Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria"


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 9:35:38 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

I'm sorry, but this whole climate thing smacks of the politicization of science.

Sam,
That, my friend, is not considered enough regarding this issue.

Regarding the "science"; your focus is CO2 is reasonable except in the face of the fact that based upon ice core samples we currently are not at the all time high level of CO2 in earth's history. Unless the dinosaurs also used power plants emitting 15 billion tons of CO2 on an annual basis there is a problem with the conclusions drawn.

The ego of man and his importance on the planet is the basis of my argument. Termites and cow flatulence emit very large quantities of gases contributing to the mix. I have never said that man does not, has not, and will not impact the planet. My position is that there is no 'science' that gives conclusive proof of future weather occurrence. History shows that without any, or negligible human influence the earth has gone through both major global warming and global cooling. Does human influence make it significantly better or worse? Perhaps, but I do not subscribe that any human intervention could have prevented the ice age that generated glaciers which created the Great Lakes, nor the warming that made Greenland green. It also doesn't account for progress. The people of the 19th Century would think they'd be walking through streets of knee deep horse manure if they heard about how many people commuted the streets and roads of LA because they didn't have the concept of automobiles as a reference point.

I so confident of my argument, I won't quote Kipling, use juvenile name calling, and leave in my will instructions for MC's grandkids to come to my grandkids house so if I'm wrong they can apologize to them on my behalf.

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 9:48:40 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		Why do people keep talking about CO2 levels from millions of years ago as if it is relevant to the present situation.

Take the Mesozoic for instance. Available evidence is that CO2 levels were high and no polar ice existed. What we now call the Gulf of Mexico stretched up into what is now the Great Plains at times reaching South Dakota and Nebreska. Kansas is world famous amongst fossil hunters as being one of the absolute best sites for finding plesiosaurs, big marine reptiles, from this period. Europe was a collection of islands for much of this period.

So if CO2 returns to that level and all the ice melts and sea levels rise a few meters can humans survive? Some life on Earth certainly will but I'm not so confident about our civilization.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 9:53:10 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Why do people keep talking about CO2 levels from millions of years ago as if it is relevant to the present situation.

Take the Mesozoic for instance. Available evidence is that CO2 levels were high and no polar ice existed. What we now call the Gulf of Mexico stretched up into what is now the Great Plains at times reaching South Dakota and Nebraska. Kansas is world famous amongst fossil hunters as being one of the absolute best sites for finding plesiosaurs, big marine reptiles, from this period. Europe was a collection of islands for much of this period.

So if CO2 returns to that level and all the ice melts and sea levels rise a few meters can humans survive? Some life on Earth certainly will but I'm not so confident about our civilization.

Ken,
I don't know I didn't raise the issue.

But to your point, are prehistoric humans or the lost civilization of Atlantis to blame for the drastic climate changes that you reference?

You have given very good examples for my point. THANKS!

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 10:34:37 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct
My response is b)- first because I read the results of lab experiments that show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (wanna look at Venus as an example?)
Venus is a wrong and even non argument. I predict that Venus radiates more heat into space than it receives as radiation from the sun.

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 10:39:20 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline 		The problem you have when you are looking at the past and comparing it with now Merc is that in the present, the earth is suffering from desertification and despoilation of habitat through human activity, not just carbon emissions. We are actually destroying the natural lungs of the earth and spreading desert. We are in effect burning the candle at both ends. As sam pointed out, the earth is full of damage done through human activity, species go extinct by the week, many through human activity. The idea that we can go on polluting ad infintum and not have consequences to face is naive. You destroy your habitat, your species ceases to be and that goes for your termites or what you care to choose. It is not human vanity that thinks that we can alter the world enough that we destroy our habitat, many species have gone extinct through destroying its own habitat, it is human vanity that says humans can go round exploiting and over harvesting the planet without any consequences.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 10/17/2007 10:44:09 AM >

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 11:00:18 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

The problem you have when you are looking at the past and comparing it with now Merc is that in the present, the earth is suffering from desertification and despoilation of habitat through human activity, not just carbon emissions. We are actually destroying the natural lungs of the earth. We are in effect burning the candle at both ends. As sam pointed out, the earth is full of damage done through human activity, species go extinct by the week, many through human activity. The idea that we can go on polluting ad infintum and not have consequences to face is naive. You destroy your habitat, your species ceases to be and that goes for your termites or what you care to choose. It is not human vanity that thinks that we can alter the world enough that we destroy our habitat, ity is human vanity that humans can go round exploiting and over harvesting the planet without any consequences.

MC,
But you've changed the focus of the debate. Nowhere do I represent that humans have no impact. However even this new tangent is pointed to a conclusion that is wrong 'prima facie'.
Yes there are species becoming extinct every day. However more species have gone extinct in the history of earth than currently exist and are thriving. Saying that humanity is the cause of all current extinctions is a good buzz word talking point; however it ignores or doesn't address historical extinctions. The same type argument misdirects people in the global warming debate. People, like myself, who tend to not believe any represented "fact" without research tend to consider any "absolutism" evidence of rhetoric not to be believed when it can't be independently validated and comes from a source with an agenda, political or economic.

I have a very strong belief in science. If one of these global warming model accurately projected historical climate changes when it was run, I'd be an advocate. Unless or until then, I'll be representing the side that believes that all the "experts" don't have all the variables in their equation. The challenge should be seen as an opportunity. To scientists it is. To agenda driven politicians or economic driven industries I understand how that position is resented.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 11:04:51 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Why do people keep talking about CO2 levels from millions of years ago as if it is relevant to the present situation.

Take the Mesozoic for instance. Available evidence is that CO2 levels were high and no polar ice existed. What we now call the Gulf of Mexico stretched up into what is now the Great Plains at times reaching South Dakota and Nebraska. Kansas is world famous amongst fossil hunters as being one of the absolute best sites for finding plesiosaurs, big marine reptiles, from this period. Europe was a collection of islands for much of this period.

So if CO2 returns to that level and all the ice melts and sea levels rise a few meters can humans survive? Some life on Earth certainly will but I'm not so confident about our civilization.

Ken,
I don't know I didn't raise the issue.

But to your point, are prehistoric humans or the lost civilization of Atlantis to blame for the drastic climate changes that you reference?

You have given very good examples for my point. THANKS!

? WTF!

One more time, if the climate changes to be like it was in the Mesozoic can human civilization survive? Not likely.

So with plenty of evidence that human action is a possible contributing factor in global warming shouldn't we take steps to mitigate that climate change before we wipe ourselves out?

I know I keep asking this question but none of the anti global warming folks EVER gives me a straight answer.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 11:11:22 AM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		Very well said Mercnbeth

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 11:35:47 AM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		DomKen you are greatly misstating something here.  In the mesozoic, Kanasa was not a shallow sea, because there were 4-5 meters of water in the oceans due to the lack of Ice Caps. 

"The lowest point in Kansas is 679 feet above sea level in the southeast corner of the state. It is at the Verdigris River in Montgomery County. "  Continental Uplift and techtonics are responsible for the loss of the great inland sea.  By pretending otherwise you are greatly exeagerating the facts (as does Gore).  Screaming wolf...for obviously political reasons.  If the sea level does rise we have to rebuild all of our cities, and can plan them from the bottom up with green/sustainability

Not a single Antropogenic Catastrophic Global warming advocate has ever answered to me this question-----

IF the problem is truley as great as you say, why was the Kyoto treaty with its massive exemptions being pushed.  Kyoto would have garunteed CO2 emmissions to go up, just moved them to China and India,ect, along with higher toxic pollution, to an atmosphere and ocean we all share. Kyoto was a major political deal where the EU got to stay about the same, and the third world was exempted, and Global warming continued to occur

Which sucks because pollution is a real problem.  CO2 is just one part of the much greater pollution problems.  I care far more about the mercury from burning coal, than the CO2.

Also as to your question..."One more time, if the climate changes to be like it was in the Mesozoic can human civilization survive? Not likely.

So with plenty of evidence that human action is a possible contributing factor in global warming shouldn't we take steps to mitigate that climate change before we wipe ourselves out? "

We are taking steps.   No we should not just make sure we do "something"....we could make it worse, we could create bigger problems.  We need to do something smart, instead of wasting time on political games.  It is a flase choice you put forward.

I do not give a rats ass, what the Climate minister from Zimbabwe input to the IGCP was.  but he agrees with the Majority consensus...give me a break.

Why have we wasted 15 years on the Kyoto nonsense?  To me that indicates that either the Scientists don't really see a problem, or they are far to short sighted to see how thier work is being used.

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 11:39:33 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

 WTF!

One more time, if the climate changes to be like it was in the Mesozoic can human civilization survive? Not likely.

So with plenty of evidence that human action is a possible contributing factor in global warming shouldn't we take steps to mitigate that climate change before we wipe ourselves out?

I know I keep asking this question but none of the anti global warming folks EVER gives me a straight answer.

Ken,
It is your position that there is "plenty of evidence that human action is a possible contributing factor in global warming..." The answer, or at least MY answer, comes from your position. It is just as "possible" that it is NOT a major contributing factor. My evidence? The very facts of pre-human history that you site.

Now in answer to your question "can human civilization survive" such a recurrence focuses on a totally different issue. Nature is much more powerful and a more pragmatic than humanity. Where is the scientific evidence that any global warming prevention policy in place would have prevent a Mesozoic climate change? Is it your position that we have that ability or that some form of humanity was the cause when it occurred? 

Cultures, civilizations, and humanity as a whole will succeed or "fail" based on many factors. I don't challenge the facts of history. I only ask that any science which predicts a future recurrence accounts and predicts what occurred in history. Humanity's survival is pragmatic in consideration of all natural fluctuations in our environment. Based on my reading and research I've come to the position that, without a political or economic reason, a belief on faith of the religion of global warming points more to human vanity than it does to human ability.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 12:07:04 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline 		Merc

......let's say that the human contribution to global warming is either significent or it isn't. What we can all agree on is that it exists. It is highly unlikely to be utterly insignificent, just as it is highly unlikely that we will be growing vines in Alaska in our lifetime.
Given that if it turns out to be significent no-one in our lifetime will be able to prove it, ought we act now on spec? The very worst that will happen is that whatever impact we make will be minimised and that our industries will become more efficient.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 12:16:05 PM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		Ole Merc, ole buddy, ole pal

"Regarding the "science"; your focus is CO2 is reasonable except in the face of the fact that based upon ice core samples we currently are not at the all time high level of CO2 in earth's history. Unless the dinosaurs also used power plants emitting 15 billion tons of CO2 on an annual basis there is a problem with the conclusions drawn."

Umm, no- there isn't.  To your point of cow flatulence and termites- at the time of the Jurassic, the volume of animal life roaming around was a lot higher than it is today- hence dino flatulence, decomposition, etc. far outweighs current cow flatulence (all of these compounds, largely methane, are more effective greenhouse gases than CO2 IIRC).  The respiration of these animals will also produce a great deal of CO2 and CO2 is CO2 regardless of the source. (Let's assume for the nonce that the ice core data is correct.)  Hence- no problems with the conclusions drawn, just a different CO2 source and additional greenhouse gases..  I never claimed that humans were emitting more CO2 than any time in the planet's history- merely that dumping billions of tons of the stuff in the atmosphere is bound to change something. The likelihood is that it will cause warming.

Science doesn't give conclusive "proof" of future anything either.  The predictive power of hypotheses verified by experiment though, makes it pretty damn useful in my book.  Your references that other points in time had a different climate today are duly noted, but fail to provide any convincing rebuttal of the current science to whit- using current climate models, adding additional CO2 to the atmosphere results in warming of a few degrees C.  (and I think an ice age is only about 10C colder than today.)  since the modelers took this into account.  Hence, if you want to prove their science wrong, you have to come up with your own climate model and show that the addition of some 100 billion tons of CO2 on an annual basis (think that's something of the global figure) doesn't change the climate over 10 years- bearing in mind that in a decades time- we're now discussing 1 trillion tons of CO2.

That the repercussions of global warming could be overstated though- that's a much more debatable point- since there is clearly a great deal of uncertainty- and I think that's the point that you're trying to make with the examples of Kansas et al.

Again, three possible choices:

a)  no significant change to the global environment from a human perspective
b)  slow changes to the environment that are relatively straightforward to adapt to.
c)  rapid changes to the environment that cause catastrophic loss of life, resulting from famine, drought, flooding,storms and disease.

Our experience suggests a), perhaps. b).  In our lifetimes, there haven't been any major changes to the environment, that's what we've grown up with, that's what we'd like to believe.  Unfortuntately, history suggests that c) is more likely- but this is now based on much shakier ground.  Previous ice ages have shown a razor thin balance- i.e. tipping points- we don't transition smoothly and gently to an ice age- they happen quickly- with rapid cooling.  If global warming works the other way- i.e. rapid warming- then we've got lots of trouble.  If this is the case, then most of our crops will fail, since they are planted in belts that have temperatures which have remained fixed for hundreds of years.  Move the frost belt several hundred miles, and lots of crops are done- you can figure out what happens next.  Try reading Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel for a description of how few things humans can actually eat, and how sensitive to temperature these crops are.

My biggest grumble with your argument though, is its grounded in an economic assumption- to whit, that using coal to provide power (along with oil and natural gas) is dramatically cheaper and provides an economic advantage for the US.  To companies like GE maybe, but to the rest of us?  I doubt it- a large scale oil/coal replacement program would lead to job creation as well as new industries and new companies, probably reduce the deficit, and keep the US competitive with other economies in the long term.  Conservatives though, don't like opportunities for wealth generation, it involves upsetting the current apple cart.  Me being a starving scientist- I'm all for it.


Sam

< Message edited by samboct -- 10/17/2007 12:18:24 PM >

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 2:26:44 PM   
SuzanneKneeling


Posts: 233
Joined: 8/31/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
By what percentage are humans making it worse as compared to anthropogenic please?


First of all, "anthropogenic" means "humans making it worse" (literally, "human caused"). So your question reflects a basic unfamiliarity with the very vocabulary of this non-debate. If you want to sound halfway informed throughout your global warming denial phase, you'll want to take some time out from nursing your World Trade Center conspiracies to at least get the terms down on climate change (which I realize you deem yet another conspiracy - this time, of all the world's top scientists).

To answer your question though, or what I gather is your question, it is virtually impossible to come up with an *exact* (how many decimal places do you need?) percentage. As in every other field of scientific inquiry, scientific consensus is a cumulative process of positive studies over years, and each of those studies is going to arrive at a slightly different number even in the most clear-cut of cases. That's because there are always uncontrollable sources of noise from both the phenomenon you are measuring, and the instruments you are measuring it with. Scientists arrive at agreement over tiem on these things by essentially two routes - meta-analysis and "gestalt". Meta-analysis deals in hard numbers, combining the numerical results of all the available studies. Ideally it's preferred, but unfortunately the majority of the time it's difficult to directly combine numbers from studies that used slightly (or radically) different methods. So more often, things default to what I would call the "gestalt" process - where researchers who spend 60-80 hours a week with their noses in this literature and know it backwards and forwards (not only their own work but that of everyone else who's been published) finally look up and say, "yeah, the evidence is overwhelming". That's where we are on climate change.

Needless to say the latter method doesn't generally produce a precise number like "92.78% likely", but these highly informed opinions carry (or should carry) a lot of weight nonetheless. If you don't agree, as it sounds like Merc does not, you should immediately stop taking any medications developed by modern medical research, start drinking and smoking again if you are pregnant, and while you are at it start playing with radioactive waste as a hobby. Because the same "dirty" process is used in every field of science, and the only thing that makes climate change different is that the answers we have gotten threaten billions of dollars in profits to several industries. Naturally, they are fighting like hell to recruit as many of you as possible as unwitting, unpaid public relations soldiers for the cause of their bottom line. While I'm all for volunteerism, I try to channel mine toward constructive enterprises.

But if you really want a number, here is one that expresses the current certainty (I suspect you were wanting one expressing amount RealOne, but that's a more complicated question - from what baseline do you mean?). It's from the IPCC's latest assessment in Feb. 2007:

In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 2:53:07 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling
they are fighting like hell to recruit as many of you as possible as unwitting, unpaid public relations soldiers for the cause of their bottom line.

I make up my own mind.
 
This hypothesis that carbondioxide emission by humans causes global warming is easy to test by either doubling our annual CO2 emissions or by halving it. If the hypothesis is correct, we ought to see an immediate effect on the rate at which the cover of the sea ice annually decreases and increases. So I propose as a scientific experiment that we double the industrial CO2 emission. That ought to double the average global wealth as well.

(in reply to SuzanneKneeling)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 3:16:48 PM   
SuzanneKneeling


Posts: 233
Joined: 8/31/2005
Status: offline 		Mercnbeth, as I plow through the reams of misinformation on these threads, I am beginning to appreciate a distinction between two types of posters. One set is confused but with the most honorable and inquisitive of intentions keeps asking questions like yours. The second already know better but out of political spite (say, some irrational dislike of Al Gore or liberals or scientists) are knowingly spouting the same tired red herrings trying their best to keep alive the public confusion. I'm pretty convinced now that you're in the first category. Maybe more people here are than I realize - it's a little hard to give people the benefit of the doubt on this when you work in science as I do, know climatologists first hand, and have followed this literature since the mid-90s and know how solid it was ten years ago, let alone now.

I'm just appalled/amazed at how many people still see this as a conspiracy whereby thousands of highly-trained climatologists who previously had academic integrity have somehow sold out in concert, looked the other way to all the supposed objections, and so forth. That the evil environmentalists, with their handfuls of millions that they've raised from concerned citizens, have somehow managed to create this pressure on the federal funding process as you say, while up against a petroleum industry that virtually owns Congress ($200 million in donations since the early 90s* - not to mention contributions from other industries that stand to be impacted in lesser ways) - just goes blissfully unnoticed by you all. Somehow, the Green Monster that has perverted our scientific process in a way that has not happened in any other field (though it sounds like you think medicine might be a similar sham) has even sucked in President George W. Bush, he of the lifetime in the oil business and nearly his whole inner circle is oil people. How far does this conspiracy go? How far will you go?

I have so many things to say on what you've posted - sincerely I realize. You're fundamentally confusing weather with climate for one thing, and you are extrapolating your disappointment with the weatherman into mistrust of the long range climate models (which are actually quite sound). You also are (unknowingly, I am willing to grant) throwing up strawmen related to earth's history. I've heard them all before. If you want, go to realclimate.org and start reading (warning: it's run by the those evil PhD climatologists who are selling out to pay for their kids' braces - but they are keepin their story straight very well, since they meet in a sealed basement room once a month to put out a "united front" in all of their published papers). Maybe I will tackle your posts later - I have in the past here, only to have to recreate the whole discussion anew for the net Exxon detainee that comes along. But I find this discussion all so pointless. You people are determined to believe it's a hoax, that the climatologists are all lying, or that you miraculously have thought of things they haven't even considered. And I suspect you will keep doing that no matter what I say.

It all makes me want to beg you: Join the Scientologists, turn your back on the wicked scientific establishment that will say whatever you want if you pay them enough, throw all of your technology into the street since it was developed by engineers on the backs of what scientific consensus came up with, and bone up on the Genesis creation story. I hear a new giant dinosaur species was dug up in Argentina the other day. More evidence that the devil just wants your soul and he's using the scientists to get it. Kansas is lovely this time of year. Go there. Let the rest of us fix things so your kids will have a viable ecosystem to be happy in.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 3:25:24 PM   
SuzanneKneeling


Posts: 233
Joined: 8/31/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
This hypothesis that carbondioxide emission by humans causes global warming is easy to test by either doubling our annual CO2 emissions or by halving it. If the hypothesis is correct, we ought to see an immediate effect on the rate at which the cover of the sea ice annually decreases and increases. So I propose as a scientific experiment that we double the industrial CO2 emission. That ought to double the average global wealth as well.


You're a sociopath. Do you have any idea what the effective time constants are in this complex system you propose to shock? Or the residence times of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere? It would take a few decades to get an accurate read on exactly how much damage your idea delivered to our future habitat.

So many of your posts read as transparent homilies to the adage, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 3:37:09 PM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		OK, doing a little more digging on the EIA web site- turns out my source (an MIT prof giving a talk) was either in error or I misunderstood which quantity was being discussed.  Anyhow, EIA gives global CO2 production from fossil fuels at 26.9 billion tonnes in 2004, US contribution dropping to 5.8B in 2006 from 5.9B in 2005 (we had a mild summer and winter).

Merc- if you check out that website, you'll find that non-anthropogenic sources are accounted for and are much larger as you surmise.  But there's a simple equilibrium problem- in an Astro 101 class posted on the web (lost the link) that shows the problem quite neatly- we're exceeding the rate of clearing of CO2.

Sam

(in reply to SuzanneKneeling)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 3:41:16 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

So what is the global anthropogenic source total?




_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 3:52:05 PM   
DCWoody


Posts: 1401
Joined: 10/27/2006
Status: offline 		greenhouse gasses come from roughly 96% natural sources, 4% human......it varies depending whose figures you use, some say as little as 2% human.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne



So what is the global anthropogenic source total?




(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 4:42:37 PM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		Real One

Umm- this wasn't clear enough- "Anyhow, EIA gives global CO2 production from fossil fuels at 26.9 billion tonnes in 2004"

Sam

(in reply to DCWoody)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.250