or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "Expert" Calls for GW Skeptics to be Punished.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Expert" Calls for GW Skeptics to be Punished. - Page 2

post #41 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

icfireball is referring to this study, and his portrayal of its findings are accurate: No peer-reviewed scientific papers came to a conclusion other than the scientific consensus: that global warming is occurring and that most of the recent warming is due to human activity.

The panel states,

Quote:
Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

They didn't mention what percentage of greenhouse gases were man made (hint: it's 0.28%).

You (and that article) are mincing words and creating a non sequitur. There's a scientific consensus that greenhouse gases warm the Earth. There's a scientific consensus that we are adding greenhouse gases to the Earth. However, human contributions are so small that it's likely insignificant.

This doesn't mean that global warming isn't a problem, this just means that current efforts to stop it probably won't help, and we need to do something drastically different.
post #42 of 248
greg, I believe you're the one who's mincing words here. The statement says that the warming in the past 50 years has been caused by increased greenhouse gases. There's no way that greenhouse gases have increased in the past 50 years in this fashion from any cause other than human activity. The report itself very clearly states that global warming is being caused by human activity. The following is the entire summary from the report itself.

Quote:
Summary
The latest 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report reaffirms in much stronger language that the climate is changing in ways that cannot be accounted for by natural variability and that "global warming" is happening. Global mean temperatures have risen and the last decade is the warmest on record. The major cause of warming in the last three decades is from human effects changing the composition of the atmosphere primarily through use of fossil fuels. While changes in particulate pollution mostly causes cooling, increases in long-lived greenhouse gases dominate and cause warming. The long lifetime of several greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide lasts for over a century) suggests that we can not stop the changes, although we can slow them down. Moreover, the slow response of the oceans to warming, means that we have not yet seen all of the climate change we are already committed to. Major climate changes are projected under all likely scenarios of the future and the rates of change are much greater than occur naturally, and so are likely to be disruptive.

It's crystal clear what they're saying, and the paper I cited (and I believe icfireball was referring to) says that all scientists publishing in this field appear to agree with this.

The point is that there really, really, genuinely, honest-to-goodness IS a bona fide scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is being caused by human activity. Any controversy is generated by people who are not researchers in this field. It's really very similar to where we are with biological evolution. Scientists who study the field endorse it, those who criticize it are outside of the field itself.
post #43 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

greg, I believe you're the one who's mincing words here. The statement says that the warming in the past 50 years has been caused by increased greenhouse gases. There's no way that greenhouse gases have increased in the past 50 years in this fashion from any cause other than human activity.

From Wikipedia, "Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, while others result from human activities. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Certain human activities, however, add to the levels of most of these naturally occurring gases."

Furthermore, "Atmospheric carbon dioxide derives from multiple natural sources including volcanic outgassing, the combustion of organic matter, and the respiration processes of living aerobic organisms; man-made sources of carbon dioxide come mainly from the burning of various fossil fuels for heating, power generation and transport use. It is also produced by various microorganisms from fermentation and cellular respiration."

Just because you don't fully understand global warming, doesn't mean you're qualified to laugh off points.

According to the United States Department of Energy (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg00rpt/tbl2.html), there's 7.1 billion metric tons of human made carbon dioxide.

Compare this to the 150 billion metric tons of natural carbon dioxide.

A better example is table 1 here: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html (While I contest the general premise of the page, the numbers are accurate).

Man-made contributions are only 14.8% of total CO2 additions to the atmosphere. If we completely stopped all driving and manufacturing and lived as a hunter gatherer society, we STILL would barely put a dent in the rate that CO2 is increasing.

Blaming humans isn't helpful nor useful. At best, we can only cut down our emissions. Even if we could stop our emissions, that doesn't keep the world itself from building up carbon dioxide.

Quote:
The report itself very clearly states that global warming is being caused by human activity. The following is the entire summary from the report itself.

Exactly. It is. It's also being caused my NON-human activity. What part of this is difficult for you to understand? The report doesn't deny this. Only you seem to be.

Quote:
It's crystal clear what they're saying, and the paper I cited (and I believe icfireball was referring to) says that all scientists publishing in this field appear to agree with this.

The paper you cited states nothing to that fact. The article you cited says that most scientists generally agree. I generally agree.

What you are trying to do is take an excellent claim, that humans affect global warming. This is true, and pretty much impossible to deny.

What you are then doing is saying that humans are SOLELY responsible for global warming. Hardly anyone is saying this, especially not any article you've cited. More importantly, since your article, more evidence has come out that the role of humans is smaller than previously believed.

Quote:
The point is that there really, really, genuinely, honest-to-goodness IS a bona fide scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is being caused by human activity. Any controversy is generated by people who are not researchers in this field. It's really very similar to where we are with biological evolution. Scientists who study the field endorse it, those who criticize it are outside of the field itself.

No, they're pretty different.
post #44 of 248
I"m not well versed in this issue by any means... but doesn't the destruction of forests play a big part in allowing carbon dioxide to build up in the atmosphere?

Or do the emissions statistics already take that into account when determining how much carbon we are putting into the atmosphere?
post #45 of 248
greg, I have never denied that our atmosphere or climate change can be influenced by factors other than human activity. That's the definition of a straw man argument.

What I'm disagreeing with is your statement that "It's not true" in response to icfireball's statement that "In scientific peer-reviewed journals, not even one scientist expressed the belief that global warming either didn't exist or was not caused by humans." That was actually a true statement, and I linked to the study to which it was referring. Take it up with Science magazine, probably the most well-respected scientific journal in the world, if you don't like it.

The fact is, according to that paper and many sources, there is a rock-hard scientific consensus that global warming is being caused by human activity. Apparently you have a different view. Great! Get your views published and maybe you'll change that scientific consensus.
post #46 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Funny that SDW posts a thread with this title, when he's so many times called for GW Bush skeptics to be punished! LOL

Really. Show me.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #47 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

In scientific peer-reviewed journals, not even one scientist expressed the belief that global warming either didn't exist or was not caused by humans. In the popular media however, 50% had doubt as to whether it exists or not.

This is a large discrepancy and it exists in part from some stupid meteorologists who don't know anything about the environment, just what they are told about the weather, which isn't much to be sure, and then go spouting off bullshit because they are in a position of authority. And because they are in a position of authority, people believe them.

Also, the AMS believes that global warming exists and is human caused. No other organizations certify people that have different beliefs about such key issues to the existence of the organization.

Now you're just making crap up.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #48 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Now you're just making crap up.

It was the statistic given in An Inconvenient Truth. I think it's probably pretty accurate.
post #49 of 248
Check this out. A creationist didn't want "An Inconvenient Truth" shown in class because "The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD." So the school board banned it, and now says it can only be shown if they also present an opposing view. Great huh? It doesn't matter if the opposing view is non-factual, we have to be fair and balanced! Earth is flat? Where's the opposing view!
post #50 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsLan^ View Post

I"m not well versed in this issue by any means... but doesn't the destruction of forests play a big part in allowing carbon dioxide to build up in the atmosphere?

Yes, it does.

Quote:
Or do the emissions statistics already take that into account when determining how much carbon we are putting into the atmosphere?

I'm not sure on that factor. The DOE's report is about 100 of the dry-est, most painful pages of writing you've ever seen. I wasn't about to trudge through it to check that

However, forest and algae farming are likely going to be key methods to reducing carbon dioxide.
post #51 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

greg, I have never denied that our atmosphere or climate change can be influenced by factors other than human activity. That's the definition of a straw man argument.

Except for when you said, " There's no way that greenhouse gases have increased in the past 50 years in this fashion from any cause other than human activity. "

That's the definition of lying through your teeth.

Quote:
What I'm disagreeing with is your statement that "It's not true" in response to icfireball's statement that "In scientific peer-reviewed journals, not even one scientist expressed the belief that global warming either didn't exist or was not caused by humans." That was actually a true statement, and I linked to the study to which it was referring. Take it up with Science magazine, probably the most well-respected scientific journal in the world, if you don't like it.

No, it's not a true statement. As I stated earlier, global warming is caused by multiple factors. The Science article states that human interference is a factor, but not the only one. This is contrary to ic's, and your, statements, which claim that human interference is the sole factor.

Quote:
The fact is, according to that paper and many sources, there is a rock-hard scientific consensus that global warming is being caused by human activity. Apparently you have a different view. Great! Get your views published and maybe you'll change that scientific consensus.

No, once again, not a true statement. There's rock-hard scientific consensus that global warming is influenced, but not entirely caused, by humans. More and more research, as I posted earlier, is pointing out that human effects are much less important than previously thought.

I don't need to get my views published, scientists are already doing a great job of that.
post #52 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Now you're just making crap up.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

The panel states,



They didn't mention what percentage of greenhouse gases were man made (hint: it's 0.28%).

You (and that article) are mincing words and creating a non sequitur. There's a scientific consensus that greenhouse gases warm the Earth. There's a scientific consensus that we are adding greenhouse gases to the Earth. However, human contributions are so small that it's likely insignificant.

This doesn't mean that global warming isn't a problem, this just means that current efforts to stop it probably won't help, and we need to do something drastically different.

1) Where the hell did you get that statistic?? That's complete bullshit. Why is the amount of carbon in our atmosphere THREE times greater than within the normal range FOR THE PAST 65 MILLION YEARS?
2) Many things in the Universe are so finitely precise that our own measuring tools cannot EVER measure the precision of accuracy, and even the slightest change, undetectable to our means of measuring could have astronomical effects (literally and metaphorically) -- that is to say for example, if the properties of gravity were to be ever so slightly different, the earth would not exist.
post #53 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

1) Where the hell did you get that statistic?? That's complete bullshit.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

When you total up all the greenhouse gases, accounting for their relative effects on global warming, and figure out what percentages of those we're contributed by man, it's vanishingly small.

We're responsible for 3.22% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

However, carbon dioxide itself is only about 3.62% of the total global warming effect. Water vapor, Greenhouse Gas Numero Uno, accounts for the vast majority of warming, and is entirely unaffected by humans.

When you add up small percentages of even smaller percentages, you get really tiny percentages. Like humans being responsible for .28% of greenhouse gases.

It's important to note, though, that that page is being slightly deceptive. While only .28% of greenhouses gases are human made, without any GHG's, our climate would be closer to that of Mars: winters would be -140 degrees Celsius (-220 Fahrenheit).

More important is the statistic in table 1, which comes from the US Department of Energy. Human CO2 emissions are STILL only responsible for 14.78% of total atmospheric CO2 additions.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration presents a different statistic: "Human activities are now adding about 7 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year, which is only about 34% of the amount exchanged naturally."


Quote:
Why is the amount of carbon in our atmosphere THREE times greater than within the normal range FOR THE PAST 65 MILLION YEARS?

The amount of CO2 is only two times greater than the normal range for an ice age. (As an aside, CO2 samplings only go back about 800,000 years).

It is, however, 27.9% higher than it was prior to the industrial revolution, which is of note.

Why is this? We're not really sure. We know it's not entirely from human causes, so most research nowadays is more concerned with how exactly this is going to affect us. When that gets further solidified (rather than the gazillion conflicting doomsday reports we have now), we'll look into the best ways to help reduce it.

Quote:
2) Many things in the Universe are so finitely precise that our own measuring tools cannot EVER measure the precision of accuracy, and even the slightest change, undetectable to our means of measuring could have astronomical effects (literally and metaphorically) -- that is to say for example, if the properties of gravity were to be ever so slightly different, the earth would not exist.

I believe you're referring to the Butterfly effect. Interestingly, this phenomena is the single reason why we're having so many difficulties figuring out if how serious a problem global warming will be and what exactly the effects will be.

I'm not sure, at all, why you're pointing it out, though.
post #54 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Really. Show me.

Oh, come on. How many times have you screamed "Treason! Treason!". You called anyone questioning the President (being skeptical of him) or his plan during a "time of war" a terrorist supporter who should be tried for treason (in other words, punished). Do you deny that?

Here's one... from the moths of babes...

"Well, I was of course not serious when I talked about treason as a legal definiton. But beyond that, I disagree. While you may have a legal right to say anything you want, that doesn't mean you should."

So even if (in this thread) you're not calling for people who criticize the president to be hanged, you're certainly saying that you don't think they should have the moral right (or responsibility, as I and the country's founders assert) to do it.
post #55 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

Except for when you said, " There's no way that greenhouse gases have increased in the past 50 years in this fashion from any cause other than human activity. "

That's the definition of lying through your teeth.

That is an absolutely true statement, according to the IPCC paper we're talking about, and I linked above: "The major cause of warming in the last three decades is from human effects changing the composition of the atmosphere primarily through use of fossil fuels."

And from the Science article we've been talking about: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." and "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue." And that's the paper that found that not a single published article disagreed with that conclusion.

I don't really see what's ambiguous about that. Human effects -> changing atmosphere -> recent global warming. That's not my statement, that's the statement of the papers in question, which restate the scientific consensus.

Now, that is not at all inconsistent with the idea that the climate has changed throughout history without any human intervention. Our climate changed to and from ice ages many times before humans even existed! But recent global warming is being caused by human activity, according to the scientists who study this. Sole cause? That's absurd. Nothing has a sole cause. But the kind of rise we've seen recently would not have happened without human activity.

Quote:
No, it's not a true statement. As I stated earlier, global warming is caused by multiple factors. The Science article states that human interference is a factor, but not the only one. This is contrary to ic's, and your, statements, which claim that human interference is the sole factor.No, once again, not a true statement. There's rock-hard scientific consensus that global warming is influenced, but not entirely caused, by humans. More and more research, as I posted earlier, is pointing out that human effects are much less important than previously thought.

Again, I have never claimed that human activity is the sole factor underlying climate change in general. I will say, as I've said before, that "There's no way that greenhouse gases have increased in the past 50 years in this fashion from any cause other than human activity." The level of increase in greenhouse gases could not have occurred without human activity. That has been stated in these consensus reports repeatedly, on Bush's EPA website, in the Science review paper, and everywhere else.

If you personally disagree because you found some stuff on the internet, that's a very different issue. We're talking about what the current scientific consensus is. You might turn out to be right, and I completely acknowledge that. But the current consensus - a unanimous consensus according to the journal Science - is stated accurately above, that the level of global warming we've seen recently could not have occurred without human activity.
post #56 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Oh, come on. How many times have you screamed "Treason! Treason!". You called anyone questioning the President (being skeptical of him) or his plan during a "time of war" a terrorist supporter who should be tried for treason (in other words, punished). Do you deny that?

Here's one... from the moths of babes...

"Well, I was of course not serious when I talked about treason as a legal definiton. But beyond that, I disagree. While you may have a legal right to say anything you want, that doesn't mean you should."

So even if (in this thread) you're not calling for people who criticize the president to be hanged, you're certainly saying that you don't think they should have the moral right (or responsibility, as I and the country's founders assert) to do it.

Nice try. Where did I call for someone to be punished? I believe that is why you called me a hypocrite, correct? I've rarely if ever called for someone expressing strong political disagreement to be punished in any sort of way. I can think whatever I'd like about their "moral right." That's not even close to the same thing. I haven't even advocated punishment for the outrageous slander of the President and his administration during a time of war. Hell, Pelosi just came out and said that Bush was rushing the troops surge for political reasons...to put them in harms way because he wanted the funding passed. I don't think that makes her a traitor, I just think it makes her a cunt.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #57 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

When you total up all the greenhouse gases, accounting for their relative effects on global warming, and figure out what percentages of those we're contributed by man, it's vanishingly small.

We're responsible for 3.22% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

However, carbon dioxide itself is only about 3.62% of the total global warming effect. Water vapor, Greenhouse Gas Numero Uno, accounts for the vast majority of warming, and is entirely unaffected by humans.

When you add up small percentages of even smaller percentages, you get really tiny percentages. Like humans being responsible for .28% of greenhouse gases.

It's important to note, though, that that page is being slightly deceptive. While only .28% of greenhouses gases are human made, without any GHG's, our climate would be closer to that of Mars: winters would be -140 degrees Celsius (-220 Fahrenheit).

More important is the statistic in table 1, which comes from the US Department of Energy. Human CO2 emissions are STILL only responsible for 14.78% of total atmospheric CO2 additions.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration presents a different statistic: "Human activities are now adding about 7 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year, which is only about 3–4% of the amount exchanged naturally."




The amount of CO2 is only two times greater than the normal range for an ice age. (As an aside, CO2 samplings only go back about 800,000 years).

It is, however, 27.9% higher than it was prior to the industrial revolution, which is of note.

Why is this? We're not really sure. We know it's not entirely from human causes, so most research nowadays is more concerned with how exactly this is going to affect us. When that gets further solidified (rather than the gazillion conflicting doomsday reports we have now), we'll look into the best ways to help reduce it.



I believe you're referring to the Butterfly effect. Interestingly, this phenomena is the single reason why we're having so many difficulties figuring out if how serious a problem global warming will be and what exactly the effects will be.

I'm not sure, at all, why you're pointing it out, though.

Not the Butterfly effect per se, but its strongly related: Quantum Mechanics.

At any rate, I know that water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas in terms of presence in the atmosphere, but it has little effect because it stays constant on average due to the amount of precipitation. Also, water molecules occupy a very small portion of the atmospheric window where as HFC, PFCs, etc are much much worse because of their huge atmospheric window. At any rate, I did a thirty page paper on Global Warming so I know most of what you are talking about above. My point was that humans contribute to GLOBAL WARMING and NEW greenhouse gases an immense amount. I was NOT talking about the TOTAL amount of greenhouse gases, because its irrelevant to compare that because as you said, no greenhouse gases and a lot of greenhouse gases is the difference between the amount of greenhouse gases we have normally (without global warming) is the difference between a nice day and a day with 2 miles of ice over our head.

In summary Human contribution to the amount greenhouse gases that deviates outside the standard range for the past 65 million years is virtually 100%

That .28% is a ridiculous figure, because it doesn't MEAN anything.
post #58 of 248
So here is what she said on her blog:

Quote:
If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming. (One good resource if you don't have a lot of time is the Pew Center's Climate Change 101.)
Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement.

In short: this organization that believes there is a significant human component to global climate change shouldn't license people who disagree with it.

Why is this a blog post a controversy?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #59 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

Not the Butterfly effect per se, but its strongly related: Quantum Mechanics.

At any rate, I know that water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas in terms of presence in the atmosphere, but it has little effect because it stays constant on average due to the amount of precipitation. Also, water molecules occupy a very small portion of the atmospheric window where as HFC, PFCs, etc are much much worse because of their huge atmospheric window. At any rate, I did a thirty page paper on Global Warming so I know most of what you are talking about above. My point was that humans contribute to GLOBAL WARMING and NEW greenhouse gases an immense amount. I was NOT talking about the TOTAL amount of greenhouse gases, because its irrelevant to compare that because as you said, no greenhouse gases and a lot of greenhouse gases is the difference between the amount of greenhouse gases we have normally (without global warming) is the difference between a nice day and a day with 2 miles of ice over our head.

In summary Human contribution to the amount greenhouse gases that deviates outside the standard range for the past 65 million years is virtually 100%

That .28% is a ridiculous figure, because it doesn't MEAN anything.

If you bothered to read my post, you'd notice that I also pointed out that humans are responsible for between 3 and 14% of new CO2. The other 86% is entirely natural.

Your "virtually 100%" figure is as made up as your "3x the normal amount of CO2" figure. I imagine your paper was really exciting.
post #60 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

If you bothered to read my post, you'd notice that I also pointed out that humans are responsible for between 3 and 14% of new CO2. The other 86% is entirely natural.

Your "virtually 100%" figure is as made up as your "3x the normal amount of CO2" figure. I imagine your paper was really exciting.

You need to STOP with the BAD statistical argument! REALLY!

It's the delta CO2 caused by anthropomorphic activity that IS critical here AND the fact that the Earth cannot absorb that delta at current rates of anthropomorphic activity. And if you take a hard look at the CO2 data (as I have done) you would realize that the rate of the rate (the 2nd derivative) of CO2 uptake is a small POSITIVE number. And if you don't BELIEVE the FACTS of the matter, do the math, and show it to be otherwise in a scientific peer reviewed journal!

So it's not the CO2 numbers in absolute terms, and not the CO2 numbers WRT to the past history of natural occuring atmospheric gases. Why?

Because it's the delta combined with the rate of increase of CO2 from that delta, both of which are predominantly (if not entirely) caused by anthropomorphic activity!

We are not living in the past, we are living in the present, and the future doesn't look too encouraging at the RATE(S) we're going, get over it!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #61 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

You need to STOP with the BAD statistical argument! REALLY!

It's the delta CO2 caused by anthropomorphic activity that IS critical here AND the fact that the Earth cannot absorb that delta at current rates of anthropomorphic activity. And if you take a hard look at the CO2 data (as I have done) you would realize that the rate of the rate (the 2nd derivative) of CO2 uptake is a small POSITIVE number. And if you don't BELIEVE the FACTS of the matter, do the math, and show it to be otherwise in a peer reviewed journal!

Not the numbers in absolute terms, and not WRT to the past history of natural occuring atmospheric gases. Why?

Because it's the delta combined with the rate of increase of CO2 from that delta, both of which are predominantly (if not entirely) caused by anthropomorphic activity!

We are not living in the past, we are living in the present, and the future doesn't look too encouraging at the RATE we're going, get over it!

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Of carbon dioxide placed into the Earth on any given day, 3 to 14% of it is by humans. 86 to 97% happens naturally.

You're trying to place the blame where it does not belong. This in an incredibly important distinction.

If global warming is not our fault, then our current methods of dealing with it are ineffective. End of story. We could go back to the stone age, but given current data, global warming is going to storm on regardless.

Why are you so caught up on one insignificant presumption of the 80's view of global warming that you can't see the forest for the trees?
post #62 of 248
When will people finally catch on that it doesn't matter whether or to what extent we are causing global warming? We're suffering from it regardless, so if we have any reasonably instinct of survival left in us, we should do something about it regardless, no matter how little we can.
post #63 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Of carbon dioxide placed into the Earth on any given day, 3 to 14% of it is by humans. 86 to 97% happens naturally.

You're trying to place the blame where it does not belong. This in an incredibly important distinction.

If global warming is not our fault, then our current methods of dealing with it are ineffective. End of story. We could go back to the stone age, but given current data, global warming is going to storm on regardless.

Why are you so caught up on one insignificant presumption of the 80's view of global warming that you can't see the forest for the trees?

Dude,

You really don't get it, do you?

Normalizing the data, as you have done (actually Dr. Fred Singer), adds nothing to our current understanding as to the cause and effect of anthropomorphic activity.

It is clear you (and Dr. Singer) have little understanding of causal anthropomorphic activities!

Some observational data is in order;



but I need a longer baseline to determine a 2nd order trend,



Fitting a least squares 2nd order curve to the longer baseline dataset gives the following relationship;

CO2 (ppm) = 314 + 0.817*T + 0.0119*T^2 (R^2 = 0.99)

where T is time in years (T = 0 @ 3/15/1958 )

Please note positive coefficients for ALL terms wih time, but specifically the 2nd order term.

SIO CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa, HI
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #64 of 248
Carl Zimmer wrote a new article about man's responsibility wrt nature and global warming: http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2007/01...r_the_cool.php

Basically, some endangered animals and plants can survive in higher latitudes now because of rising global temperatures, farther from humans, making them more likely to survive, but only with human help can they move. Should we move them?
post #65 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

Carl Zimmer wrote a new article about man's responsibility wrt nature and global warming: http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2007/01...r_the_cool.php

Basically, some endangered animals and plants can survive in higher latitudes now because of rising global temperatures, farther from humans, making them more likely to survive, but only with human help can they move. Should we move them?

Interesting, but even more interesting is the AP article it links to;

Report Has 'Smoking Gun' on Climate

Oh well, time to "reload" and take a vacation across the good old USA in my 5 GPM RV with it's Hummer in tow!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #66 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Interesting, but even more interesting is the AP article it links to;

Report Has 'Smoking Gun' on Climate

Oh well, time to "reload" and take a vacation across the good old USA in my 5 GPM RV with it's Hummer in tow!


Quote:
Global warming is "happening now, it's very obvious," said Mahlman, a former director of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab who lives in Boulder, Colo. "When you look at the temperature of the Earth, it's pretty much a no-brainer."

There is no way the evidence could show the above. Not only is GW unproven, it cannot be proven. What we have is suspicion. All of it...I repeat all of it is based upon global temperatures and various atmospheric elements that are being measured. The problem is that we cannot know what is a "normal" climate, because it's constantly changing and goes through periods of warming and cooling over thousands if not millions of years. How can that be measured? For example, the 1930's were exceptionally warm, whereas several hundred years ago we had a Little Ice Age. In context, we're on the tail end of an Ice Age now, speaking in terms of millions of years. How the hell could anyone...scientist or not....say that we're abnorally warming the planet?

We should still break out addiction to fossil fuels though, as they at least can't be helping.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #67 of 248
SDW-- If I sent you a copy of An Inconvenient Truth, would you humor me and at least sit through it?
post #68 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

SDW-- If I sent you a copy of An Inconvenient Truth, would you humor me and at least sit through it?

Sure, I'd watch it. I love to laugh at Gore anyway.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #69 of 248
Why does Gore get so much hate? Were we too rough on Quayle?
post #70 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

Why does Gore get so much hate? Were we too rough on Quayle?

I don't hate Gore. I want him to run SOOO bad. I just think he's hysterical. LOCK BOX!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #71 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Not only is GW unproven, it cannot be proven.

You mean in the same vein that it "cannot be proven" that the Earth is older than 6,000 years?
post #72 of 248
21,000 more troops to Iraq!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #73 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

If you bothered to read my post, you'd notice that I also pointed out that humans are responsible for between 3 and 14% of new CO2. The other 86% is entirely natural.

Your "virtually 100%" figure is as made up as your "3x the normal amount of CO2" figure. I imagine your paper was really exciting.

I'm sorry. You are just dead wrong. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is 3x greater than the the normal cycle for the past 65million years and that is fact. Tell me now, what, if not humans, could have POSSIBLY caused this increase?

Also, read my paper:

http://www.uni.uiuc.edu/~ichamber/cuttingedge.pdf

Also note that the paper is 2 years old and things have become increasingly apparent since then.
post #74 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

You mean in the same vein that it "cannot be proven" that the Earth is older than 6,000 years?


Nice try with that little trap. But I'll play along. Obviously we can measure or estimate that age of the Earth through carbon dating and what not. We can do the same for global temperature, but the problem is those figures are just that....estimates.

Any statisically significant data on temperature would have to be accurate to what, a tenth of a degree, don't you agree? We hear about 1/10th and .5 degree increases being significant, so it stands to reason that we would have to be able to estimate previous temps to within the same amount.

The problem is we can't do that. Our estimates of the Earth's age might be tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years off. Our temperature estimates can't be even one degree off. That's why global warming really can't be proven. It's totally impossible to come up with historical average over say, 10,000-100,000 years. Even then, the Earth's climate changes over millions of years. Looking at it this way, it doesn't make a lot of sense to take the last 25 years and conclude that all of a sudden the planet is abnormally warm. As I said, we even had recent period of warmth in the 1930's, followed me mini cooling and warming cycles.

Look at the graph at the bottom of this page. http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

As you can see, we are essentially at the tail end of a cold period in the Earth's history. Temperatures have fluctuated much as....not ONE degree, but 10 degrees...all before humans even existed. How do you explain that?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #75 of 248
Well it looks like we'll have 1,600 pages of evidence to consider soon, and that's only the first part of a 4 part report.

Quote:
This segment, written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries, includes "a significantly expanded discussion of observation on the climate," said co-chair Susan Solomon a senior scientist for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

That's a lot of corroboration.
post #76 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

I'm sorry. You are just dead wrong. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is 3x greater than the the normal cycle for the past 65million years and that is fact.

From Wikipedia, "During this time, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied between 180210 µL/L during ice ages."

And, "As of January 2007, the earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration is is about 0.0383% by volume (383 ppmv) or 0.0582% by weight.[4] This represents about 2.996×1012 tonnes, and is estimated to be 105 ppm (37.77%) above the pre-industrial average."

(As an aside, µL/L and ppm are the same measurement: microlitres per litre and parts per million).

You are off by an order of magnitude. If we cut the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in half, we would have an ice age.

Additionally, we don't have ice cores that date back for millions of years. Like I said before, the oldest is about 800,000 years old.

Quote:
Tell me now, what, if not humans, could have POSSIBLY caused this increase?

From Wikipedia, once more: "Atmospheric carbon dioxide derives from multiple natural sources including volcanic outgassing, the combustion of organic matter, and the respiration processes of living aerobic organisms; man-made sources of carbon dioxide come mainly from the burning of various fossil fuels for heating, power generation and transport use. It is also produced by various microorganisms from fermentation and cellular respiration."

Next time, learn to read the thread. I've explained this before.

Everything I quoted is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
post #77 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Dude,

You really don't get it, do you?

What exactly is your point? Are you trying to prove to me that CO2 is increasing?

Have I EVER denied this?

Are you even READING anything I write? You're posting information that I'm NOT refuting, and NOT addressing points that I'm bringing up.

(Further more, I'm getting my statistics from the US Department of Energy and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, not Fred Singer.)
post #78 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

What exactly is your point? Are you trying to prove to me that CO2 is increasing?

Have I EVER denied this?

Are you even READING anything I write? You're posting information that I'm NOT refuting, and NOT addressing points that I'm bringing up.

(Further more, I'm getting my statistics from the US Department of Energy and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, not Fred Singer.)

The point is that humans are responsible for global warming aka climate change. And the key part is ing. Not global warm. Humans are NOT responsible for global warm. That happens naturally. It's called not having a mile of ice over our head. Humans are responsible for global warmING. Which causes climate change. Etc.
post #79 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

The point is that humans are responsible for global warming aka climate change. And the key part is ing. Not global warm. Humans are NOT responsible for global warm. That happens naturally. It's called not having a mile of ice over our head. Humans are responsible for global warmING. Which causes climate change. Etc.

No, the key point is that humans are responsible for only a tiny fraction of global warming.

I don't see why you have a problem with this. Do you have a problem with other scientific facts?

If global warming is going to be a problem, we NEED to know what's causing it. Placing the blame where we KNOW it does NOT belong doesn't help anything.
post #80 of 248
Quote:
Dude...slow down and think about what you're arguing. You're saying there is no "big business" in the environmentalist movement. You're saying it doesn't provide certain folks with their livelihood?

NO you slow down and think about this. Who is using theier influence more, to influence US policy, the oil industry , or the enviromentalists? Who is thorwing more money at it. Tell me, exactly where is the money to support GW coming from. Because you can go to any industry website of the skeptics and see a huge list of energy coroporation that are putting money into fighting a concesus on global warming. They will even fund people they know are inaacruate to spread their message.

What you are doing here is accusing those who are using scinece to make a point, of using the very tactics the industry is using to the tune of millions of dollars, to make sure that science isn't followed.

One has to ask oneself why any sane person would act this way. So I'm going ot make this easy for you.

Do you hold oil stocks? DO you work for a major energy company? Are you in some way profitting from our policy of expanding energy consumption.

Until you can prove otherwise, I won't listen to a word you say. The only people I know who hold your point of view are energy employees, or discredited scientists trying to et back at their peers for discrediting them. You never know what a person is saying until you know where he';s coming from. And Energy people on forums like this are often being paid to lie through their teeth.
I wouldn't join any club that would have
someone like me as a member.
Reply
I wouldn't join any club that would have
someone like me as a member.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "Expert" Calls for GW Skeptics to be Punished.