl, maybe you'd like to list for us the significant volcanic events, comet and asteroid impacts and changes in solar activity that have brought about the temperature rise of recent years.

[MerlinsByte]

No prob good buddy! How many cubic MILES of dust and hot gasses did Mt saint Helens eject in the air, well not as much hot air, snot and tears, as the greeines bellow out with their pathetic little doomsday cries. What about Mount Pinatubo, I think the term relating to volume gasses alone (not counting the cooling dust) are “incalculable “. ummmm Mount Katmai in Alaska?
More than 7 cubic miles (30 cubic kilometers) of material was erupted in only 60 hours.
(ps that’s more than a big bad SUV can emit, so ,I'll keep my explorer,)

Was it you that chastised me for giving you an old example? Cant remember ..anyway It was published in 1993. ...remarkable! There is a slight delay between turning the stove on heating a tea pot of water...same goes for earth.

Allow me to break this down. If I provided you with reams of evidence that nature is going to control (yes as I’ve said numerous times before mans activities MAT have a MINIMUAL effect on weather AND climate.) the climate and the weather for the foreseeable future would it change your thinking?

a few more facts;



1630s: Maunder minimum begins
1690s: Maunder minimum at its deepest, cold, no sunspots
1750s: warming temperature and rising Sunspot Number
1810s: very cold and very few sunspots (1810 none at all)
1870s: slow cooling and medium Sunspot Number
1930s: sudden warming and sudden increase in Sunspot Number
1990s: a new warming and high sunspots since 1930s



53 Year avg change from cumulative lower (25%) upper (75%) Period temp previous change quartile quartile 1843-1895 -6.4 -9.0 -3.5 1896-1948 -5.3 +1.1 -6.9 -3.0 1949-2001 -4.8 +0.5 +1.6 -7.4 -2.0 Solar forcing (in sunspot activity expressed in Wolf number): during mean of the mean of the period maxima length of cycle 1843-1895 107 (5) 11.6 yrs (5) 1896-1948 104 (5) 10.5 yrs (5) 1949-2001 151 (5) 10.6 yrs (4)

Truth is I dont think any amount of facutual data can alter your thinking. Oh well, such is the nature of debate...

gods speed to in all your endeavors,

ps., nono, do you play poker..if so whats fav game? Mine is five card stud.Just a veiled question of psychology...nothing serious.

mb

[Nono]

Yeah, you and Bjørn Lomborg.

But the question is:

1) whether the factors you cite fully account for current warming (haven't big volcanoes erupted throughout history, no matter what the temperature happened to be doing at the time), and

2) whether industrial-strength freeing up of carbon might not -- despite the fervent wishes of the fossil-fuel crowd -- be giving just a teeny-weeny bit of a nudge to climate change.

Did you read Sonart's post above?