Global Warming

[Mr. Jaggers]

The effects of global warming are everywhere about us, and yet we cannot see the forest for the trees. How much evidence does it take to prove what is plain for all to see. The question now is: what can be done about it? It is doubtful that anything can be done. What now will stop the ice from melting? - and the effects of just a few degree’s change in the ocean currents that regulate the earth’s climate? The consequences will be catastrophic; and it will be late to counsel then, or pray, when it has come upon us. Indeed, one would think that man had but small brains for being the cause of his own destruction!

“When will man know what birds know?” - Carl Sandburg.

[xyzer]

I agee that nothing humans can do will change the current warming trend, partiularly in the short term. The potential of reducing human impact on CO2 production is minimal. Fossil fuel is cheap and abundant! However, I do feel we need to be more conscious of the impacts of human caused pollution and try to ease it; through development and use of sources of energy other than fossil fuels? Isn't that part of adapting to climate change.

It's quite obvious humans seek to exploit the cheapest energy source(fossil fuel). How about developing an unlimited source of energy, say hydrogen. Developing more nuclear power plants. Better ways to refine oil. Clean burning coal technology? Developing power sources from underground heat as is done in Iceland? We have the technology to do this and to develop adaptations to the effects of climate change? Steer resources to effective tools rather than always saying it's CO2 that is the culprit when in a realistic sense, it isn't?

[Mr. Jaggers]

What is unspoken (because it is “politically incorrect”) is the effects of the world’s population. We are living in a Malthusian nightmare - one where the population growth is out of control; but where there seems little that the world can (or will) do about it. Charles Darwin held out hope that man would evolve into a more perfect species, but feared that he was already doomed to self-destruction before getting there. Certainly, we are no better for following the commandment to “Be fruitful and multiply. . . .” Genesis 1:28 (KJV). Ours has not been a history of good husbandry. Man may be master on this planet; but we are rapidly laying waste to the land and the sea on which we depend for life's subsistence; for when this goes, then, surely as the earth turns, so shall we go also.

[rmnunez]

The Top 100 Effects of Global Warming:

The Top 100 Effects of Global Warming

[xyzer]

When does the next shuttle to Mars leave Its obviously time for our species to look for a new home! Noah set a good example?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer I agee that nothing humans can do will change the current warming trend, partiularly in the short term. The potential of reducing human impact on CO2 production is minimal. Fossil fuel is cheap and abundant! However, I do feel we need to be more conscious of the impacts of human caused pollution and try to ease it; through development and use of sources of energy other than fossil fuels? Isn't that part of adapting to climate change.

Is that your expert opinion or just an uneducated guess? Why is our potential for reducing CO2 production minimal? We HAVE the technology to do it, it's just a matter of whether we go ahead with it or not.

Quote by: xyzer It's quite obvious humans seek to exploit the cheapest energy source(fossil fuel). How about developing an unlimited source of energy, say hydrogen. Developing more nuclear power plants. Better ways to refine oil. Clean burning coal technology? Developing power sources from underground heat as is done in Iceland? We have the technology to do this and to develop adaptations to the effects of climate change? Steer resources to effective tools rather than always saying it's CO2 that is the culprit when in a realistic sense, it isn't?

We need to have less dithering over projects such as ITER, which was stalled for many years due to an argument over where the prototype would be built (France or Japan).

[xyzer]

Pooey, I don't mean to be critical but I do wonder sometimes at your mental age? Such ad hominems as this..

Is that your expert opinion or just an uneducated guess?

pepper you posts?

Does it occur to you that this is an opinion forum? You parade under the banner of moderator and should know better?? Aren't we here to debate and express opinions..(educated as well as uneducated}?
Does the above preface to your post give you a rush? Is it supposed to elevate you to a position of expertise? IMNSHO it in effect smacks of juvenile behavior? It sure wont win you any arguments!

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey, I don't mean to be critical but I do wonder sometimes at your mental age? Such ad hominems as this.. pepper you posts? Does it occur to you that this is an opinion forum? You parade under the banner of moderator and should know better?? Aren't we here to debate and express opinions..(educated as well as uneducated}? Does the above preface to your post give you a rush? Is it supposed to elevate you to a position of expertise? IMNSHO it in effect smacks of juvenile behavior? It sure wont win you any arguments!

This is hilarious, I mean, the irony of it. The fact that you're accusing me of being childish when it is YOU who has been playing the game of general ignorance for the past few months. Yeah, if we look back through the hundreds of posts on GW threads, we see a simple cycle where you bring up an X article from X critic, which I then refute or question and then you move the goal post. Every so often, you'll disappear and then return for another cycle of the same postage of lies mixed in with the latest stuff that the economists can dig and throw together.
It's quite clear that you're not here to debate the science but just what your personal opinion on the matter is.

[Milton Bradley]

If you, like me, are tired of the way Global Warming is presented, and if you also think the answers are the wrong conclusions I want to point out a great book.


Bjørn Lomborg


Saw this author on C-SPAN over the weekend, and immediately jumped into his camp.


Take the blinders off people.

[rmnunez]

Why is our potential for reducing CO2 production minimal? We HAVE the technology to do it, it's just a matter of whether we go ahead with it or not.

Actually we can do even better and halt all CO2 production, completely -but even so we'd have negligible impact on any global warming (as is evident in the alternative scenarios the IPCC has published).

[Milton Bradley]

A few more Bjorn Lomborg links.


Correcting myths from Bjørn Lomborg

pdf file
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-file...14/warming.pdf

washingtonpost.com

[rmnunez]

[xyzer]

Milton the Lomberg summary reiterates what I have posited several times on this thread! Humankind will adapt, must adapt! Under the doomsday predictions of the IPCC, warming will continue for a couple of centuries even if everybody coperates in reducing anthropogenic emissions. Fat chance of that!
In addition most of us are in agreement that there is a warming cycle currently being measured. Some,including me, disagree that it has been enhanced by human burning of fossile fuels.

Pooey this says it all ...

Yeah, if we look back through the hundreds of posts on GW threads, we see a simple cycle where you bring up an X article from X critic, which I then refute or question and then you move the goal post.

Each time I run across an article or another opinion on the subject of skepticism about anthropogenic influences on climate , I naturally post it because it buttresses my case. And believe me I have come across plenty of them while you haven't found anything new? To the contrary you haven't come up with anything new since the original IPCC Summary. You haven't even bothered to crawl out of your mental bunker and see if anything has changed since the first IPCC report some years back? You and your illogical braying about thousand of scientists agreeing with your premise that we humans can change climate is a good example of rigid, stagnant thinking?
As a matter of fact all you have been doing lately is posting sarcastic ad hominem like comments and rehashing the original garbage like the hockey stick graph and that Temperature and CO2 correlations are causation? And even with that you overlook the fact that temperature rise has preceded C02 increases? Temperatures even fell in the mid 20th century as C02 rose? These bits of contra evidence have cast some doubt on the doomsday predicitions of you and Al Gore to all but a few playgrounf denizens. I see where a British judge has shown that Gores inconvenient truth docudrama is flawed and should be monitored for truth before it is shown to kids? I'llbet you saw it!

[Zeebadee]

It's not just co2 that we have to consider.

"With global warming, the world isn't just getting hotter — it's getting stickier, due to humidity. And people are to blame, according to a study based on computer models published Thursday.

The amount of moisture in the air near Earth's surface rose 2.2 percent in less than three decades, the researchers report in a study appearing in the journal Nature."
FOXNews.com - Rising Humidity May Make Global Warming Worse - Science News | Current Articles

"Climate scientists have now seen the man-made fingerprint of global warming on 10 different aspects of Earth's environment: surface temperatures, humidity, water vapor over the oceans, barometric pressure, total precipitation, wildfires, change in species of plants in animals, water run-off, temperatures in the upper atmosphere, and heat content in the world's oceans.

"This story does now fit together; there are now no loose ends," said Ben Santer, a scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Lab and author of the September study on moisture above the oceans. "The message is pretty compelling that natural causes alone just can't cut it."

The studies make sense, said University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver, who was not part of either team's research."

[5010]

Quote by: Zeebadee "The message is pretty compelling that natural causes alone just can't cut it."

Is that even a point to debate? No one is saying nature alone, or man alone, are they?

What's this I hear about Al Gore and the Nobel Peace Prize?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Each time I run across an article or another opinion on the subject of skepticism about anthropogenic influences on climate , I naturally post it because it buttresses my case. And believe me I have come across plenty of them while you haven't found anything new? To the contrary you haven't come up with anything new since the original IPCC Summary. You haven't even bothered to crawl out of your mental bunker and see if anything has changed since the first IPCC report some years back? You and your illogical braying about thousand of scientists agreeing with your premise that we humans can change climate is a good example of rigid, stagnant thinking?

Ah, here we go again. You're right, I haven't come up with anything new since the IPCC summary, do you know why? It's because I'm not a climate science and I don't claim to be an expert of the matter. I am not qualified to reassess the data and their conclusions based on my meagre understanding of climate science and therefore, I leave it up the experts. Same reason why the climate scientists would leave it up to me to decide if a liquid medicine is chemically stable. I don't jump conclusions and band wagons based on just a revolutionary paper or article, I await the conclusions of a comprehensive report which has taken into account many years of research and consolidated it. If you choose to ignore that and make your own assumptions based on your own flawed understanding and knowledge, that is your own problem. Don't expect me to follow that.

Quote by: xyzer As a matter of fact all you have been doing lately is posting sarcastic ad hominem like comments and rehashing the original garbage like the hockey stick graph and that Temperature and CO2 correlations are causation?

I cite material written by actual researching climate scientists. If you believe that to be a folly when debating the science of climate change then I don't know where else I should turn... :rolleyes:

Quote by: xyzer And even with that you overlook the fact that temperature rise has preceded C02 increases?

No, I haven't. No scientist has ever denied this FACT. However, just because this is what happened in the past does not make increasing CO2 levels irrelevant to the present, as it is a SIGNIFICANT greenhouse but you don't seem to be able to grasp this.

Quote by: xyzer Temperatures even fell in the mid 20th century as C02 rose?

Again, you've chosen to bring this up when it's already been shown that the drop was due to the increase of sulphides in the atmosphere from the huge industrial peak which begin during WWII. The increase in temperature again was coincided with the reduction in these pollutants.

Quote by: xyzer These bits of contra evidence have cast some doubt on the doomsday predicitions of you and Al Gore to all but a few playgrounf denizens. I see where a British judge has shown that Gores inconvenient truth docudrama is flawed and should be monitored for truth before it is shown to kids? I'llbet you saw it!

What contra evidence? You mean, the bits that I have refuted many times over already? Yet each cycle of your reign, you conveniently ignore the facts and repeat the same lies & misleading points.
No, I haven't seen Al Gore's film. I have no need to and nor have I ever referenced from it. I get my science from the scientists, NOT politicians and certainly NOT economists.

[rmnunez]

I'm very disappointed with Gore and the IPCC's award of the Nobel Prize. I find it incongruous they (especially the IPCC) should receive the "Peace" Prize as one would have expected they get it in Physics (being scientists and all that).

But given the traditional political use of the Peace Prize, I'd figure the award puts paid to the contention the IPCC and its agenda are really more political than scientific.

Czech President Vaclav Klaus on the Peace Prize:

"The relationship between (Gore’s) activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct," the statement said. "It rather seems that his doubting of basic cornerstones of the current civilization does not contribute to peace." Klaus said in a recent speech that environmentalists' efforts to halt global warming "fatally endanger our freedom and prosperity."

[xyzer]

Pooey...Nowhere do I see your refutation of the small percent C02 in our atmosphere and humans even smaller contributions to it?
Nowhere do I see a refutation of the cosmic particle theory and its effect on cloud cover.
Nowhere do I see a refutation of the theory of the suns changing magnetic influence on cosmic particles?
Nowhere do I see a refutation of the evidence of various locally obtained proxies applying to global climate or temperatures?
Nowhere do I see a refutation of the flawed NASA temperature gathering?
Nowhere do I see a refutation of the suns varying brilliance and changing magnetic fields and their influence on climate?
Nowhere do I find a rationalization of the earths cooling cycle(1950-70s when anthropogenic emissions were increasing?
Nowhere do I see you addressing the correlation of Warming and C02 increases and its twisted intepretation(warming preceded C02 increases?

I could go on but in truth all you keep telling us is that the IPCC Summary is inviolate and yet you usually fail to address the obvious anomalies with anything other that your opinions..passed off as evidence? You conveniently ignore anything but the IPCC report and some climate blogs.
IMNSHO you are a parrot like supporter of the IPCC and the irrational climate alarmists! Your reliance on snippety ad hominem comments is evidence that you are out of your league. And you need a course in logic!

[Thanatos]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey...Nowhere do I see your refutation of the small percent C02 in our atmosphere and humans even smaller contributions to it? Nowhere do I see a refutation of the cosmic particle theory and its effect on cloud cover. Nowhere do I see a refutation of the theory of the suns changing magnetic influence on cosmic particles? Nowhere do I see a refutation of the evidence of various locally obtained proxies applying to global climate or temperatures? Nowhere do I see a refutation of the flawed NASA temperature gathering? Nowhere do I see a refutation of the suns varying brilliance and changing magnetic fields and their influence on climate? Nowhere do I find a rationalization of the earths cooling cycle(1950-70s when anthropogenic emissions were increasing? Nowhere do I see you addressing the correlation of Warming and C02 increases and its twisted intepretation(warming preceded C02 increases? I could go on but in truth all you keep telling us is that the IPCC Summary is inviolate and yet you usually fail to address the obvious anomalies with anything other that your opinions..passed off as evidence? You conveniently ignore anything but the IPCC report and some climate blogs. IMNSHO you are a parrot like supporter of the IPCC and the irrational climate alarmists! Your reliance on snippety ad hominem comments is evidence that you are out of your league. And you need a course in logic!

The relationship between CO2 and temperature is more complicated than we thought. Observe:

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming - climate-change - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment

There was a period of global cooling, yes. On a graph of average temperature it was a blip. People were stupid. That's all.

But cosmic rays changing the Earth's temperature? I'm having a seriously hard time believing there's enough energy coming at us that way to change much of anything.

[rmnunez]

It seems like CO2 magnifies warming, but the article relates global warming to rotational variations in the earth's orbit which impact on the incidence of sun over the arctic. Thus it would seem excess CO2 is due to global warming rather than the other way around.