Global Warming caused by Humans - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

m0ntyblack · 12-05-2003, 12:08 PM

Well, according to a new Journal of Science report, global warming IS happening, and IS caused by humans.

Here is the first link I found about it, more to come as I do more research:

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/tec...223642,00.html

-----------
Global warming a fact, say US govt experts
WASHINGTON - There can be no doubt that global warming is real and is being caused by people, say two top United States government climate experts.

Industrial emissions are a leading cause, they say - contradicting critics, already in the minority, who argue that climate change could be caused by mostly natural forces.

'There is no doubt that the composition of the atmosphere is changing because of human activities and, today, greenhouse gases are the largest human influence on global climate,' wrote Dr Thomas Karl, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Centre, and Dr Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research.

'The likely result is more frequent heatwaves, droughts, extreme precipitation events and related impacts, such as wildfires, heat stress, vegetation changes, and sea level rise,' they added in a commentary to be published in the latest issue of the journal Science.

The two men estimate that, between 1990 and 2100, there is a 90 per cent probability that average global temperatures will rise by between 1.7 and 4.9 deg C.

Such dramatic warming will further melt already crumbling glaciers, inundating coastal areas.

They noted that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen by 31 per cent since pre-industrial times. Carbon dioxide is the No. 1 greenhouse gas, causing warming temperatures by trapping the sun's energy in the atmosphere.

'Given what has happened to date and is projected in the future, significant further climate change is guaranteed,' they wrote.

The US has balked at signing global treaties to reduce climate-changing emissions. But global cooperation is key, said the experts.

'Climate change...may prove to be humanity's greatest challenge,' they wrote. 'It is very unlikely to be adequately addressed without greatly improved international cooperation and action.' -- Reuters
----------

More to come...

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-tsc120103.php

Pretty much the same article, with a few more excerpts from the actual report.

MB

Phaenx · 12-05-2003, 12:50 PM

1.7 degress in 110 years!!!?!?

RUN! WE'RE ALL DOOMED!1!!!

I can't bring myself to take these dumbasses seriously.

m0ntyblack · 12-05-2003, 01:03 PM

That's 1.7 degrees Celsius, or around 3 degrees F. Up to 9 degrees F. And it may not seem like much to you, but look at it in a human body... 98.7 F. That raised to 101.7 F and you have a fairly bad fever, raised to 107.7 F, you're well on your way to death.

MB

Phaenx · 12-05-2003, 01:13 PM

Yeah, being 98 degrees outside instead of 95 degrees in 110 years is going to bother me a whole hell of a lot too.

I won't look at it in a human body either, because for one 98.7 is an average, and two it's completely different than global climate.

Ustwo · 12-05-2003, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by m0ntyblack
That's 1.7 degrees Celsius, or around 3 degrees F. Up to 9 degrees F. And it may not seem like much to you, but look at it in a human body... 98.7 F. That raised to 101.7 F and you have a fairly bad fever, raised to 107.7 F, you're well on your way to death.

MB

Very bad comparison. The earth has been far hotter and far cooler and has had life through all of those periods.

The concept of 'saving' the earth is false. The earth doesn't need saving and has survived FAR worse then SUV's just fine.

The concept of 'maintaining' the earth 'as is' is another issue and I'm much more worried about a possible ice age then a natural warming trend.

m0ntyblack · 12-05-2003, 02:16 PM

I was just using the body temperature as an example...face it, 1 degree is ALL that seperates ice from water. And I'm not worried about saving the planet, the planet will do just fine without us, however, I do have a bit of compassion for our species. As it stands right now, no one can really tell what difference that 3 degrees will make, or even if it will make a difference, but the thing is, we ARE responsible for our actions, and our actions ARE making a difference.

I used to think the right was all about "personal responsibility" and "accountability." At least that's what I believed when I considered myself a fine upstanding young conservative. However, all the arguments I hear against global climate initiatives sound like dodges of responsibility.

And another thing: 15 years ago, every right-wing article I read stated that there was "no such thing as global warming." In the last 5 years there has been substantial proof of global warming and all the arguments turned to "Its a natural cycle of the earth, we don't have any control of how close to the sun we are." And now with at least limited proof that industrial-age emmissions ARE causing some effect on global climate, I've been hearing arguments such as Phaenx's "its only a little change." When is enough going to be enough that the right suddenly says, "oh crap, they WERE right, and we're all pwned unless we start doing something now?" And IF it comes to that point (and I really hope it doesn't, as much as I don't agree with you guys sometimes, I really do like you), will it be too late?

Oh well, enough ranting for now.

Cheers

MB

onetime2 · 12-06-2003, 06:11 AM

It's still flawed reasoning. Look at it in terms of geologic history and there is no way ANYONE can make accurate statements about whether the earth is the hottest it's ever been or that there is really a warming trend. Concrete temperature records only exist for about 100 years. The rest are assumptions based on questionable science.

Global warming has become an industry. It creates grants and scholarships for study, money for foundations, government programs, and has been wildly successful in separating proponents of ecological reform from their money. What motivation is there for these groups (including the government since the public has bought into it) to prove it isn't happening? The search for truth perhaps? Not likely since that means no more $$$$.

Sparhawk · 12-06-2003, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by m0ntyblack
I used to think the right was all about "personal responsibility" and "accountability." At least that's what I believed when I considered myself a fine upstanding young conservative. However, all the arguments I hear against global climate initiatives sound like dodges of responsibility.

I've wondered this as well...

Superbelt · 12-06-2003, 10:28 AM

6 degrees F cooler and this planet would be in an ice age.

So if that is all we need for an ice age, think what a 6 degree F RISE will do to this planet.

Ustwo · 12-06-2003, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by m0ntyblack

I used to think the right was all about "personal responsibility" and "accountability." At least that's what I believed when I considered myself a fine upstanding young conservative. However, all the arguments I hear against global climate initiatives sound like dodges of responsibility.

Personal responsibility only applies IF you think there was a problem. I am personally all for pollution reduction, I just don't think of C02 as a pollutant.

Superbelt · 12-06-2003, 11:37 AM

Too much of anything is a pollutant.

Too much oxygen and it is poisonous to animal life. It becomes corrosive and eats away at your lungs.

Too much water vapor in the atmosphere and we will choke on the air.

Too much nitrogen and the air would become dangerously flammable

Too much CO2 and the earths temperature rises.....

Ustwo · 12-06-2003, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Too much of anything is a pollutant.

Too much oxygen and it is poisonous to animal life. It becomes corrosive and eats away at your lungs.

Too much water vapor in the atmosphere and we will choke on the air.

Too much nitrogen and the air would become dangerously flammable

Too much CO2 and the earths temperature rises.....

Yes very zen of you, but again, I don't think human produced CO2 reduction will amount to anything important other then crushing economies. Some models have methane produced by farm animals (yes cow farts) as a bigger problem then CO2 in the greenhouse effect.

Sparhawk · 12-06-2003, 03:06 PM

Ustwo, please stop relying on Rush Limbaugh as your greenhouse gas scientist of choice:

Quote:

The Way Things Really Are: Debunking Rush Limbaugh on the Environment

GLOBAL WARMING AND THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

Global warming is another topic about which Limbaugh attempts to mislead his readers, despite the international scientific consensus on many aspects of this issue. This consensus is reflected in the findings of the top researchers in the field, as published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international scientific panel assessing climate change, which consists of a network of 2,500 experts worldwide. The IPCC has issued two reports clearly stating and then reaffirming that the Earth's climate will warm due to the buildup of man-made greenhouse gases. 20 In 1992, the National Academy of Sciences published its own report, concluding that "greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses." 21

Instead of taking on the international scientific community directly, however, Limbaugh chooses to attack Vice President Al Gore, and his book Earth in the Balance.

Rush FICTION: "Algore's ( sic ) book is full of calculated disinformation. For instance, he claims that 98 percent of scientists believe global warming is taking place. However a Gallup poll of scientists involved in global climate research shows that 53 percent do not believe that global warming has occurred, 30 percent say they don't know, and only 17 percent are devotees of this dubious theory." 22

Scientific FACT: These numbers, apparently lifted from a George Will syndicated column of September 3, 1992, 23 are supposed to reflect the findings of a Gallup poll taken in late 1991 to ascertain the opinions of research scientists concerning global warming. Even though polling is of doubtful relevance for determining the scientific truth of any proposition, it should be pointed out that nowhere in the actual poll results are there
figures that resemble those cited by Will or Limbaugh.

Instead, the Gallup poll found that a substantial majority of the scientists polled, 66 percent, believed that human-induced global warming was already occurring. Only 10 percent disagreed, and the remainder was undecided.

Moreover, the 98 percent figure appears in the context of Al Gore's book to refer to the percentage of scientists who believe that human-induced global warming is a legitimate threat, not, as Limbaugh frames it, to the number of those who argue that it is already in effect. In fact, the Gallup poll seems to bear out Gore's estimate as well, finding that only 2 percent of the scientists
polled believed that there was no chance that substantial, human-caused warming will occur over the next 50 to 100 years. 24

Rush FICTION: "Algore told the Washington Times on May 19, 1993: 'That increased accumulations of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, cause global warming, there is no longer any serious debate. There are a few naysayers far outside the consensus who try to dispute that. They are not really taken
seriously by the mainstream scientific community.' Yet we saw in the last chapter that there is nothing resembling a consensus on this issue among scientists who have some expertise in this area. In fact, a majority clearly does not believe global warming has occurred." 25

Scientific FACT: See the preceding item. Furthermore, even the most publicized and vehement of scientific naysayers, such as Pat Michaels of the University of Virginia, agree that increased accumulation of carbon dioxide will eventually cause global warming. What they disagree about is how much warming will occur over what period of time. 26

Rush FICTION: "...back at the time of the first Earth Day, the big concern wasn't global warming, it was global cooling. . . . [This was] the view of most environmentalists for years after." 27

Scientific FACT: Although the Earth has warmed by about one degree Fahrenheit over the past hundred years, this warming has not occurred uniformly. In particular, during the period from 1940 to 1970, the Northern Hemisphere stopped warming and may have even cooled slightly. 28 This hiatus in the long-term trend contributed to concerns that the Earth was
about to cool significantly, possibly due to the increased amount of soot and other particulates in the atmosphere.

However, warming resumed again in the 1970's and the nine warmest years on record have all occurred since 1980. 29 Recent calculations indicate that the greenhouse effect will outrun the effects of particulate cooling in the future, although the accumulation of particulates in the atmosphere may slow the overall rate of warming. 30

Rush FICTION: "A fact you never hear the environmentalist wacko crowd acknowledge is that 96 percent of the so-called 'greenhouse' gases are not created by man, but by nature." 31

Scientific FACT: This is an obvious straw man set up by Limbaugh. It is true that the greenhouse effect is, by and large, a natural phenomenon, produced by gases in the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide and water vapor that have warmed the Earth for eons, making its climate moderate enough to support life as we know it. Without these gases, Earth would be forty to sixty degrees colder, essentially a frigid desert. 32
However, in nature these gases usually remain in balance, leading to a stable climate, while the greenhouse gases added by humans over the last two hundred years have accumulated to the point that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, for example, is now more than 25 percent above what it had been for the previous 10,000 years. (Scientists have direct evidence of this data, from measurements of air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores.) 33 The scientific consensus is that the accumulation of carbon dioxide and other gases due to human activity will alter the climate substantially, warming the globe by three to eight degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. 34

Here are those endnote references:

Quote:

20. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change: The
IPCC Scientific Assessment, (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press),
1990, p. xi; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change
1992: The Supplementary Report to The IPCC Scientific Assessment, (New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press), 1992, p. 5.
It is worth reproducing the original IPCC statement on this point from
the 1990 report –
The Way Things Really Are: Debunking Rush Limbaugh on the Environment
14
"We are certain of the following:
• there is a natural greenhouse effect which already keeps the Earth
warmer than it would otherwise be.
• emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the
atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide,
methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide. These increases
will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional
warming of the Earth's surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapor,
will increase in response to global warming and further enhance it."
These conclusions were reaffirmed in the IPCC's 1992 report.
21. National Academy of Sciences, Policy Implications of Greenhouse
Warming, (Washington, DC; National Academy Press) 1992, p. 68.
22. See, I Told You So, pp. 162-63.
23. Will, G.F, "Al Gore's Green Guilt," The Washington Post, September 3,
1992. Will's erroneous summary of this poll has been quoted so many times
that it has become gospel for the proponents of the environmental backlash.
24. The Gallup Organization, A Gallup Study of Scientists' Opinions and
Understanding of Global Climate Change, November 1991, pp. 5, 8.
Available from the Center for Science, Technology & Media, 6900 Wisconsin
Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD.
25. See, I Told You So, p. 179.
26. Michaels, P.J. and D.E. Stooksbury, "Global Warming: A Reduced
Threat?" Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 10, October
1992, p. 1563.
27. See, I Told You So, pp. 180-81.
28. IPCC, 1990, p. 213.
29. Wilson, H. and J. Hansen, Update of GISS Global Temperature Analysis
Through 1993, (New York, NY: Goddard Institute for Space Studies) 1994;
Hansen, J. and S. Lebedeff, "Global Surface Air Temperatures: Update
Through 1987," Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 15, April 1988, pp. 323-
26.
The Way Things Really Are: Debunking Rush Limbaugh on the Environment
15
30. Kerr, R.A., "Pollutant Haze Cools the Greenhouse," Science, vol. 255,
February 1992, pp. 682-83; Wigley, T.M.L. and S.C.B. Raper, "Implications
for climate and sea level of revised IPCC emissions scenarios," Nature, vol.
357, May 1992, pp. 293-300.
31. See, I Told You So, pp. 179-80.
32. IPCC, 1990, p. xxxvii.
33. Raynaud, D., et al., "The Ice Record of Greenhouse Gases," Science,
vol. 259, February 1993, pp. 926-34.
34. IPCC, 1990, pp. xxii, xxv; IPCC, 1992, p. 18.

Superbelt · 12-06-2003, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Yes very zen of you, but again, I don't think human produced CO2 reduction will amount to anything important other then crushing economies. Some models have methane produced by farm animals (yes cow farts) as a bigger problem then CO2 in the greenhouse effect.

Well you don't have about 95% of the scientific community backing you up on that one like I have. You are the fringe.

Methane is about 36 times better at trapping heat per molecule, but it is also only somewhere in the hundredths of a percent of the volume of the CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere. So, by doing the math it is easy to dismiss any obscure models you may find that would attribute methane as a bigger problem than the CO2.

Ustwo · 12-06-2003, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
Ustwo, please stop relying on Rush Limbaugh as your greenhouse gas scientist of choice:

[/B]

Again, I'm really not in the mood for about the 5th or 6th time in my life to go into debating global warming on some message board in depth, but please, try not to make ignorant statements about me by somehow assuming Limbaugh is the source of my science knowledge. It always ends with the other guy either saying crap like 'Well since we are not SURE we should still reduce emissions just in case!' forgetting the cost of doing so, or I get the equivalent of 'lalalalalala I can't hear you'. I get that on every OTHER thread here, but at least those aren’t rehashes to me. Maybe if you keep making ignorant statements you can goad me into it.

Rush isn't a scientist, and as such makes an excellent straw man for the global alarmist crowd.

A few years ago I did listen to Limbaugh on global warming and I really wanted to call in since he had the right conclusion but was missing the real evidence. I've been looking into this long before any of you heard about it in the early 80's late 70's as a kid (though the alarmists then were worried about possible global cooling and how we would all be starving in the 90's). Then it was a true theory, totally non-political, and never mentioned by activists. At that point the big environmental story was acid rain, and my first science project was on the effect of acid rain on Annelids. I kept up with the tree hugging degrees in college and post grad. The bad science and political motivations of the global warming crowd was a real turn off.

Basically the center of the global warming crowd is, anti-human expansion, anti-progress, and suffers from elitism and a nice touch of hubris. For many global warming is a means to an end, and many are more then willing to believe them since they have similar feelings.

There MAY well be a global warming trend. It has not been proven, and there is contradictory evidence, but I can not discount the possibility. What I find suspect is the human effect on this warming. Nothing I've seen so far proves it to a point where I'm willing to trash the US economy over.

lurkette · 12-06-2003, 05:23 PM

What gets me is the assumption that reducing likely human contribution to global warming would "trash the American economy." It would do nothing of the sort. It would SHIFT the American economy away from industries that currently make shitloads of money with polluting technologies, and toward "clean" industries, those that develop technologies to replace and/or compete with the dirty ones. It's not a matter of ruining the economy, it's a matter of shifting the balance away from some fairly entrenched interests. Incidentally, the economic impact of running environmentally clean industries is ALL short-term. The long-term consequences of adopting cleaner technologies are almost always a net gain for the company, it's just that CEOs and shareholders seem to look at the short term. Ford motors, oddly enough, is actually a leader in "green" industry technologies, and they're realizing tons of benefits. Fuji and Kodak cleaned up their acts about 5-10 years back and got huge economic benefits. This "wrecking the American economy" argument is just a screen for protecting the immediate interests of the petroleum, power, and auto industries.

Ustwo · 12-06-2003, 05:27 PM

Lurkette, cheap power and cheap transportation are key for a good economy.

Where do you think most of it comes from?

This isn't about being clean. You CAN'T get cleaner then H2O and CO2 with combustion.

I'm happy seeing 'clean' cars and the like, but if it burns, it makes CO2.

lurkette · 12-06-2003, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Lurkette, cheap power and cheap transportation are key for a good economy.

Where do you think most of it comes from?

Who says clean has to be expensive? There's cost involved in altering the infrastructure for wind power, geothermal power, hydroelectric (although that has a negative effect on the ecology, usually). You wouldn't even really have to develop a whole lot of new sources, just shift the existing sources away from the "dirty" and nonsustainable ones and towards cleaner renewable sources.

Quote:

This isn't about being clean. You CAN'T get cleaner then H2O and CO2 with combustion.

I'm happy seeing 'clean' cars and the like, but if it burns, it makes CO2.

There are things that can be done other than shifting to different kinds of combustion: intelligent city planning to reduce total miles driven, incentives for fuel efficiency (both in manufacturing and in purchasing more fuel efficient cars), better mass transit, etc. None of these would "trash" the economy - they just require adjustments in how we think about moving from one place to another. But they also require the will to encourage such a shift in thinking.

Ustwo · 12-06-2003, 08:36 PM

Lurkette I'm sorry but you don't know what you are talking about. Its not like you would just need to turn our coal, oil, and natural gas plants to wind/solar/wave/geothermal power and be done with it. The problem with wind/solar/wave is that the amount of power produced isn't enough. It would take an insane amount of wind and solar plants to produce the CURRENT level of power generation the US uses. The solution of the greens is always making due with less power, and that my friend is basically saying 'lets have a recession'. Geothermal is not practical in most parts of the country, and the same applies to hydraulic.

And lets take transportation. You can make cars more efficient and I’m all for it, but either they get their power from gas (aka CO2) or are charged before hand with power produced by other means. Means you wish to eliminate in favor of far less efficient means. And now lets add cross country transportation for shipping, everything from condoms to grain. More expense, more cost.

Would you suggest we start to reduce our emissions while at the same time NOT having the technology to back it up (we don't) AND redesign all of our major cities involving millions and millions of people to be 'eco-friendly' and somehow think this will be painless?

It wouldn't require a shift in thinking, it would require a draconian government to force the population into lower standard of living while paying for the biggest rebuilding process the world has ever come close to seeing. Not going to happen here.

Sparhawk · 12-06-2003, 10:17 PM

Ustwo, the only assumption in my post was that you get your opinions from Limbaugh, which the evidence from countless previous threads would suggest.

When you replied with your non-human explanation for CO2 emissions, I was reminded of one of the more famous "Rush Myths" concerning the environment, so I posted those myths specifically relating to CO2 emissions.

Instead of replying to that, you decided to insult me, then present anecdotal evidence from your youth.

Welcome, to the Desert of the Ignored.

/moving on...

lurkette · 12-07-2003, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Lurkette I'm sorry but you don't know what you are talking about.

Oops, sorry, I forgot - I'm an idiot and Ustwo is the repository of all right thinking.

Listen, show me some data from INDEPENDENT scientific and economic sources *i.e., not the Sierra Club or the Center for Individual Freedom, or the much bandied Rush Limbaugh) and I'll gladly eat my words.

I think a key source of disagreement here is a basic difference in assumptions.

I don't think that preserving the grossly elevated American standard of living is sufficient argument for ignoring the purported effects of human behavior (largely Western, largely American behavor) on global climate change that affects not just 300 million Americans but 7 billion people around the world. You can argue about the science all you want, but it's fairly well-accepted that the global warming trend is a fact, and that human behavior contributes a substantial amount of that effect. It's a bit of a Pascal's wager for the environment - the consequences of ignoring the science, if it happens to be true, are much greater than the consequences of acting to change our behavior in the face of faulty assumptions.

Superbelt · 12-07-2003, 09:22 AM

Apparently this Global Warming conspiracy is the largest, most successful in history.

It includes:

EPA

NCDC and NOAA

NOAA & NESDIS (Confirms ground based measurements of global warming over the past 25 years

IPCC
A collaborative effort of thousands of international scientists.

National Academy of Sciences

National institute of water and atmospheric research

US GLobal Change Research Panel (GOVT)

Global Change Data and Information Systems (GOVT)

All federal agencies that organize under GCDIS:
ARM
CDIAC
DAACs
DTIC
EIA
EROS
FGDC
GCMD
LTER
NAL
NCAR
NOAA NEDI
NOAA NVDS

NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research GOVT)

US Department of State

The 100 + nations that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol

I can find dozens more credible institutions such as the US Department of Energy under Reagan verifying global climatic models, and a collection of insurers and reinsurers who are trying to stem their economic downfall as global warming induced problems chip away at their available funds etc...

Global Warming naysayers are the fringe, while all the credible scientific institutions including almost all universities line up behind Global Warming happening, being a problem, and being primarially human induced. Your list, if you made one, would include mostly groups funded by Exxon and Scaife.

sixate · 12-07-2003, 09:37 AM

Lurkette, I can understand you concern, but I can guarantee you there is no possible way in hell to make my job cleaner for the environment, and if it could be done I could guarantee you that it would cost 100x more to get the job done, but other countries wouldn't change their ways, and even more imports would be brought to this country, which would eliminate millions of jobs.

A qick question, How can there be intelligent city planning to reduce total miles driven when almost all cities are already built? And what about people who choose to live 50 miles away from work... Are you saying the governmenet should make them move into a 5 mile radius from where they work? I want no part of that world.

I'll agree that some companies could do simple things that would cost nothing, but if nobody is making them change then why would they? It just can't be done in all situations. Like it or not, there are a ton of factories that keep the economy moving, and people employed. If they couldn't get things done and keep cost down they would all go to Mexico, and completely fuck up the economy.

Superbelt · 12-07-2003, 09:57 AM

The pollution from driving will be virtually eliminated once we transition to electrically driven cars.

And the solution to that is to dump billions of dollars into the research for it. Then, once the american car companies have that technology, we would have a leg up on the competition and easily make back that spent capital.

Then once we have solved that for our cars, it will only be a matter of scale to get it to work for our industries.

All it takes is some leadership.

Ustwo · 12-07-2003, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
All it takes is some leadership.

If by leadership you mean government mandates, new technology that currently does not exsist, and a buttload of new nuclear plants I agree.

Also we won't ask about the coal mining towns and unions

Must....resist.....urge........to.......post......more......

Superbelt · 12-07-2003, 10:43 AM

Yes leadership by government mandates where our leaders contribute the tens of billions of dollars towards hydrogen fuel technologies, solar cell technologies, nanotech and wind turbines rather than give those tens of billions of dollars to the fossil fuel companies in the form of tax breaks.

We must do this so that the technology that currently does not exist, DOES in the near future so we can mandate that industries convert over to them.

HarmlessRabbit · 12-08-2003, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixate
A qick question, How can there be intelligent city planning to reduce total miles driven when almost all cities are already built? And what about people who choose to live 50 miles away from work... Are you saying the governmenet should make them move into a 5 mile radius from where they work? I want no part of that world.

I think you would be surprised what city planning can do over the long term. The government has a lot of power to influence the public with incentives of one sort or another. Over a ten-year period or more, governments can easily change living or commuting patterns with mortgage incentives, taxes, and other ways of making different areas more attractive.

On the other hand, here in california the bay area spent a lot of money building affordable housing near Caltrain stations, and they found out afterwards that most of the tenants still didn't ride Caltrain. You can't force people to do many things, but I believe you can change the behavior of people over the long run. For an opposite example of this look at GM's intentional destruction of public transit systems in many major metro areas many years ago.

ashap · 12-08-2003, 02:14 PM

I have seen quite a bit of evidence supporting global warming. From my perspective, to deny that it is happening or that human consumption is not the root cause is just naive. What else would be driving the warming. Yes, there have been past temp swings, but nothing as drastic as what is currently happening. The reality of it all is that economics are against doing anything proactive about it - there is no money in changing and a lot of money invested in the status quo - big business, fossil fuels, etc.

Ustwo · 12-08-2003, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ashap
I Yes, there have been past temp swings, but nothing as drastic as what is currently happening.

You have heard of the 'Little Ice Age' haven't you?

Superbelt · 12-08-2003, 03:11 PM

An anomaly caused by huge amounts of ash in the atmosphere and a decrease in sun activity which, when factored over the 6000 year cooling trend is nothing more than a blip on the radar?

Yes, I've heard about the little Ice Age.

onetime2 · 12-09-2003, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
when factored over the 6000 year cooling trend is nothing more than a blip on the radar?

Just as the global warming "trend" data is a barely perceptible blip in the geologic time radar.

tecoyah · 12-09-2003, 08:42 AM

Hmmm, 6000 yrs. for a little ice age blip vs. 115 yrs for our current little blip. I am truly stunned at the inherent blindness of most humans in this country. All it takes is a few minutes of reading to gather the data, and with any intellect at all the warming trend becomes obvious, even to those who may be somewhat ....challenged. But dont worry, the effects will probably have no bearing on your life, your children will likely be BASKING in your glory.

onetime2 · 12-09-2003, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tecoyah
Hmmm, 6000 yrs. for a little ice age blip vs. 115 yrs for our current little blip. I am truly stunned at the inherent blindness of most humans in this country. All it takes is a few minutes of reading to gather the data, and with any intellect at all the warming trend becomes obvious, even to those who may be somewhat ....challenged. But dont worry, the effects will probably have no bearing on your life, your children will likely be BASKING in your glory.

The earth is 4,550,000,000 years old. Even if we had 1 billion years of data we would be looking at less than a quarter of its history.

Ustwo · 12-09-2003, 10:35 AM

Ummm whats this 6000 year figure? Sorry kids, wrong Ice age.

Quote:

Experts disagree on the duration of the Little Ice Age. Some mark its inception as early as the 1200s, others view the Little Ice Age "proper" as beginning around 1450 or even later.

Disagreements arise because the phenomenon was not simply a giant cold snap. The cooling trend began at different times in different parts of the world and often was interrupted by periods of relative warmth.

All agree, however, that it lasted for centuries, and that the world began emerging from its grip between 1850 and 1900.

THATS the 'little ice age' and note when it ended.

Superbelt · 12-09-2003, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Hmmm, 6000 yrs. for a little ice age blip vs. 115 yrs for our current little blip. I am truly stunned at the inherent blindness of most humans in this country. All it takes is a few minutes of reading to gather the data, and with any intellect at all the warming trend becomes obvious, even to those who may be somewhat ....challenged. But dont worry, the effects will probably have no bearing on your life, your children will likely be BASKING in your glory.

First, the warming trend is 300 years long.
And we know what caused the little ice age.
Just like we have very solid, credible evidence to explain the warming trend that all scientific evidence tells us should not be happening if not for human interference.

What evidence explains why earth is getting warmer? Because it truly is.

The suns radiation has been dimmer "lately" (as in the last couple hundred years)
We are getting farther from the sun.
Earth trends show us we are entering a glacial period.

How does all that fit into your theory of the world naturally warming?

Superbelt · 12-09-2003, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Ummm whats this 6000 year figure? Sorry kids, wrong Ice age....

THATS the 'little ice age' and note when it ended.

The 6000 year figure is this....

This planets orbit around the sun oscillates from a round orbit to an ellyptical one.
6000 years ago the planets orbit peaked in it's circular and began its transition to its ellyptical.

Why this is important is that the round orbit gives a more regular warming which allows the earth to generally warm up. The ellyptical one is uneven and produces a general cooling.

We know this cycle has persisted for at least 700,000 years from measurements we made through ice core and sea bed samples.

The science is that the ellyptical orbit we are presently getting further and further into affords us less and less insolation. This is the reason for the back and forth of the planets glacial cycles.

This is all irrefutable, observable evidence and along with the physics of carbon (it's heat absorbing properties) blows to shit any argument that says global warming RIGHT NOW is a natural process.

Ustwo · 12-09-2003, 01:27 PM

Again, the 'little ice age' was very different. It was a sharp cooling trend that lasted a few centuries and we are only just recovering from.

Prior to this Europe at least (1400's), was WARMER then it currently is, as was the earth 6000 years ago (about 2 degrees).

Yet despite these swings in temperature, the current weak trend MUST be due to human causes?

Superbelt · 12-09-2003, 02:53 PM

Yes before the 1400's the earth was warmer than it currently is. The world was still coming down from the high temps.
Then the abberation of the LIA occured. and it bounced back, and kept going down until the IR.

lets do this, This is a generic graph to show what I'm talking about.

AA....BB....CC....DD....EE....FF....GG...HH....II....JJ....KK....LL....MM
58....56....55....52.....44....40....39....44....51...50....49....51....53

At points AA through DD normal global cooling is occuring. Then at point EE we started the LIA. Abnormally rapid cooling occured. The cause was unusually high volcanic activity. Around point HH the planet recovers and by II we are back to normal global cooling levels.
Then point LL (slightly after the Industrial Revolution) and there is a change in direction. The planet starts warming and as you go out to and pass point MM the planet keeps warming when it really should continue to cool to 48...47... etc.

So when you average out the LIA anomaly you see the graphs steady decline. We know the cause for the LIA. We also know the cause for the STRONG warming trend we are experiencing now.

And it is a strong trend. This is the most rapid warming this planet has experienced for at least 4 million years and possible the fastest warming in the last 20 million.

Ustwo · 12-09-2003, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
And it is a strong trend. This is the most rapid warming this planet has experienced for at least 4 million years and possible the fastest warming in the last 20 million.

Ok, you have goaded me into it.

*chuckles* fastest warming in the last 4 MILLION years? Oh dear.

Ok Superbelt, I hope you are ready to back this up with real data, you can expect my responce in a day or two, right now its time for an Xmass party.

Zeld2.0 · 12-09-2003, 04:47 PM

/shrug no matter what is said here people will always claim they have the 'data'

i suggest we all stop wasting our time believing our 'data'

12-05-2003, 12:08 PM	#1 (permalink)
m0ntyblack Crazy	Global Warming caused by Humans Well, according to a new Journal of Science report, global warming IS happening, and IS caused by humans. Here is the first link I found about it, more to come as I do more research: http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/tec...223642,00.html ----------- Global warming a fact, say US govt experts WASHINGTON - There can be no doubt that global warming is real and is being caused by people, say two top United States government climate experts. Industrial emissions are a leading cause, they say - contradicting critics, already in the minority, who argue that climate change could be caused by mostly natural forces. 'There is no doubt that the composition of the atmosphere is changing because of human activities and, today, greenhouse gases are the largest human influence on global climate,' wrote Dr Thomas Karl, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Centre, and Dr Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research. 'The likely result is more frequent heatwaves, droughts, extreme precipitation events and related impacts, such as wildfires, heat stress, vegetation changes, and sea level rise,' they added in a commentary to be published in the latest issue of the journal Science. The two men estimate that, between 1990 and 2100, there is a 90 per cent probability that average global temperatures will rise by between 1.7 and 4.9 deg C. Such dramatic warming will further melt already crumbling glaciers, inundating coastal areas. They noted that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen by 31 per cent since pre-industrial times. Carbon dioxide is the No. 1 greenhouse gas, causing warming temperatures by trapping the sun's energy in the atmosphere. 'Given what has happened to date and is projected in the future, significant further climate change is guaranteed,' they wrote. The US has balked at signing global treaties to reduce climate-changing emissions. But global cooperation is key, said the experts. 'Climate change...may prove to be humanity's greatest challenge,' they wrote. 'It is very unlikely to be adequately addressed without greatly improved international cooperation and action.' -- Reuters ---------- More to come... http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-tsc120103.php Pretty much the same article, with a few more excerpts from the actual report. MB Last edited by m0ntyblack; 12-05-2003 at 12:12 PM..

12-05-2003, 12:50 PM	#2 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	1.7 degress in 110 years!!!?!? RUN! WE'RE ALL DOOMED!1!!! I can't bring myself to take these dumbasses seriously. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

12-05-2003, 01:13 PM	#4 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	Yeah, being 98 degrees outside instead of 95 degrees in 110 years is going to bother me a whole hell of a lot too. I won't look at it in a human body either, because for one 98.7 is an average, and two it's completely different than global climate. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

12-06-2003, 06:11 AM	#7 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	It's still flawed reasoning. Look at it in terms of geologic history and there is no way ANYONE can make accurate statements about whether the earth is the hottest it's ever been or that there is really a warming trend. Concrete temperature records only exist for about 100 years. The rest are assumptions based on questionable science. Global warming has become an industry. It creates grants and scholarships for study, money for foundations, government programs, and has been wildly successful in separating proponents of ecological reform from their money. What motivation is there for these groups (including the government since the public has bought into it) to prove it isn't happening? The search for truth perhaps? Not likely since that means no more $$$$. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

12-06-2003, 05:23 PM	#16 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	What gets me is the assumption that reducing likely human contribution to global warming would "trash the American economy." It would do nothing of the sort. It would SHIFT the American economy away from industries that currently make shitloads of money with polluting technologies, and toward "clean" industries, those that develop technologies to replace and/or compete with the dirty ones. It's not a matter of ruining the economy, it's a matter of shifting the balance away from some fairly entrenched interests. Incidentally, the economic impact of running environmentally clean industries is ALL short-term. The long-term consequences of adopting cleaner technologies are almost always a net gain for the company, it's just that CEOs and shareholders seem to look at the short term. Ford motors, oddly enough, is actually a leader in "green" industry technologies, and they're realizing tons of benefits. Fuji and Kodak cleaned up their acts about 5-10 years back and got huge economic benefits. This "wrecking the American economy" argument is just a screen for protecting the immediate interests of the petroleum, power, and auto industries. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

12-05-2003, 01:03 PM	#3 (permalink)
m0ntyblack Crazy	That's 1.7 degrees Celsius, or around 3 degrees F. Up to 9 degrees F. And it may not seem like much to you, but look at it in a human body... 98.7 F. That raised to 101.7 F and you have a fairly bad fever, raised to 107.7 F, you're well on your way to death. MB

12-05-2003, 02:16 PM	#6 (permalink)
m0ntyblack Crazy	I was just using the body temperature as an example...face it, 1 degree is ALL that seperates ice from water. And I'm not worried about saving the planet, the planet will do just fine without us, however, I do have a bit of compassion for our species. As it stands right now, no one can really tell what difference that 3 degrees will make, or even if it will make a difference, but the thing is, we ARE responsible for our actions, and our actions ARE making a difference. I used to think the right was all about "personal responsibility" and "accountability." At least that's what I believed when I considered myself a fine upstanding young conservative. However, all the arguments I hear against global climate initiatives sound like dodges of responsibility. And another thing: 15 years ago, every right-wing article I read stated that there was "no such thing as global warming." In the last 5 years there has been substantial proof of global warming and all the arguments turned to "Its a natural cycle of the earth, we don't have any control of how close to the sun we are." And now with at least limited proof that industrial-age emmissions ARE causing some effect on global climate, I've been hearing arguments such as Phaenx's "its only a little change." When is enough going to be enough that the right suddenly says, "oh crap, they WERE right, and we're all pwned unless we start doing something now?" And IF it comes to that point (and I really hope it doesn't, as much as I don't agree with you guys sometimes, I really do like you), will it be too late? Oh well, enough ranting for now. Cheers MB

12-06-2003, 10:28 AM	#9 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	6 degrees F cooler and this planet would be in an ice age. So if that is all we need for an ice age, think what a 6 degree F RISE will do to this planet.

12-06-2003, 11:37 AM	#11 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Too much of anything is a pollutant. Too much oxygen and it is poisonous to animal life. It becomes corrosive and eats away at your lungs. Too much water vapor in the atmosphere and we will choke on the air. Too much nitrogen and the air would become dangerously flammable Too much CO2 and the earths temperature rises.....

12-06-2003, 05:27 PM	#17 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Lurkette, cheap power and cheap transportation are key for a good economy. Where do you think most of it comes from? This isn't about being clean. You CAN'T get cleaner then H2O and CO2 with combustion. I'm happy seeing 'clean' cars and the like, but if it burns, it makes CO2. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-06-2003, 08:36 PM	#19 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Lurkette I'm sorry but you don't know what you are talking about. Its not like you would just need to turn our coal, oil, and natural gas plants to wind/solar/wave/geothermal power and be done with it. The problem with wind/solar/wave is that the amount of power produced isn't enough. It would take an insane amount of wind and solar plants to produce the CURRENT level of power generation the US uses. The solution of the greens is always making due with less power, and that my friend is basically saying 'lets have a recession'. Geothermal is not practical in most parts of the country, and the same applies to hydraulic. And lets take transportation. You can make cars more efficient and I’m all for it, but either they get their power from gas (aka CO2) or are charged before hand with power produced by other means. Means you wish to eliminate in favor of far less efficient means. And now lets add cross country transportation for shipping, everything from condoms to grain. More expense, more cost. Would you suggest we start to reduce our emissions while at the same time NOT having the technology to back it up (we don't) AND redesign all of our major cities involving millions and millions of people to be 'eco-friendly' and somehow think this will be painless? It wouldn't require a shift in thinking, it would require a draconian government to force the population into lower standard of living while paying for the biggest rebuilding process the world has ever come close to seeing. Not going to happen here. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-06-2003, 10:17 PM	#20 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	Ustwo, the only assumption in my post was that you get your opinions from Limbaugh, which the evidence from countless previous threads would suggest. When you replied with your non-human explanation for CO2 emissions, I was reminded of one of the more famous "Rush Myths" concerning the environment, so I posted those myths specifically relating to CO2 emissions. Instead of replying to that, you decided to insult me, then present anecdotal evidence from your youth. Welcome, to the Desert of the Ignored. /moving on... __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

12-07-2003, 09:22 AM	#22 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Apparently this Global Warming conspiracy is the largest, most successful in history. It includes: EPA NCDC and NOAA NOAA & NESDIS (Confirms ground based measurements of global warming over the past 25 years IPCC A collaborative effort of thousands of international scientists. National Academy of Sciences National institute of water and atmospheric research US GLobal Change Research Panel (GOVT) Global Change Data and Information Systems (GOVT) All federal agencies that organize under GCDIS: ARM CDIAC DAACs DTIC EIA EROS FGDC GCMD LTER NAL NCAR NOAA NEDI NOAA NVDS NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research GOVT) US Department of State The 100 + nations that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol I can find dozens more credible institutions such as the US Department of Energy under Reagan verifying global climatic models, and a collection of insurers and reinsurers who are trying to stem their economic downfall as global warming induced problems chip away at their available funds etc... Global Warming naysayers are the fringe, while all the credible scientific institutions including almost all universities line up behind Global Warming happening, being a problem, and being primarially human induced. Your list, if you made one, would include mostly groups funded by Exxon and Scaife.

12-07-2003, 09:37 AM	#23 (permalink)
sixate Registered User Location: Somewhere in Ohio	Lurkette, I can understand you concern, but I can guarantee you there is no possible way in hell to make my job cleaner for the environment, and if it could be done I could guarantee you that it would cost 100x more to get the job done, but other countries wouldn't change their ways, and even more imports would be brought to this country, which would eliminate millions of jobs. A qick question, How can there be intelligent city planning to reduce total miles driven when almost all cities are already built? And what about people who choose to live 50 miles away from work... Are you saying the governmenet should make them move into a 5 mile radius from where they work? I want no part of that world. I'll agree that some companies could do simple things that would cost nothing, but if nobody is making them change then why would they? It just can't be done in all situations. Like it or not, there are a ton of factories that keep the economy moving, and people employed. If they couldn't get things done and keep cost down they would all go to Mexico, and completely fuck up the economy.

12-07-2003, 09:57 AM	#24 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	The pollution from driving will be virtually eliminated once we transition to electrically driven cars. And the solution to that is to dump billions of dollars into the research for it. Then, once the american car companies have that technology, we would have a leg up on the competition and easily make back that spent capital. Then once we have solved that for our cars, it will only be a matter of scale to get it to work for our industries. All it takes is some leadership.

12-07-2003, 10:43 AM	#26 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Yes leadership by government mandates where our leaders contribute the tens of billions of dollars towards hydrogen fuel technologies, solar cell technologies, nanotech and wind turbines rather than give those tens of billions of dollars to the fossil fuel companies in the form of tax breaks. We must do this so that the technology that currently does not exist, DOES in the near future so we can mandate that industries convert over to them.

12-08-2003, 02:14 PM	#28 (permalink)
ashap Crazy Location: Great white north	I have seen quite a bit of evidence supporting global warming. From my perspective, to deny that it is happening or that human consumption is not the root cause is just naive. What else would be driving the warming. Yes, there have been past temp swings, but nothing as drastic as what is currently happening. The reality of it all is that economics are against doing anything proactive about it - there is no money in changing and a lot of money invested in the status quo - big business, fossil fuels, etc.

12-08-2003, 03:11 PM	#30 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	An anomaly caused by huge amounts of ash in the atmosphere and a decrease in sun activity which, when factored over the 6000 year cooling trend is nothing more than a blip on the radar? Yes, I've heard about the little Ice Age.

12-09-2003, 08:42 AM	#32 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Hmmm, 6000 yrs. for a little ice age blip vs. 115 yrs for our current little blip. I am truly stunned at the inherent blindness of most humans in this country. All it takes is a few minutes of reading to gather the data, and with any intellect at all the warming trend becomes obvious, even to those who may be somewhat ....challenged. But dont worry, the effects will probably have no bearing on your life, your children will likely be BASKING in your glory. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

12-09-2003, 01:27 PM	#37 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Again, the 'little ice age' was very different. It was a sharp cooling trend that lasted a few centuries and we are only just recovering from. Prior to this Europe at least (1400's), was WARMER then it currently is, as was the earth 6000 years ago (about 2 degrees). Yet despite these swings in temperature, the current weak trend MUST be due to human causes? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-09-2003, 02:53 PM	#38 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Yes before the 1400's the earth was warmer than it currently is. The world was still coming down from the high temps. Then the abberation of the LIA occured. and it bounced back, and kept going down until the IR. lets do this, This is a generic graph to show what I'm talking about. AA....BB....CC....DD....EE....FF....GG...HH....II....JJ....KK....LL....MM 58....56....55....52.....44....40....39....44....51...50....49....51....53 At points AA through DD normal global cooling is occuring. Then at point EE we started the LIA. Abnormally rapid cooling occured. The cause was unusually high volcanic activity. Around point HH the planet recovers and by II we are back to normal global cooling levels. Then point LL (slightly after the Industrial Revolution) and there is a change in direction. The planet starts warming and as you go out to and pass point MM the planet keeps warming when it really should continue to cool to 48...47... etc. So when you average out the LIA anomaly you see the graphs steady decline. We know the cause for the LIA. We also know the cause for the STRONG warming trend we are experiencing now. And it is a strong trend. This is the most rapid warming this planet has experienced for at least 4 million years and possible the fastest warming in the last 20 million. Last edited by Superbelt; 12-09-2003 at 02:55 PM..

12-09-2003, 04:47 PM	#40 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	/shrug no matter what is said here people will always claim they have the 'data' i suggest we all stop wasting our time believing our 'data'