Are we screwed or what? Global warming to 'Continue for Centuries'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Oh, man I love it. First we label skeptics 'deniers' and now other theories are just evil-neo-con-dogma.

I love how eager the leftists are to debate this.

---

I can recognize "smarmy" when it's oozing out of the monitor, you know.

Who cares about global warming? Ill be dead by the time it in theory destroys the planet, so im not too worried about it.

"After us the Deluge", huh ?

BTW: More scientists say "Global Warming is due to man made activities" than say "Global warming is just due to natural cycles" do they not.

In my opinion natural climate cycles do have something to do with GW. Man is causing global warming and natural climate change is amplifying the terrible effects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holybandit

Who cares about global warming? Ill be dead by the time it in theory destroys the planet, so im not too worried about it.

---

yes, but it will kill your grandchildren,(removal of personal attack by Ser Clegane)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lignator

yes, but it will kill your grandchildren,[removal of quoted personal attack by Ser Clegane)

---

Hey, hey. No need to be hostile, you know. It's just a debate. :smash:

It's pretty simple in my book. Man-made global warming is far from a proven fact. But, even if it is true the specific dangers of it are unclear and there is nothing really we can do about it anyway. The CO2 reducing measures currently bandied about mainly consist of capping/trading and still completely ignores developing countries. What you'd be talking about is a single-digit reduction in the increase of man-made CO2, which in itself is only a fraction of overall CO2. And, if you look at the Kyoto protocol you'll see that even the countries that signed onto it failed to live up to their commitments.

So why take on trillions of dollars of economic damage to fight a problem that may or may not be man-made and even if it is man-made, fighting it is essentially futile anyhow? Let's worry about environmental issues where we can actually make a difference. :yes:

My time on this earth matters little to me. I care about the world that my daughters will be born into, and I care about the world my Grand Children, and Great Grand Children, and Great Great Granchild etc. Will live in. I think it is a foolish and callous thought to just let someone else deal with it. Afterall it's not our problem. But it is our problem, and we need to figure out a way to end it. I'm not entirely convinced on what causes global warming, wether it is man made or natural, but it cannot be disputed that man is having some effect on our climate, and we need to minimalise the damage that has already been caused, or that will be caused. If you care so little about what will happen to future generations, nobody will convince you otherwise, and you probably live in an unhappy existance where nothing matters to you as it is. Everybody needs to make sacrifices once and awhile, fuel is a precious commodity, but by ignoring the consequences of our actions, we really show how shallow our society really is. I believe that as an American, it is part of my duty to show the world that not all of us are uncaring, or unintelligeable, because thats obviously not the case here, what the case is, is that we've become so stubborn and grounded in fantasy that the ingenious revelations of our time go unheeded, and we slowly wallow into obscurity. If any Americans want to continue the way of life that we have, we must be on the cutting edge of technology, and we always need to evolve to meet the demands that befall us, wether or not in the short term it hurts us, in the long run it will save us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

It's pretty simple in my book. Man-made global warming is far from a proven fact. But, even if it is true the specific dangers of it are unclear and there is nothing really we can do about it anyway. The CO2 reducing measures currently bandied about mainly consist of capping/trading and still completely ignores developing countries. What you'd be talking about is a single-digit reduction in the increase of man-made CO2, which in itself is only a fraction of overall CO2. And, if you look at the Kyoto protocol you'll see that even the countries that signed onto it failed to live up to their commitments.

So why take on trillions of dollars of economic damage to fight a problem that may or may not be man-made and even if it is man-made, fighting it is essentially futile anyhow? Let's worry about environmental issues where we can actually make a difference. :yes:

---

"You cannot win; but you must fight, because you can lose."
- some Celtic hero cycle quoted in EB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

It's pretty simple in my book. Man-made global warming is far from a proven fact. But, even if it is true the specific dangers of it are unclear and there is nothing really we can do about it anyway. The CO2 reducing measures currently bandied about mainly consist of capping/trading and still completely ignores developing countries. What you'd be talking about is a single-digit reduction in the increase of man-made CO2, which in itself is only a fraction of overall CO2. And, if you look at the Kyoto protocol you'll see that even the countries that signed onto it failed to live up to their commitments.

So why take on trillions of dollars of economic damage to fight a problem that may or may not be man-made and even if it is man-made, fighting it is essentially futile anyhow? Let's worry about environmental issues where we can actually make a difference. :yes:

---

Put it another way, if we decrease our dependency on oil, we can release ourselves from the hold the accursed middle east has on us. No more dealing with the Saudis. Even putting aside your dispute with environmental studies, that has to be a worthy goal.

Oh, apparently global temperature change has been going on...forever-

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279.pdf

Of course, that doesn't provide a good excuse to spread socialism under the guise of environmentalism.

CR

To paraphrase good ol' Civilization: "I recommend we research:
A Point
so we can:
Get It"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Oh, apparently global temperature change has been going on...forever-

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279.pdf

Of course, that doesn't provide a good excuse to spread socialism under the guise of environmentalism.

CR

---

That's rich!

But you don't think governments will want to here they are trying to fix a natural cycle do you.

Gosh! If we aint gona fry what are we going to worry about next?

Here's some more material for everyone's reading pleasure:

One from Reid A. Bryson:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Remember Otzi, the Ice Man? The fellow that was found in the mountains between Austria and Italy a few years ago? He had been shot a little over 5000 years ago, and then covered with snow, and more snow, until a few years ago the snow melted back enough for Otzi to be found. Between his burial under snow and his exhumation by nature there was more snow and ice than before, or now. Are we just getting back to what the snow climate used to be?

When the Vikings settled part of Greenland circa 900 CE, they established a settlement that lasted longer than the United States has been around. There was a considerable amount of traffic between Greenland and Europe, by the standards of the time, so some skippers were making their first trip. The directions were, at first, to sail two and a half days west from Iceland to the shore of Greenland where there stood the landmark Blasark (black shirt) Mountain. Then sail down the coast to Eriksfjord, a beautiful broad straight passage across southern Greenland. Reaching the west coast they should turn right up the coast to the navigation marker on Herjolf’s Ness. (About “Bluie West 3”in WW II.) Turning in to Tunugdliarfik Fjord Erik’s homestead Brattahlid was only 75 miles at the end of the fjord (across from Bluie West 1, for you old timers).

After 1200 CE the directions changed. Sail one and a half days west from Iceland to the edge of the ice pack. If it is clear you might see the mountain Hvitsark to the west (snow covered now?), then go all the way down around hazardous Cap Farvel and up the other coast to Herjolf’s Ness. Eriksfjord was no longer open, nor is it now. As of a decade or so ago there were two valley glaciers blocking it from the sides. Yes, I saw them. If Greenland ice diminishes some, will we be getting back to conditions like it used to be?

One of the well known climatic episodes (to well-educated climatologists) is the Little Ice Age. The hemispheric cooling started in the 1400s, really got going about 1570 (see Frobisher’s journal) and was full-blown by mid-1600s. The Pilgrims picked a lousy time to come to America. After a little amelioration, things got worse culminating in the “Year Without a Summer”. Since then the hemispheric temperature has risen, and we even have thermometers to attest to it. Gee, getting back to what it used to be sure doesn’t sound like the sky is falling and catastrophe looms. Besides, warmer weather reduces the Climatic Overhead and we get more income per unit of energy used.

Incidentally, this sequence can be modeled without even referring to anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

The Northern Hemisphere temperature history as modeled using Milankovitch variations in solar radiation modulated by volcanic aerosols, using oceans and carbon dioxide only as minor dependent variables. BP means before 1955 CE.

This figure captures very well, the “little ice age”, the Medieval Warm Period, and other known variations of late BCE and early CE times. The drivers of this model are Milankovitch calculations (average for the entire Hemisphere) and the observed volcanic record described above. Carbon dioxide is treated as a very minor dependent variable. It is unlikely that a general circulation model which assumes a major role of carbon dioxide can duplicate this known climatic sequence.

link

And here's something from the Boston Globe entitled: Chicken Little and Global Warming

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Chicken Little and global warming

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | February 7, 2007

YOU KNOW that big United Nations report on global warming that appeared last week amid so much media sound and fury? Here's a flash: It wasn't the big, new United Nations report on global warming.

Oddly enough, most of the news coverage neglected to mention that the document released on Feb. 2 by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was not the latest multiyear assessment report, which will run to something like 1,500 pages when it is released in May. It was only the 21-page "Summary for Policymakers," a document written chiefly by government bureaucrats -- not scientists -- and intended to shape public opinion. Perhaps the summary will turn out to be a faithful reflection of the scientists' conclusions, but it wouldn't be the first time if it doesn't.

In years past, scientists contributing to IPCC assessment reports have protested that the policymakers' summary distorted their findings -- for example, by presenting as unambiguous what were actually only tentative conclusions about human involvement in global warming. This time around, the summary is even more confident: It declares it "unequivocal" that the Earth has warmed over the past century and "very likely" -- meaning more than 90 percent certain -- that human activity is the cause.

That climate change is taking place no one doubts; the Earth's climate is always in flux. But is it really so clear-cut that the current warming, which amounts to less than 1 degree Celsius over the past century, is anthropogenic? Or that continued warming will lead to the meteorological chaos and massive deaths that alarmists predict? It is to the media. By and large they relay only the apocalyptic view: Either we embark on a radical program to slash carbon-dioxide emissions -- that is, to arrest economic growth -- or we are doomed, as NBC's Matt Lauer put it last week, to "what literally could be the end of the world as we know it."

Perhaps the Chicken Littles are right and the sky really is falling, but that opinion is hardly unanimous. There are quite a few skeptical scientists, including eminent climatologists, who doubt the end-of-the-world scenario. Why don't journalists spend more time covering all sides of the debate instead of just parroting the scaremongers?

Only rarely do other views pierce the media's filter of environmental correctness. A recent series by Lawrence Solomon in Canada's National Post looked at some of the leading global-warming dissenters, none of whom fits the easy-to-dismiss stereotype of a flat-Earth yahoo. There is, for example, Richard S.J. Tol -- IPCC author, editor of Energy Economics, and board member of the Centre for Marine and Climate Research at Hamburg University. Tol agrees that global warming is real, but he emphasizes its benefits as well as its harms -- and points out that in the short term, the benefits are especially pronounced.

Another dissident is Duncan Wingham, professor of climate physics at University College London and principal scientist of the European Space Agency's CryoSat Mission, which is designed to measure changes in the Earth's ice masses. The collapse of ice shelves off the northern Antarctic Peninsula is often highlighted as Exhibit A of global warming and its dangers, but Wingham's satellite data shows that the thinning of some Antarctic ice has been matched by thickening ice elsewhere on the continent. The evidence to date, Wingham says, is not "favorable to the notion we are seeing the results of global warming."

Still other scientists profiled by Solomon contend that the sun, not man, plays the dominant role in planetary climate change.

Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center, for instance,believes that changes in the sun's magnetic field, and the corresponding impact on cosmic rays, may be the key to global warming. Nigel Weiss, a past presidentof the Royal Astronomical Society and a mathematical aerophysicist at the University of Cambridge, correlates sunspot activity with changes in the Earth's climate. Habibullo Abdussamatov, who heads the space research laboratory at Pulkovo Astronomical Observatoryin Russia, points out that Mars is also undergoing global warming -- despite having no greenhouse conditions and no activity by Martians. In his view, it is solar irradiance, not carbon dioxide, that accounts for the recent rise in temperature.

Climate-change hyperbole makes for dramatic headlines, but the real story is both more complex and more interesting. Chicken Little may claim the sky is falling. A journalist's job is to check it out.

Apparently, then, our pollution is causing changes in the sun's magnetic field :rolleyes:

Look at this graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1...Comparison.png
The interesting thing isn't primarily the temperature. The interesting things are: 1. the correlation to the industrialism and pollution levels. 2. notice the sharp rise almost without fluctuations. Compare to the Medieval warm period, in which there is a zig-zag movements, a slow increase and decrease bump over almost 600 years.

The derivative of the temperature is quite extreme! Compare 0.2 degrees change in 300 years or more (Medieval warm period) to 0.8 degrees change in 90 years. Medieval warm period thus has average temperature increase of 0.0006 degrees, whereas modern global warming has an average increase of 0,009 degrees. We are talking about more than 10 times faster temperature increase, and a temperature increase that is highly correlated to our pollution levels.

I am surely no expert on the climate and I am still a bit unsure whether the fearmongers or the do-nothings will cause the most harm, but I do feel informed enough and knowledgeable enough to parrot a few criticisms of the instrument data.

Almost all of the instrumentation is located in major cities which are more susceptible to false reading of higher than average regional temperatures. Cities often produce their own cloud cover (smog and pollutants) which keep them warmer than the surrounding countryside. The buildings and lights also produce heat with eventually gets outside and into the air. Anyone living in the country can tell you that the city temperature and that at home is often at wide variance.
While we now have satellites capable of measuring mien temperatures that is not the data used in these surveys.
I do think we need a better data set than what we are being provided with before making massive expenditures or implementing stringent regulations that may have no effect at all on the problem at hand…if there is a problem that we can effect.

Unfortunately governments seem capable of only two responses. The first is to study the phenomenon and never do anything. The second is to go off with little or no clear idea of what to do but to throw money and regulations at the problem until it drops out of the press.

Take your pick; in the end we will spend exorbitant amounts of money either way and likely to the same effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

I am surely no expert on the climate and I am still a bit unsure whether the fearmongers or the do-nothings will cause the most harm, but I do feel informed enough and knowledgeable enough to parrot a few criticisms of the instrument data.

Almost all of the instrumentation is located in major cities which are more susceptible to false reading of higher than average regional temperatures. Cities often produce their own cloud cover (smog and pollutants) which keep them warmer than the surrounding countryside. The buildings and lights also produce heat with eventually gets outside and into the air. Anyone living in the country can tell you that the city temperature and that at home is often at wide variance.
While we now have satellites capable of measuring mien temperatures that is not the data used in these surveys.
I do think we need a better data set than what we are being provided with before making massive expenditures or implementing stringent regulations that may have no effect at all on the problem at hand…if there is a problem that we can effect.

Unfortunately governments seem capable of only two responses. The first is to study the phenomenon and never do anything. The second is to go off with little or no clear idea of what to do but to throw money and regulations at the problem until it drops out of the press.

Take your pick; in the end we will spend exorbitant amounts of money either way and likely to the same effect.

---

The EU is finally doing something about cars though. They'll have to produce a max of 130g/km of CO2. So any cars that are made will be clean. Plus they'll be so expensive and quiet and generally disappointing fewer people will drive.

Not that that helps in places where public transport is already full (like the UK! Yay!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

The EU is finally doing something about cars though. They'll have to produce a max of 130g/km of CO2. So any cars that are made will be clean. Plus they'll be so expensive and quiet and generally disappointing fewer people will drive.

---

What other pollutants will it get to belch out in exchange for decreased CO2?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

What other pollutants will it get to belch out in exchange for decreased CO2?

---

Why should a car that emits less CO2 "blech out" something else in exchange?
Consumption of less gas for example is certainly a feasible way to reduce emissions, don't you think?

For those still in denial about Global Warming, may I humbly suggest "An Incovenient Truth" for their viewing pleasure.

http://www.climatecrisis.net/


To Legio and Macsen, excellent summarys and explanations for an overall perspective of what life versus a planet is (and then some). Truely enjoyed the exchange between the two of you and your summations. Thx

Reality is, that since my birth the population of our planet has tripled (am a nam vet, baby boomer), and will double again by 2050 making it 12 billion humans bumping into one another and fighting each other over every resource from water to food. Oil will be of historical interest, but pretty much non-existant.

To believe that man doesnot or is not affecting the environmental conditions he is living in ... is hooey. Only those with their heads firmly planeted in the sand or their dexterious orphous can possibly believe that what is occuring today is because of some simplistic climactic cycle ordained by a supremebeing.

And btw, the GW could verywell instigate an iceage - but according to what I have read and seen in a variety of documentarys on the subject - it is doubtful. The gulf stream would have to be interupted - as it was during the 12th (?) century when an ice damn (in Greenland) collapsed dumping billions of acres of fresh water into it and disrupting its cyclic flow.

Regardless, for those maintaining the oil companys' view that GW is a fantasy - view "An Inconvient Truth". What could it possibly hurt? :balloon2:

Two things are quite certain:

- human activity causes an unnatural amount of emission of certain substances in our atmosphere, and
- the substance of the atmosphere is an important variable of the earth's climate.

So really, previous ice-ages, solar cycles, only half-understood greenhouse effects are not even important. The simple fact remains that human activity will be or is already a major factor in the earth's climate.
One doesn't have to interpret meteorological data or use indeed only half-understood climatic theories to see and accept this simple fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

To believe that man doesnot or is not affecting the environmental conditions he is living in ... is hooey.

---

:yes:


"Reality is, that since my birth the population of our planet has tripled (am a nam vet, baby boomer), and will double again by 2050 making it 12 billion humans"
Amazing, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

For those still in denial about Global Warming, may I humbly suggest "An Incovenient Truth" for their viewing pleasure.

---

Hah! No. :laugh4:

Mind you, I am planning to sit down and watch it for a giggle one of these days- but as a source of accurate or unbiased information? Heck no. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Reality is, that since my birth the population of our planet has tripled (am a nam vet, baby boomer), and will double again by 2050 making it 12 billion humans bumping into one another and fighting each other over every resource from water to food. Oil will be of historical interest, but pretty much non-existant.

---

12 billion by 2050 seems a bit high an estimate to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luigi VI di Fatlington

Two things are quite certain:

- human activity causes an unnatural amount of emission of certain substances in our atmosphere, and
- the substance of the atmosphere is an important variable of the earth's climate.

---

And then there's things that aren't certain.... like how much of atmospheric gases are a result of man- there's certainly no direct relationship between how much we pump out and how much is in the atmosphere. Much of it seems to be locked in the oceans or.... other places. :shrug:

Another unknown would be what exactly will occur as we see shifts composition. The only thing we could be relatively sure of is that it would not be much like the maps showing 20+ft increases in sea level that Al Gore is peddling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Why should a car that emits less CO2 "blech out" something else in exchange?
Consumption of less gas for example is certainly a feasible way to reduce emissions, don't you think?

---

There already is the hybrid car which produces half the emissions. Sadly they are very expensive, being new and all, so most drivers, me included, cannot afford to purchase them. In the future there will probably be cars that run on hydrogen and only produce water. Useful if you want a drink while your driving :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Another unknown would be what exactly will occur as we see shifts composition. The only thing we could be relatively sure of is that it would not be much like the maps showing 20+ft increases in sea level that Al Gore is peddling.

---

Big ice shelf's disappearing act

I would say that the only thing that's relativly sure is the we will get atleast a few years warning if it should happen again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites the Idiot

There already is the hybrid car which produces half the emissions. Sadly they are very expensive, being new and all, so most drivers, me included, cannot afford to purchase them. In the future there will probably be cars that run on hydrogen and only produce water. Useful if you want a drink while your driving

---

The problem with hydrogen cars is that the hydrogen is needed to be produced somewere. And that costs energy, so you can't really use coal plants to supply the energy.

There are other thoughts on this whole thing. Some of the Scientists we assume are on the band wagon aren't exactly….where is the darn link…well…I'll keep looking…any way...

Seems some that believe global warming is real and that CO2 is rising don't think it is a big problem.

Dr. Tim Ball, the head of the National Resources Stewardship Project in Canada, shared his views on global warming. Many different types of climate cycles, specifically those related to the sun, can cause warming trends, he suggested. The increase in C02 emissions is overemphasized as a factor in warming, he argued, and the science in the film An Inconvenient Truth is based on faulty computer models.

http://www.nrsp.com/

I don't know if any of this is so or not but I do know that people who try to scare you into doing things, and use fear as their motivating issue usually have much more to hide than those who approach it in a calm manner.

Any time some one wants to do something now without further debate or research is being just a little bit hysterical.

When you react due to fear you are not usually acting on logic. (fright = fight or flight)

Politicians seem to love emotional issues; they seem to work in polarizing the populous much quicker than rational debate and help at getting us to go along with what ever measures they want to take. Once that it done there is usually no going back.

The left and the right both use it mostly to our great detriment. The best approach is to remain sceptical and make them prove their point.

If those in power can get you stirred up and emotional they can get away with some pretty dumb things.

If this doesn't make sense…I have about 102 fever…I'll read it again later LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Big ice shelf's disappearing act

I would say that the only thing that's relativly sure is the we will get atleast a few years warning if it should happen again.

---

Interesting article. :bow:

It's also worth noting that the entire ice shelf could melt away tomorrow and there would be no change in sea levels. :yes:

Privet sector: Someone putting their money where their mouth is.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/cl...009530,00.html


better than a fear based approach…but will he ever have to pay?

Xiahou, what do you think of the Defense and State Department arguments for minimisng oil dependency?

Quote:

---

To believe that man doesnot or is not affecting the environmental conditions he is living in ... is hooey.

---

Wow, you make such a persausive point :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Only those with their heads firmly planeted in the sand or their dexterious orphous can possibly believe that what is occuring today is because of some simplistic climactic cycle ordained by a supremebeing.

---

Oh, I love this. Everyone who disagrees is stupid, especially those who point who the holes in your logic with science and fact. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

There already is the hybrid car which produces half the emissions.

---

And what does it run on? Electricity or Hydrogen? Either way, you have to spend energy - by burning coal in electrical plants, for instance, or extracting the hydrogen using electricity - to get that electricity or hydrogen to your car. Sure, the car itself may use less CO2, but what about the places that produce its electricity?

EDIT: A link with a list of articles pointing out flaws in Al Gore's movie and global warming nuts:
http://blog.nam.org/archives/2006/05...convenient.php

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Hah! No. :laugh4:

Mind you, I am planning to sit down and watch it for a giggle one of these days- but as a source of accurate or unbiased information? Heck no. :dizzy2:

12 billion by 2050 seems a bit high an estimate to me.

And then there's things that aren't certain.... like how much of atmospheric gases are a result of man- there's certainly no direct relationship between how much we pump out and how much is in the atmosphere. Much of it seems to be locked in the oceans or.... other places. :shrug:

Another unknown would be what exactly will occur as we see shifts composition. The only thing we could be relatively sure of is that it would not be much like the maps showing 20+ft increases in sea level that Al Gore is peddling.

---

We all need a good giggle these days, so what is keeping you from yours? That is, viewing "An Inconvenient Truth"? What Gore presents is substantiated, and though he may not be one of your favorite personalities - he certainly has something of importance to say on this issue (can you say "Nobel Prize"?). Those that ignore it do so either out of prejudice toward him, or fear he may alter their thinking on this subject. But, what the hey. It's just for giggles - right?

12billion by 2050: http://www.popconnect.org
BTW, you maybe right - it may only be 10Billion.

Still, if you feel that the earth can support the +9.5billion your survey suggests - fine. Not that we are doing a bang up job today at 5Billion, or we were doing much better when it was a mear 2billion in the 1950's. Is just a thought - but regardless of which population growth senario one accepts, there are limited resources to support life on this planet.

Also, One thing some have ignored is the depletion of life in the seas. Over fishing, the altering of habitats, and that the depletion of the smallest organisms affect all life there. The food chain is being disrupted - and that is a fact. Coral reefs are dying. Areas once plentiful with sea life are now deserts (of a sort). And many Marine biologist point out that a change of even a few degrees in some areas can and is destroying the natural flow of life.

Still, keep your idealist optomistic view that nothing is happening to the environment. Who knows, maybe you are right and the vast bulk of scientists and their information are wrong.:eeeek: