RE: Another Global Warming Heretic (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

cyberdude611 -> RE: Another Global Warming Heretic (3/3/2007 12:00:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

CD611 - If there is no firm science how can you assert that there is no significant effect on the global climate from human activity?

Oh? What's this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm

"Carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years, the latest study of ice drilled out of Antarctica confirms."
 
CO2 is a marker gas. In order to pump the significant amounts that we do into the atmosphere we do more than just breathe out. You identified a few of the abusive accompanying practices. It's not just about CO2 or an increase in global temperatures. And warning about the comming calamity from our excess isn't fear mongering. If we don't mend our ways fast there will be a reckoning and no amount of ambiguity in climate science can change that.


Z.


Yes it is fear mongering. You guys remind me of Chicken Little running around the farm screaming that the sky is falling.
You guys try to discredit and destroy any scientist or critic of global warming. Meterologists are being threatened of losing certifications unless they sign on to the global warming hysteria. You call that science?

Just like the far-right needs a boogyman to get votes and money...so does the far left and the environmentalists.

Back in the 1970s, people were screaming because the world was cooling. Everyone was in a panic that we were heading to the next ice age. Now we are hysterical because the earth is warming? What happends in 20 years if it starts to cool again? Will we get hysterical abotu that again?

I don't buy it. Sorry.



Zensee -> RE: Another Global Warming Heretic (3/3/2007 12:16:00 AM)

And just how much more do our terrestrial and marine ecosystems have to give before they collapse do you figure CD? An infinite amount? How many species extinctons per year are acceptable? How many fisheries is it ok to decimate? How vast a desert is acceptable? How many mercury drenched watersheds do we need to fill our vaults with gold that will never see the light of the sun? We are even polluting the global gene pool with our engineering. How toxic do we have to get before we wake up?

It's not just about CO2.

You don't have to buy it. It's already in the mail.

Z.



FirmhandKY -> RE: Another Global Warming Heretic (3/3/2007 12:19:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

Oh please!.... I used "twits" because honest to God I didn't think anyone would be to put off by it.  I have always considered it to be more funny than derogatory ...Something out of Monty Python....Also if you noticed this twit didn't do a very good job of checking my post before posting...lots of typos.

Nothing to get heated up over, just having some fun....But I did  think the two articles were of interest...As well as relevant to the conversation.


domiguy,

In discussions like these, it always seems to start out "harmless", but as you yourself recognize, it is an insult. 

So, someone takes offense, and ups the ante a bit, then the reply ups it a little more ... adds a little more biting sarcasm ... pretty soon it ain't friendly any more.

I took no offense personally, but text is very hard to show a "joking" attitude.

FirmKY

twit:  a silly annoying person  : FOOL



cyberdude611 -> RE: Another Global Warming Heretic (3/3/2007 12:56:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

And just how much more do our terrestrial and marine ecosystems have to give before they collapse do you figure CD? An infinite amount? How many species extinctons per year are acceptable? How many fisheries is it ok to decimate? How vast a desert is acceptable? How many mercury drenched watersheds do we need to fill our vaults with gold that will never see the light of the sun? We are even polluting the global gene pool with our engineering. How toxic do we have to get before we wake up?

It's not just about CO2.

You don't have to buy it. It's already in the mail.

Z.


That's the problem with you people. Global warming and pollution are two different issues. This thread is about global warming. I dont believe anyone in here or any scientist for that matter has said they think pollution or rain forest destruction is OK for the ecosystem.
But global warming is a different issue. That is an issue that claims that humans are putting greenhouse gasses into the air which is causing the planet's temperature to rise to a point that will destroy life and flood the world within 100 years. And that right there is the dispute.

You are using global warming to push an environmentalist agenda. I agree we need to clean up the pollution. But I am against creating a fear machine of lies to push through your own agendas.

And you take a look at the list of the most polluted areas in the world, and guess what...its not the US that is polluted. It is mostly developing countries or the 3rd world. One organization did a study and compiled research of the 10 most polluted cities in the world. None are located in the US...
1. Chernobyl, Ukraine
2. Dzerzhinsk, Russia
3. Haina, Dominican Republic
4. Kabwe, Zambia
5. La Oroya, Peru
6. Linfen, China
7. Maiuu Suu, Kyrgyzstan
8. Norilsk, Russia
9. Ranipet, India
10. Rudnaya Pristan/Dalnegorsk, Russia

So the US can elect the most green candidates on the ticket. But it won't make any difference unless these other countries decide to start cleaning up.



Lordandmaster -> RE: Another Global Warming Heretic (3/3/2007 1:00:22 AM)

All right, expert, what DID it say?

And I didn't say it wasn't happening; I said it was happening according to a predictable cycle.  Global warming on EARTH is not happening according to a predictable cycle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Actually, I think it was LordandMaster that tried to say it wasn't happening by posting a pdf file that discussed it. 

It didn't say what he thought it did, but I don't think he ever read it, anyway.



FirmhandKY -> RE: Another Global Warming Heretic (3/3/2007 1:17:36 AM)

Hey, LaM, long time, no see!  [:)]  [waves]

We'd have to go back to the original thread where it came up in the discussion between us for me to address your concerns fully and accurately, but from memory, there was indications that there was "global warming" on not just Mars (with the polar CO2 icecaps as an indication), but on several of the other planets in the solar system as well.

You discounted all of them, and posted the pdf file about Mars in rebuttal.

Whether or not it is some sort of cycle or not was really immaterial to the greater point of the fact that it was happening.

As far as we know, there is a larger cycle of planetary warming within the solar system that coincides with global warming on the Earth.

But ... again, totally from memory, my reading of your pdf file didn't even take a hard stance that the CO2 sublimation on Mars was due to a regular pattern unrelated to temperature changes.

Would have to read it again, to see if my memory matches reality.

FirmKY



Kendra -> RE: Another Global Warming Heretic (3/3/2007 1:21:34 AM)

i thought a twit was a pregant goldfish.... oh no hang on maybe that was a twerp?


k



FirmhandKY -> RE: Another Global Warming Heretic (3/3/2007 1:51:25 AM)

Ok, found our original conversation:

My "Mars" post

Your rebuttal

I had researched a post about the rest of the solar system, but apparently I never actually posted it.  From my partial notes, I still have the below information.  This is not a complete enumeration of data that tends to support a "solar system wide" change in planetary weather patterns, but should be enough to prove the possibility of the point I was trying to make:


By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 09 October 2002
01:25 p.m. ET

Pluto is undergoing global warming in its thin atmosphere even as it moves farther from the Sun on its long, odd-shaped orbit.

Pluto's atmospheric pressure has tripled over the past 14 years, indicating a stark temperature rise, the researchers said. The change is likely a seasonal event, much as seasons on Earth change as the hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun during the planet's annual orbit.

They suspect the average surface temperature increased about 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit, or slightly less than 2 degrees Celsius.


New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change
By Sara Goudarzi
Staff Writer
posted: 04 May 2006
01:00 pm ET

Some astronomers believe that the spots dredge up material deep below Jupiter's clouds and lift it to where the Sun's ultraviolet light chemically alters it to give it a red hue.

The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.

The study was led jointly by Imke de Pater and Philip Marcus of University of California, Berkeley.


MOC Observes Changes in the South Polar Cap: Evidence for Recent Climate Change on Mars
MGS MOC Release No. MOC2-297, 6 December 2001

Extracts:

The residual martian south polar cap is changing. The fact that it is changing suggests that Mars may have major, global climate changes that are occurring on the same time scales as Earth's most recent climate shifts, including the last Ice Age.

...

These new observations indicate that the south polar residual cap is not permanent. It is disappearing, a little bit more each southern spring and summer season. At the present rate, a layer 3 m thick can be completely eroded away in a few tens of martian years. Since each layer is equivalent to about 1% of the mass of the present atmosphere (which is 95% carbon dioxide), if sufficient carbon dioxide is buried in the south polar cap, the mass of the atmosphere could double in a few hundred to a thousand Mars years. That could lead to profound changes in the environment.


Global Warming Detected on Triton  (scienceagogo.com)
28 June 1998

Extracts:

 The Earth is not alone in suffering global warming. According to observations made by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and several ground-based instruments, temperatures on Neptune's largest moon have increased dramatically since the Voyager space probe swung by in 1989. So much so, in fact, that Triton's surface of frozen nitrogen is turning into gas, making its thin atmosphere denser by the day.

"At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming," confirms astronomer James Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Percentage-wise, it's a very large increase."

Elliot and colleagues from the Lowell Observatory and Williams College report their findings in the June 25 issue of the journal Nature. Triton's 5 percent increase on the absolute temperature scale from about -392 to -389 degrees Fahrenheit would be like the Earth experiencing a jump of some 22 degrees Fahrenheit in just nine years.

***

When I read your pdf file, the over all impression I get is that the authors are advancing another possible theory to explain only the changes in Mars southern CO2 cap.  As a very initial theory, and without a lot of hard data.

Pretty neat theory, actually.  Good skull sweat ... but far from sufficient to be making definitive statements that you seem to have made about "disproving" the shrinking of the icecap.

In conjuction with the apparent weather changes on other planets (which I'll also allow are not "proven beyond a shadow of a doubt" either), and the changes in solar radiation patterns, I think the possibility that at least part of the current apparent warming trend of the Earth may be due to causes other than industrial society should be considered.

If you really need a detailed Fisking of your "Mars" article, I can likely provide it, although perhaps a short summary on your part might be in order for now?

FirmKY



Zensee -> RE: Another Global Warming Heretic (3/3/2007 2:34:02 AM)

I don't separate global warming from environmental degredation in general so I guess we'll just be disagreeing with each other on that point, CD. (My nick isn't You People BTW, it's Zensee and I speak for myself.)

The USA and Europe learned in WW2 that war is good business, if it is fought on foreign soil. Same goes for pollution / consumption. Exporiting your demands and your waste is the new clean. Claiming environmental superiority while you milk the third world, taking advantage of lax or nonexistent environmental protections is hardly something to crow about.

Pollution, as it exists in the locations in that top ten list, is only part of the problem. Expand the definition to include habitat destruction for example and the demographic changes. Add deferred or exported effects and it changes again. Expand the list to the top fifty and I'd be surprised if North America and Western Eurpoe didn't show up regularly. The west can't consume on the scale that it does and really believe that the problems of that consumption are someone else's fault, even if the effects manifest in their back yard. Sure the west has been cleaning up it's act locally, where votes can see the results  and sure we have the luxury of protecting our wildlands but those luxiries are paid for by other people in other places who do not have those benefits.

Denying that human's have a measurable impact on global temperatures is code for justifying the continued use and production of petrochemicals. If fossil fuels have no impact then why divert present subsidies to the oil industry towards alternative, renewable energy? You call advocating a reduction in CO2 emissions fear mongering - I call it awareness.

Again, it's not just about CO2 or global warming. Like the ecosystem, it's all connected and saying we can't include one because the other is in the thread title is placing an unrealistic restriction on the discussion. IMHO


Z.



meatcleaver -> RE: Another Global Warming Heretic (3/3/2007 2:38:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

I remember about 2 months ago arguing this exact point with you Meat, and you insisted that Mars was not warming, and that it's Ice Caps were melting for some other reason.  You even gave me a nonsense link trying to prove it. 


Like any planet its climate fluctuates according to the conditions of the sun. It climate isn't outside the predicted norm, however, the earth's is.



meatcleaver -> RE: Another Global Warming Heretic (3/3/2007 2:41:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

None of this is news, it isn't as though these solar cycles have just been discovered and haven't been factored into equations. I'm no scientist but I knew 15 years ago that the height of one of the solar cycles would be reached around now and if its warming the earth it would be warming other planets in the solar system. From what I understand the math still don't add up without human activity being factored in.


In 2012, the sun will go through a massive polar magnetic shift, one of the strongest ever witnessed, and NASA says that it will increase our planet's temperature for that year.

NASA has also reported that the polar caps on Mars has melted slightly, signalling that there is an increase in solar heat over the past decade.


I have no argument with that, how can I, I'm no scientist but from what I have read, regardless of the climate on Mars, the math of the earth's climate don't add up and there is still a gap between the predicted temperature and the actual tmperature, were there isn't on Mars as far as can be established.



meatcleaver -> RE: Another Global Warming Heretic (3/3/2007 2:46:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I had researched a post about the rest of the solar system, but apparently I never actually posted it.  From my partial notes, I still have the below information.  This is not a complete enumeration of data that tends to support a "solar system wide" change in planetary weather patterns, but should be enough to prove the possibility of the point I was trying to make:



There is no argument that the sun's activity changes the climate on all planets the planets. There is no argument that at the sun is at the height of one of its cycles and this has a warming effect on the earth but with all that factored in, the math still don't add up and the only thing that makes it add up is human activity, which adds the missing numbers perfectly.



DomKen -> RE: Another Global Warming Heretic (3/3/2007 6:51:44 AM)

A quick lesson in history for the warming deniers.

There was a time when much of the carbon in the fossil fuel we are now burning was loose in the environment. It's called the Carboniferous. The period was characterized by immense low lying swamps. Everywhere that coal beds are found now, the entire east of North America and most of Europe to start with. As the era progressed these swamps worked to remove massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. the result was, eventually, a change in climate worldwide to a more temperate environment with lower sea levels.

Now we are busily pumping that same carbon back into the environment. What will happen? Temps will rise, the ice caps will melt, sea levels will rise and mankind will be screwed. Getting a handle on CO2 emissions now may not even be enough we already have lost much of the northern hemisphere ice and the Antarctic ice is thinning rapidly.

If you want to deny global warming I strongly urge you to move to a location less than 50 feet above sea level and commit to staying put no matter what. at least that way you won't be a drain on the rest of us if you're wrong.



cyberdude611 -> RE: Another Global Warming Heretic (3/3/2007 8:52:46 AM)

It is just my opinion that too many assumptions are being made. Again, the simple problem of missing data. The world is 4.5 billion years old. We have data of only the past 150 years. You can cry all you want about CO2 levels thousands of years ago. But we do not have the accurate weather information to correlate the data. Believers in man-made global warming are relying almost exclusively on computer models and not historical data. Why? Because the data does not exist. We have pieces such as CO2 levels and temperature estimates. But there are holes in the data. So what we have to do is plug in those missing variables based on guesses. The computer than creates an output that exactly fits the political agenda of the computer's user.

Everyone keeps talking about rising surface temperatures. How come we are not finding the same increase in atmospheric temperatures? Our satillites in orbit are not showing ANY increase in the earth's temperature for the past 25 years. However, this data is discarded by the activists simply because it won't fit their theory. Weather balloons also show no rise of temperature in the earth's atmosphere. The only place it seems the temperature is rising is on the surface. And there are a great number of things that can cause an increase in surface temperature.

What if global warming is the Earth's ecosystem of refreshing itself? During the periods of high CO2 levels, trees began to grow in much higher numbers. Rain forests were thicker than ever. During the dinosaur periods, there were tropical plants growing in Antartica. During periods of low levels of these greenhouse gases, the earth was in periods of ice age. This is a cycle. And the earth may just be starting the warming trend again.



WyrdRich -> RE: Another Global Warming Heretic (3/3/2007 11:46:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee
The USA and Europe learned in WW2 that war is good business, if it is fought on foreign soil. Same goes for pollution / consumption. Exporiting your demands and your waste is the new clean. Claiming environmental superiority while you milk the third world, taking advantage of lax or nonexistent environmental protections is hardly something to crow about.


      You might want to take another peek at the top-ten list, Zensee, most of those places are in current or former 'worker's paradises.'  You did provide a nice illustration though, that the Global Warming Crisis is really more about driving an anti-capitalist agenda forward, rather than doing something positive for the environment.

      Stalin was known to use the term, "useful idiots."  I think it can be applied to a lot of well intentioned people on this one.



Real0ne -> RE: Another Global Warming Heretic (3/3/2007 9:42:44 PM)

well folks i think we have a problem in dodge.


http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070226_monckton.pdf

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/aiob-ipo022307.php

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=0df9b3cd-802a-23ad-4984-5ac0c6d42605

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/numerical_models_integrated_ci.html








Zensee -> RE: Another Global Warming Heretic (3/4/2007 1:28:09 AM)

Rich, I never claimed that CDs top ten were targets of western predation. Nice try though.

On the matter of positive environmental action, what has, for example, Exxon done for planet earth recently, besides dodge the cleanup bill for the Valdez spill? Asking for responsibility is only anti-capitalist if you believe capitalist can't afford to be responsible.

And, for the record... It's not just about the CO2...


Z.




meatcleaver -> RE: Another Global Warming Heretic (3/4/2007 2:33:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

On the matter of positive environmental action, what has, for example, Exxon done for planet earth recently, besides dodge the cleanup bill for the Valdez spill? Asking for responsibility is only anti-capitalist if you believe capitalist can't afford to be responsible.



Nice point Z. Capitalist corporations treat the world as though it is a free dumping site leaving everyone else to live in capitalist shit or pay for the clear up themselves. Those who enjoy the spoils of capitalism have an obligation to clean up of their own shit and leave the world in a fit state for future generations.

Fuck I'm all right capitalists, if they are seen as destroyers of the environment, that is precisely because that is what they are!



dcnovice -> RE: Another Global Warming Heretic (3/4/2007 10:56:45 AM)

quote:

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.


That's an important point, I think. The bulk of the article details how other climate scientists disagree with the Abdussamatov.

Since the OP used a National Geographic source, it bears noting that National Geographic, the organization's meticulously researched flagship magazine, has reported that (a) Earth is indeed warming and (b) human activity appears to be the key cause of this trend. The magazine published a collection of articles called Global Warning in September 2004.

Here is a key paragraph from one of the pieces:

Human activity almost certainly drove most of the past century's warming, a landmark report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared in 2001. Global temperatures are shooting up faster than at any other time in the past thousand years. And climate models show that natural forces, such as volcanic eruptions and the slow flickers of the sun, can't explain all that warming.

Since 2004, the IPCC has, I believe, published an even stronger statement of its view that human activity is the key driver in our warming trend.



FirmhandKY -> RE: Another Global Warming Heretic (3/4/2007 11:50:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

The magazine published a collection of articles called Global Warning in September 2004.

Here is a key paragraph from one of the pieces:

Human activity almost certainly drove most of the past century's warming, a landmark report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared in 2001. Global temperatures are shooting up faster than at any other time in the past thousand years. And climate models show that natural forces, such as volcanic eruptions and the slow flickers of the sun, can't explain all that warming.


dcnovice and DomKen,

Not really wanting to get into a drag down fight about global warming in this post, but I did want to point out a couple of things that tends to bother me about how the "global warming" crowd says and frames things.

First, DomKen used the words "warming deniers". 

To me, this term seems to be intentionally loaded in order to stir up negative emotions about global warming skeptics.  In what other common situation is the term "denier" used?

The Holocaust, of course, as in "Holocaust deniers".

This congruence in thought processes is framing the skeptics in a morally indefensible position, and attacks their skepticism as something almost evil and reprehensible.  I don't think it should be used in a reasoned debate.

Another way that the debate is framed is shown in the quote provided by dcnovice.  Notice:

Human activity almost certainly drove  ...
Not too bad when you think that this phrase can be related to probability in science, and understand that they are basically saying that there is a level of uncertainity.

But ... the emotional impact completely counters that logical understanding.  "Certainly" means one thing.  "Almost" is a weasal word that makes it mean the opposite.  "Almost certainly", then, is an attempt to give the emotional impact of certainity, but still have your cake by being able to point out that you actually didn't say "certainly".

This type of writing makes me uncomfortable, and skeptical of the writer's motives.  This is the type of writing that a propagandists writes, not a scientist.

temperatures are shooting up faster ...

"Shooting up"?  Please define "shooting up" with numbers.  The emotional intent is much like the "almost certainly" I mentioned above.  "Shooting up" ... "meteoric rise" .... danger Will Robinson!  Isn't the actual verifiable temperture rise on the order of a degree or less, over the last century?  How could you classify this as "shooting up"?

No, this is again "point of view" writing - an attempt to modify and alter people's perceptions based on emotion, and not fact.

Again, I'm not actually disputing that the Earth has warmed up.  I think there is such a thing as "global warming".  I'm just not convinced that we have to trash our economy, go back to a horse and buggy lifestyle, and take drastic action immediately.

And any time people adopt the type of strategies I've discussed here, it makes it even more difficult for me (as a skeptic in a lot of things), to come to any other conclusion than that the argument is really more about ideology and politics than it is about science or "saving the Earth".

FirmKY



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125