PDA

View Full Version : No Such Thing As Global Warming



Carbo
29-06-2009, 00:52
16176
16175

vladimir_seroff
29-06-2009, 02:33
16176
16175

Thank you for posting this.

Although, one cannot be sure how much of this can be attributed to our own activities (how much of it can be attributed to the activities of the far right, and how much to that of the far left :-)), and how much of it is a natural phenomenon (including periodic changes, and random fluctuations.)

In any case, altering our behavior using the assumption that we are the main culprits is a good policy. It is impossible to prove it conclusively, but it is better to be safe than sorry.

robertmf
29-06-2009, 02:55
It may be the shrinkage in the arctic is almost exactly offset by growth in the :cold: antarctic.
World Climate Report Ľ Antarctic Ice: A Global Warming Snow Job? (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/)

... then again, maybe not
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030201712.html

Qdos
29-06-2009, 04:01
The planet has it's own mechanism for regulating excess CO2, it's just that we don't yet understand it fully - even if we know it involves ice to a very major degree. Our computer models run far too slowly and bear insufficient hard data to predict accurate results, and the geological samples which are being pulled from glaciers and pole ice don't show the influence of what's effectively an industrial age on historial samples being analysed.

I don't think the planet is programmed to protect mankind, but evidence is already emerging in various circles to suggest that the majority of life has been wiped out several times and yet re-established itself over millions of years subsequently.

The past, and indeed future history, may prove we're too insignificant a species, both in mortal terms and in intelligence, to grasp the timescales and intracate details of the way that nature controls our environment.

vladimir_seroff
29-06-2009, 04:36
The planet has it's own mechanism for regulating excess CO2, it's just that we don't yet understand it fully - even if we know it involves ice to a very major degree. Our computer models run far too slowly and bear insufficient hard data to predict accurate results, and the geological samples which are being pulled from glaciers and pole ice don't show the influence of what's effectively an industrial age on historial samples being analysed.

I don't think the planet is programmed to protect mankind, but evidence is already emerging in various circles to suggest that the majority of life has been wiped out several times and yet re-established itself over millions of years subsequently.

The past, and indeed future history, may prove we're too insignificant a species, both in mortal terms and in intelligence, to grasp the timescales and intracate details of the way that nature controls our environment.

This sounds like a defeatist attitude. I think we should fight it, if it presents a danger, and there is indeed a chance that there are ways to slow it down. Even if we are not sure that our methods will work, again, it is better to be safe than sorry.

That is, I would rather risk wasting time and effort on trying to slow down the process in a hope that it will help us avert the danger, than be worried about all these effort being a waste of time only to find out later that we could have done something, but did not.

Any collective activity aimed at doing something that is not supported by sufficient scientific evidence is bound to be engulfed in corruption, inefficiency, and all other things that are common to associate with collective efforts (especially when the majority of influential participants is represented by government officials). But I think the risk is worth it.

The alternative is to sit back and to say that we would rather run the risk of letting our grandchildren die due to extreme changes in the world climate than let anyone fill their pockets with undeserved cash in the process of implementing the measures that would give us the slightest chance of at least partially fixing or postponing the problem, and to be very proud of how highly principled we are, when it comes to money matters.

Kvartiraokhotnik
29-06-2009, 08:41
Your graph doesnt go back as far as the medieval warm period, which makes the man made global warming argument look somewhat less convincing.....

Basically, your graph just tells us its got a little warmer recently.....but it still aint as warm as it was when the Vikings arrived in England, at a time when there was no massive industrialisation. Do we assume that the vikings overproduced CO2?

Still less convincing than the Mayan Calendar I fear....at least their calendar was pretty spot on astronomically :thumbsup:

Carbo
29-06-2009, 15:28
Yes, Kvarty, that's all well and good, but let's say we reach medieval warm period temperatures today. How will that affect our lives?

Very negatively is the answer.

And that’s assuming that it stops there, because, in addition to that, you also have the issue with the causes. The latest climate change models suggest that the release of CO2 will actually accelerated by warmer weather, rather than mitigated.

I used to be fairly skeptical about climate change, but then I read Last Generation by Fred Pearce and it scared the bejeezus outta me. It's not a polemic or rhetorical bombast; it's based on fact, and it examines all sides of the argument and comes to a frightening conclusion.

If there are any skeptics in Moscow, I'd be more than happy to meet with them and loan this book.

Last Generation - How Nature Will Take Her Revenge for Climate Change: Amazon.co.uk: Fred Pearce: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51C8J7QVSZL.@@AMEPARAM@@51C8J7QVSZL

And, if anything, the climate change predictions have gotten far worse since Pearce wrote his book.

Kvartiraokhotnik
29-06-2009, 19:24
Yes, Kvarty, that's all well and good, but let's say we reach medieval warm period temperatures today. How will that affect our lives?

Very negatively is the answer.

And thatís assuming that it stops there, because, in addition to that, you also have the issue with the causes. The latest climate change models suggest that the release of CO2 will actually accelerated by warmer weather, rather than mitigated.
I used to be fairly skeptical about climate change, but then I read Last Generation by Fred Pearce and it scared the bejeezus outta me. It's not a polemic or rhetorical bombast; it's based on fact, and it examines all sides of the argument and comes to a frightening conclusion.

If there are any skeptics in Moscow, I'd be more than happy to meet with them and loan this book.

Last Generation - How Nature Will Take Her Revenge for Climate Change: Fred Pearce: Amazon.co.uk: Books (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Last-Generation-Nature-Revenge-Climate/dp/1903919886/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246274849&sr=8-1)

And, if anything, the climate change predictions have gotten far worse since Pearce wrote his book.

Yes, perhaps it will get a little hot under the collar. Lets not start shitting our pants quite yet....after all, there are a million and one things to be terrified about these days, but fear wont help us examine the problem with a cool and rational head.

So, what are the causes? This is what you asked above. You then answered your own question with the correct answer (i'm really chuffed with you for this one Carbo....:thumbsup:). Increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are CAUSED by the temperature rising. This is basic chemistry. Ocean heats up, and CO2 evaporates from its natural reservoir so levels of CO2 in the atmos increase. A+ for clever Carbo. This is demonstrated by several graphs whioch show levels of CO2 lagging behind the global temperature by about 80 years. The topsy turvy argument of the extremely non-scientific and religiously zealous global warming carbon tax gang is that increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere cause temperatures to rise. This is dubious chemistry to say the least!!!! Can anyone explain this unlikely mechanism?????

captaincaveman
29-06-2009, 19:38
Try this book: The Weather Makers, Tim Flannery published by Penguin, get it on Amazon.com. He is a scientist and he reckons we have until 2050 to turn things around and sees the planet as a kind living entity.

The coral reefs are dying, the ice is shrinking etc. I remember when I was a kid long cold winters, dad scraping ice off the car, frosty mornings etc, do we get that now?? No.

Ask yourself, old family or any Russian are winters in Russia as cold and as long as they were 10 years ago?!!!????

Watch National Geographic and its full of doom and gloom docus on dying sea's and a melting ice caps, its really very depressing. I do think we have to do something and the first part of a new bill has been put through the legistrative process in the US, which is excellent. America will lead the way for China and others to follow....... lets hope it does anyway!

vladimir_seroff
29-06-2009, 19:59
Healthy skepticism. They say it has to do with the amplification due to higher
thermal capacity of CO2 (they do not use the term thermal capacity, probably assuming that nobody would understand it, but this only makes things worse.)

It is like the situation with hyperinflation, if you want to believe it, believe it and let others doubt.

Link:What does CO2 lagging temperature mean? (http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-does-CO2-lagging-temperature-mean.html)

Quote:

"So where does that leave Al Gore? What he says in An Inconvenient Truth is this:

"The relationship is very complicated but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others and it is this - when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer because it traps more heat from the sun inside."

This statement, while an oversimplification, is essentially correct. A more accurate and informative statement would've been

"A change in Earth's orbit warmed the southern oceans which released more CO2 into the atmosphere. The extra CO2 trapped more heat from the sun and amplified the warming. It also mixed through the atmosphere, spreading the warming to the tropics and northern hemisphere""



Yes, perhaps it will get a little hot under the collar. Lets not start shitting our pants quite yet....after all, there are a million and one things to be terrified about these days, but fear wont help us examine the problem with a cool and rational head.

So, what are the causes? This is what you asked above. You then answered your own question with the correct answer (i'm really chuffed with you for this one Carbo....:thumbsup:). Increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are CAUSED by the temperature rising. This is basic chemistry. Ocean heats up, and CO2 evaporates from its natural reservoir so levels of CO2 in the atmos increase. A+ for clever Carbo. This is demonstrated by several graphs whioch show levels of CO2 lagging behind the global temperature by about 80 years. The topsy turvy argument of the extremely non-scientific and religiously zealous global warming carbon tax gang is that increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere cause temperatures to rise. This is dubious chemistry to say the least!!!! Can anyone explain this unlikely mechanism?????

robertmf
29-06-2009, 20:32
The planet has it's own mechanism for regulating excess CO2, it's just that we don't yet understand it fully - even if we know it involves ice to a very major degree. Our computer models run far too slowly and bear insufficient hard data to predict accurate results, and the geological samples which are being pulled from glaciers and pole ice don't show the influence of what's effectively an industrial age on historial samples being analysed.


Flora, esp. rain forrest trees, are the primary CO2 traps. Unfortunately the natives are doing slash & burn deforestation.
Tropical Deforestation And Global Warming: Smithsonian Scientist Challenges Results Of Recent Study (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/02/030214074147.htm)

Kvartiraokhotnik
30-06-2009, 00:14
"The relationship is very complicated but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others and it is this - when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer because it traps more heat from the sun inside."

This statement, while an oversimplification, is essentially correct. A more accurate and informative statement would've been

"A change in Earth's orbit warmed the southern oceans which released more CO2 into the atmosphere. The extra CO2 trapped more heat from the sun and amplified the warming. It also mixed through the atmosphere, spreading the warming to the tropics and northern hemisphere""

It is indeed an oversimplification. So, warmer temps lead to more CO2 evaporating into the atmosphere. More CO2 in the atmosphere also leads in turn to warmer temps. Not really cos of thermal capacity, but because CO2 absorbs the infrared reflected off the Earths surface. Its transparent to the solar radiation passing through but collects the stuff bouncing out into space. And this is the vicious cycle they call the greenhouse effect. Without it, the temperatures would never have got warm enough for life to develop. Thats probably why God designed things so....so we wouldnt freeze to death.

Still, there is no evidence we are the cause of the higher temps, nor that the Earth doesnt have self correcting mechanisms for its regular cyclical temparature variations. There are literally millions of reasons I can see for getting into alternative energy sources, and using less fossil fuels, but Global warming aint one of them. I dont want to offend the alternative energy crew. But Al Gore pollutes the world to a far greater degree than any of the rest of us more modest chaps. 20 times the average household power consumption. Something to think about.

vladimir_seroff
30-06-2009, 00:48
CO2 absorbs the infrared reflected off the Earths surface

Would this be possible without sufficiently high thermal capacity. That is, if the thermal capacity was low, the energy would be stored in some other form, or not stored at all? This is not a professional opinion, just a question.

I agree that there is no conclusive proof that it is either the far right or the far left that are too blame :-), but I would still rather be safe than sorry. You may decide for yourself, though.

Scrat335
30-06-2009, 04:57
In any case, altering our behavior using the assumption that we are the main culprits is a good policy. It is impossible to prove it conclusively, but it is better to be safe than sorry.

This is a very telling statement. We don't have anywhere to go, this planet is the only one we we have.

There is no spare in the trunk. :shame:

DDT
30-06-2009, 06:06
This is a very telling statement. We don't have anywhere to go, this planet is the only one we we have.

There is no spare in the trunk. :shame:

Live it up dumbass..................God 'll get us a new one! :7534: eh eh eh eh!

DDT
30-06-2009, 06:38
Carbo fails to note that recent data shows that 8,000 years ago temperatures were 6 to 8 degrees higher in the Arctic than they are now. It was warmer in the 1400s! That blows your theory out of the water right away!

Not to mention that the famous, Mann "hockey stick" graph, was proven wrong! Their figures didn't even add up! It was never even audited yet the United Nations, of course, adopted it right away.
It is now known that the auxillary information accompanying it was flawed.
Here is the corrected graph alongside the faulty "hockey stick" showing that global warming is not man made and in fact not even warming.
16185

Every Climatologist will tell you the Earth's temperature has been much hotter and colder than it is now.

There was an Ice Age and it warmed up, there was a Mini Ice Age just 500 years ago and it has been warming up ever since. The Industrial Revolution was not around during those periods.

NASA reports that because of Solar Flares, the Sun is the hottest it has been in over 100 years. There are no cars on the sun.

Global warming is causing ice to melt on Mars. There are no cars on Mars.

Thousands and thousands of studies and experiments prove that more carbon dioxide produces better fruits, vegetables, trees and almost any sort of plant life.

Most of the temperature increase happened before 1940 (Before most carbon dioxide was released by cars and factories)

DDT
30-06-2009, 06:57
YouTube- The Great Global Warming Swindle - Produced by WAGTV
YouTube- Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt1

The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/)

Scrat335
30-06-2009, 07:36
DDT, it's called erring on the side of caution. Where do we have to go if we do screw up this planet? Where will the generations to come go, what will they have to live with that we left behind? Will we leave them anything?

The wealth and productivity of billions of people goes into thinking up ways to annihilate one another, we do nothing to protect our species future. It seems to me that we are more intent on living like hedonistic pigs than providing for our children and their children.

You live in the moment DDT, you don't think about the world your descendants will be brought into and whos grave they may be spitting on.

Carbo
30-06-2009, 08:26
Carbo fails to note that recent data shows that 8,000 years ago temperatures were 6 to 8 degrees higher in the Arctic than they are now. It was warmer in the 1400s! That blows your theory out of the water right away!

Not to mention that the famous, Mann "hockey stick" graph, was proven wrong! Their figures didn't even add up! It was never even audited yet the United Nations, of course, adopted it right away.
It is now known that the auxillary information accompanying it was flawed.
Here is the corrected graph alongside the faulty "hockey stick" showing that global warming is not man made and in fact not even warming.
16185

Every Climatologist will tell you the Earth's temperature has been much hotter and colder than it is now.

There was an Ice Age and it warmed up, there was a Mini Ice Age just 500 years ago and it has been warming up ever since. The Industrial Revolution was not around during those periods.

NASA reports that because of Solar Flares, the Sun is the hottest it has been in over 100 years. There are no cars on the sun.

Global warming is causing ice to melt on Mars. There are no cars on Mars.

Thousands and thousands of studies and experiments prove that more carbon dioxide produces better fruits, vegetables, trees and almost any sort of plant life.

Most of the temperature increase happened before 1940 (Before most carbon dioxide was released by cars and factories)
I have to tell you, DDT, honestly, that in the book I read, it was quite open and honest about the controversy surrounding the hockey stick, but it presented very persuasive evidence -- not writing or rhetoric -- but evidence that showed that the questions regarding the hockey stick have been largely answered.

I suspect what's happening here is that you're taking one side of the story and not looking at the final answer scientists reached.

And lets say that it was four degrees warmer 8000 years ago. So what. We weren't living here then and we have no idea what it was like.

What we do know is that eight degrees would be a disaster now.

Kvartiraokhotnik
30-06-2009, 08:50
I suspect what's happening here is that you're taking one side of the story and not looking at the final answer scientists reached.



What final answer?

If we have no proof that Man is responsible for climate warming, how will burning less fossil fuels help? We still have no reason to believe that the real climate decider in our universe isnt the Sun. Most of the scientists i hear say the same thing.

@Vladimir. If you mean ''specific heat capacity'' (and i think you do) then Carbon dioxide doesnt have a particularly large value in comparison to other substances. Nonetheless, some gases are transparent to infrared and so even if they have a large heat capacity this matters little...the radiation passes straight through them.

DDT
02-07-2009, 21:36
And lets say that it was four degrees warmer 8000 years ago. So what. We weren't living here then and we have no idea what it was like.

What we do know is that eight degrees would be a disaster now.

Well even Global Warming nuts are not talking about an 8% shift in any short period of time.

Pull your finger out and realize that G W is a political movement not an environmental one.

Carbo
02-07-2009, 22:02
Well even Global Warming nuts are not talking about an 8% shift in any short period of time.

Pull your finger out and realize that G W is a political movement not an environmental one.
It's a scientific one.

Unfortunately, the waters, which are already complex, have been further muddied by political issues.

robertmf
02-07-2009, 22:58
What final answer?

If we have no proof that Man is responsible for climate warming, how will burning less fossil fuels help? We still have no reason to believe that the real climate decider in our universe isnt the Sun. Most of the scientists i hear say the same thing.


The final answer is "eschatology" :-) (or 42)

Added into this is the orbit of the solar system around the galaxy. This takes some 225 million years. We're moving around quite fast, too !!

During the orbit the sun/solar system will pass through bands of dust. This dust will decrease the amount of sunlight reaching Earth. This has been offered as one cause for ice ages and periodic climate cooling.

Solar System in galactic context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System#Galactic_context)

Kvartiraokhotnik
03-07-2009, 06:50
The final answer is "eschatology" :-) (or 42)

Added into this is the orbit of the solar system around the galaxy. This takes some 225 million years. We're moving around quite fast, too !!

During the orbit the sun/solar system will pass through bands of dust. This dust will decrease the amount of sunlight reaching Earth. This has been offered as one cause for ice ages and periodic climate cooling.

Solar System in galactic context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System#Galactic_context)

Any evidence of this radioactive dust?