NationStates Jolt Archive

Global warming, is it a bunch of hogwash?

Where's the, "Yes, probably" option?

I think that climate change is almost, though not completely, certainly happening. I think it is probably at least partly due to greenhouse gases that we produce. As such, I didn't vote for any of the options. In future, at least add a comedy option, or make the poll multiple choice so I can vote for all the options. :mad:

As for global warming, well, global temperatures have increased on average over the last few years, so, erm, yes it is happening. What I imagine you really mean is, are we observing the beginning of a long term trend? Or is it part of the natural climatic cycle? If the former, is it natural or man-made? A short term increase in temperature may eventually lead to a decrease in temperature in the long run. The temperature may not change, but rainfall or sea levels could be affected. Climate change is a better term, as it encompasses these possibilities as well.

You'd think this would've gotten a few hits.
Well, i would recommend viewing this thread *shameless self-promotion* for a factual backdrop, if y'all are so inclined:


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=471807

Global warming, is it a bunch of hogwash?

*psst*Straughn would rip you a new one, if he didn't already have a thread for it.

*psst*Straughn would rip you a new one, if he didn't already have a thread for it.
Ah, it's all good - it's posed as a question, and not necessarily their POV. Methinks it's more of a mechanism to get people to argue, but i could be wrong.
But i'll take your post as a compliment. Thank you. *bows*

You'd think this would've gotten a few hits.
Well, i would recommend viewing this thread *shameless self-promotion* for a factual backdrop, if y'all are so inclined:


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=471807

I, too, recommend that thread highly. I give it two thumbs up!

I normally dislike prequels, but Straughn's previous thread has piqued my interest. The thread is reminiscent of Corky from "Life Goes On" or even Juliet Lewis' gritty performance in "The Other Sister" - A role some critics say she was born to play. Where Straughn succeeds masterfully is in the visual subtext his scant words betray. His concise prose reveals the agonizing, yet poignant, picture of a traumatized geek trying to survive in a post-apocolyptic water-world of global warming. It is riveting.

Aww shit. Why did I click no? Because I read the first line of the thread and not the actual title. Gah.

Aww shit. Why did I click no? Because I read the first line of the thread and not the actual title. Gah.
The funny thing is i scared myself in the same fashion when reading the poll results, but i clicked as i needed to click.
I doubt anyone other than Fascist Emirates will hold it against you, other than yourself.

I, too, recommend that thread highly. I give it two thumbs up!

I normally dislike prequels, but Straughn's previous thread has piqued my interest. The thread is reminiscent of Corky from "Life Goes On" or even Juliet Lewis' gritty performance in "The Other Sister" - A role some critics say she was born to play. Where Straughn succeeds masterfully is in the visual subtext his scant words betray. His concise prose reveals the agonizing, yet poignant, picture of a traumatized geek trying to survive in a post-apocolyptic water-world of global warming. It is riveting.
You KNOW i'm gonna record this for posterity. As soon as i figure out sigs, this is very likely to make it on there. :D

Could it be, that Global Warming is nothing more than the natural cycle that the earth goes through? I mean we had an ice age a few million years ago. Everything in nature must be balanced, so if there's an up, there must be a down, left, right etc. So if there was an ice age, then there must be a period where the climate is the opposite of the ice age.

Could it be, that Global Warming is nothing more than the natural cycle that the earth goes through? I mean we had an ice age a few million years ago. Everything in nature must be balanced, so if there's an up, there must be a down, left, right etc. So if there was an ice age, then there must be a period where the climate is the opposite of the ice age.
There are natural cycles of climate change. This where confusion comes in and the opposition uses this confusion to combat those who say that climate change is altered by humans. The thing is we can differentiate naturally occurring CO2 from Man-made CO2. Once these two are separated, scientists are able to see exactly how much mankind is contributing to climate change. And it's more than enough to affect us all.

There are natural cycles of climate change. This where confusion comes in and the opposition uses this confusion to combat those who say that climate change is altered by humans. The thing is we can differentiate naturally occurring CO2 from Man-made CO2. Once these two are separated, scientists are able to see exactly how much mankind is contributing to climate change. And it's more than enough to affect us all.

Yea, but if it's going to happen anyways, due to the Climate Cycle, then to try to cut down on pollution would be a moot point. Global Warming is going to happen no matter what, so stop worrying about it, open up a cold one and make love to your partner.

Yea, but if it's going to happen anyways, due to the Climate Cycle, then to try to cut down on pollution would be a moot point. Global Warming is going to happen no matter what, so stop worrying about it, open up a cold one and make love to your partner.
There is a difference between a gradual shift over the next few hundred/thousand years, and one occuring over a couple of centuries.

There is a difference between a gradual shift over the next few hundred/thousand years, and one occuring over a couple of centuries.

You do realize the ice age was a few million years ago right?

centuries = 100 years

You do realize the ice age was a few million years ago right?

centuries = 100 years
The last ice age ended 18000 years ago. We are about due for another IIRC.
I know about the centuries thing, that was innacurate of me. I meant a length of time on the order of thousands of years. ie 1000-9000, and one on the order of hundreds ie 100-900 (though probably towards the lower end of that). My bad.

The last ice age ended 18000 years ago. We are about due for another IIRC.
I know about the centuries thing, that was innacurate of me. I meant a length of time on the order of thousands of years. ie 1000-9000, and one on the order of hundreds ie 100-900 (though probably towards the lower end of that). My bad.

Ok, thousands of years ago. However, we can take the data from what we know now about the climate, and we could determine when the last heat age (the opposite of ice age) was. It's probably another 18,000 years before the ice age.

Ok, thousands of years ago. However, we can take the data from what we know now about the climate, and we could determine when the last heat age (the opposite of ice age) was. It's probably another 18,000 years before the ice age.
You get three stages in glaciation. Warm, interglacial, and glacial. You get warm stages, then alternating glacial/interglacia, then warm again. A quick quote from one of my textbooks:
We now live in an interglacial which started around 10000 years ago, but today temperatures are lower than they were 2000 years ago and we may be heading for another glaciation in about 5000 years time. There are differing estimates on the last bit, but the gist is clear. The point is that the climate does fluctuate, yes, but there is a difference between even a sudden natural shift and a anthropogenic shift. A human generated shift due to increased CO2 levels would be very bad. Not warming, necessarily, but destabilising.

You get three stages in glaciation. Warm, interglacial, and glacial. You get warm stages, then alternating glacial/interglacia, then warm again. A quick quote from one of my textbooks:
There are differing estimates on the last bit, but the gist is clear. The point is that the climate does fluctuate, yes, but there is a difference between even a sudden natural shift and a anthropogenic shift. A human generated shift due to increased CO2 levels would be very bad. Not warming, necessarily, but destabilising.

But wouldn't you agree that nature has a way of recovering from a destabilising?

But wouldn't you agree that nature has a way of recovering from a destabilising?
When *nature* isn't being unduly pressed. :(

When *nature* isn't being unduly pressed. :(
CO2 levels could return to our 'equilibrium' as long as they don't go above a certain level - after that you start to get runaway effects. We are about 20 parts per million away from that critical level, I think. Besides, natures recovering from a destabilising would not necessitate a return to our climate.

CO2 levels could return to our 'equilibrium' as long as they don't go above a certain level - after that you start to get runaway effects. We are about 20 parts per million away from that critical level, I think. Besides, natures recovering from a destabilising would not necessitate a return to our climate.I was being subtle.
Actually, when you have a system in place that isn't being decimated to help the reciprocity/exchange of CO2 ... unfortunately the case is indeed that we're mowing it down.

I was being subtle.
I wasn't.:p

I think the evidence definitely supports the concept of global warming, and generally confirms that human-produced greenhouse gases are accelerating and worsening that process; however, I do not think we are the sole cause behind it but are instead worsening a natural process. Therefore, it's even more urgent that we address the problem because there is nothing we can do to stop it and accelerating it only makes it worse.

India and China have to be brought under control, or else they (China especially) will have and will inflict gigantic environmental disasters on their own nations as well as the planet in general.

global warming is a reality, observable, not be local climate but by radicly altered weather PATERNS, all glaciers being in retreat (40 years ago some were still growing and a majority were more or less holding their own), and 'el nin~o.

it's proximate cause is the combination of human population levels with the use of combustion to generate energy and propell transportation.

and guess what? we DON'T HAVE to!

how severe is the ultimate price of not caring? unknown but probably NONtrivial.

is there a point of no return? probably but unknown
have we already passed it? possibly but unknown

is there anything we can do about it? yes, but it will take a massive effort and the resaults will NOT be immediately appearant.

how? by using noncombusive methods to generate energy and propell transportation. lowering human fertility so that population levels can diminish painlessly would also help and my be essential as well.

and what will be the bennifits of doing so? being able to live in the kind of world we are currently stabbing ourselves in the back out of.

is nuklear energy the answer? there is no one total answer, but nuclear power could contribute in some small way. even to the extent that it can, nuclear isn't an ideal answer, but it may be an unavoidable PART OF 'the' answer.

what about wind solar and hydro? like nuclear no single one of these alone can replace what we are doing that is harmful now, but all of them togather, could meet nearly 80% of current needs, with odds and ends like nuclear, biomass, geothermal, tidal, conservation, et c. et c., making up the remaining defficet.

wind+solar=32%, hydro=41%, 100%-73%=27% (the total to be made up by other means including nuclear, biomass, conservation and so on)

nature will, eventualy of course, give us no other choice anyway. oil and coal WILL run out, oil within a relatively few decades. uranium and transuranics will eventualy run out too.

by then, if we do nothing other then what we've done over the last century untill nature forces us to, earth could conceivably loose it's biosphere and thus its ability to continue to support any life, even our own.

do i think it's a good idea we need to step up replacing the use of combustion for anything other then home heating and cooking? you betcha!

of course i'd also like to live in the world we could and i belive will have, once we do. a world of clean skys and clear rivers, and still tecnologies we can enjoy and be creative with, run by energy collected everywhere instead of primarily in concentrated, corporate controlled locations.

=^^=
.../\...

But wouldn't you agree that nature has a way of recovering from a destabilising?
So we should fuck up nature just as much as we can and then stand around waiting for it to stabilize?

That game doesn't sound fun to me.

I still maintain that global warming was invented by environmentalists and researchers who just want more money.

Climate shifts with time, people. It gets warmer, and it gets colder. It's getting warmer for now, and will then get colder again later.

I still maintain that global warming was invented by environmentalists and researchers who just want more money.

Climate shifts with time, people. It gets warmer, and it gets colder. It's getting warmer for now, and will then get colder again later.
Roleplaying, right, as inferred by your title?
Otherwise this is, at BEST, sarcasm.

I still maintain that global warming was invented by environmentalists and researchers who just want more money.

Climate shifts with time, people. It gets warmer, and it gets colder. It's getting warmer for now, and will then get colder again later.
More money to research a non-existant problem? You're saying they made up a problem just so that they could get money to research a problem which doesn't exist?

More money to research a non-existant problem? You're saying they made up a problem just so that they could get money to research a problem which doesn't exist?

Sure. I've seen people do it for a science fair. You get that together on a larger scale, and it's certainly feasable.

Roleplaying, right, as inferred by your title?
Otherwise this is, at BEST, sarcasm.

Nope, no roleplaying. Nope, no sarcasm. I seriously think that.

Sure. I've seen people do it for a science fair. You get that together on a larger scale, and it's certainly feasable.

Are you talking about a high school science fair?

Nope, no roleplaying. Nope, no sarcasm. I seriously think that.
Perhaps then you are unacquainted with the actual subject matter.
Well, i guess that works for some threads. :rolleyes:

EDIT:But here's one where it won't:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=471807
Maybe you'd care to peruse THE WHOLE THREAD and see if your opinion is the same by the end, feel free to share then. Or, even ask some questions.

Are you talking about a high school science fair?

yeah...but then again the judges never are too bright....

Perhaps then you are unacquainted with the actual subject matter.
Well, i guess that works for some threads. :rolleyes:

Nope, I'm acquainted with it. And I seriously believe that there are:

A) Several who actually believe it and have convincing data.

B) Several who go with A) for the money

C) Several who believe and have data that dismisses the theory and think that both A) and B) are crazy.

yeah...but then again the judges never are too bright....
Dude... you just compared serious scientific research to acne riddled kids making vinegar volcanos.... I can't deal....

Nope, I'm acquainted with it. And I seriously believe that there are:

A) Several who actually believe it and have convincing data.

B) Several who go with A) for the money

C) Several who believe and have data that dismisses the theory and think that both A) and B) are crazy.
I'll try something that I try with everybody... find a C scientist without links to the fuel industry or without hopes of coming up with a best seller (Crichton).

Nope, I'm acquainted with it. And I seriously believe that there are:

A) Several who actually believe it and have convincing data.Of global warming/rapid climate change? Yes, it would probably qualify as MAJORITY, not just several.


B) Several who go with A) for the moneyOkay, who, besides Michael Crichton? :rolleyes:

C) Several who believe and have data that dismisses the theory and think that both A) and B) are crazy.Well, that "several", if you mean the infamous 1700, are the minority in the exact same research of the exact same field, so that should be taken into account. As well, their personal opinions of the others' mental state, thankfully, is irrelevant, seeing as how it's a publish-or-perish environment, and if you don't have the evidence, you get pretty well drummed out by your own merits.

I'll try something that I try with everybody... find a C scientist without links to the fuel industry or without hopes of coming up with a best seller (Crichton).
Hey, hi-5 on Crichton, i was posting as you did. Word.

Hey, hi-5 on Crichton, i was posting as you did. Word.
Word to your mother.

Word to your mother.
She doesn't listen very well ... but my plants do. Word to foliage, yo!

She doesn't listen very well ... but my plants do. Word to foliage, yo!
Shrubbery in the house, Gangsta.

Shrubbery in the house, Gangsta.
Shnizzle.
Ya know, i know they listen, because every time i start talking to them, their fronds change colour to a subtle burnt-umber hue, or the petals contract. They must be absorbing all my essence. *nods*

Shnizzle.
Ya know, i know they listen, because every time i start talking to them, their fronds change colour to a subtle burnt-umber hue, or the petals contract. They must be absorbing all my essence. *nods*

Maybe you just need a breath mint.

Shnizzle.
Ya know, i know they listen, because every time i start talking to them, their fronds change colour to a subtle burnt-umber hue, or the petals contract. They must be absorbing all my essence. *nods*
I don't know if you should ever mention that in public again....

I don't know if you should ever mention that in public again....
Why? :confused:
If i can't be brutally *honest* with a relatively COMPLETE stranger over the internet, who CAN i trust?

Maybe you just need a breath mint.
No, no, i learned that plants are really good at picking up chemical cues, so in anticipation of all my oratories to them i munch a good amount of parsley and leek beforehand, even as i talk to them. That way i don't have to just roll around in the woods before i do it, like i used to.

Why? :confused:
If i can't be brutally *honest* with a relatively COMPLETE stranger over the internet, who CAN i trust?
*don't say, "your plants", don't say, "your plants", don't say, "your plants"*

*don't say, "your plants", don't say, "your plants", don't say, "your plants"*
Well, it's not like i'm intimate with them or anything, i'm not a "weirdo".
I leave that up to Verdigroth.

Well, it's not like i'm intimate with them or anything, i'm not a "weirdo".
I leave that up to Verdigroth.
Somehow that name sounds some what botanically sexual.

Somehow that name sounds some what botanically sexual.
That guy's got some sick fondness for the meat-eaters, like the pitcher plant and the venus fly-trap (oh you should have heard the entendres with those two).
I still can't look at either without shuddering, to this day.

That guy's got some sick fondness for the meat-eaters, like the pitcher plant and the venus fly-trap (oh you should have heard the entendres with those two).
I still can't look at either without shuddering, to this day.
So, uh... yeah... Global Warming... Or Gloabal Warming, for that matter...

So, uh... yeah... Global Warming... Or Gloabal Warming, for that matter...
Yer a good sport. :D
LOL

Yer a good sport. :D
LOL
I try...

I try...
I'm not supposed to ask ... but, hamster blood?

Questions: Since we're due for another ice age, could global warming possibly help us by keeping the climate where it is? How can we really tell what effects these climate changes will have on nature? What is the predicted overall effect of global warming over time?

Questions: Since we're due for another ice age, could global warming possibly help us by keeping the climate where it is? How can we really tell what effects these climate changes will have on nature? What is the predicted overall effect of global warming over time?
Good question, but we're not THAT due. It'll be *severely* painful much sooner than it'll be helpful.
Again, if you have questions, see the thread i mentioned a few posts ago:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=471807

Good question, but we're not THAT due. It'll be *severely* painful much sooner than it'll be helpful.
Again, if you have questions, see the thread i mentioned a few posts ago:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=471807
I only didn't read the thread because I have to go to bed soon (I'm on EST). Maybe I will later so I can become more informed on this topic. Thanks for the concise, effective answer.

I only didn't read the thread because I have to go to bed soon (I'm on EST). Maybe I will later so I can become more informed on this topic. Thanks for the concise, effective answer.
With a little luck, there'll be enough interest still that it won't hit the grave.

I'm not supposed to ask ... but, hamster blood?
Hamsters are the enemy.


Honestly... it's none of your concern.

Hamsters are the enemy.


Honestly... it's none of your concern.
Okay, perhaps i am too empathetic for my own good, at times. Ask my plants.

Okay, perhaps i am too empathetic for my own good, at times. Ask my plants.
It's the little plastic wheels at the center of the whole conspiracy.

Shhhh...

It's the little plastic wheels at the center of the whole conspiracy.

Shhhh...
That is *so* creepy. Obviously alternate energy sources come up when you're researching -whoop, said too much. Sorry.

That is *so* creepy. Obviously alternate energy sources come up when you're researching -whoop, said too much. Sorry.
God... it's time for bed. Glad we cleared up this Global Warming thing, once and for all.

God... it's time for bed. Glad we cleared up this Global Warming thing, once and for all.
And no one will *ever* argue about it again!

1. Overall Global temps seem to be increasing some, but not at an alarming rate
2. CO2 levels are also climbing some
3. The science that connects the increased CO2 level with the rise in temps is tenuous however
4. It is "geologically speaking" time for a bit of natural global warming as we are only about 150-200 years out from the end of the "Little Ice Age"

1. Overall Global temps seem to be increasing some, but not at an alarming rate
2. CO2 levels are also climbing some
3. The science that connects the increased CO2 level with the rise in temps is tenuous however
4. It is "geologically speaking" time for a bit of natural global warming as we are only about 150-200 years out from the end of the "Little Ice Age"
Perhaps you should read the thread i mentioned earlier:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=471807

Perhaps you should read the thread i mentioned earlier:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=471807

I did read it, perhaps you should consider;
1. most of the warming in the past century occurred before 1940, before CO2 emissions could have been a major factor
2. temperatures fell between 1940 and 1970 even as CO2 levels increased
3. temperature readings from reporting stations outside the U.S. are poorly maintained and staffed and probably inaccurate; those in the U.S., which are probably more accurate, show little or no warming trend
4. full professors from MIT, Harvard, Columbia, Duke, Virginia, Colorado, UC Berkeley, and other prestigious schools...the former president of the National Academy of Sciences...will argue that global warming is at best unproven, and at worst pure fantasy
5. temperature sensors on satellites report much less warming in the upper atmosphere (which the theory of global warming predicts should warm first) than is reported by temperature sensors on the ground
6. data from weather balloons agree with the satellites
7. there has been no increase in extreme weather events (e.g., floods, tornadoes, drought) over the past century or in the past 15 years; computer models used to forecast climate change do not predict more extreme weather
8. temperature readings taken by terrestrial reporting stations are rising because they are increasingly surrounded by roads and buildings which hold heat, the "urban heat island" effect
9. methods used to control for this effect fail to reduce temperatures enough to offset it
10. computer simulations are not real-world data and cannot be relied on to produce reliable forecasts

http://www.cfactcampus.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=8&Itemid=29

I did read it, perhaps you should consider;
1. most of the warming in the past century occurred before 1940, before CO2 emissions could have been a major factor
2. temperatures fell between 1940 and 1970 even as CO2 levels increased Hmmm.
3. temperature readings from reporting stations outside the U.S. are poorly maintained and staffed and probably inaccurate; those in the U.S., which are probably more accurate, show little or no warming trend Wrong.

4. full professors from MIT, Harvard, Columbia, Duke, Virginia, Colorado, UC Berkeley, and other prestigious schools...the former president of the National Academy of Sciences...will argue that global warming is at best unproven, and at worst pure fantasy As i said earlier, the "1700" is in the EXACT SAME CONTEXT, the minority.
5. temperature sensors on satellites report much less warming in the upper atmosphere (which the theory of global warming predicts should warm first) than is reported by temperature sensors on the ground
6. data from weather balloons agree with the satellites Uhm try again.
7. there has been no increase in extreme weather events (e.g., floods, tornadoes, drought) over the past century or in the past 15 years; computer models used to forecast climate change do not predict more extreme weather This convinces me you haven't read the thread. It's on the last page. And it's new information.
8. temperature readings taken by terrestrial reporting stations are rising because they are increasingly surrounded by roads and buildings which hold heat, the "urban heat island" effect Try again.
9. methods used to control for this effect fail to reduce temperatures enough to offset itThe urban heat island effect?
10. computer simulations are not real-world data and cannot be relied on to produce reliable forecasts That's not even CLOSE to right.

http://www.cfactcampus.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=8&Itemid=29[/QUOTE]
A little of this is arguable, and most of it is laughable. I'm not convinced you read the thread at all. There are *multiple* sources on that thread, and the one you've provided has ... well, what agenda to it?

Woe unto thee that do not pay heed to the warnings of science, for the burden will eventually be too great to bear if we do not.

I did read it, perhaps you should consider;
1. most of the warming in the past century occurred before 1940, before CO2 emissions could have been a major factor
2. temperatures fell between 1940 and 1970 even as CO2 levels increased
3. temperature readings from reporting stations outside the U.S. are poorly maintained and staffed and probably inaccurate; those in the U.S., which are probably more accurate, show little or no warming trend
4. full professors from MIT, Harvard, Columbia, Duke, Virginia, Colorado, UC Berkeley, and other prestigious schools...the former president of the National Academy of Sciences...will argue that global warming is at best unproven, and at worst pure fantasy
5. temperature sensors on satellites report much less warming in the upper atmosphere (which the theory of global warming predicts should warm first) than is reported by temperature sensors on the ground
6. data from weather balloons agree with the satellites
7. there has been no increase in extreme weather events (e.g., floods, tornadoes, drought) over the past century or in the past 15 years; computer models used to forecast climate change do not predict more extreme weather
8. temperature readings taken by terrestrial reporting stations are rising because they are increasingly surrounded by roads and buildings which hold heat, the "urban heat island" effect
9. methods used to control for this effect fail to reduce temperatures enough to offset it
10. computer simulations are not real-world data and cannot be relied on to produce reliable forecasts

http://www.cfactcampus.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=8&Itemid=29

Wow. You found an organization funded by oil corporations that negate human caused climate change. Good Job!!

The Exxon Mobil Corporation, which has given $257,000 to the organization since 1998 [2]. In 2003, Exxon gave $25,000 specifically to support research on "Climate Change Issues" [3].
The Chevron Corporation: $60,500 between 1994 and 1998 [4].
The DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund: $25,000 in 1997 [5].
The U.S. Council on Energy Awareness, which is funded by nuclear power and uranium companies [6].
The conservative Carthage Foundation ($200,000 in 2002) and Sarah Scaife Foundation ($75,000 in 2001), which are both controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife. The Sarah Scaife Foundation is financed by the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune [7].
http://www.answers.com/topic/committee-for-a-constructive-tomorrow

Not to contest the fact that, because of our rampant polution, the earth is sick, there's evidence that shows that a) earth's temperatures b) greenhouse gas levels have fluctuated alot throughout earth's history in the absence of polution.

Not to contest the fact that, because of our rampant polution, the earth is sick, there's evidence that shows that a) earth's temperatures b) greenhouse gas levels have fluctuated alot throughout earth's history in the absence of polution.
That's true. But it doesn't negate what humans have contributed to global warming.

Somehow that name sounds some what botanically sexual.
Well, in his own words ....

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10605935&postcount=196

Aah, Gartref gave some elucidation to the above horror ...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10605987&postcount=198

And then Verdigroth "High Lord Inquesitor" clarified a little further:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10606014&postcount=201

Proveth or not, fact remains that it isn't smart to pump more CO2 into the air than is necessairy. There has to be a capacity to convert it back into oxygen and carbonhydrates as well.

Currently, the earth is lacking this capacity.

Proveth or not, fact remains that it isn't smart to pump more CO2 into the air than is necessairy. There has to be a capacity to convert it back into oxygen and carbonhydrates as well.

Currently, the earth is lacking this capacity.
Agreed. *bows*

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8850-atmospheric-cosub2sub-accumulating-faster-than-ever.html

Atmospheric CO2 accumulating faster than ever
16:04 15 March 2006
NewScientist.com news service
The greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is accumulating in the Earth’s atmosphere at an ever faster rate, according to new data published this week by the US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The finding has renewed concern that nature’s ability to absorb the gas – which is believed to be warming the atmosphere – may be waning.

NOAA said the average atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 reached 381 parts per million, an increase of 2.6 ppm since 2004. The annual increase, which has been recorded since the 1950s, has now exceeded 2 ppm for three of the past four years – an unprecedented rate. Half a century ago, the annual increase was less than 1 ppm.

The increase is caused by manmade emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, which currently adds up to about 7 billion tonnes of carbon per year. But roughly half of those emissions are absorbed by vegetation and the oceans.


Researchers believe the year-on-year variability in the build-up of the gas is caused largely by fluctuations in nature’s ability to absorb the emissions.

No El Niño
Until recently the biggest increases in air concentrations of carbon dioxide had always occurred during El Niño years, when tropical vegetation grows less and dried-out rainforests burn uncontrollably either through natural or manmade causes. The largest ever recorded increase, at 2.7 ppm, occurred in the El Niño year of 1998.

But none of the past three years of near-record increases have coincided with an El Niño event. And this is causing alarm.

Peter Cox, an expert on interactions between plants and the atmosphere at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Dorset in the UK, says the recent surge “may be the first evidence of a feedback from the carbon cycle, in which plants under heat stress from global warming start to absorb less carbon dioxide”.

The finding follows reports that 2005 was probably the warmest year on record, slightly exceeding the previous record-holder, 1998. And scientists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre, in Boulder, Colorado, report that Arctic sea ice failed to reform fully this winter following the record melting during summer 2005.

Climate Change is an undeniable fact. I don’t think that most people recognize how fragile the factors that support life are. If things are just a bit off then everything starts going straight to hell pretty quick.

The fact that it is now public record that the US government has been editing scientific reports on global warming to suppress it, on behalf of the energy industry lobby, is something this administration should be ashamed of and held accountable for (not of course that the pattern of lying for profit at the expense of public safety is a new thing). Researchers either endure the gag order or they end up resigning because they don’t want to be a part of it.

When you have glaciers, that haven’t been affected in 10 000 years, suddenly start melting away to nothing in a matter of years you have a serious problem with the climate. Other than when affected by a large scale disaster (like a meteor or volcanic eruption) changes to the climate are generally long term. The real shame is that the people who are profiting from the damage they are doing won’t be around to suffer the consequences. Their children and grandchildren will be around, but all that money will probably get them through the worst of it, while the rest of us take it on the chin.

The Bruce

Again, this merits interest:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18549314%255E30417,00.html

Cyclone points to global warming
AAP
March 21, 2006
THE cyclone that devastated parts of far north Queensland is a stark reminder of the worsening impact of climate change, conservationists say.

The Innisfail region, south of Cairns, yesterday bore the brunt of Cyclone Larry's 290 km/h winds, which tore roofs from buildings, uprooted trees, downed powerlines and destroyed banana crops and sugarcane fields.

Queensland Conservation Council co-ordinator Toby Hutcheon said scientists forecast an increase in severe weather events and in the intensity of cyclones, due to climate change.

"This is principally because of rising water temperatures and that creates greater volatility," Mr Hutcheon said.

He acknowledged that cyclones had long caused destruction before concern was sparked by climate change, which scientists continually link to pollution.
However, he warned against disregarding global warming.

"Yes we have always had cyclones, but it comes back to this whole point, they will be more severe than in the past," Mr Hutcheon said.

"They are projected to become more damaging, like this category five one.

"This is based upon research that as temperatures continue to rise, these things will become more volatile – so volatile and we can't even predict what will happen in 20 to 30 years' time."

Mr Hutcheon said serious cyclones were too costly to communities for governments to ignore adequate, environmentally friendly policy aimed at limiting climate change.


---

Global warming isnt real, its just lies by the liberal media to get back at those "evil" oil companys. Look folks the earth goes through cycles, we were in an ice age, now were in a warmer period. Its just nature aint nothing you can do about it or worry about it.

Global warming isnt real, its just lies by the liberal media to get back at those "evil" oil companys. Look folks the earth goes through cycles, we were in an ice age, now were in a warmer period. Its just nature aint nothing you can do about it or worry about it.
You know you have too many words here in your post. You say "blah blah blah conservativetalkingpoint blablah" but for some reason i keep hearing something else ....

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10611096&postcount=89

This might be the first post (about this specific article) of many


March 20, 2006, 11:35PM
Big Oil divided over initiative
California's move on global warming has created a rift

By MARC LIFSHER
Los Angeles Times

SACRAMENTO, CALIF. - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's pledge to fight global warming has opened a rift as wide as the Atlantic Ocean between two groups of oil companies in California.

The governor's high-profile initiative, which sets firm targets to reduce the greenhouse gas pollution that contributes to global warming, is supported by BP, the London-based oil giant whose Arco gasoline is the state's biggest seller, and Royal Dutch Shell of The Hague, Netherlands, owner of the Shell brand.

U.S. companies such as Chevron Corp. of San Ramon, Calif., and Exxon Mobil Corp. of Irving oppose the directive. In private, the Americans, who generally bristle at state intervention in the market, snidely refer to their trans-Atlantic cousins as "the Europeans," who have adapted to a culture back home of stiff government regulation, expensive social-welfare networks and heavy taxes.

The greenhouse gas clash, which is just beginning to build momentum, marks a rare dispute among the large petroleum companies that make millions of dollars a year in political contributions.

The row threatens to weaken the industry's legendary unity in lobbying on air quality rules, gasoline taxes and highway funding.

"Typically the oil companies have banded together," said Bill Magavern, a legislative advocate for the Sierra Club in Sacramento. "But I think we're now seeing the beginning of a fissure that could grow larger. European companies realize that greenhouse gas is something they need to grapple with, while the American companies continue to stick their heads in the sand."

Even Joe Sparano, president of the Western States Petroleum Association and the oil business' point man in Sacramento, concedes that global warming "is a tough issue for our industry" because "folks have different views or don't get to the same place at the same time."

The dispute comes down to whether the actions of an individual state, even one as large as California, can make a significant dent in worldwide emissions of carbon dioxide from refineries, power plants, factories and vehicles.

The foreign-owned companies argue that state action, including mandatory reporting of emissions, could ease global warming despite the absence of meaningful national or international controls.

The American companies counter that actions in California would be futile if uncontrolled pollution continues in China, India and other quickly developing industrial powers.


Carbon dioxide, too
The split in the oil companies' ranks reflects a similar disagreement in the larger business community over Schwarzenegger's plan for cutting carbon dioxide emissions, beginning in 2010.

His long-term goal, laid out in an executive order he signed in June, would slash carbon levels in the atmosphere to 80 percent below 1990 totals in 2050.

"The governor has driven a wedge between members of the business community," said V. John White, director of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technology in Sacramento, adding that it's unclear if he's going to stand up to opposition.

Schwarzenegger already has begun to backpedal from recommendations in a draft report by his administration's Climate Action Team.

The draft, put out for review on Dec. 8, called for a gas tax of less than a penny a gallon to fund research into alternative fuels.

Schwarzenegger's press secretary issued a statement saying the governor would not support any gas tax increase.

The final report, which Schwarzenegger ordered completed by Jan. 1, has been bottled up at the California Environmental Protection Agency for the past 2 1/2 months.

BP and Shell's environmental records are far from pristine. BP suffered a major oil spill earlier this month at its oil fields in the North Slope of Alaska.

Last month, Shell was hit with a $1.5 billion legal judgment in Nigeria for allegedly polluting the oil-rich Niger River Delta.

BP, which advertises that it is going "Beyond Petroleum" in its quest to develop renewable energy, "is putting its money where its mouth is," said Phil Cochrane, a spokesman for BP's U.S. subsidiary. The company is committed to spending $8 billion over the next decade on alternative fuel projects, including a $1 billion hydrogen-fueled electric power plant in Carson, Calif., he said.

'Great reservations'
For their part, the U.S.-based oil companies also are involved in developing alternative energy projects. However, they "have great reservations about a state-only approach," Chevron spokesman Jack Coffey said.

Limits on greenhouse gas here would penalize California companies that are spending millions of dollars on pollution controls and energy efficiency, he said.

Chevron and other U.S. oil companies have been lobbying the Schwarzenegger administration against the global warming initiative as part of a coalition of business groups.

By the way, anybody remember this:

Air Pollution
2000: When running against Al Gore, Bush said he would include carbon dioxide on a list of air pollutants requiring federal oversight. Campaign Web Site: "Governor Bush will work to... establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide."
March 2003: "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act."
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/campaign2004/a/bush_promises.htm

Bush is a dick.

By the way, anybody remember this:

Air Pollution
2000: When running against Al Gore, Bush said he would include carbon dioxide on a list of air pollutants requiring federal oversight. Campaign Web Site: "Governor Bush will work to... establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide."
March 2003: "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act."
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/campaign2004/a/bush_promises.htm

Bush is a dick.
Two ka-POW!s in one day! WooT!
:sniper: