Global Warming

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey.. If you question my contention.."By the way, can you show me how Al Gore is earning from his film?" Its up to you to prove he didn't get paid for his participation in this travesty of truth? I don't have to do it! Prove I'm wrong. Just remember not much in the entertainment/media is done without some sort of recompense..If President Clinton receives 6 figure payouts for short speeches and appearances I think you might find Gore is getting similar payoffs. Any way prove I'm wrong...You haved the internet at your disposal if you know how to use it.

This forum does not work by that idiom, in here if you make a claim then you must support it with reliable sources. Those were the rules laid down by Sean and it has not changed.

[kubedawg]

Did any of those graphs take into affect the improved ways we have today of viewing fossil carbon emissions as opposed to primitive ways during the early 1900's?

[xyzer]

Pooey..I don't get the use of your word idiom? How does it apply here?

This forum does not work by that idiom, in here if you make a claim then you must support it with reliable sources. Those were the rules laid down by Sean and it has not changed.

I don't think you have the written rules right?
This one may apply here? Are you?..

Contributing to a topic to dismiss the very discussion of it will not be tolerated.

trying to dismiss my opinion by not contributing to the discussion and instead saying I have to add something to my opinion? Can you be considered guilty of violating a rule?

Anyway I think it appropriate for you to look up the words discussion and debate. You apparently don't want to engage in either subject. Instead you demand proof. If that is correct then I demand your evidence that I'm wrong. winner take all.:)

[TRIGGER]

The graphs mean nothing unless you give the percentage of the over all emissions. Emissions of carbon by human industrial sorces is only about 4% or less of the over all carbon emited. That chart is made to scare the population and not to educate. And if you were to add the emission increases given off by the animal life on the planet ( which is increasing) you would probably fine that that figure dwarfs the the industrial emission increases. That graph is typical of the ploys used by the environmental brurocrats to scare the public into voting democrat. The one inconvient truth to this global warming mith is the fact that the climate (600 years ago) was apx. 6 degrees warmer than today. The last 600 years we have been in what is called a mini ice age that we are comming out of. The environmentalests are using a natural event to scare the money out of the useful idiots that don't have the common sense or logic god gave them.

[Chris]

Quote by: kubedawg Did any of those graphs take into affect the improved ways we have today of viewing fossil carbon emissions as opposed to primitive ways during the early 1900's?

Ill take it you havent seen the movie.

The ice samples are using today's "improved ways" of viewing carbon emissions. By doing this we have a record of the last 600, 000 years.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey..I don't get the use of your word idiom? How does it apply here?

It doesn't, I was womdering if you actually read what I say instead of just rambling the same dogma.

Quote by: xyzer I don't think you have the written rules right? This one may apply here? Are you?.. trying to dismiss my opinion by not contributing to the discussion and instead saying I have to add something to my opinion? Can you be considered guilty of violating a rule? Anyway I think it appropriate for you to look up the words discussion and debate. You apparently don't want to engage in either subject. Instead you demand proof. If that is correct then I demand your evidence that I'm wrong. winner take all.:)

You've failed to support your claim with reliable sources, does that mean you're withdrawing your comment or conceding defeat?

[kubedawg]

Quote by: Chris Ill take it you havent seen the movie. The ice samples are using today's "improved ways" of viewing carbon emissions. By doing this we have a record of the last 600, 000 years.

That's funny, because we didn't start recording information like this back then, nor did we exist. So how are they able to date back that far and call it fact? Anything before we existed as human beings is complete theory and speculation. So it's only practical to date this from the first time we started dating it, and still, do we know the flaws of previous systems we've used in the past?

[xyzer]

I buy TRIGGERS take on the matter. As I have posted in the past! There is evidence we are in a generalwarming climate cycle right now. Has been with sub cycles ever since the last Ice Age. But there is also evidence that the earth has had a series of much warmer and cooler cycles in the past! These before the advent of heavier injections of human caused industrial emissions into the climate mix.
The exact degree of influence has not been clearly proved.
We do have a plethoras of widely publicized conjecture by various scientists who have been injecting data into computer models and predicting climate a century or so hence. Often with alarming forecasts of doom. People like Gore profit from these studies by predicting a climate armageddon if something isn't done to prohibit human industrial activity. They don't seem to consider the economic impact of drastic cut backs of industrial enterprise and the risk that human caused emissions may not be a major contributor? They discount the importance of natural non human related climate influences and how mankind can not temper these natural cycles..

[xyzer]

Now now Pooey...

It doesn't, I was womdering if you actually read what I say instead of just rambling the same dogma

Your slip is showing?

I read what you say and sometimes I even agree with it! But I reserve the right to disagree. I do enjoy the riposte as you have no doubt noticed!

[JohnMK]

Quote by: TRIGGER The graphs mean nothing unless you give the percentage of the over all emissions. Emissions of carbon by human industrial sorces is only about 4% or less of the over all carbon emited.

Thank you for the information, Trigger. I'll try to dig up some detail on that and determine its accuracy, pertinency, and context.

I think you have a couple things wrong though.

One, I suspect you premise that 4 is a much smaller number than 100 and no cause for concern. It depends greatly on the context however. If that extra 4 means you end up parking your car on a railroad track, then the implication is that extra 4 is pretty bad. To say 4 is smaller than 100 so I'll think nothing of it, is really quite premature.

Two, the graphs aren't meaningless. Each separately is merely interesting. Taken together they are telling, however, at least to the objective scientist who has no preconceived political notions.

Assuming for the moment that your 4% figure is correct, and assuming separately that it actually represents what you remember it implying, does this make it unimportant? That isn't a logical conclusion. Without further information, comparing 4 to 100 does nothing to aid you in assessing long-term implication. For example, carbon dioxide which fluctuates between 250 ppm - 300 ppm between ice-age and warm period. In 1958, we were at 315 ppm. Every single year since then we have increased the concentration, at a pace of about 2 ppm/yr. on average, and about 3 ppm/yr. at present. We are now at roughly 393 or so ppm and increasingly increasing. We haven't been past ~ 300 ppm in at least the last 650,000 years, and quite probably not in millions upon millions of years.

650,000 B.C.-1900 A.D: ~ 250-300 ppm between ice age and warm periods
1958: 315
2006: 393

Carbon dioxide (CO2), being triatomic as opposed to diatomic (O2, N2) is a potent absorber of heat.

I think what people are doing is learning just enough to suit their political agenda, or at least their pre-conceived notions. If we were back in the middle ages, these people would be campaigning against Galileo. There is no scientific conspiracy; it's one thing to be skeptical of others. You should compound that further however by being skeptical of yourself and forming your conclusions only after you are swayed by the evidential tendency and objective, scientific analysis.

I don't want you to vote for a Democrat or a Republican.

[JohnMK]

Quote by: xyzer People like Gore profit from these studies by predicting a climate armageddon if something isn't done to prohibit human industrial activity.

]

Do you define "profit" here in pecuniary terms?

They don't seem to consider the economic impact of drastic cut backs of industrial enterprise and the risk that human caused emissions may not be a major contributor? They discount the importance of natural non human related climate influences and how mankind can not temper these natural cycles..

Could you please define "they?"

Scientists aren't in the business of economics. If they tell you you're making the planet warmer, and at the present pace of CO2 output you'll be X degrees hotter in 100 years, it then becomes the job of policy makers to weigh the costs and benefits of such a future with the costs and benefits of taking no action. Part of the problem is so many people are skeptical of science. And even when they aren't, people prefer their fun now rather than later; we tend to live with blinders on, for today. This is a good heuristic in some cases but not all.

There are methods of GW mitigation that capitatlize on the vitality, efficiency and creativity of free markets, e.g. emissions trading.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer I buy TRIGGERS take on the matter. As I have posted in the past! There is evidence we are in a generalwarming climate cycle right now. Has been with sub cycles ever since the last Ice Age. But there is also evidence that the earth has had a series of much warmer and cooler cycles in the past! These before the advent of heavier injections of human caused industrial emissions into the climate mix.

Ever more the diversionist. No one has ever claimed that natural cycles don't exist or that we're not experiencing it and it's the change climate we're experiencing which cannot be explained by natural phenomena that has lead to the development of human induced Global warming model.

Quote by: xyzer The exact degree of influence has not been clearly proved.

Proof is not possible till you've eliminated all possible alternatives, is that possible? I'll leave that for you to answer.

Quote by: xyzer We do have a plethoras of widely publicized conjecture by various scientists who have been injecting data into computer models and predicting climate a century or so hence.

As Sonart has no doubt posted prior and that you seemingly ignore, all major scientific organisations recognise global warming and that human influence is detectable. Granted we do not have an exact figure on our contribution but that's why it's being hotly researched.

Quote by: xyzer Often with alarming forecasts of doom. People like Gore profit from these studies by predicting a climate armageddon if something isn't done to prohibit human industrial activity. They don't seem to consider the economic impact of drastic cut backs of industrial enterprise and the risk that human caused emissions may not be a major contributor? They discount the importance of natural non human related climate influences and how mankind can not temper these natural cycles..

You seem to bring up Al Gore alot but my opinions of Global Warming have never been affected by what he said (I learnt about it in my science lesson). I think you are the forecaster of Doom if you think they changing this civilisation to a more efficient and less polluting workshop will cause economic disaster. Not to mention extremely short sighted given what is at stake.

So somehow, you think you know more about climatology than the experts who've dedicated their lives to studying it. Perhaps you should drop them a line on these other climatic influences that you've thought about, I mean they might be fresh out of ideas and you'll be the muse! Quite obviously you're more qualified on the matter than all of them put together!

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: kubedawg That's funny, because we didn't start recording information like this back then, nor did we exist. So how are they able to date back that far and call it fact? Anything before we existed as human beings is complete theory and speculation. So it's only practical to date this from the first time we started dating it, and still, do we know the flaws of previous systems we've used in the past?

Is this sarcasm or are you asking for the actual scientific methods for determining past gas compositions and the likes?

[JohnMK]

Quote by: kubedawg That's funny, because we didn't start recording information like this back then, nor did we exist. So how are they able to date back that far and call it fact? Anything before we existed as human beings is complete theory and speculation. So it's only practical to date this from the first time we started dating it, and still, do we know the flaws of previous systems we've used in the past?

So I take it you pretty much don't buy the scientific method.

Kubedawg, don't get me wrong - you can say some insightful things - and I respect you. This paragraph of yours does you such disservice, however. I would advise familiarizing yourself with the methodology involved and whatever fundamentals of chemistry might be required to comprehend them.

[JohnMK]

Ice core methodology overview:

Ice Cores That Tell The Past

I found this article at BBC's site noteworthy:

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Deep ice tells long climate story

The "scary thing", he added, was the rate of change now occurring in CO2 concentrations. In the core, the fastest increase seen was of the order of 30 parts per million (ppm) by volume over a period of roughly 1,000 years. "The last 30 ppm of increase has occurred in just 17 years. We really are in the situation where we don't have an analogue in our records," he said.

[JohnMK]

1000 divided by 17 ~= 59. So we're tweaking the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere 59 times faster than has happened in the last 800,000 years. If we are in a natural warming cycle, then we're amplifying it by AT LEAST 59 times its likely baseline rate. I wonder what the peak of this warming cycle will be? Probably higher than the last one . . . and in large part achieved orders of magnitude more quickly.

[TRIGGER]

One thing that you haven't mentioned is that in the past 50 or so years that there has been an increase in volcanic activity and forest fires. When mt Penatubo went up in the 80's it pumped more poluntants in to the atmosphere than human activity could in 100 years in apx. 4 days. Back fifty or so years ago we used to manage our forests cleaning out the dead trees and clearing the floors of tinder making forests more vunerable to fire and taking away plants that use co2 for food. The environmentalists stoped this, do you think that these natural occurances may have something to do with the rise in co2? Also since the US has drasticly reduced our emissions why would you look to the US to cut more emittions instead of going after the 3rd world countrys like the former soviet block countrys that havn't done anything about their emmissions. If you want to change the emissions then all the countrys need to get on the wagon not just the prosperious one's. We could drasticaly reduce our emissions by changing our production of power from coal, oil, and natural gas to nuclear. With 0 co2 emissions and a possability of going to electric heat instead of oil and natural gas. Of corse this may also help to lower our dependancy on oil imports.

[JohnMK]

Hi Trigger,

Volcanic activity has a minor role to play at present. You say Mt. Pinatubo released more into the atmosphere than we could in 100 years . . . I don't doubt it released massive amounts of material in one form or another (mainly particulate, so it would result in slight global dimming->cooling), but it must not have been a globally significant amount of CO2. There are no single year "massive" increases in the 48 year record we have, just slow and steady increasing increases that mirrors periods of economic strength and weakness quite well, e.g. during the early '90's recession in much of the world you see the level of CO2 increase slow down. Still going up but a different slope on the curve.

The resolution of this particular Keeling curve graph below is quite low.



Here is a higher-resolution Keeling curve graph for those interested:
http://www.wooster.edu/geology/lackey/keeling.jpg

And here is the complete list of Keeling data, month by month, going back to 1958 in numeric tabular format:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp001/maunaloa.co2

[kubedawg]

How am I to believe something happened before humans existed, or not necessarily DID it happen, but HOW did it happen is more like it. Before we existed, it could have been an entirely different world from what we know today and in our past history. I have the same views on creationism vs. evolution. We can use carbon dating to try and figure out a date in which the dinosaurs lived, but it's only theory. I'm not saying it's bad to study history, but just don't make an assumption, even based on current evidence, and call it fact when it clearly isn't. It may be probable, all the studies scientists do to determine these figures could be complete bogus. I don't consider my opinion to be of disservice to myself. Hell, it could be true, but there is no even probable way of detemining the history before our time. It's good we have charts to back up previous things that we did in our lives, but my main point is we cannot possibly search back 600,000 years, 100,000 years because we hadn't existed at that point in time. I don't buy into the scientific method, or any method of dating things that existed before our time. I don't have a problem with scientific method used in human history because we know it to be factual, or at least partially factual, because better procedures are developed over time. How does one know that physics weren't different before we existed? Just because the scientific method says they've been able to find dinosaur bones that are supposed millions of years old, I say, PROVE IT.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: kubedawg How am I to believe something happened before humans existed, or not necessarily DID it happen, but HOW did it happen is more like it. Before we existed, it could have been an entirely different world from what we know today and in our past history. I have the same views on creationism vs. evolution. We can use carbon dating to try and figure out a date in which the dinosaurs lived, but it's only theory.

I see your education is lacking, we will never use Carbon dating to elucidate the age of dinosaur fossils. Why? Because the half life of Carbon-14 is relatively low at 5700 years which is only good for dating back to 60000 years.

Quote by: kubedawg I'm not saying it's bad to study history, but just don't make an assumption, even based on current evidence, and call it fact when it clearly isn't.

And you're qualified to say what is fact because?

Quote by: kubedawg It may be probable, all the studies scientists do to determine these figures could be complete bogus.

Yes, all science is falsifiable, it's a tenet for all contemporary work. Do you have data to falsify our current dating methods?

Quote by: kubedawg I don't consider my opinion to be of disservice to myself. Hell, it could be true, but there is no even probable way of detemining the history before our time. It's good we have charts to back up previous things that we did in our lives, but my main point is we cannot possibly search back 600,000 years, 100,000 years because we hadn't existed at that point in time.

What stops us from analysing "frozen" or preserved samples to reconstruct the past?

Quote by: kubedawg I don't buy into the scientific method, or any method of dating things that existed before our time. I don't have a problem with scientific method used in human history because we know it to be factual, or at least partially factual, because better procedures are developed over time.

That doesn't make any sense at, you either accept the science or you don't. So what's the difference between the point just after human history and the point just after? How does that stop science from working? Is there an invisible line that stops everything functioning?

Quote by: kubedawg How does one know that physics weren't different before we existed?

That's a valid point. Which is why science is probing into cosmological past but all current data suggests the laws of physics were the same as now as they were several million years ago.

Quote by: kubedawg Just because the scientific method says they've been able to find dinosaur bones that are supposed millions of years old, I say, PROVE IT.

Modern science does not prove anything, that's left to the courts and pure mathematics.
Going from your assertion, if a crime is commited and no one saw it, then trying to rebuild this past event with forensic is invalid.
The principle is exactly the same, you physical evidence left the scene of the crime and extrapolate as best you can.

It's quite evident here that you don't even have the basic understanding of modern science and how it reconstructs the past, your comment on dinosaurs and carbon dating shows exactly that. I propose that you educate yourself before commenting on such matters again.