Global Warming

[gela]

Billions of dollars have been spent on researching global warming all over the world.
It may seem like there is debated by the scientific community; but the fact is that most scientists believe that CO2 that is put into the atmosphere by humans is warming the earth. While the few scientists that disagree with it get huge amounts of attention.
Why? because thats what people want to hear, and because people want to see both sides of the argument, not the overwhelming evidence for global warming.

[Nono]

Not to mention the circumstance that Big Oil and other Interests are desperate to cough up some semblance of opinion to deny the existence of this particular elephant in our living room.

And Big Oil has lots and lots of attractive money to spend on "research", which produces the "facts" that people like xyzer are always quoting.

[xyzer]

ruiner..I don't know where you get you figures but suggest you google the issue.
Here is one site..Atmospheric Gases

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.

ergo...CO2 is a trace gas and it you read up on it humans create a small percent(.04%) of that trace.

[xyzer]

This is the illogical reality clouding the reason of believers Nono?

And Big Oil has lots and lots of attractive money to spend on "research", which produces the "facts" that people like xyzer are always quoting.

You offer no proof that the hundreds of scientists who contest the anthropogenic climate warming theory are in the pay of Big Oil..and more importantly you ignore the fact that any such reduction in human energy consumption will have no appreciable affect in the current time or near future? Thus we are still going to need oil for many years to come? We are only just turning to alternative sources and it will take years and much infighting with environmentalists to perfect those? I don't think there is any real evdence that big oil is fighting new energy development? I dont suscribe to the phantasy of illogical reasoning.

rmnunez.

Cite please?

.I suggest you google the IPCC Summaries. Their reports are long and detailed. As I recall it was the 2001 Summary that contained the sentence .." Even if human CO2 could be reduced it would take several centuries for it to result in climate affects"(I paraphrase). Pooey and I discussed it on this thread some years back. If you take my word such a sentence is in one of the original summaries.

[ruiner]

Quote by: xyzer ruiner..I don't know where you get you figures but suggest you google the issue. Here is one site..Atmospheric Gases ergo...CO2 is a trace gas and it you read up on it humans create a small percent(.04%) of that trace.

I didn't say co2 was not a trace gas, it is.

To expand on what I did say - 25% of the co2 in the atmosphere today is due to human activity over the last 250 years. The addition from human activity each year is small, but it accumulates over time.

[Nono]

Quote by: xyzer You offer no proof that the hundreds of scientists who contest the anthropogenic climate warming theory are in the pay of Big Oil..

What, you want copies of the cheques?

Try this for example: Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study | Environment | The Guardian

Of course, like the Flat Earth Society, you have lots of practice denying the obvious.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: gela Billions of dollars have been spent on researching global warming all over the world. It may seem like there is debated by the scientific community; but the fact is that most scientists believe that CO2 that is put into the atmosphere by humans is warming the earth. While the few scientists that disagree with it get huge amounts of attention. Why? because thats what people want to hear, and because people want to see both sides of the argument, not the overwhelming evidence for global warming.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy the line that 'most scientists believe that CO2 that is put into the atmosphere by humans is warming the earth'. I certainly don't buy that 'most scientists' believe human generated CO2 has any significant influence on global climate.

I think the verdict is still out. I don't think the jury has even been willing to consider counting all the votes yet.

But I do agree that you don't achieve good science by ignoring or dismissing or refusing to consider the science offered by those who don't agree with the politically correct or expedient view.

[Nono]

And remember, Foxfyre, keep a-drivin' that Hummer till every last vote is in.

[rmnunez]

CO2 heightens or magnifies the effects of global warming, but does not induce it.

We will get global warming for whichever natural reasons, because its a cycle, due to sunspots, changes in the earth's orbit, continental drift or something else -but not because of pollution from oil.

Burning oil will magnify the effects of global warming, but I don't think we know how much. I've read it may make the warm period last longer or be warmer and accelerate the transition into the warmer period.

The question is whether by seriously curtailing oil use, going for the alternative energy, planting lots of trees, recycling and generally being much more environmentally sensititive right away, will humanity be able to significantly reduce whatever adverse effects are anticipated.

I've asked about this before and am still looking for an answer, how many centimeters less will the sea level rise if we stop all CO2 emission? How many fewer degrees will the planet warm if we halt all oil use? How much more time do the polar bears have if there's no more pollution? How much shorter or cooler will the global warming period be if we halt all contamination?

[ruiner]

Each of the IPCC reports give the different forcasted temperature trends for different emission scenarios, these are from the 2001 report. There is quite a difference in temp by 2100 depending on the emission scenario.

Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis

This one gives a more direct view of how total temperature change is affected by the point at which ghgs are stabilized:
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis

[xyzer]

What nonsense?

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

This is no proof? Just a crazy assertion! aNOTHER CONSPIRACY THEORY?
The whole reference is unproven blather designed to advance the authors bogus assertion. It's as if a political organization ..The United Nations .. is the only expert source in climate? Their assumptions based on computer models is unassailable? No one else anywhere, for any reason, should fund any search for truth? The UN Panel on climate is the single and only absolute source of climate? No other person is allowed to fund any efforts to verify the truth of the assertions by this panel,,,of so called experts?
What really sends me is the aisinine inclusion by the author of the bit on the Bush administration ( so called oil sympathizers) suggesting some sort of nefarious plot to undermine truth?
Surely you jest ruiner?

There have been numerous,more recent, scientific studies of the various influences on climate that have cast doubt on the projections by the IPCC. As has been posted on this thread actual measurements have not confirmed the IPCCs projections?....As anthropogenic CO2 has continued to rise, warming has slowed or stopped over the past few years?

[xyzer]

By the way rm..I agree

The question is whether by seriously curtailing oil use, going for the alternative energy, planting lots of trees, recycling and generally being much more environmentally sensititive right away, will humanity be able to significantly reduce whatever adverse effects are anticipated. I've asked about this before and am still looking for an answer, how many centimeters less will the sea level rise if we stop all CO2 emission? How many fewer degrees will the planet warm if we halt all oil use? How much more time do the polar bears have if there's no more pollution? How much shorter or cooler will the global warming period be if we halt all contamination?

Its refreshing to see someone insert some logic into the puzzle?

[doc303]

"How much more time do the polar bears have if there's no more pollution? How much shorter or cooler will the global warming period be if we halt all contamination? "


"ergo...CO2 is a trace gas and it you read up on it humans create a small percent(.04%) of that trace."


Let's see now, 1.6 million cubic miles of glacial ice, subjected to an estimated 1/10th of 1% increase in ambient temperature - as a result of that . 04% anthropogenic "impact" = 175,000 years, by my calculations.

...subject to natural events, of course.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Nono And remember, Foxfyre, keep a-drivin' that Hummer till every last vote is in.

The car I drive is probably more fuel efficient than the one you drive; highly likely to be more fuel efficient than what most people drive. I know it is more fuel efficient than what Al Gore and most other climate gurus drive. I don't do this to save the planet but because it is good stewardship for both the planet and for me. I conserve energy and water and recycle what I can for the same reasons.

The climate pro-AGW gurus all talk the talk, but I don't know of a single one that is walking rhe walk. When they start paring back THEIR lifestyles, then I will at least believe that they believe their own hype. There is no indication now that they do.

This morning I heard on the news that some unusual accelerated ice melt on the western side of Anarctica has been determined to be from rising magma. It is possible than a dormant volcano is awakening in that area--last erupted about 2000 years ago. But even with this information, a dedicated science guru was shown saying that this is of interest, but shouldn't discount global warming as being a significant factor in the ice melt. Never mind that the rest of anarctica is showning little or no melt at all.

Speaking of keeping on beating the drum after the rest of the band packed up and went home. . .

[xyzer]

Hey Doc..get with it!Polar bears defy extinction threat - The Scotsman

Evidently the polar bear extinction is relative to whom one asks?

THE world’s polar bear population is on the increase despite global warming, which scientists had believed was pushing the animal towards extinction. According to new research, the numbers of the giant predator have grown by between 15 and 25 per cent over the last decade

This is not the only report that refutes the Gore-ite orthodoxy? Another refutation of the mythical signs the doomsday crowd throw around?

Suggest you look up the evidence of species extinction in the millions of years of earths evolution to add realism to your menu? I think evidence points to the evolution and disappearance of species as dynamic and common. Did the disappearance of the dinosaurs cause any problems? Or was it the natural change driven by climate variation, tectonic drift and other natural environmental changes?...Before humans ever created extra? CO2?

[Loesoweekuff]

here's my opinion on the issue of global warming. I think that the entire weather system is extremely complicated-complicated enough so that in order to really determine whether or not global warming is really happening, and whether or not it's something to worry about, isn't something that I'm even going to try to argue about. All I can do is listen to what the scientists tell me, basically. However, how many of the scientists who oppose global warming are representing companies whose best interest is to convince people that global warming isn't an issue (oil companies, for example, or lumber companies). On the other hand, some people might say that it's in the best interest of other people with money to have [i]their[i] scientists go out and tell people that global warming IS a problem. So, here I am..I know very, very little about meteorology, climatology, etc...there is no way for me to really know for sure either way. But the one thing that I've learned is that if there is even a CHANCE of danger, then I have nothing to lose by heeding the warning....for this reason it seems to me that it doesn't seem very smart to do things like drive an SUV for the sake of personal image...

[rmnunez]

Why is it so reasonable that money could induce some scientists to dispute exagerated claims of global warming, but not that environmentalism would induce any to exagerate this global warming?

[Loesoweekuff]

that's not what I meant to say. I think there is a certain amount of both.

[Dunfunkin']

Quote by: gela Billions of dollars have been spent on researching global warming all over the world. It may seem like there is debated by the scientific community; but the fact is that most scientists believe that CO2 that is put into the atmosphere by humans is warming the earth. While the few scientists that disagree with it get huge amounts of attention. Why? because thats what people want to hear, and because people want to see both sides of the argument, not the overwhelming evidence for global warming.

Quote by: Foxfyre I'm sorry, but I don't buy the line that 'most scientists believe that CO2 that is put into the atmosphere by humans is warming the earth'. I certainly don't buy that 'most scientists' believe human generated CO2 has any significant influence on global climate. I think the verdict is still out. I don't think the jury has even been willing to consider counting all the votes yet. But I do agree that you don't achieve good science by ignoring or dismissing or refusing to consider the science offered by those who don't agree with the politically correct or expedient view.

The only scientific concensus that exists is that global warming has been taking place throughout the latter part of the 20th Century. That it is continuing to happen is now subject to dispute due to the apparent stabilisation of average temperatures since 1998. That the causes of warming are anthropogenic is also subject to dispute.

We keep hearing that it is scientists (1) who are leading the debate, but I doubt it. The whole vexed topic was hijacked by politicians and the media some time ago, and that is chiefly why it has degenerated into a mud-slinging contest rather than a discussion of fact. You only have to look at some of the emotive language in this thread to appreciate how much emotion we all invest in this subject.

President Clinton and others cite a letter signed by 2600 scientists that global warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Thanks to Citizens for a Sound Economy, we know now that fewer than 10 percent of these "scientists" know anything about climate. Among the signers: a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists, a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine. Global Warming Treaty is All Pain, No Gain --- Malcom Wallop

Now that it is a political debate, it is worth bearing in mind that politicians always have an agenda and that their arguments are seldom entirely rooted in truth.

(1)
.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

(2)
nzclimatescience.net - I'M HAPPY TO BE CALLED A HERETIC - Prof David Bellamy

[ruiner]

Quote by: Dunfunkin' The only scientific concensus that exists is that global warming has been taking place throughout the latter part of the 20th Century. That it is continuing to happen is now subject to dispute due to the apparent stabilisation of average temperatures since 1998. That the causes of warming are anthropogenic is also subject to dispute.

The only dispute about "apparent stabilisation of average temperatures since 1998" is coming from the political debate, not the science.

The science shows that such a stabilization is statistically insignificant. Temperature trend over the last 30 years has been upward, despite similar "apparent stabilisation" events happening before. 1998 was a stronger than expected warm year because of an el nino event. Starting a trend from 1998 is cherrypicking.

(1) .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :. (2) nzclimatescience.net - I'M HAPPY TO BE CALLED A HERETIC - Prof David Bellamy

Both of these links are part of the political debate, not the science, and are subject to what you described earlier - both the links are not entirely rooted in truth and their authors have an agenda.