Global Warming

[Century 25]

Yes Foxfyre, we survive.. but then it has always been hot & a desert here. I am speaking of "recent" history. So when this area was settled over 1,000 years ago.. the indigent citizens built canals in order to make life possible. Since then, Phoenix "rose from the ashes" of those past days, with hundreds of miles of canals & a reservoir system that catches melting snows from the mountains. We also divert Colorado river water into the Phoenix & Tucson metro's.

Do you think that would work for maybe 2-3 billion newly inducted into desert & other hot type climates..??

Here is a large part of the global warming problem: Office of Population Research, Princeton University

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Century 25 Yes Foxfyre, we survive.. but then it has always been hot & a desert here. I am speaking of "recent" history. So when this area was settled over 1,000 years ago.. the indigent citizens built canals in order to make life possible. Since then, Phoenix "rose from the ashes" of those past days, with hundreds of miles of canals & a reservoir system that catches melting snows from the mountains. We also divert Colorado river water into the Phoenix & Tucson metro's. Do you think that would work for maybe 2-3 billion newly inducted into desert & other hot type climates..?? Here is a large part of the global warming problem: Office of Population Research, Princeton University

There is every reason to think that a warming climate will not make inhabitable a great deal of the world where people now live and thrive, especially when you consider that it is possible that much 'newly' habitable land will be gained in the process. For all of human history, people have moved from less hospitable climes to more hospitable climes and that could very well happen. There will almost certainly be time to develop desalination processes for large numbers of people to alleviate critical water shortages. New innovative and amazing ways to produce food will certainly be discovered.

Mind you I am not convinced that any or much of this will be necessary in my lifetime or that of my children or grandchildren or theirs, but I do know that humankind is an extremely resourceful species with a high survival mentality. We do what we have to do.

[Century 25]

Quote by: Foxfyre There is every reason to think that a warming climate will not make inhabitable a great deal of the world where people now live and thrive, especially when you consider that it is possible that much 'newly' habitable land will be gained in the process. For all of human history, people have moved from less hospitable climes to more hospitable climes and that could very well happen. There will almost certainly be time to develop desalination processes for large numbers of people to alleviate critical water shortages. New innovative and amazing ways to produce food will certainly be discovered. Mind you I am not convinced that any or much of this will be necessary in my lifetime or that of my children or grandchildren or theirs, but I do know that humankind is an extremely resourceful species with a high survival mentality. We do what we have to do.

Maybe. But then too.. what happens to the quality of life aspects? Simply by eking out an existence isn't what life should be about.

The warming means more storms.. as in Katrina. Look how our "advanced" country handled that. It is criminal.

The developers have ravaged the deserts here. You would be hard pressed to believe you were in the Sonora desert.. it looks more like Tahiti in many areas. Lakes.. tropical foliage, palm trees.. Hibiscus etc.. all gulp water big time.. and the construction is incessant.. I just read where a developer is planning a river rapids within another planned housing hood. If you drive between here and Tucson.. it is like city traffic.. horrible traffic. So.. what good is it if one can't enjoy the quiet clean air.. it is polluted.. it looks more like LA. Soon Tucson & Phoenix will merge. When Phoenix, Tucson merge

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Century 25 Maybe. But then too.. what happens to the quality of life aspects? Simply by eking out an existence isn't what life should be about. The warming means more storms.. as in Katrina. Look how our "advanced" country handled that. It is criminal. The developers have ravaged the deserts here. You would be hard pressed to believe you were in the Sonora desert.. it looks more like Tahiti in many areas. Lakes.. tropical foliage, palm trees.. Hibiscus etc.. all gulp water big time.. and the construction is incessant.. I just read where a developer is planning a river rapids within another planned housing hood. If you drive between here and Tucson.. it is like city traffic.. horrible traffic. So.. what good is it if one can't enjoy the quiet clean air.. it is polluted.. it looks more like LA. Soon Tucson & Phoenix will merge. When Phoenix, Tucson merge

There is no evidence to date that 'warming has caused more storms'. If anything we have had fewer in recent decades despite what some claim is abnormal heating. Where the people have dug in and taken care of their own storm damage from Katrina, recovery is well underway and has been accomplished in many areas. In places where the people took no measures to protect themselves and now continue to expect the govenrment to do it for them, it has been much slower. Criminal? No. Caught off guard and unprepared for an unprecedented disaster spanning three states? Yes. And it will happen again. And it won't be the government's fault next time either.

Maybe it sounds harsh and cold, even cruel, but where is it written that people who choose to live below sea level and below surface level of an enormous lake where devastating flooding is not only possible, but probable over a long period of time, can demand that the rest of us bail them out when they are flooded? The same can be said of people who choose to live in any coastal area or in tornado alley or in highly flammable brush filled canyons or on top of earthquake faults or on unstable hillsides or in blistering desert heat. Americans are the most generous of people, and voluntarily perform heroic duty to help others expending our time, labor, treasure, and sometimes blood in times of disaster. But nobody should be able to require others to involuntarily assume the known risks they choose to take.

You surely are not blaming global warming for people moving to Phoenix or Tuscon? As for you hating the congestion in your area, it will help if you send all your illegals home. (Only half kidding there.) Otherwise, you do not have to stay there. You can choose an uncongested rural area where you have open roads, clean air, peace and quiet. The trade off is a longer commute to work, a longer drive to get to a Wal-Mart, no pizza delivery service etc. Should it become intolerable, people will leave and move elsewhere. I myself am weighing the pros and cons of leaving the increasing congested area I live and moving to a more sparsely populated area.

To put things in perspective, awhile back I saw a scientific analysis that showed how every man, woman, and child alive on the planet could be placed in Texas and New Mexico with a population density significantly less than San Francisco. That would leave an enormous amount of open space out there, wouldn't you agree? So we resourceful humans simply need to focus on not just the problems, but also on the great possibilities and what we can learn to do that allows us to reach them. And that should take care of the quality of life problem.

[xyzer]

An update on the fading consensus of the globl warming myth!
Weather Channel Founder Discusses Global Warming Myth With Beck | NewsBusters.org

Oh Ye believers in AlGore and the parade of doomsday freaks who have littered the halls of sanity with nonsensensical innuendo and suggestion...you have been duped! .06 degrees C. in 100 years is not cause for alarm after all?

Could it just be that blaming what warming there has been on anthropogenic causes is suspect also? How about that "Hockey Stick" graph?

[xyzer]

For those interested in truth rather than 'Gorist
alarmism here is an interesting article on your future.
Science and Public Policy Institute - 35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie

Relax...you are not in imminent danger? It turns out there were at least 35 convenient "untruths" in the build up to panic the world about climate change? I wondered just how humans changing their less than .01% contribution to C02 can affect all this? Nobel laureate my A#@.. He is a huckster.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer I wondered just how humans changing their less than .01% contribution to C02 can affect all this?

Lol. Xyzer, I can't count the number of times it's been pointed out to you that humans have increased CO2 concentrations by about 35% over the past century. Why do you keep making numbers up?

Also, why do you always end declaritave sentences in a question mark? It's difficult to read?

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer Oh Ye believers in AlGore and the parade of doomsday freaks who have littered the halls of sanity with nonsensensical innuendo and suggestion...you have been duped! .06 degrees C. in 100 years is not cause for alarm after all? Could it just be that blaming what warming there has been on anthropogenic causes is suspect also? How about that "Hockey Stick" graph?

While Mr. Coleman might be a very qualified TV weatherman, he has never published a single article in the peer reviewed literature, and never done any original research in the atmospheric sciences. I don't see why I should take his word over that of thousands of atmospheric scientists actively doing research. Especially not when he says silly things like this: "I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct." Dozens of scientific papers, huh? Lol.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: EnragedParrot While Mr. Coleman might be a very qualified TV weatherman, he has never published a single article in the peer reviewed literature, and never done any original research in the atmospheric sciences. I don't see why I should take his word over that of thousands of atmospheric scientists actively doing research. Especially not when he says silly things like this: "I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct." Dozens of scientific papers, huh? Lol.

I wonder how many scientific papers you have read EP? How much research have you actually done? Surely you don't just buy into the hype put out there by the global warming gurus because that is the leftwing adopted position and you want to believe it?

Meanwhile, the global warming proponents have sure been mostly quiet lately re any new evidence surfacing to support their claims. And they have been stunningly silent as their own dominos are starting to wobble.

Here are some illustrations of the kinds of problems they have:

August 2007 may go down in the history of science as the month when scientific research made a decisive turn away from dubious warnings of climate catastrophes and toward a much different thesis, that the modern warming is moderate and not man-made. First, NASA acknowledged it had accidentally inflated its official record of surface temperatures in the U.S. beginning with the year 2000. The revised data show 1998 falling to second place behind 1934 as the warmest year, followed by 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, and 1953. Four of the top 10 years on record are now from the 1930s, before human emissions could have been responsible, while only three of the top 10 (1998, 2006, 1999) are from the past 10 years. New data are also emerging that the temperature record should be adjusted even further downward. Meteorologist Anthony Watts has launched an effort to photograph the 1,221 "most reliable" surface temperature stations in the U.S. to see if land use changes over the years may be contaminating their records. Images of the stations he's photographed so far (available at Home) show many cases where the stations seem to be reporting warming caused by nearby buildings, parking lots, or heat-generating activities. The surface temperature record in the U.S. was thought to be the most accurate of all the nations in the world. If that record is unreliable, how reliable is the global temperature record? The new official temperature trend in the U.S. since the 1930s shows a warming so small it is within the admitted range of error of the instrument record. In other words, there's been no warming trend in the U.S. that could be attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions. How many people know that? More here: A Turning Point in the Global Warming Debate? - by Joseph L. Bast - Global Warming Facts

[xyzer]

Hey Parrot!??????

I can't count the number of times it's been pointed out to you that humans have increased CO2 concentrations by about 35% over the past century.

In case you might have trouble counting much further please,just one more time give us the reference for your assertion. While you are at it, please tell me what the actual anthropogenic increase(you say 35%) CO2 amounts to, if human contributions(as I assert) are way less than .01%..Do the math to assure yourself and see what a 35% raise to a fraction of .01%(I read .04%) amounts to?

I'm sure you will then, as most believers do, rationalize with the "delicate balance theory". This goes something like there is a delicate balance in the atmosphere and anthropogenic causes have tipped that balance to a warming trend....all the while ignoring the other changing forces and contributors to natural climate change. And then you will refer to the "Hockey Stick" Graph" that infamous and falsely skewed basis for much of the nonsense people are led to bellieve.

By the way if this is correct...

The atmosphere of our planet contains several hundred different gases of diverse origins. However, about 99.96 percent of the total mass of the atmosphere is due to the presence of three major permanent constituents: nitrogen (N2), 78.08 percent by volume; oxygen (02), 20.95 percent by volume; and argon (Ar), 0.93 percent by volume. Water vapor (H20), an atmospheric gas with a variable concentration, ranges by volume from a small fraction of a percent up to 1 or 2 percent.

I found this quickly here..and am wondering where more that .04% CO2 can be found?
Ozone, Climate, and Global Atmos Change

[xyzer]

By the way speaking of "peer review", Gores Convenient Untruths was also skewered in the area of the correlation of warmth with CO2 increases. He suggested CO2 increases preceded warming....just the opposite is true (See Convenient untruth #30 in the above reference)....Parrot your perch is getting shakier and shakier! Possibly foulded by something

I can usually sense it early on when posters start complaining about expression, grammar, punctuation(question marks?)...it's then that the arguments begins to become diluted with subjectiveness that has little to do with the issue itself.

[rmnunez]

Yes, I was going to say, even if we posited consumerist united statians had pumped-out so many tons of pollutants to raise the level 35% in ten minutes -how important is this when the sum total of that 35% is within a fraction of a tenth of a hundredth (of parts per billion) in some modeled atmosphere?

In other words, if we took the IPCC's consensus, however described, and applied its recommendations completely, how many degrees of temperature or centimeters of sea level will we be spared?

Fascinating to read:

The huge computer models were taking over the field from simpler models. By the mid 1970s, everyone understood that it was hopeless to try to understand how climate changed by looking at just one or another feature, or even several features: you had to take into account all the mutually interacting forces at once. Digital computers were reaching a point where they might be able to do just that. Work increasingly concentrated on developing systems to incorporate as components of comprehensive models. Some scientists nevertheless continued to build elementary stand-alone models of various features, using them to garner insights that would be necessary to grasp the full climate system. Simple Models of Climate

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: Foxfyre I wonder how many scientific papers you have read EP? How much research have you actually done? Surely you don't just buy into the hype put out there by the global warming gurus because that is the leftwing adopted position and you want to believe it?

I haven't read many at all. I'm not a scientist. I wouldn't have the foggiest idea what I was reading if I did. But I surely don't just buy into the "hype" because it is the "leftwing adopted position." I buy into the hype because I've done a great deal of research into both sides of the theory (just like you, I assume), and haven't found the arguments of the skeptics at all convincing.

If you want to have a serious discussion about this issue, then let's. If all you want to do is run over the same stuff over and over and over, don't let's bother.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer Hey Parrot!?????? In case you might have trouble counting much further please,just one more time give us the reference for your assertion. While you are at it, please tell me what the actual anthropogenic increase(you say 35%) CO2 amounts to, if human contributions(as I assert) are way less than .01%..Do the math to assure yourself and see what a 35% raise to a fraction of .01%(I read .04%) amounts to?

Let's run through this one more time, Xyzer, just to make sure we're on the same page.

Carbon dioxide accounts for approximately 0.0385% of the Earth's atmosphere by mass. That would be equal to 385 parts per million. Over the past century and a half, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen from approximately 284 parts per million to 385 parts per million. Some simple arithmetic will show this increased to be about 35%. The reference from my assertion comes from here, among other places.

Do you disagree with any of that (I know you won't like my referencing the IPCC, but whatevs)?

I'm sure you will then, as most believers do, rationalize with the "delicate balance theory". This goes something like there is a delicate balance in the atmosphere and anthropogenic causes have tipped that balance to a warming trend....all the while ignoring the other changing forces and contributors to natural climate change. And then you will refer to the "Hockey Stick" Graph" that infamous and falsely skewed basis for much of the nonsense people are led to bellieve.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. But no, I don't need to try and rationalize with anything. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that is responsible for approximately 9-36% of the overall greenhouse effect. Humans have increased its concentration by about 35% over the past 1.5 centuries.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer By the way speaking of "peer review", Gores Convenient Untruths was also skewered in the area of the correlation of warmth with CO2 increases. He suggested CO2 increases preceded warming....just the opposite is true (See Convenient untruth #30 in the above reference)....Parrot your perch is getting shakier and shakier! Possibly foulded by something

The stability of my perch hasn't ever depended on Gore's film.

I can usually sense it early on when posters start complaining about expression, grammar, punctuation(question marks?)...it's then that the arguments begins to become diluted with subjectiveness that has little to do with the issue itself.

That's probably true. I wasn't complaining though, I'm just curious to know why you do it.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: rmnunez Yes, I was going to say, even if we posited consumerist united statians had pumped-out so many tons of pollutants to raise the level 35% in ten minutes -how important is this when the sum total of that 35% is within a fraction of a tenth of a hundredth (of parts per billion) in some modeled atmosphere?

It doesn't seem like much. But that minuscule amount of carbon dioxide in the air is responsible for a very large portion of the greenhouse effect. And that's all that matters when talking about global warming.

The amount of a gas in the air doesn't tell us anything about its radiative forcing capabilites. For example, nitrogen makes up over 70% of the atmospheric gases, yet you surely wouldn't say it is responsible for 70% of the greenhouse effect, right?

Fascinating to read:

It is. I recommend checking out the rest of the site as well.

[xyzer]

Here is an interesting site on the subject.BMI Special Report -- Fire and Ice

The SideBars under the Summary Section are interesting reading.

The "Forcing Issue is important I agree. But does it not relate to my mention of the "Delicate Balance" issue? We know CO2 has a blocking effect on radiation but we don't know how much.(We use correlation as a factor) This and the Hockey Stick Graph were used to prove that an increase in parts per million over a century was a major force (less than 1 degree)in warming and then assume that humans, who contribute some very small fraction of that, are the dominent factor? Isn't that a crazy way to do business? Spend billions on something that isn't at all a certainty?
Did we tip the delicate balance? Or did some much more important natural factor do it?

What always amuses me in this issue is how it's proponents ignore any contra evidence such as cooling when CO2 was increasing, lack of global temperature measuring sites until the last 25 or so years, inexact altitidudinal temperature measurements, the influences of the major factor in climate(the oceans vagaries)...and pinpoint humans as a major culprit? We grab on to the one factor that we can control and make it a major solution when ther is little evidence it will work or that the human world can be made to conform...and of course a great possibility that such curtailment of energy use will damge millions of 3d world citizens?

I don't blame scientists but I do feel that their choice of hypotheses on which to do research leans towards the sensationalist areas rather than just straight research. They go where the money is ($4 billion in Federal Research Funds)

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: xyzer Here is an interesting site on the subject.BMI Special Report -- Fire and Ice The SideBars under the Summary Section are interesting reading. The "Forcing Issue is important I agree. But does it not relate to my mention of the "Delicate Balance" issue? We know CO2 has a blocking effect on radiation but we don't know how much.(We use correlation as a factor) This and the Hockey Stick Graph were used to prove that an increase in parts per million over a century was a major force (less than 1 degree)in warming and then assume that humans, who contribute some very small fraction of that, are the dominent factor? Isn't that a crazy way to do business? Spend billions on something that isn't at all a certainty? Did we tip the delicate balance? Or did some much more important natural factor do it? What always amuses me in this issue is how it's proponents ignore any contra evidence such as cooling when CO2 was increasing, lack of global temperature measuring sites until the last 25 or so years, inexact altitidudinal temperature measurements, the influences of the major factor in climate(the oceans vagaries)...and pinpoint humans as a major culprit? We grab on to the one factor that we can control and make it a major solution when ther is little evidence it will work or that the human world can be made to conform...and of course a great possibility that such curtailment of energy use will damge millions of 3d world citizens? I don't blame scientists but I do feel that their choice of hypotheses on which to do research leans towards the sensationalist areas rather than just straight research. They go where the money is ($4 billion in Federal Research Funds)

Yup. And how likely are they to get together and possibly jeopardize Congress keeping that funding authorized, as well as other monies from foundations and environmental groups pouring into their bank accounts? I wonder how many are doggedly hanging on to the script rather than admit they were wrong and risk all that money being reappropriated where it can actually do some good?

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer The "Forcing Issue is important I agree. But does it not relate to my mention of the "Delicate Balance" issue? We know CO2 has a blocking effect on radiation but we don't know how much.(We use correlation as a factor) This and the Hockey Stick Graph were used to prove that an increase in parts per million over a century was a major force (less than 1 degree)in warming and then assume that humans, who contribute some very small fraction of that, are the dominent factor? Isn't that a crazy way to do business? Spend billions on something that isn't at all a certainty? Did we tip the delicate balance? Or did some much more important natural factor do it?

It's true that we don't know exactly the radiative forcing capabilities of CO2. But we have a pretty good idea. As I've said several times before, the physical properties of CO2 can be directly measured in laboratory experiments.

And again, scientists don't use the hockey stick to establish a link between human emissions of carbon dioxide and temperature change. They use our understanding of the physics of the atmosphere to do that. The hockey stick is simply one of many temperature reconstructions, and says precisely nothing about CO2's role in the current change.

Also, it isn't at all crazy to spend money on uncertain things. People do it all the time. Without being certain that their home will ever burn down, millions of people across the world purchase fire insurance to protect their homes. The difference in this case being that spending money to research uncertain things will make them more certain.

What always amuses me in this issue is how it's proponents ignore any contra evidence such as cooling when CO2 was increasing, lack of global temperature measuring sites until the last 25 or so years, inexact altitidudinal temperature measurements, the influences of the major factor in climate(the oceans vagaries)...and pinpoint humans as a major culprit? We grab on to the one factor that we can control and make it a major solution when ther is little evidence it will work or that the human world can be made to conform...and of course a great possibility that such curtailment of energy use will damge millions of 3d world citizens?

We don't ignore any of it. In fact we talk about it all the time. You just have a tendency to ingore it.

[xyzer]

It's true that we don't know exactly the radiative forcing capabilities of CO2. But we have a pretty good idea. As I've said several times before, the physical properties of CO2 can be directly measured in laboratory experiments.

I have a pretty good idea that "Curlin" can win the next race a Pimlico too but should I bet my life savings on it?

I'll leave it to you to find the reference(think rm posted it some weeks back)..It was a study designed to measure temps in the atmosphere to determing whether the predictions from climate models(used in the IPCC Summation) had proved accurate...in respect to warming? The results indicated that actual measurements showed they had not?????(time for more question marks)

I think it was Churchill who made this great observation...(not an exact quote) Humans are constantly seeking truth. Every once in a while they stumble over it, pick themselves right back up and keep on looking?

The contra truths mentioned above and such facts as climate cooling occurred in a period when the great "forcing" agent was increasing are vitually ignored..and we just keep looking?