NationStates Jolt Archive

The Earth goes through natural cycles of warmth and cooling. Although there is debate over whether the current warming trend, if it exists, is man-made or natural, what does it really matter? So what if the Earth goes up a few degrees?---it's done way more than that in the past and we're just fine.
Even if the Earth's climate changes, it's not like we'll all die off.

Natural or not, it is a problem.

Seen "The Day After Tomorrow"? OK it's a major Hollywood dramatisation, but it is based in respectable theory.

The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is a result of Carbon Dioxide emmisions produced by human activity.

Global Warming is natural and not a problem

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is a result of Carbon Dioxide emmisions produced by human activity.

the vast amount of scientists don't know how much (if at all) we affect the planet

I don't think anyone debating the issue has ever claimed that the earth has done 'way more than that in the past'. I think a small amount of change is all that has ever happened, but that's enough to cause serious problems worldwide.

The Earth goes through natural cycles of warmth and cooling. Although there is debate over whether the current warming trend, if it exists, is man-made or natural, what does it really matter? So what if the Earth goes up a few degrees?---it's done way more than that in the past and we're just fine.
Even if the Earth's climate changes, it's not like we'll all die off.
Because we don't know if we're in a natural upswing or what should be a downswing. I don't care to find out.

Oh:

Warming hits 'tipping point'

Siberia feels the heat It's a frozen peat bog the size of France and Germany combined, contains billions of tonnes of greenhouse gas and, for the first time since the ice age, it is melting

Ian Sample, science correspondent
Thursday August 11, 2005
The Guardian

A vast expanse of western Sibera is undergoing an unprecedented thaw that could dramatically increase the rate of global warming, climate scientists warn today.

Researchers who have recently returned from the region found that an area of permafrost spanning a million square kilometres - the size of France and Germany combined - has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age.


The area, which covers the entire sub-Arctic region of western Siberia, is the world's largest frozen peat bog and scientists fear that as it thaws, it will release billions of tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere.

It is a scenario climate scientists have feared since first identifying "tipping points" - delicate thresholds where a slight rise in the Earth's temperature can cause a dramatic change in the environment that itself triggers a far greater increase in global temperatures.

The discovery was made by Sergei Kirpotin at Tomsk State University in western Siberia and Judith Marquand at Oxford University and is reported in New Scientist today.

The researchers found that what was until recently a barren expanse of frozen peat is turning into a broken landscape of mud and lakes, some more than a kilometre across.

Dr Kirpotin told the magazine the situation was an "ecological landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected to climatic warming". He added that the thaw had probably begun in the past three or four years.

Climate scientists yesterday reacted with alarm to the finding, and warned that predictions of future global temperatures would have to be revised upwards.

"When you start messing around with these natural systems, you can end up in situations where it's unstoppable. There are no brakes you can apply," said David Viner, a senior scientist at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

"This is a big deal because you can't put the permafrost back once it's gone. The causal effect is human activity and it will ramp up temperatures even more than our emissions are doing."

In its last major report in 2001, the intergovernmental panel on climate change predicted a rise in global temperatures of 1.4C-5.8C between 1990 and 2100, but the estimate only takes account of global warming driven by known greenhouse gas emissions.

"These positive feedbacks with landmasses weren't known about then. They had no idea how much they would add to global warming," said Dr Viner.

Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years. Scientists are particularly concerned about the permafrost, because as it thaws, it reveals bare ground which warms up more quickly than ice and snow, and so accelerates the rate at which the permafrost thaws.

Siberia's peat bogs have been producing methane since they formed at the end of the last ice age, but most of the gas had been trapped in the permafrost. According to Larry Smith, a hydrologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, the west Siberian peat bog could hold some 70bn tonnes of methane, a quarter of all of the methane stored in the ground around the world.

The permafrost is likely to take many decades at least to thaw, so the methane locked within it will not be released into the atmosphere in one burst, said Stephen Sitch, a climate scientist at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter.

But calculations by Dr Sitch and his colleagues show that even if methane seeped from the permafrost over the next 100 years, it would add around 700m tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each year, roughly the same amount that is released annually from the world's wetlands and agriculture.

It would effectively double atmospheric levels of the gas, leading to a 10% to 25% increase in global warming, he said.

Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said the finding was a stark message to politicians to take concerted action on climate change. "We knew at some point we'd get these feedbacks happening that exacerbate global warming, but this could lead to a massive injection of greenhouse gases.

"If we don't take action very soon, we could unleash runaway global warming that will be beyond our control and it will lead to social, economic and environmental devastation worldwide," he said. "There's still time to take action, but not much.

"The assumption has been that we wouldn't see these kinds of changes until the world is a little warmer, but this suggests we're running out of time."

In May this year, another group of researchers reported signs that global warming was damaging the permafrost. Katey Walter of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, told a meeting of the Arctic Research Consortium of the US that her team had found methane hotspots in eastern Siberia. At the hotspots, methane was bubbling to the surface of the permafrost so quickly that it was preventing the surface from freezing over.


That's bad...

Global warming is both natural and a problem.

Natural Global Warming = Earth's Cycle
Speeded Global Warming = Human involvement, bad idea.

But really, unless you can get all factories shut down, all cars stopped/changed, and anything else that might speed it up, we're up the creek without a paddle already.

The Earth goes through natural cycles of warmth and cooling. Although there is debate over whether the current warming trend, if it exists, is man-made or natural, what does it really matter? So what if the Earth goes up a few degrees?---it's done way more than that in the past and we're just fine.
Even if the Earth's climate changes, it's not like we'll all die off.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
DENIAL IS THE FUTUE!

There is no need to be concerned about global warming, citizen. Now go and buy a SUV and lots of fuel! Consumerism is your duty, citizen!

the last ice age was caused by the Earth being further away from the Sun

any ice ages in the future will still be mostly (if not completely) caused by volcanoes

<snip>
Oh, hell. That sucks. And the way politics and bureacracy works, I doubt anything could be done in time, even if it's possible to do anything.

The Earth goes through natural cycles of warmth and cooling. Although there is debate over whether the current warming trend, if it exists, is man-made or natural, what does it really matter? So what if the Earth goes up a few degrees?---it's done way more than that in the past and we're just fine.
Even if the Earth's climate changes, it's not like we'll all die off.
Oh, Ok. I got worked up for nothing. Thanks for the heads-up.
... oh, btw, could you tell us what the natural cycle low and high are? While you're at it, give us the cycle length and other variables... You want a donut with it, or is it going to be snap..? Catch a beer later.

Even if the Earth's climate changes, it's not like we'll all die off.

Haha. I didn't catch this before.

You are aware that humans have a pretty low spectrum they can live in without tech. The air balance tipping could kill us (and most other creatures), heat balance going to high or too low...

we're not cockroaches, after all.

The Earth goes through natural cycles of warmth and cooling. Although there is debate over whether the current warming trend, if it exists, is man-made or natural, what does it really matter? So what if the Earth goes up a few degrees?---it's done way more than that in the past and we're just fine.
Even if the Earth's climate changes, it's not like we'll all die off.

So. if only, say, 40% of us die off, it's OK with you? What about if you're one of that 40%?

We've put enough stress on the environment already, and are already running so far beyond sustainable capacity, that any change, natural or not, is going to be catastrophic.

But go ahead and bury your head in the sand if you like. There's plenty of sand to go around.

:rolleyes:

The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is a result of Carbon Dioxide emmisions produced by human activity.

That vast majority of scientists that agree global warming is a a result of Carbon Dioxide emmisions produced by human beings are setting themselves up with grants worth billions to prove something that cannot be proven. Others work for corporations that stand to profit in the billions to combat the percieved threat, and others stand to profit in the billions by scaring the general population into crippling their competition in the name of saving the planet. It is a scam. Wake up people. Human beings cannot effect the natural evolution of this planet in an apreciable manner. We simply are not that grand.

Liverbreath']That vast majority of scientists that agree global warming is a a result of Carbon Dioxide emmisions produced by human beings are setting themselves up with grants worth billions to prove something that cannot be proven. Others work for corporations that stand to profit in the billions to combat the percieved threat, and others stand to profit in the billions by scaring the general population into crippling their competition in the name of saving the planet. It is a scam. Wake up people. Human beings cannot effect the natural evolution of this planet in an apreciable manner. We simply are not that grand.
Sorry? Must have missed that one. Taken a look at the graphs between CO2 level in the air and temperature?

Carbon emissions led to the evolution of that moth-thingy that is so beloved of evolution debates. That was, to my mind, an appreciable impact: on moths and lichens, yes, but it shows a potential, and however low on the scale it may lie, there is surely some room for an increase in that.

The Earth goes through natural cycles of warmth and cooling. Although there is debate over whether the current warming trend, if it exists, is man-made or natural, what does it really matter? So what if the Earth goes up a few degrees?---it's done way more than that in the past and we're just fine.
Even if the Earth's climate changes, it's not like we'll all die off.Well, actually the increase in hurricanes could hypothetically be attributed to global warming, since they serve to cool the oceans.
As for so what if it goes up a few degrees: Extinction of lobsters in the European waters, extinction of many species of fish (hey, one or two degrees is all it will take), possible flooding due to the polar ice caps melting (which I don't think they have to a degree as they did before).
As for the man made thing: A couple people disagree (http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7883.asp):
All of us agreed that climate change is happening now, that human activity is contributing to it, and that it could affect every part of the globe.

Carbon emissions led to the evolution of that moth-thingy that is so beloved of evolution debates. That was, to my mind, an appreciable impact: on moths and lichens, yes, but it shows a potential, and however low on the scale it may lie, there is surely some room for an increase in that.The moth thingy is a bad example. It was based on faulty research...

It is quite possible that global warming is natural. However, that doesn't make it so that it isn't a problem. If it would cause harm, then it is still a problem for us, regardless of how natural it is or isn't.
Liverbreath']Wake up people. Human beings cannot effect the natural evolution of this planet in an apreciable manner. We simply are not that grand.
I would hesitate to make such a broad, sweeping generalization about that. Sure, it is quite possible that humans have nothing whatsoever to do with global warming, but that doesn't mean that we don't interact with the global ecosystem. We've even driven species to extinction before. I would say that all species, no matter how great or small, can affect the evolution of the global ecosystem in some manner, however small or large that change may be.

Liverbreath']That vast majority of scientists that agree global warming is a a result of Carbon Dioxide emmisions produced by human beings are setting themselves up with grants worth billions to prove something that cannot be proven. Others work for corporations that stand to profit in the billions to combat the percieved threat, and others stand to profit in the billions by scaring the general population into crippling their competition in the name of saving the planet. It is a scam. Wake up people. Human beings cannot effect the natural evolution of this planet in an apreciable manner. We simply are not that grand.That Is so true!!! I wonder how the other half "the not so vast majority of scientists" do. I imagine they7 work in their garages and come up with those models. That's not fair! somebody should aide them scientists who say "pollution is good".

Just my view
*shrugs and walks away*

We were taught by an expert in this: he used to give lecture tours called 'Bollocks To Global Warming', and had miles of stuff about cycling solar flares. As far as I can see, that's not the point: just because the impact we have is lesser than that of the Sun, doesn't mean that is zero.

Given that pretty much every non-oil funded study is in favour of the theory that human activity is a major factor, I'd say there's some merit to it.

But isn't that the point? There are things we can do to slow down global warming. More widespread use of renewable energy, reducing waste, using energy more efficiently, better town planning to promote public transportation, cycling/walking etc. They're just not very popular options with oil companies, the motor industry, OPEC, or the governments that rely on their income.

Also, there is quite convincing evidence for global warming as a result of human actions. The Earth's mean atmospheric temperature may not be the highest now that it's ever been, but the rate at which mean temperature is increasing *is* higher than previously. The Earth's oceans also act as a heat sink, absorbing heat from the atmosphere. It's been shown recently that the recent increase in the mean temperature of the oceans is greater than can be accounted for simply by the sun's energy, which suggests that it's excess heat energy from the atmosphere (resulting from higher levels of greenhouse gases) that is being absorbed. Apparently, this also causes changes to the natural currents, eg. the gulf stream etc., which could potentially have dramatic impacts on a lot of things. Or something along those lines. I read that in a (respectable) newspaper recently....

The moth thingy is a bad example. It was based on faulty research...

no it wasn't. that's just another one of the random lies creationists spout and journalists run with.

I don't think anyone debating the issue has ever claimed that the earth has done 'way more than that in the past'. I think a small amount of change is all that has ever happened, but that's enough to cause serious problems worldwide.

well, we've had ice ages--that seems pretty dramatic to me.

no it wasn't. that's just another one of the random lies creationists spout and journalists run with.
True.
There was a Mothman, and he flew without using much energy... whatever the FBI says!

Why does anyone bother arguing with this guy?

That's bad...

Why? Maybe a rise in temperature would prevent from forming a virus that would erradicate the human race altogether.

Of course, I have no way of knowing, but neither does anyone else.

You're suggesting that we should simply allow massive biomal shift and ice-shelf collapse...and just see what happens?

Oh, excellent. Someone else who knows [seemingly] nothing about biology, ecology or climate telling us that global warming will have little or no impact on humans. Do you lot have weekly meetings?

Given that pretty much every non-oil funded study is in favour of the theory that human activity is a major factor, I'd say there's some merit to it.

even worse, the climate change creationists haven't gotten any papers published in a peer reviewed journal in years (over a decade, i think). they just aren't taking part in science anymore.

no it wasn't. that's just another one of the random lies creationists spout and journalists run with.Nope. I've read about it (http://www.origins.org/articles/wells_pepmoth.html). It may have been a creationist website, but the guy that wrote the article actually uses scientific reasoning and should by no means be lumped with the "random lies" crowd. You can read about his own inconsistencies here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/). His statement in itself can basically be interpreted as such:
Evolutionist: (holds up a grapefruit) It looks very similar to an orange, therefore I'll say it's an orange
Wells: It isn't an orange. (proves it) Therefore, the bible is correct and it is an apple.
There are good examples for natural selection, but the peppered moth is not deserving of the flagship role it has. If you can't accept a scientific falsification of a hypothesis, you're hardly better than someone that claims the world is only 200,000 years old.

Why? Maybe a rise in temperature would prevent from forming a virus that would erradicate the human race altogether.

Of course, I have no way of knowing, but neither does anyone else.
Brian (I hope you don't mind if I use that from now on), what is more likely?
A virus getting destroyed of which we had no clue that it would, or poikilothermic creatures such as fish dying because the water is one or two degrees celsius too high, as has been proven before?

Because we don't know if we're in a natural upswing or what should be a downswing. I don't care to find out.

Oh:

Warming hits 'tipping point'

Siberia feels the heat It's a frozen peat bog the size of France and Germany combined, contains billions of tonnes of greenhouse gas and, for the first time since the ice age, it is melting

Ian Sample, science correspondent
Thursday August 11, 2005
The Guardian

A vast expanse of western Sibera is undergoing an unprecedented thaw that could dramatically increase the rate of global warming, climate scientists warn today.

Researchers who have recently returned from the region found that an area of permafrost spanning a million square kilometres - the size of France and Germany combined - has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age.


The area, which covers the entire sub-Arctic region of western Siberia, is the world's largest frozen peat bog and scientists fear that as it thaws, it will release billions of tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere.

It is a scenario climate scientists have feared since first identifying "tipping points" - delicate thresholds where a slight rise in the Earth's temperature can cause a dramatic change in the environment that itself triggers a far greater increase in global temperatures.

The discovery was made by Sergei Kirpotin at Tomsk State University in western Siberia and Judith Marquand at Oxford University and is reported in New Scientist today.

The researchers found that what was until recently a barren expanse of frozen peat is turning into a broken landscape of mud and lakes, some more than a kilometre across.

Dr Kirpotin told the magazine the situation was an "ecological landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected to climatic warming". He added that the thaw had probably begun in the past three or four years.

Climate scientists yesterday reacted with alarm to the finding, and warned that predictions of future global temperatures would have to be revised upwards.

"When you start messing around with these natural systems, you can end up in situations where it's unstoppable. There are no brakes you can apply," said David Viner, a senior scientist at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

"This is a big deal because you can't put the permafrost back once it's gone. The causal effect is human activity and it will ramp up temperatures even more than our emissions are doing."

In its last major report in 2001, the intergovernmental panel on climate change predicted a rise in global temperatures of 1.4C-5.8C between 1990 and 2100, but the estimate only takes account of global warming driven by known greenhouse gas emissions.

"These positive feedbacks with landmasses weren't known about then. They had no idea how much they would add to global warming," said Dr Viner.

Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years. Scientists are particularly concerned about the permafrost, because as it thaws, it reveals bare ground which warms up more quickly than ice and snow, and so accelerates the rate at which the permafrost thaws.

Siberia's peat bogs have been producing methane since they formed at the end of the last ice age, but most of the gas had been trapped in the permafrost. According to Larry Smith, a hydrologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, the west Siberian peat bog could hold some 70bn tonnes of methane, a quarter of all of the methane stored in the ground around the world.

The permafrost is likely to take many decades at least to thaw, so the methane locked within it will not be released into the atmosphere in one burst, said Stephen Sitch, a climate scientist at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter.

But calculations by Dr Sitch and his colleagues show that even if methane seeped from the permafrost over the next 100 years, it would add around 700m tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each year, roughly the same amount that is released annually from the world's wetlands and agriculture.

It would effectively double atmospheric levels of the gas, leading to a 10% to 25% increase in global warming, he said.

Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said the finding was a stark message to politicians to take concerted action on climate change. "We knew at some point we'd get these feedbacks happening that exacerbate global warming, but this could lead to a massive injection of greenhouse gases.

"If we don't take action very soon, we could unleash runaway global warming that will be beyond our control and it will lead to social, economic and environmental devastation worldwide," he said. "There's still time to take action, but not much.

"The assumption has been that we wouldn't see these kinds of changes until the world is a little warmer, but this suggests we're running out of time."

In May this year, another group of researchers reported signs that global warming was damaging the permafrost. Katey Walter of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, told a meeting of the Arctic Research Consortium of the US that her team had found methane hotspots in eastern Siberia. At the hotspots, methane was bubbling to the surface of the permafrost so quickly that it was preventing the surface from freezing over.


That's bad...


Lots of other potential natual problems too:

1. The Pending shift in the Earth's magnetic field, which will expose us to vast ammounts of solar-radiation for a period of time before its restabalization.
2. The pending eruption of Yosemity (the entire region is just a big volcano...)... which will cause catastrophic effects to at least 1/3 of the globe... (The last eruptions effects could be seen as far as siberia...)

Global Warming is the least of my concerns...

The Earth goes through natural cycles of warmth and cooling. Although there is debate over whether the current warming trend, if it exists, is man-made or natural, what does it really matter? So what if the Earth goes up a few degrees?---it's done way more than that in the past and we're just fine.
Even if the Earth's climate changes, it's not like we'll all die off.

Yes, the Earth does obviously have natural cycles where the temperature does vary from being slightly hotter and slightly cooler.
However, that ecosystem is regulated to create a natural equilibrium with natural cycles. If humans take high concentrations of carbon particles in the forms of oil and coal for example and burn them into the sky then that will obviously cause imbalances in those natural processes. We already have carbon in the air and its a perfect amount for us and all life. If you increase the output then it will mess up the whole synchronicity.

Things are worse than people actually think. There is soemthing called 'Global Dimming' that makes the whole scenario a bit 'catch 22'.

Because we are pumping a load of sulphur particles into the atmosphere which stick to cloud particles (in amongst the water particles), like soot from burning coal. These particles are actually reflecting the suns heat away from the Earth before it reaches us. This actually means that without the pollution, that we now have counter methods for, (such as catalytic converters on your car exhausts) we cause the Earth to be a lot hotter than it should be. If we carry on refining the sulphur dioxide we release, but not the carbon dioxides and green house gases we release aswell; that will simply cause the temperature to go up even further.
Here is some material on Global Dimming from the BBC News website, taken from the tv programme 'Horizon'. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml)

The fact is that this has been proven to be the case. A group of scientists in the U.S. actually used the period of no flying during the days that proceeded after 9/11 2001 to measure the temperature range from the hottest point in a day and the coolest. Seen as though there wasn't any planes flying the actual effect of the emmisions they release is staggering. The streaks that you see in the air reflect a large amount of heat, especially in built up areas like that of major cities in the U.S. and particularly in the fly zones.
They found that over these days the average temperature range was about 5 degress larger within these areas. So what? A more volitile system is more likley to become unstable, ie, maybe it will start going too hot and then too cold instead like the desert.

The only thing thats really scary is this. If we cause the Earth to get too hot, as in hotter than it would be on its natural hot cycle; then there is a billion tonnes of frozen methane at the ocean floor. If that melts it will be released into the atmosphere and cause the Earth to be hotter than it has been for million years. As green house gases go, Methane is 20 times stronger than carbon dioxide. To be flippent about our place in nature will only result with our place in nature being taken from us.

History has shown time and again that whenever mankind tries to regulate an environment, they end up making it worse. Or at the very least, get results they never expected.

I think it's the ultimate in arrogance that scientists think that a mere 100 years of weather data qualifies them to know what's better for the planet or how to regulate it better than the planet does. I have no faith in environmental science. The chances of environmental reulation having no effect at all are very high. The chances of any effect that environmental regulation may have being BENEFICIAL are nearly 0% if you look at science's track record for environmental regulation.

Nope. I've read about it (http://www.origins.org/articles/wells_pepmoth.html). It may have been a creationist website, but the guy that wrote the article actually uses scientific reasoning and should by no means be lumped with the "random lies" crowd.

no, pretty much everything wells wrote in both that paper and the chapter of his book he expanded it to has been rather nicely shown to be nearly entirely lies and distortions (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#moths). just like everything else ever put out by people associated with the discovery institute.

The chances of environmental reulation having no effect at all are very high. The chances of any effect that environmental regulation may have being BENEFICIAL are nearly 0% if you look at science's track record for environmental regulation.
Nearly 0%, Bollocks! You calculated that wrong. It's almost 2%.And that's acceptable, I say go for it!!!

even worse, the climate change creationists haven't gotten any papers published in a peer reviewed journal in years (over a decade, i think). they just aren't taking part in science anymore.

ah yes, here is one of the articles i was thinking of:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

"That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change".

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

I agree. If it exists at all, there needs to be alot more proof of its existance, and that humans caused it.

You should also read State of Fear by Michael Crichton



:mp5: :sniper: :mp5:
The Armed Republic Of Cruel Tyrany

Wake up people. Human beings cannot effect the natural evolution of this planet in an apreciable manner. We simply are not that grand.
Yeah, those holes in the ozone appearing after we used CFC's for a few years was just a coincidence. So is the fact that the Antartic hole has been getting smaller since we stopped using CFC's. A sixth mass extinction starting the same time Homo Sapiens appeared is a coincidence, too. Its not are fault 95% of all animals over 45lbs have gone extinct.[/sarcasm]

Nearly 0%, Bollocks! You calculated that wrong. It's almost 2%.And that's acceptable, I say go for it!!!

Ah, yes. I forgot about the near-eradication of malaria.

If one ignores the sudden appearance of encephalitis instead. :p

I agree. If it exists at all, there needs to be alot more proof of its existance, and that humans caused it.

You should also read State of Fear by Michael Crichton



:mp5: :sniper: :mp5:
The Armed Republic Of Cruel Tyrany


Even if it DOES exist. Even if humans are CAUSING it. I still need proof that the net effect is negative instead of positive. is the loss of a few pacific islands and a more radical swing in autumn weather patterns worth a longer growing season and more temperate equatorial weather?

Why are we always assuming that mankind is usurping nature instead of being part of it's design? Are our opinions of our importance really that overinflated?

Brian (I hope you don't mind if I use that from now on), what is more likely?
A virus getting destroyed of which we had no clue that it would, or poikilothermic creatures such as fish dying because the water is one or two degrees celsius too high, as has been proven before?


The latter.

I just think the Earth can handle it.

I agree. If it exists at all, there needs to be alot more proof of its existance, and that humans caused it.

You should also read State of Fear by Michael Crichton

Listening to Michael Crichton on science is like listening to William Shatner on acting. It's a really stupid thing to do.

Ah, yes. I forgot about the near-eradication of malaria.

If one ignores the sudden appearance of encephalitis instead. :p
Of COURSE we will ignore it. We will take a leap of FAITH
*for some reason sympathy for the devil sounds in the background*
Ooo, who
Ooo, who
Ooo, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Oh, yeah
*lol! it always cracks me up seeing it written up like that*

Why does anyone bother arguing with this guy?

:) this is probably my favorite NS line of all time :)

I'd always suspected that Jah Bootie came in here just so he could find people to agree with him :) I think that's why he's so perturbed with me--I'm disturbing his little realm ;)

The latter.

I just think the Earth can handle it.Handle. Yes. Earth can "handle" quite a lot. I'm not only concerned for Earth though. Earth can survive a nuclear war for all that that matters. I don't like the idea of an important food source (ooh! I just noticed something that ties into your overpopulation thread) being completely destroyed, not to mention a part of our biodiversity.

Global warming affects mostly Northern Canada and Russia and all the colder spots on earth.

Global warming affects mostly Northern Canada and Russia and all the colder spots on earth.

Maybe at first.

But all the water has to go somewhere, and I'd bet money it won't stay high in one place and the same in others. ;)

Global warming affects mostly Northern Canada and Russia and all the colder spots on earth.

Yes. Global warming only affects certain isolated areas. Hence the word; 'global'. :)

Yes. Global warming only affects certain isolated areas. Hence the word; 'global'. :)No one reads my posts (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9464965&postcount=18).:(
Every important world leader accepts it as reality.

i posted this elsewhere, but it's worth doing again.

a parable (http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/i_think_i_despise_anti_environmentalists_as_much_as_i_do_anti_evolutionists/)

Imagine that a scientist and one of these deranged libertarian right-wing anti-environmentalist science deniers go out for a drive one day...

LIB: Isn't this wonderful? I have a desire to drive, and sufficient surplus income to purchase a vehicle, and the market and technology provide me with one. Praise Jesus! Praise Adam Smith!

SCI: Uh, yeah, OK...but you know, the way you're driving is neither safe nor economical. Could you maybe slow down a little?

LIB: I decide what is economical; I can afford the gas. As for safety, I have insurance, and the little whatchamacallit meter in front of me goes all the way up to 140. I haven't exceeded the limit yet.

SCI: What you can do and what is safe and reasonable to do are two different things. If you want to experience natural selection first hand, that would be OK with me, except for the fact that we're both in the same car.
By the way, that's a lake a couple of miles ahead, and you're headed straight for it.

LIB: Lake? We haven't encountered any lakes in our travels so far. We don't have to worry about lakes. History is our guide, and it clearly says, "no lakes".

SCI: Well, yes, there's a lake right there in front of us. You can see it as well as I can, I hope. It's even marked right here on our map. I suggest you turn left just a little bit and steer clear of it.

LIB: Oh, you pessimistic doomsayers. You're always gloomily predicting our demise, and you're always wrong. We hit a mud puddle a few miles back, and see? No problems.

SCI: I'm only predicting doom if you keep driving as foolishly as you have so far. I suggest that we start on this alternate route now, so that we don't have to swerve too sharply at the last minute.

LIB: There is no lake. I like driving fast and straight. The last thing I want to do is turn left.

SCI: What do you mean, there is no lake? It's right there! And we are getting closer by the minute! Why are you accelerating?

LIB: That there is a lake is only your opinion. We need to study this, and get more input.
(LIB reaches down beneath the seat. His hand reemerges with a sock over it.)

SOCK: <in a squeaky voice> No lake!

LIB: Hmmm. We seem to have two opinions here. Since Mr Socky has taken economic considerations into account and you have not, I can judge which is the better and more informed. Sound science says there is no lake. Or if there is, we can accept the compromise solution that it will disappear before we reach it.

SCI: We are headed for that lake at 80 miles per hour, in a car driven by a lunatic. Slow down and turn left!

LIB: I am confident that our innovative and technologically sophisticated economy will come up with a solution before we impact any hypothetical lake. Right, Mr Socky?

SOCK: <squeaks> 's alright!

SCI: I have been telling you what the solution is for the last 3 miles. Slow down. Turn. Now. How is science going to save you if you insist on ignoring it?

LIB: Aha! Look! There's a pier extending out into the lake! I told you that technology would be our salvation. You scientists always underestimate the power of the free market.

SCI: Jebus. That's a rickety 40-foot wooden dock. You can't drive at 90 miles per hour onto a short pier! BRAKE! TURN!

LIB: You are getting emotional, and can be ignored. Market forces and the science and engineering sector will respond to our needs by assembling a floating bridge before we hit the end. Or perhaps they will redesign our car to fly. Or dispatch a ferry or submarine to our location. We cannot predict the specific solution, but we can trust that one will emerge.
I've always wanted a flying car.

SCI: Gobdamn, but you are such a moron.

(car tires begin rapid thumpety-thump as they go over planks)

LIB: I love you, Mr Socky.

SOCK: <squeaks>Ditto!

No one reads my posts (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9464965&postcount=18).:(
Every important world leader accepts it as reality.

I like you. You're silly. :)

If the global temperature rose by a few degrees, the US would get a longer growing season. I don’t see why we would she be concerned. Also, human involvement in global warming probably has more to do with land use than CO2 emissions

Suggested reading for all, “State of Fear” by Michael Crichtan.
It is remarkably well researched and not only addresses global warming, but also the general problems in the scientific community and the trend for people to be controlled by vague fears.

Earthquakes are natural and not a problem.
Volcanos are natural and not a problem.
Hurricanes are natural and not a problem.
Tornados are natural and not a problem.
Blizzards are natural and not a problem.
Infectious diseases are natural and not a problem.
Stupidity is natural and not a problem.




...wait, that last one is only half true.

:rolleyes:

I like you. You're silly. :)Does that mean you read my post?

If the global temperature rose by a few degrees, the US would get a longer growing season. I don’t see why we would she be concerned. Also, human involvement in global warming probably has more to do with land use than CO2 emissions

Suggested reading for all, “State of Fear” by Michael Crichtan.
It is remarkably well researched and not only addresses global warming, but also the general problems in the scientific community and the trend for people to be controlled by vague fears.
A lot of freshwater species that can't regulate their temperature would die. It's been noted that the cooling water from power plants can empty areas of life by only raising the water temperature by a few degrees.

Also, human involvement in global warming probably has more to do with land use than CO2 emissions

land use changes are already accounted for, and are vastly outweighed by emissions

Suggested reading for all, “State of Fear” by Michael Crichtan.
It is remarkably well researched and not only addresses global warming, but also the general problems in the scientific community and the trend for people to be controlled by vague fears.

michael crichton's state of confusion (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74)

One piece of advice seems to be ringing in my ears and I think it fits quite well to this situation.

Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

Driving an SUV is not a necessity. People in nations that have quite high petrol prices get along without having vehicles with as high Cc as the kind of vehicles that are more common in the U.S. or Australia. The fact of the matter is a 2.0l car is more than enough for even a work van, especially if we actually pumped money into these cars that use a kind of giro-scope in place of pistons. Like that new Honda.

Basically the arguement of 'Well gee, I don't think it's gonna happen any time soon' doesn't excuse the driving of 5.0 and V8s in SUVs by the average person in countries where the petrol is more economical.

Your all like a cigerette smoker telling everyone they will be just fine. Only like cigerettes the more you burn the less life you have.

In reality we barely devote any time at all to possible waste managment programs or recycling methods when creating business ventures especially, and if we do it's usually to the ends of good publicity.

Your like a cigerette smoker telling everyone they will be just fine. Only like cigerettes the more you burn the less life you have.Don't say that too loud or you'll wake the people that will dispute that.

The Earth goes through natural cycles of warmth and cooling. Although there is debate over whether the current warming trend, if it exists, is man-made or natural, what does it really matter? So what if the Earth goes up a few degrees?---it's done way more than that in the past and we're just fine.
Even if the Earth's climate changes, it's not like we'll all die off.

I just finished reading Jared Diamond's "Collapse". One of the most interesting scenarios was that of Easter Island, a Pacific island covered in trees when Polynesians arrived circa 800 AD. They proceeded to chop down trees to construct statues, and several centuries later they had cut down every last tree. Without wood they couldn't fish, farm, etc, and they're population crashed until only 10% were left alive.

The author speculates as to why they purposefully doomed themselves. I too was wondering what kind of a fool would chop down the last vital trees on an isolated island.

Then I read your post and somehow it all made sense.

land use changes are already accounted for, and are vastly outweighed by emissions
I still don’t see how that’s a problem for humans. Most of our seafood comes from salt water fish.
michael crichton's state of confusion (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74)
Besides the fact that most climate research centers are in urban areas, so their data is skewed. Anyway, that doesn’t discount what I consider to be the greater messages of the book. Science has lost credibility due to conflict of interest, people are controlled by fear, environmental organizations have become ingrained in society to the point where they are a business just like any other, and we have no clue about how to “manage” the environment.

Why? Maybe a rise in temperature would prevent from forming a virus that would erradicate the human race altogether.

Of course, I have no way of knowing, but neither does anyone else.
That has to be the stupidest argument against global warming that I've ever heard.



Oh, and by the way, if it ever got that hot as to stop a virus from forming, most likely through protein disruption, we'd be dead too.

One piece of advice seems to be ringing in my ears and I think it fits quite well to this situation.

Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

Driving an SUV is not a necessity. People in nations that have quite high petrol prices get along without having vehicles with as high Cc as the kind of vehicles that are more common in the U.S. or Australia. The fact of the matter is a 2.0l car is more than enough for even a work van, especially if we actually pumped money into these cars that use a kind of giro-scope in place of pistons. Like that new Honda.ventures especially, and if we do it's usually to the ends of good publicity.
What if you have four kids all involved in various sporting activities, and all rather tall compared to most, like my parents do? I’d say a SUV is pretty handy then.

Science has lost credibility due to conflict of interest, people are controlled by fear, environmental organizations have become ingrained in society to the point where they are a business just like any other, and we have no clue about how to “manage” the environment.I'm only going to quote non-American science sources around you from now on. I've noticed it's one of the only countries where science has been in the trenches for so long it's become dirty.

That has to be the stupidest argument against global warming that I've ever heard.You haven't heard what he responded to my response to that post. Although "evil" is closer than "stupid" in that one.

I'm only going to quote non-American science sources around you from now on. I've noticed it's one of the only countries where science has been in the trenches for so long it's become dirty.
The European scientists are just as bad, and we share many of the same environmental groups who influence science.

"Besides the fact that most climate research centers are in urban areas, so their data is skewed. Anyway, that doesn’t discount what I consider to be the greater messages of the book. Science has lost credibility due to conflict of interest, people are controlled by fear, environmental organizations have become ingrained in society to the point where they are a business just like any other, and we have no clue about how to “manage” the environment. "

I would just like to say that I agree with you on that point. Global worming started over six thousand years ago. it's nothing new. The belief that we can do ANYTHING about it is unbelievably ignorant.

The European scientists are just as bad, and we share many of the same environmental groups who influence science.Live in Europe. There's no such thing as a conflict between science and ... Can't really add anything here because science is considered what it is: The basis of our understanding of the world.
Just because America has degenerated into a form of "my camp not yours" science doesn't mean that science is completely gone. But if you seriously feel that way, you can't really participate in any debates that require scientific discussion. It's like going canoeing without a canoe because it might be leaky.

If the global temperature rose by a few degrees, the US would get a longer growing season. I don’t see why we would she be concerned. Also, human involvement in global warming probably has more to do with land use than CO2 emissions

Suggested reading for all, “State of Fear” by Michael Crichtan.
It is remarkably well researched and not only addresses global warming, but also the general problems in the scientific community and the trend for people to be controlled by vague fears.
Sure the US would gain a longer growing season, but Northern Canada, Northern Russia, Northern Europe, Central America and Africa would lose their growing season completely.

The belief that we can do ANYTHING about it is unbelievably ignorant.
That doesn't follow from your other statement. It's quite possible that global warming naturally happens, but I don't think that means that it is impossible to stop.
There were some proposals in a recent issue of Poular Mechanics that, while a bit 'out there', could (assuming they actually worked) potentially slow global warming whether or not we are the cause of it.

Unfortunately, the only one of the suggestions up on the web is the most out there of the bunch:
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,20967,1075786,00.html
:(

Live in Europe. There's no such thing as a conflict between science and ... Can't really add anything here because science is considered what it is: The basis of our understanding of the world.
Just because America has degenerated into a form of "my camp not yours" science doesn't mean that science is completely gone. But if you seriously feel that way, you can't really participate in any debates that require scientific discussion. It's like going canoeing without a canoe because it might be leaky.
From what I can tell, the only difference between the US’s and Europe‘s scientific community, is that here in the US we have many special interest groups influencing a few scientists each, and in Europe, you have a few special interest groups influencing many scientists each. You did describe my opinion on science quite well, though.

you see what do you think wioll happen if we screw with nature? hell im a anti environmentilist and i think if you screw with the climate somethings is gonna mess up and well get a massive earth core explosion then we lose earth why dont we just learn how to live with Global warming besides before you know it they be saying our ozone emisions are freezeing earth

What if you have four kids all involved in various sporting activities, and all rather tall compared to most, like my parents do? I’d say a SUV is pretty handy then.

Oh my..... :headbang:

The size of a cars roof, or its general accessability, is nothing to do with a cars engine capacity......... within reason of course ;)

But really, you could have a vehicle the size of your standard SUV with a greatly decreased engine size.

From what I can tell, the only difference between the US’s and Europe‘s scientific community, is that here in the US we have many special interest groups influencing a few scientists each, and in Europe, you have a few special interest groups influencing many scientists each.

doesn't matter. what matters is peer-review and repeatable experiments. both of which work remarkably well, even with money biases - provided they are allowed to work and we don't let a bunch of idiots who do neither pretend like they have meaningful things to add to our understanding and influence our policy-making. it's when we let corprate hacks spewing a bunch of bullshit without going through the process of science have a respectable position in the debate that things get screwed up. which precisely describes exactly one side of the global warming debate.

possible flooding due to the polar ice caps melting

Only if Antarctica melts. If the Northern caps melt, the only thing that will happen is the water will get cooler -- the water level won't rise or fall. Since the Northern icebergs aren't on a landmass, they will not affect the water level, all due to water displacement. You know how the water level rises when you have an ice cube in a glass of water, and then it melts but the water level doesn't change? Same principle, only on a larger scale.

Just my two cents.

One piece of advice seems to be ringing in my ears and I think it fits quite well to this situation.

Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.
"So since the world has still
Much good, but much less good than ill,
And while the sun and moon endure,
Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure;
I'd face it as a wise man would
And train for ill and not for good."

- A. E. Housman

I really do love the argument: "Hey, it's natural that the climate is changing, therefore it's okay!" Always makes me think of the other stupid argument that always makes me chuckle, about natural remedies: "Hey, it's completely natural, therefore it's perfectly safe!"

You don't think that a warming planet could have any negative impact on us at all? It doesn't matter why it's warming up, when it comes right down to it. Our entire food production base, heck, our entire economy, is based around the climate on Earth as it is now. Diluting the oceans with several thousand cubic kilometers of fresh water isn't going to affect any of the fish species we rely on for food, of course not! The increase in violent weather won't harm our economy, certainly not! Increased incidence and longer duration droughts won't hamper any of our farming production, don't be silly!

Uhhhh... yeah. :rolleyes:

doesn't matter. what matters is peer-review and repeatable experiments. both of which work remarkably well, even with money biases - provided they are allowed to work and we don't let a bunch of idiots who do neither pretend like they have meaningful things to add to our understanding and influence our policy-making. it's when we let corprate hacks spewing a bunch of bullshit without going through the process of science have a respectable position in the debate that things get screwed up. which precisely describes exactly one side of the global warming debate.
The environmental groups do the same thing as corporations. They just have a different product they are trying to sell, fear. They need to generate fear to get donations and keep functioning despite the fact they do very little to actually help the environment any more. They are no longer rebels. They are an ingrained societal norm that seeks to remain so, even though they are becoming increasingly ineffective.

The environmental groups do the same thing as corporations. They just have a different product they are trying to sell, fear. They need to generate fear to get donations and keep functioning despite the fact they do very little to actually help the environment any more. They are no longer rebels. They are an ingrained societal norm that seeks to remain so, even though they are becoming increasingly ineffective.

and they've gotten all of the peer reviewed journals of science in on the act, have they? this is one big conspiracy - especially considering the corporations are the ones with all the money and the resources to even attempt to pull it off, and they are losing.

science has come down on the side of anthropogenic climate change. the creationists... i mean 'skeptics', have come down on the side of making up random bullshit and not going through any of the processes of science. i know where i stand, and i know i stand in good company.

the last ice age was caused by the Earth being further away from the Sun


HUH? You are kidding, right? :confused:

So what's causing global warming? Are we getting closer to the sun? *puts my tray back up and my seat in the full upright position as I assume crash position* :eek:

HUH? You are kidding, right? :confused:

So what's causing global warming? Are we getting closer to the sun? *puts my tray back up and my seat in the full upright position as I assume crash position* :eek:

Well our sun is expanding, so I guess it's getting closer to us.

The reason for this is that as it is burning hydrogen to helium in the core the amount of hydrogen there gradually decreases. In order to keep the energy generation rate the same, the temperature and density in the core must rise. This has the effect that the energy can flow to the surface a little faster and it puffs up the outer layers (as well slightly brightening the Sun).

When the Sun runs out of hydrogen in its core completely (which won't be for another 5 billion years or so) nuclear reactions will stop there, but they will continue in a shell around the core. The core will contract (since it is not generating energy) and as it contracts it will heat up. Eventually it will get hot enough to start burning helium into carbon (a different nuclear reaction). While the core is contracting the hydrogen burning around it heats will heat up the outer layers which will expand, and while they do that they will cool. The Sun will then become what is called a Red Giant and its radius will be large enough to envelop the Earth!

Only we'll die before then because of the increased heat from greater exposure from just being closer.

But this is really ages away, not a couple of hundred years at best like global warming.

Well our sun is expanding, so I guess it's getting closer to us.

The reason for this is that as it is burning hydrogen to helium in the core the amount of hydrogen there gradually decreases. In order to keep the energy generation rate the same, the temperature and density in the core must rise. This has the effect that the energy can flow to the surface a little faster and it puffs up the outer layers (as well slightly brightening the Sun).

When the Sun runs out of hydrogen in its core completely (which won't be for another 5 billion years or so) nuclear reactions will stop there, but they will continue in a shell around the core. The core will contract (since it is not generating energy) and as it contracts it will heat up. Eventually it will get hot enough to start burning helium into carbon (a different nuclear reaction). While the core is contracting the hydrogen burning around it heats will heat up the outer layers which will expand, and while they do that they will cool. The Sun will then become what is called a Red Giant and its radius will be large enough to envelop the Earth!

Only we'll die before then because of the increased heat from greater exposure from just being closer.

But this is really ages away, not a couple of hundred years at best like global warming.


Yeah, I know all that. I unserstand Astrophysics enought o know how a star ages and what a red giant is, and how long it takes. My post was sarcasm aimed at that other guy's simplistic assertion.

*sigh* http://www.realclimate.org/ Should answer any and all questions.

and they've gotten all of the peer reviewed journals of science in on the act, have they? this is one big conspiracy - especially considering the corporations are the ones with all the money and the resources to even attempt to pull it off, and they are losing.
What are you talking about? I don’t think Crichton is a creationist, or religious at all, for that matter. The environmental organizations have plenty of power, influence and money. The scientists that review in those journals are just as influenced by the environmental groups as the ones doing the experiments.

What are you talking about? I don’t think Crichton is a creationist, or religious at all, for that matter. The environmental organizations have plenty of power, influence and money. The scientists that review in those journals are just as influenced by the environmental groups as the ones doing the experiments.
What motive? Did they get to Nature too?


Please. Take off the tinfoil and bask in the glow of the truth for once.

Does it exist? Yes. Must anyone make an effort to stop it? No. Too much pain for too little gain. Is it a problem? Not unless humans want it to be a problem. We are an adaptable species, and there is no reason to believe that this won't be the case this time. In fact, why didn't Russia sign the Kyoto protocol until recently? Because many Russians love hearing the idea of global warming. Just ask a city dweller with no heat in Siberia. Or how about those who see an oppritunity to get rich farmland once the ice and permafrost melts away.

I don’t think Crichton is a creationist, or religious at all, for that matter.
Crichton is an IDist. And what did I say about listening to Crichton on matters of science?

I don’t think Crichton is a creationist, or religious at all, for that matter.

no, just a little bit batshit insane.

http://www.crichton-official.com/features/features_spoonbending.shtml

no, just a little bit batshit insane.
I wouldn't say that. I'd say that he's a genius who is trying to reach too far. A lot of his books, unfortunatly, are like that. Rising Sun and Jurassic Park, for example, are pure propaganda. Why can't he return to the days of the Andromeda Strain?

What motive? Did they get to Nature too?


Please. Take off the tinfoil and bask in the glow of the truth for once.
Money from donations and self-righteousness are their motives. Kind of like many religions. I don’t have a problem with that, it’s just important to realize that they have an agenda and aren’t saints.
Rising Sun and Jurassic Park, for example, are pure propaganda.
How? Because he dares to say that science is just the conventional wisdom of the time, and what we consider factually correct now, our descendants will laugh at us for believing, just as we laugh at our ancestors for their scientific beliefs? Just because he isn’t entirely satisfied with the scientific explanation of things? Just because he doesn’t act like the scientists are deities to be revered and never questioned by the masses?

How? Because he dares to say that science is just the conventional wisdom of the time, and what we consider factually correct now, our descendants will laugh at us for believing, just as we laugh at our ancestors for their scientific beliefs? Just because he isn’t entirely satisfied with the scientific explanation of things? Just because he doesn’t act like the scientists are deities to be revered and never questioned by the masses?

"It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong."

Isaac Asimov

Ill tell you something.. ive done countless research projects on this boring shit... the author of this thread is correct to a point. Hes right that the Earth is constantly going through warming and cooling trends. The apex of each period causes an unbalance in the the warming-cooling trend, thus causing the opposite reaction to occur. The trend is nothinig new at all, and is part of nature.

where the author of the thread is incorrect, is saying the changing in the global climate wont affect us. Actually, it will affect us greatly, changes in just a few degrees in ocean temperature does cause a desalinization of the forzen ice at the arctic caps (similar to 'The Day after Tomorrow'- but not even close to that severly exaggerated result). Unfortuantely, many acquatic species will become extinct, thus ruining some foodwebs that we may be a part of. Though humans will find a way to cope with the changes, many organisms that cannot take the change in environment will become extinct (if the species' cant adapt quickly enough). This is nothing to be alarmed by, species we've never heard of or seen go extinct every day... 98% of all animals that have ever lived on this planet, are extinct, so the extinction of these animals is just a part of nature, and can hardly be prevented.

Now, about humans creating CO2 thats in hte atmosphere... this is true. Carbon dioxide does cause Ozone (O3) to become oxygen (O2), and thus losing the 'protective' powers against solar radiation. Some scientists say that there is currently a 'hole' in the ozone layer above antarctica and southern australia and new zealand. Some scientists believe it, some dont. Its not a certainty quite yet. and even if it is completely true, there is still no proof that the large 'hole' is solely caused by CO2 emissions.

if there is a problem, solving it is nigh impossible. Ozone (O3) is an extremely unstable isotope and virtually impossible to create and release into the air without it being converted to oxygen (O2) instantaneously. and we cant use Ceran wrap either... so we as humans, and future generations will have to cope with and adapt to increased ocean temperatures and solar radiation, and their effects on the environment.... and come the next major ice age (and we've had hundreds of ice ages and mass extinctions since the formation of this planet approx. 4 billion years ago), humans will again have to find a way to cope.

How? Because he dares to say that science is just the conventional wisdom of the time, and what we consider factually correct now, our descendants will laugh at us for believing, just as we laugh at our ancestors for their scientific beliefs? Just because he isn’t entirely satisfied with the scientific explanation of things? Just because he doesn’t act like the scientists are deities to be revered and never questioned by the masses?
No. Because he took some quack's theory of its ultimate implications and ran with it. Take Rising Sun, which had little to do with Science. The theme seemed to be that the Japanese are taking over the country because they are smarter and more business savy than Americans. Oh, and Washington is in the Japanese's back pocket. Not an individual firm or the Japanese government, mind you, but the Japanese, as if every Japanese was the same person. Even if I read it when it first came out, I still would've considered it bull.

I kinda think global warming's a good thing...

I kinda think global warming's a good thing...


Yes it means better longer summers and more places to swim.

If, when the earths temperature keeps going up and nothing happens
then the people who say we're doomed we're doomed will promise to
apologize and
if the people who say it won't cause any harm promise to apologize
afterwards if terrible things actually happen.

Then surely we can all agree to disagree.


Obviously the people who say it might be happening but if it is we
can't do anything about it anyway even if we did try to do anything
are the middle ground and will certainly be proved to be right
and so won't need to apologize whatever happens.

AFAIK

We are coming out of an Ice Age.
Sea levels have been much higher in the past but they have been much lower. As we are coming out of an Ice Age they are rising.
Temperatures have also been higher and lower, and due to the (relatively) recent Ice Age they are rising.

Many environmental groups seem to agree on this at some level.

It is widely agreed that human action is speeding the process. Environmental groups as far as i have read seem to feel human action is doubling the speed at which the warming takes place.

Widespread diasater seems to be predicted in 50 to 100 years for more threatened areas.

If humans completely stopped their actions, back extrapolating from the fact we are doubling the speed of warming means disaster will befall these areas in 100-200 years anyway.

Regardless of cuts in greenhouse emmissions people in threatened areas are facing massive problems in the not too distant future.

To mitigate the effects of this inevitable future action should be taken now to protect these areas or if that is not possible to begin to move people from them.
Efforts into delaying these effects as opposed to mitigating them are irresponsible as they simply place the responsibility with the generation of tomorrow when it should be shouldered by the generation today.

This was in the NY Times a while ago...

picture (http://www.geocities.com/sirfloyd.geo/ta050612.gif)

I still don’t see how that’s a problem for humans. Most of our seafood comes from salt water fish.

Global warming affects sea levels. 90% of humans live within 100 miles of a body of water. So common sense dictates that it will be a problem.

Groan. I hate bad science.

Groan. I hate bad science.


Hey, Elliot Smith was the coolest!

Hey, Elliot Smith was the coolest!
Good spot (it's in my sig, for those confused)! He's a great loss to music.

[/hijack]

All we need to do is to start exploring ways of coping instead of prevention. Plus, the Milky Way's gonna collide into Andromeda in a few billion years anyways.

This was in the NY Times a while ago...

picture (http://www.geocities.com/sirfloyd.geo/ta050612.gif)He's changed his mind.
The post where I've pointed it out (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9464965&postcount=18).

You know, what's funny is that there are a group of scientists and engineers that have come public only very recently. They are a small but growing corp that believe that we don't have to change our habits to stop global warming. Instead, we change the environment. The Bush Administration has very quietly supported this view. It is somewhat secretive due to its explosive nature.
Anyhow, there are a number of ideias. One is to install giant air scrubbers in remote areas to clean the air as it passes. Another is to dump molecules of iron into the ocean, forcing up plankton counts and cleaning the air. The wackiest, and most expensive of all is to place orbitting mirrors that will deflect sunlight. The only one tried right now is pumping carbon dioxide into the soil, where either it will mix with deep ground water, or will liquidify under pressure. Of course, there are issues, like a sudden pressure release resulting in explosion, or CO2 leaking into basements.
I read this a month or two ago in Popular Science. I'm too lazy to find the article. But you guys are more than welcome to.

Global warming is both natural and a problem.

Natural Global Warming = Earth's Cycle
Speeded Global Warming = Human involvement, bad idea.

But really, unless you can get all factories shut down, all cars stopped/changed, and anything else that might speed it up, we're up the creek without a paddle already.

Not really. We just need to increase the "Carbon Sinks." Things that require carbon to build themselves, and pull carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Things like forests. Not because they're our oxegen generators, that's the ocean, but they use up carbon.

Believe it or not, selective logging is actually a very green activity in this regard. A well maintained tropical tree logging farm could take tremendous amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere with the speed with which trees will replace themselves. So long as the loggers take care not to deplete the minerals, and use selective logging rather than clear-cut logging.

History has shown time and again that whenever mankind tries to regulate an environment, they end up making it worse. Or at the very least, get results they never expected.

I think it's the ultimate in arrogance that scientists think that a mere 100 years of weather data qualifies them to know what's better for the planet or how to regulate it better than the planet does. I have no faith in environmental science. The chances of environmental reulation having no effect at all are very high. The chances of any effect that environmental regulation may have being BENEFICIAL are nearly 0% if you look at science's track record for environmental regulation.


This is what I love about youy goof. That silly exterior is hiding a rather sharp mind.

(And I'm trying to recall a quote that seems to apply to you - something Latin to the effect that just because a man is funny, doesn't prevent him from speaking the truth.)

AFAIK
It is widely agreed that human action is speeding the process. Environmental groups as far as i have read seem to feel human action is doubling the speed at which the warming takes place.

Widespread diasater seems to be predicted in 50 to 100 years for more threatened areas.

If humans completely stopped their actions, back extrapolating from the fact we are doubling the speed of warming means disaster will befall these areas in 100-200 years anyway.

Regardless of cuts in greenhouse emmissions people in threatened areas are facing massive problems in the not too distant future.

To mitigate the effects of this inevitable future action should be taken now to protect these areas or if that is not possible to begin to move people from them.
Efforts into delaying these effects as opposed to mitigating them are irresponsible as they simply place the responsibility with the generation of tomorrow when it should be shouldered by the generation today.

What worries me is that we may not only be doubling the rate but also doubling the height of the peak, i.e. a ten degree change becomes twenty. Now that's scary.

"It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong."

Isaac Asimov
KaPOW!!!!! :sniper:

Excellent. Succint. *bows*
*fills out subscription to Free Soviets' newsletter*
;)

Only if Antarctica melts. If the Northern caps melt, the only thing that will happen is the water will get cooler -- the water level won't rise or fall. Since the Northern icebergs aren't on a landmass, they will not affect the water level, all due to water displacement. You know how the water level rises when you have an ice cube in a glass of water, and then it melts but the water level doesn't change? Same principle, only on a larger scale.

Just my two cents.
Good thing you factored in salinity, ambient temperature and current ... wait .... ?

Natural or not, it is a problem.

Seen "The Day After Tomorrow"? OK it's a major Hollywood dramatisation, but it is based in respectable theory.
Two of the events in the beginning of the chain have already happened.
Australia's govt. made a public declaration of impendence regarding the shift in weather and consequences.
The permafrost up here in AK is melting and the shoreline is kicking back out the corpses that were in it at one point.
Alaska had two tornadoes in two months this year.
I've got A LOT of stuff on this but i don't have my backup disk so i'm gonna ....
*BUMP*

the vast amount of scientists don't know how much (if at all) we affect the planet
Sure, you should just make that kind of call, what with your qualifications and the qualifications of the people you *represent*.
"My opinion is as valid as any scientist's." - Don Young, infamous fronter of current transportation bill porkbarrel, rep of my state.
*sigh*

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
DENIAL IS THE FUTUE!

There is no need to be concerned about global warming, citizen. Now go and buy a SUV and lots of fuel! Consumerism is your duty, citizen!
"Keep America rolling!"
... GUESS WHO
*sigh*

Only if Antarctica melts. If the Northern caps melt, the only thing that will happen is the water will get cooler -- the water level won't rise or fall. Since the Northern icebergs aren't on a landmass, they will not affect the water level, all due to water displacement. You know how the water level rises when you have an ice cube in a glass of water, and then it melts but the water level doesn't change? Same principle, only on a larger scale.

Just my two cents.

The scary thing is... I think you are for real...

I have three words for you, my friend:

Albedo.

This is what I love about youy goof. That silly exterior is hiding a rather sharp mind.

(And I'm trying to recall a quote that seems to apply to you - something Latin to the effect that just because a man is funny, doesn't prevent him from speaking the truth.)


Carpe Wacky. :)

I believe that Albert Einstein had this topic nailed dead center in 1939 when he postulated:

"Hot Babes. Less Clothes. 'Nuff said."
(From 'Conversations on Global Warming & Hot Babe Particulate Theory, 1939')

~FLG

*bump*

I believe that Albert Einstein had this topic nailed dead center in 1939 when he postulated:

"Hot Babes. Less Clothes. 'Nuff said."
(From 'Conversations on Global Warming & Hot Babe Particulate Theory, 1939')

~FLG

http://www.gunsanddope.com/einstein-tongue.jpg

Natural or not, it is a problem.


Here is the problem with the people trying to solve it:

It's already happening. We can't stop it. We shouldn't be thinking of ways of preventing it, but ways to embrace it.

The only other but impossible solution is to eliminate the majority of the world's population. Less people, less pollution.

Canada City']Here is the problem with the people trying to solve it:

It's already happening. We can't stop it. We shouldn't be thinking of ways of preventing it, but ways to embrace it.

The only other but impossible solution is to eliminate the majority of the world's population. Less people, less pollution.

Why shouldn't we be "thinking of ways of preventing it"?

Wouldn't it be better to cure the disease, than to learn to live with the symptoms?

Why shouldn't we be "thinking of ways of preventing it"?

Wouldn't it be better to cure the disease, than to learn to live with the symptoms?

Is it a disease?

Is it a disease?

Etymologically, yes... it cause a 'lack of ease'... or will, if it continues unabated.

Etymologically, yes... it cause a 'lack of ease'... or will, if it continues unabated.

Perhaps. Or perhaps the benefits will outweigh the problems.

Thank you Brians Test. Furthermore, if fans of global warming are to be believed then other climate changes like the ice age and the end of the ice age are somehow man's fault.

Natural Global Warming has been happening for millions of years

However just because its happened and will keep happening doesn't mean that human involvement doesn't effect the equation

a fire in a forest will burn regardless of whether humanity does something about it or not.. if you douse the fire with water you help slow it/prevent it

If you douse the fire with Petrol you increase the speed and devastation it can cause

Perhaps. Or perhaps the benefits will outweigh the problems.

And, what do you perceive the benefits to be?

Even in cooler, wetter years, Colorado has had enough water from melting ice - and yet less is now being laid down due to the raised temperatures... our polar ice is also disintegrating in swathes.

What do you envision as 'benefits' that can outweigh the droughts of huge tracts of land, and the loss of polar ice?

And, what do you perceive the benefits to be?

Even in cooler, wetter years, Colorado has had enough water from melting ice - and yet less is now being laid down due to the raised temperatures... our polar ice is also disintegrating in swathes.

What do you envision as 'benefits' that can outweigh the droughts of huge tracts of land, and the loss of polar ice?

More mud. :)

More mud. :)

I'll admit... it's hard to argue against that one...

Although, of course, rising atmospheric temperature actually implies LESS mud... (at least, the nice goopy stuff).

I'm Bush like. The earth is not going through global warming. There is no such thing as global warming. Cause I'm the president, I got elected two times. So I know what I'm talkin' about. All this talk of global warming is just a bunch of "laberals" who do nothin' but hug trees. I ran against a "laberal" who was a tree hugger, his name was al goreish. And he lost. Because he was a "laberal" I hate those "laberals". You want to know why texas is so great? We have no trees, we cut those suckers down. Ah he he he he.

For this, I go to Penn & Teller ;)

Not really. We just need to increase the "Carbon Sinks." Things that require carbon to build themselves, and pull carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Things like forests. Not because they're our oxegen generators, that's the ocean, but they use up carbon.

Believe it or not, selective logging is actually a very green activity in this regard. A well maintained tropical tree logging farm could take tremendous amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere with the speed with which trees will replace themselves. So long as the loggers take care not to deplete the minerals, and use selective logging rather than clear-cut logging.

Oh, wow, a Global Warming Advocate who doesn't want to try and turn the clock back to the Paleolithic Era, but actually points out something that's practical, do-able, and will probably actually work.

Domici, you better hide before your dogmatic brethren find out it was you and come with the torches and the pitchforks (or the Greenpeace Inquisitors...). :D

I'm Bush like. The earth is not going through global warming. There is no such thing as global warming. Cause I'm the president, I got elected two times. So I know what I'm talkin' about. All this talk of global warming is just a bunch of "laberals" who do nothin' but hug trees. I ran against a "laberal" who was a tree hugger, his name was al goreish. And he lost. Because he was a "laberal" I hate those "laberals". You want to know why texas is so great? We have no trees, we cut those suckers down. Ah he he he he.

Hahahah thanks I needed that
To be truthful I think no matter what humans are just to short minded to understand one day we won't have the options of leaving the problems with the next generations
Sooo in short were screwed

Oh, wow, a Global Warming Advocate who doesn't want to try and turn the clock back to the Paleolithic Era, but actually points out something that's practical, do-able, and will probably actually work.

Domici, you better hide before your dogmatic brethren find out it was you and come with the torches and the pitchforks (or the Greenpeace Inquisitors...). :D
We're not all dogmatists... and this goes for all sorts of issues and all sorts of people. Now give me a hug, brethren.

Thank you Brians Test. Furthermore, if fans of global warming are to be believed then other climate changes like the ice age and the end of the ice age are somehow man's fault.
...and this is today's news ....

*ahem*

Warming hits 'tipping point'

Siberia feels the heat It's a frozen peat bog the size of France and Germany combined, contains billions of tonnes of greenhouse gas and, for the first time since the ice age, it is melting

Ian Sample, science correspondent
Thursday August 11, 2005
The Guardian

A vast expanse of western Sibera is undergoing an unprecedented thaw that could dramatically increase the rate of global warming, climate scientists warn today.
Researchers who have recently returned from the region found that an area of permafrost spanning a million square kilometres - the size of France and Germany combined - has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age.
The area, which covers the entire sub-Arctic region of western Siberia, is the world's largest frozen peat bog and scientists fear that as it thaws, it will release billions of tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere.
It is a scenario climate scientists have feared since first identifying "tipping points" - delicate thresholds where a slight rise in the Earth's temperature can cause a dramatic change in the environment that itself triggers a far greater increase in global temperatures.
The discovery was made by Sergei Kirpotin at Tomsk State University in western Siberia and Judith Marquand at Oxford University and is reported in New Scientist today.
The researchers found that what was until recently a barren expanse of frozen peat is turning into a broken landscape of mud and lakes, some more than a kilometre across.
Dr Kirpotin told the magazine the situation was an "ecological landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected to climatic warming". He added that the thaw had probably begun in the past three or four years.
Climate scientists yesterday reacted with alarm to the finding, and warned that predictions of future global temperatures would have to be revised upwards.
"When you start messing around with these natural systems, you can end up in situations where it's unstoppable. There are no brakes you can apply," said David Viner, a senior scientist at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
"This is a big deal because you can't put the permafrost back once it's gone. The causal effect is human activity and it will ramp up temperatures even more than our emissions are doing."
In its last major report in 2001, the intergovernmental panel on climate change predicted a rise in global temperatures of 1.4C-5.8C between 1990 and 2100, but the estimate only takes account of global warming driven by known greenhouse gas emissions.
"These positive feedbacks with landmasses weren't known about then. They had no idea how much they would add to global warming," said Dr Viner.
Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years. Scientists are particularly concerned about the permafrost, because as it thaws, it reveals bare ground which warms up more quickly than ice and snow, and so accelerates the rate at which the permafrost thaws.
Siberia's peat bogs have been producing methane since they formed at the end of the last ice age, but most of the gas had been trapped in the permafrost. According to Larry Smith, a hydrologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, the west Siberian peat bog could hold some 70bn tonnes of methane, a quarter of all of the methane stored in the ground around the world.
The permafrost is likely to take many decades at least to thaw, so the methane locked within it will not be released into the atmosphere in one burst, said Stephen Sitch, a climate scientist at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter.
But calculations by Dr Sitch and his colleagues show that even if methane seeped from the permafrost over the next 100 years, it would add around 700m tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each year, roughly the same amount that is released annually from the world's wetlands and agriculture.
It would effectively double atmospheric levels of the gas, leading to a 10% to 25% increase in global warming, he said.
Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said the finding was a stark message to politicians to take concerted action on climate change. "We knew at some point we'd get these feedbacks happening that exacerbate global warming, but this could lead to a massive injection of greenhouse gases.
"If we don't take action very soon, we could unleash runaway global warming that will be beyond our control and it will lead to social, economic and environmental devastation worldwide," he said. "There's still time to take action, but not much.
"The assumption has been that we wouldn't see these kinds of changes until the world is a little warmer, but this suggests we're running out of time."
In May this year, another group of researchers reported signs that global warming was damaging the permafrost. Katey Walter of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, told a meeting of the Arctic Research Consortium of the US that her team had found methane hotspots in eastern Siberia. At the hotspots, methane was bubbling to the surface of the permafrost so quickly that it was preventing the surface from freezing over.
Last month, some of the world's worst air polluters, including the US and Australia, announced a partnership to cut greenhouse gas emissions through the use of new technologies.
The deal came after Tony Blair struggled at the G8 summit to get the US president, George Bush, to commit to any concerted action on climate change and has been heavily criticised for setting no targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Two of the events in the beginning of the chain have already happened.
Australia's govt. made a public declaration of impendence regarding the shift in weather and consequences.
The permafrost up here in AK is melting and the shoreline is kicking back out the corpses that were in it at one point.
Alaska had two tornadoes in two months this year.
I've got A LOT of stuff on this but i don't have my backup disk so i'm gonna ....
*BUMP*
Severe Climate Change
The Australian government warned its citizens to be prepared for severe
effects of climate change within 30 years. Environment Minister Ian Campbell
urged governments, industry and communities to consider strategies to
prepare for the impact. A government-commissioned report says climate change
is inevitable, and Australia should expect higher temperatures, more
droughts, severe cyclones and storm surges. (Earthweek News, July 29 2005)

---
Historical Evidence Shows Larsen Ice Shelf Collapse Is 'Unprecedented'

In the spring of 2002, a large chunk of the Larsen B ice shelf (LIS-B) on the Antarctic Peninsula broke off and tumbled into the Weddell Sea. A new analysis published today in the journal Nature suggests that the more than 3,200 square kilometer area that collapsed signifies an unprecedented loss in the past 10,000 years and can be attributed to accelerated climate warming in the region.
Eugene Domack of Hamilton College and his colleagues studied six sediment cores collected from the area around the ice shelf as well as other data, such as temperature and salinity measurements of the Weddell Sea. The results indicate that LIS-B has been stable since the Late Pleistocene to Holocene transition, which occurred 11,500 years ago. The ice shelf had been thinning slowly, however, which was evidenced by a change in the oxygen isotopes present in plankton preserved from the underlying water column. The team calculates that the glacier thinned by a few tens of meters over the course of thousands of years.
Local temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula, meanwhile, have risen by about two degrees Celsius over the past 50 years, an increase that is more pronounced than in other regions of the world. The authors write that their observation that the modern collapse of the LIS-B is a unique event supports the hypothesis that the current warming trend in the northwestern Weddell Sea is longer and bigger than past warm episodes. Together with the slow thinning, it was this prolonged period of warming that led to LIS-B's collapse, they conclude. --Sarah Graham
---

Oh yeah, slipped my eyes. .....

*ahem*

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/27169/story.htm

WASHINGTON - As Hurricane Ivan and its powerful winds churned through the Gulf of Mexico, scientists told Congress this week that global warming could produce stronger and more destructive hurricanes in the future.


Global warming will increase the temperature of ocean water that fuels hurricanes, leading to stronger winds, heavier rains and larger storm surges, the researchers told the Senate Commerce Committee. However, the increase in ocean temperatures is unlikely to boost the average number of Atlantic hurricanes that form each year, they said. Hurricane Ivan forced millions of people to evacuate a 400-mile stretch of the U.S. Gulf Coast. The storm is classified as a Category 4 hurricane with maximum sustained winds of 135 mph (215 km/h) and has been blamed for 68 deaths and extensive damage in the Caribbean. Ivan will be the third major storm to batter the U.S. Gulf region during the past month. It is expected to make landfall early yesterday. The Republican-led panel heard testimony from several scientists who said emissions known as greenhouse gases were gradually raising the earth's temperature and would contribute to more extreme weather including flooding, drought and changing storm patterns. "Warmer water temperatures will promote more intense tropical storms, but not necessarily make the frequency of those storms greater," said Dan Cayan, a research meteorologist at the University of California in San Diego. "An increase of even a degree or so in the right environment would cause intensities to increase," he said. Some members of Congress, scientists and environmental groups contend that global warming is upsetting environmental balances by altering fragile weather patterns in the world. However, 10 climatologists and scientists sent a letter to Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who heads the committee, saying there is no scientific evidence of a link between severe weather - such as hurricanes, blizzards and heat waves - and global warming. They argued that warmer periods of temperatures have actually led to a decline in the number and severity of storms. "We suggest that natural variability of storminess is the cause of Florida's recent hurricane disasters," they wrote. "In such times there is an emotional tendency to pin blame somewhere." McCain said during the hearing that human activities are contributing to global warming and require "real reductions" in greenhouse gas emissions. The United States is the world's biggest producer of the gases, which come from automobiles, power plants and other sources. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, and McCain have introduced bipartisan legislation that would set nationwide emissions limits for transport, utilities and other sectors. The bill has been stalled in the Senate. President Bush refused to join the 1997 Kyoto treaty on greenhouse gases, saying it would be too costly to the economy.
Story by Christopher Doering

Straughn rocks, AND rolls. All night, baby. :)