NationStates Jolt Archive

I took the global warming test and did quite well on it. I also learned a lot of facts concerning global warming. Here are my results:

Congratulations. You have completed the test.

8 Correct: Fair, you are on your way

Learning the facts is the best way to understand that global warming is occuring but is not a crisis. It is better to trust scientists than politicans. Do not let fear ruin your day. Learn the Facts.

Take the test here and see how well you do;

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/GWQuiz/Testindex.html

I got 9 of them right :)

Very amusing test.

Telling us that it's not a crisis and then telling us to listen to scientists makes me doubt the accuracy of the test.

the third question is wrong. there is absolutely no correlation to solar output and our current warming trend. none what-so-fucking-ever, at all, in the slightest. fail.

I'm going to have to be a little bit skeptical about a global warming test on a website with "free market solutions" as a headline.

Telling us that it's not a crisis and then telling us to listen to scientists makes me doubt the accuracy of the test.
Oh, doubt not! It's really not that big of a problem. Even if it was, I'm sure Heartland Institute would solve it easily with a clever market-based approach.

Telling us that it's not a crisis and then telling us to listen to scientists makes me doubt the accuracy of the test.

No fucking shit.

I'm going to have to be a little bit skeptical about a global warming test on a website with "free market solutions" as a headline.

You took the words out of my fingertips...

most of the answers that are accurate are also misleading. "hey, co2 was higher in the jurassic, and back before there was any oxygen in the air. no worries!"

I stopped taking this bullshit "test" from the oh, so prestigious "heartland institute" (a conservative, right-wing think tank funded by among others ExxonMobil and the tobacco industry, and has in its board of directors Thomas Walton, an executive of General Motors and Walter F. Buchholtz, an ExxonMobil executive, serves its Government Relations Advisor) when of course the inevitable outright first lie appeared:

"The main cause of the modern warming trend is most likely to be:

Orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the Sun's output "

The stupidity of that site and that anyone would take it seriously are laughable.

Edit: Oh, and its pro-tobacco propaganda is hilarious (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10594)! It really has me in stitches.

anyone who uses any type of tenchology or energy and complains about global warming is a complete hypocrit unless someone lives in like a cabin in the middle of nowhere you really cant complain about what you have helped bring along

anyone who uses any type of tenchology or energy and complains about global warming is a complete hypocrit unless someone lives in like a cabin in the middle of nowhere you really cant complain about what you have helped bring along

nobody is this stupid

the third question is wrong. there is absolutely no correlation to solar output and our current warming trend. none what-so-fucking-ever, at all, in the slightest. fail.

Hell, there's a chance there's actually a negative correlation.

The main cause of the modern warming trend is most likely to be: Orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the Sun's output

I stopped there.

Question: Which answer below provides the best explanation for the following temperature record?

-Industrial pollution from factories, power plants, and cars caused global warming
-Natural variations in global temperatures may occur in roughly 500-years cycles
- Global cooling occurred as a result of the Renaissance Period

Darn Italians, cooling our Earth.:gundge:

After the travesty of this quiz, I feel it is only fair to give thanks to Charles Keeling, the scientist who first looked into the real problem of global warming.
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7120770.stm)
His contribution to real science cannot be discounted.

Darn Italians, cooling our Earth.:gundge:

interestingly, that answer, while wrong, may not be totally off-base. there was a recent study which attributed at least some of the cooling of the little ice age to the black death and the wiping out of so much of the farming cultures of the americas shortly thereafter. the death of so many farming peoples led to the abandonment of large areas of land and the growth of more forests (seen in pollen counts) which absorbed more co2 out of the air. and the black death is often thought to be partly responsible for the renaissance.

Learning the facts is the best way to understand that global warming is occuring but is not a crisis. It is better to trust scientists than politicans. Do not let fear ruin your day. Learn the Facts.


And it's better to trust qualified scientists than a professional engineer with "Expertise in mining and geology".

Don't fool yourself. There were almost no "facts" in this test. I particularly enjoyed the graph of "global" temperatures that looked like it was written on a napkin. Very professional.

Hell, there's a chance there's actually a negative correlation.

global dimming?

interestingly, that answer, while wrong, may not be totally off-base. there was a recent study which attributed at least some of the cooling of the little ice age to the black death and the wiping out of so much of the farming cultures of the americas shortly thereafter. the death of so many farming peoples led to the abandonment of large areas of land and the growth of more forests (seen in pollen counts) which absorbed more co2 out of the air. and the black death is often thought to be partly responsible for the renaissance.

So presumably sufferers of hayfever had it quite bad as well back then? Or at least worse than one might expect things to be when an epidemic is killing one in three people...

interestingly, that answer, while wrong, may not be totally off-base. there was a recent study which attributed at least some of the cooling of the little ice age to the black death and the wiping out of so much of the farming cultures of the americas shortly thereafter. the death of so many farming peoples led to the abandonment of large areas of land and the growth of more forests (seen in pollen counts) which absorbed more co2 out of the air. and the black death is often thought to be partly responsible for the renaissance.

Reminds me of an interesting article Scientific American published in 2005 on how the advent of agriculture had a significant impact on global temperatures (and may be masking an underlying cooling trend).

I know this isn't on the fact of the test validity or not, but did it annoy anyone esle that for each trure or false question they switched the true and false?

ie:

True
False

False
True

True
False

False
True

global dimming?

Might be that. There was a paper I read about a year ago. Dunno where it is now.

doesn't anybody want to step up to defend the test?

Apparently I can accurately predict the ideological position of the "Heartland Institute" with 70% accuracy. Not bad.

A website or quiz produced by actual scientists, rather than a political think-tank with an obvious policy slant ("Free Market Solutions"), would be better. In the "Heartland Institute"'s own words: "It is better to trust scientists than politicans (http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/GWQuiz/Q1.html?questnum=10&cor=325)."

Indeed, it is. Scientists who can spell "politicians" correctly are better still.

What a disappointment, I was hoping the test would ask questions about your lifestyle and then rate how much you contribute to global warming.

the third question is wrong. there is absolutely no correlation to solar output and our current warming trend. none what-so-fucking-ever, at all, in the slightest. fail.

And your PhD is from.....?

10/10 : You know your facts.

I like this quiz.

All you global warming freaks can suck al gore's dick. I'm gonna keep driving around for no reason in my 1987 bronco with a broken tail pipe.

:D

Telling us that it's not a crisis and then telling us to listen to scientists makes me doubt the accuracy of the test.

And, did you notice that most of the "scientists" quoted in the article(s) were scientists that have absolutely no expertise in earth science at all?

the third question is wrong. there is absolutely no correlation to solar output and our current warming trend. none what-so-fucking-ever, at all, in the slightest. fail.

And you have your credentials from.... and you have studied...?

And your PhD is from.....?

will be from michigan state. but you dont need a phd to keep up with basic research.
for example, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7149/full/448008a.html (or http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm if you don't have access to nature)

basically, the net forcing of the sun since 1985 is downward. not only is the sun not largely responsible for the warming, it is actually responsible for less than 0 percent of the warming. and this is not a new finding. there has never been any evidence whatsoever that solar forcing is largely responsible for the modern warming trend.

nobody is this stupid

Oh. :eek: Do you use electricity? Do electric power plants contribute to "global warming?" Do you drive a car? Do the emissions from automobiles contribute to "global warming?" Do you eat processed foods? Does the processing of foods contribute to "global warming?"

No, what the poster said is not "stupid."

doesn't anybody want to step up to defend the test?

In defense not so much of this test as the ideological position behind it, I would like to say that a lot of the propaganda surrounding Global Warming can be briefly summarized as reactionist soap-opera material more due to a natural fear of the modern world then the actual problem at hand:

-"It's all because of technology" -There are lots of technologies that don't use CO2. In fact, in many ways technology conserves CO2 emissions by centralizing, for example, the honing of metals, heating, and cooking, which otherwise have to be done at camp fires.

-"We should use ethanol" - Ethanol produces CO2.

-"It's all because of automobiles" - Automobiles account for less then 25% of greenhouse gases. Still, electric cars are superior mechanically, and no one likes smog.

-"It's because of America." - Increased agricultural productivity has led to North America actually absorbing more CO2 then it produces. This has been done at the chagrin of small farmers.

-"Cutting emissions is the key" - This one's actually partially correct, except that it forgets "we need more open space." One good way to create more open-spaces is to stop giving farmers free taxpayer money, so that farms that produce expensive crops can die, like they should.

-"We need to stop using so much power" - Let the price of power float and you'll pay the REAL cost of your juice.

-"Solar and Wind are the answer" - That's like saying the answer to cars breaking down is owning Rolls Royces. Sounds great on paper - too bad no one can afford one.

doesn't anybody want to step up to defend the test?

Well, so far no one has disproved it so it doesn't need to b defended.

there has never been any evidence whatsoever that solar forcing is largely responsible for the modern warming trend.

WHAT WARMING TREND?

Oh. :eek: Do you use electricity? Do electric power plants contribute to "global warming?" Do you drive a car? Do the emissions from automobiles contribute to "global warming?" Do you eat processed foods? Does the processing of foods contribute to "global warming?"

No, what the poster said is not "stupid."

ok, maybe people can be this stupid. serves me right for giving people the benefit of the doubt.

why should any of that rule someone out from demanding that we fix things? where is the hypocrisy in realizing the error of your society's lifestyle and fighting for social changes to deal with it? since it doesn't actually appear to be necessary to go back to the pleistocene to deal with the problems of global warming (and essentially nobody does demand that we do so), there is no hypocrisy in not. maybe you should look up the term?

In defense not so much of this test as the ideological position behind it, I would like to say that a lot of the propaganda surrounding Global Warming can be briefly summarized as reactionist soap-opera material more due to a natural fear of the modern world then the actual problem at hand:

-"It's all because of technology" -There are lots of technologies that don't use CO2. In fact, in many ways technology conserves CO2 emissions by centralizing, for example, the honing of metals, heating, and cooking, which otherwise have to be done at camp fires.

-"We should use ethanol" - Ethanol produces CO2.

-"It's all because of automobiles" - Automobiles account for less then 25% of greenhouse gases. Still, electric cars are superior mechanically, and no one likes smog.

-"It's because of America." - Increased agricultural productivity has led to North America actually absorbing more CO2 then it produces. This has been done at the chagrin of small farmers.

-"Cutting emissions is the key" - This one's actually partially correct, except that it forgets "we need more open space." One good way to create more open-spaces is to stop giving farmers free taxpayer money, so that farms that produce expensive crops can die, like they should.

-"We need to stop using so much power" - Let the price of power float and you'll pay the REAL cost of your juice.

-"Solar and Wind are the answer" - That's like saying the answer to cars breaking down is owning Rolls Royces. Sounds great on paper - too bad no one can afford one.

You have nailed it. And no one wants nuclear power in their back yard. :(

WHAT WARMING TREND?

wow. just, wow. you are aware that your own piece of shit test, which "no one has disproved" according to you, explicitly says there is a warming trend in its very first fucking question, right? right!?

ok, maybe people can be this stupid. serves me right for giving people the benefit of the doubt.

why should any of that rule someone out from demanding that we fix things? where is the hypocrisy in realizing the error of your society's lifestyle and fighting for social changes to deal with it? since it doesn't actually appear to be necessary to go back to the pleistocene to deal with the problems of global warming (and essentially nobody does demand that we do so), there is no hypocrisy in not. maybe you should look up the term?

So, you want to revert to the dark ages and use oil lamps, horse drawn wagons, and all that good "earth friendly" stuff?

So, you want to revert to the dark ages and use oil lamps, horse drawn wagons, and all that good "earth friendly" stuff?

So, you want to boil human children and eat them?

So, you want to revert to the dark ages and use oil lamps, horse drawn wagons, and all that good "earth friendly" stuff?

um, english is your first language, isn't it?

it is not necessary to go back to the pleistocene to deal with the problems of global warming.

So, you want to boil human children and eat them?

WTF?

WTF?

precisely

I've seldom come across such a heap of bullshit and spin.

WHAT WARMING TREND?

The one you're trying to ignore.

WTF?

"Well, so far no one has disproved it so it doesn't need to b defended."

;)

The one you're trying to ignore.

When I was a kid it was "another Ice Age" is coming. Now that I'm a 64 year old adult it's "Global warming." Damn! I, and the world survived the "Ice Age" that was coming and we will survive the "Global Warming" that is coming.

When I was a kid it was "another Ice Age" is coming. Now that I'm a 64 year old adult it's "Global warming." Damn! I, and the world survived the "Ice Age" that was coming and we will survive the "Global Warming" that is coming.

Hey, and scientisists used to think that the atom was the smallest piece of matter possible. So I guess that protons and electrons don't really exist. They're just a big conspiracy by the evil liberals.

When I was a kid it was "another Ice Age" is coming. Now that I'm a 64 year old adult it's "Global warming." Damn! I, and the world survived the "Ice Age" that was coming and we will survive the "Global Warming" that is coming.64, huh? You sure you want to go to things changed since you were a kid?

Take the Global Warming Test and lower your IQ. Full money-back guarantee.

I haven't seen such ridiculous twaddle since I watched FOX News.

When I was a kid it was "another Ice Age" is coming. Now that I'm a 64 year old adult it's "Global warming." Damn! I, and the world survived the "Ice Age" that was coming and we will survive the "Global Warming" that is coming.

it's ok gramps, let those of us who are still all there do the thinking. matlock is on tv - why don't you go watch that?

Question 3 is incorrect - I've already checked that piece of information and the result was that the answer they provide as true, is actually false.

Carbon dioxide from coal fired power plants do not harm. Sulphur dioxide does. That's wilfully twisting the facts.

None of three answers they provide "Question: Which of the following is not true about an increasing greenhouse effect?" are false.

It's full of shit, to put it simply.

Well, I think the test was poorly written and I didn't like how it stated facts without any evidence to back them up. If they're going to try and change peoples minds about something that so many people strongly believe in (such as global warming) they should at least come up with a reason why we should believe them over what we think we already know. How about some references to where they got all this information from?

Still, I think the message the test was trying to get across shouldn't be completely dismissed. I watched this documentary last summer about global warming which I found very interesting and informative, a lot more credible than anything else I've seen or heard on the matter (thus far), I was looking for the link for the full documentary but they've taken it off google videos and all I can find is this preview of it:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/swindle/

If anyone can find the full version it's well worth watching imo.

Take the global warming test.
We are personally taking "the global warming test" on a daily basis and we are failing. :(

More on the "Heartland Institute (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute)".

The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit organization "to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems". [1] It campaigns on what it calls "junk science", "common-sense environmentalism" (i.e. anti-Kyoto, pro-GM), the privatization of public services, smokers' rights (anti-tobacco tax, denial of problems from passive smoking), the introduction of school vouchers, and the deregulation of health care insurance.
Next!!

Its interesting how passionate people get about this issue. I guess some people really believe that global warming is going to destroy the earth or something. Personally, I don't get why people get belligerent and crazy over this. I've met some recycling nazis but you guys, damn, you're all going to save the world aren't you?

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/swindle/

If anyone can find the full version it's well worth watching imo.

nah, its shit. not even up to date on the current shitty denialist nonsense.

Its interesting how passionate people get about this issue. I guess some people really believe that global warming is going to destroy the earth or something. Personally, I don't get why people get belligerent and crazy over this. I've met some recycling nazis but you guys, damn, you're all going to save the world aren't you?

They've said that the test has flaws, which it has. That's all. The belligerence is just NSGers being NSGers.

Take the Global Warming Test and lower your IQ. Full money-back guarantee.

I haven't seen such ridiculous twaddle since I watched FOX News.

.....you watched FOX?:eek:

I took the global warming test and did quite well on it. I also learned a lot of facts concerning global warming. Here are my results:

8 Correct: Fair, you are on your way


Which ones did you get wrong, if I may ask..?

Well, I think the test was poorly written and I didn't like how it stated facts without any evidence to back them up. If they're going to try and change peoples minds about something that so many people strongly believe in (such as global warming) they should at least come up with a reason why we should believe them over what we think we already know. How about some references to where they got all this information from?

Still, I think the message the test was trying to get across shouldn't be completely dismissed. I watched this documentary last summer about global warming which I found very interesting and informative, a lot more credible than anything else I've seen or heard on the matter (thus far), I was looking for the link for the full documentary but they've taken it off google videos and all I can find is this preview of it:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/swindle/

If anyone can find the full version it's well worth watching imo.

Here's just a couple of the scientific sources debunking that movie:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

http://www.csiro.au/resources/pfxg.html

-"It's all because of technology" -There are lots of technologies that don't use CO2. In fact, in many ways technology conserves CO2 emissions by centralizing, for example, the honing of metals, heating, and cooking, which otherwise have to be done at camp fires.

It all depends on which technologies you are using, and how you deploy them. So the key is appropriate use of technology. We have to keep in mind that technology is a means to an end and not an end in and of itself.


-"We should use ethanol" - Ethanol produces CO2.


So do most sources of energy. The question is how much. Corn-based ethanol is worse than standard fossil fuels. However, there are other forms of ethanol, such as those using certain forms of agricultural waste and prairise grass, which are better.


-"It's all because of automobiles" - Automobiles account for less then 25% of greenhouse gases.

True, but that still makes them a significant contributor. And reductions are going to be required from all significant contributors in order to make the overall necessary reductions.


-"It's because of America." - Increased agricultural productivity has led to North America actually absorbing more CO2 then it produces.

Source?


-"Cutting emissions is the key" - This one's actually partially correct, except that it forgets "we need more open space."

Explain.


-"We need to stop using so much power" - Let the price of power float and you'll pay the REAL cost of your juice. Agreed. Or better yet, use marginal cost pricing, which requires those who consume more to pay the additional marginal costs of producing more power.


-"Solar and Wind are the answer" - That's like saying the answer to cars breaking down is owning Rolls Royces. Sounds great on paper - too bad no one can afford one.

Solar is still expensive but rapidly improving. Wind is becoming cost competitive with fossil fuels (especially once you factor in the real costs of fossil fuels), and it only getting cheaper while fossil fuels get more expensive.

Hooray for misinformation!

I've never been so happy to fail a test.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Acid_rain_woods1.JPG/180px-Acid_rain_woods1.JPG (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Acid_rain_woods1.JPG)

Carbon dioxide doesn't damage forests? Well I guess scientists will just have to figure out a new reason as to why acid rain occurs.

Carbon dioxide doesn't damage forests? Well I guess scientists will just have to figure out a new reason as to why acid rain occurs.

I may be missing some understated message in your post, but carbon dioxide doesn't cause acid rain. Sulphurous and nitrogenous compounds do.

So do most sources of energy. The question is how much.

also, where the co2 comes from.

the co2 emitted by burning ethanol was taken by the plants out of the atmosphere, rather than being extracted from the ground. which means there isn't an increase in co2 in the atmosphere from it. and with efficient ethanol practices (rather than the corn-based joke) you can actually have negative carbon emissions by locking some carbon in the ground each time.

I may be missing some understated message in your post, but carbon dioxide doesn't cause acid rain. Sulphurous and nitrogenous compounds do.Acid rain is rain that is more acidic than normal. Whilst SOx and NOx compounds were the major contributors to acid rain (as they disassociate very strongly in water), this doesn't mean that Carbon Dioxide does not make rain acidic. Indeed you probably well know that CO2 is responsible for the natural acidity of rain. So if the concentration of CO2 in the air is increased then the acidity of rain will increase as well.

And as the site attests CO2 only makes up a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, so you don't need to produce that much CO2 to increase acidity locally.

I didn't even bother. I checked the organization's site first and decided it was a waste of time.

Acid rain is rain that is more acidic than normal. Whilst SOx and NOx compounds were the major contributors to acid rain (as they disassociate very strongly in water),

Not were, are.

this doesn't mean that Carbon Dioxide does not make rain acidic. Indeed you probably well know that CO2 is responsible for the natural acidity of rain. So if the concentration of CO2 in the air is increased then the acidity of rain will increase as well.

And as the site attests CO2 only makes up a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, so you don't need to produce that much CO2 to increase acidity locally.

The effect of carbon dioxide is that it makes rain slightly acidic normally. I have not seen anything to suggest that it is all that significant to the enhanced acidity of acid rain, the main culprits of which are sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. You sure you're not thinking of ocean acidification?

Well, that was a nice bit of lighthearted comic relief.

I'm going to have to be a little bit skeptical about a global warming test on a website with "free market solutions" as a headline.I'm usually skeptical of things funded by the tobacco industry.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Acid_rain_woods1.JPG/180px-Acid_rain_woods1.JPG (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Acid_rain_woods1.JPG)

Carbon dioxide doesn't damage forests? Well I guess scientists will just have to figure out a new reason as to why acid rain occurs.

sulfur dioxide causes acid rain. Carbon dioxide is good for trees.

Acid rain is rain that is more acidic than normal. Whilst SOx and NOx compounds were the major contributors to acid rain (as they disassociate very strongly in water), this doesn't mean that Carbon Dioxide does not make rain acidic. Indeed you probably well know that CO2 is responsible for the natural acidity of rain. So if the concentration of CO2 in the air is increased then the acidity of rain will increase as well.

And as the site attests CO2 only makes up a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, so you don't need to produce that much CO2 to increase acidity locally.CO2 doesn't create that strong of an acid together with water, so while it's contributing to the acidification of unbuffered water bodies and threatens aquatic life, its not likely to impact acid rain nearly as much as SO2 or NOx do.

Albeit the question in the quiz is funny. Of course the CO2 isn't the problem where trees are concerned, it's the sulphur and nitrogen that gets burned up in the process. The test wouldn't stand up to the "whole truth" part of an oath in court.

I can't believe how many of you guys are content not to give this quiz the time of day. Y'all are beyond the point of reckoning or debate, you're fanatical about your belief in global warming. I'm gonna start calling y'all the global warming army.

I can't believe how many of you guys are content not to give this quiz the time of day. Y'all are beyond the point of reckoning or debate

we've pointed out well known and easily checked factual falsehoods and obvious lies of omission in the thing. nobody has done even the basic work needed for the test to recover from that. and for good reason - it is indefensible.

CO2 doesn't create that strong of an acid together with water, so while it's contributing to the acidification of unbuffered water bodies and threatens aquatic life, its not likely to impact acid rain nearly as much as SO2 or NOx do.

Albeit the question in the quiz is funny. Of course the CO2 isn't the problem where trees are concerned, it's the sulphur and nitrogen that gets burned up in the process. The test wouldn't stand up to the "whole truth" part of an oath in court.

I know, if carbon dioxide was somehow forced into our atmosphere in huge amounts, once the water in clouds and the CO2 reach equilibrium with each other, you would have soda water rain, which would be weird but not deadly. But if there was really that much CO2 in our atmosphere, we would already be dead.

I can't believe how many of you guys are content not to give this quiz the time of day. Y'all are beyond the point of reckoning or debate, you're fanatical about your belief in global warming. I'm gonna start calling y'all the global warming army.So are you.

we've pointed out well known and easily checked factual falsehoods and obvious lies of omission in the thing. nobody has done even the basic work needed for the test to recover from that. and for good reason - it is indefensible.

I'm sorry, what? I don't understand you.

can you please define thing and test so I can either argue or agree with you.

"lies of omission"? are you catholic?

I know, if carbon dioxide was somehow forced into our atmosphere in huge amounts, once the water in clouds and the CO2 reach equilibrium with each other, you would have soda water rain, which would be weird but not deadly. But if there was really that much CO2 in our atmosphere, we would already be dead.Deadly is relative. Humans can take a hell of a lot more punishment than fish or mollusks. The current levels are deadly, just not to us.

So are you.

oh come on. I try to give every opinion a chance. What do you wanna talk about. I'm gonna try to be fair.

You know this test is kind of skewed, but why do you think the Heartland institute would try to cover up a real problem? Are they evil capitalists out to screw the world? Come on, lets talk.

Ah, Pat Michaels gets quoted. Their fact-checking leaves much to be desired.

Deadly is relative. Humans can take a hell of a lot more punishment than fish or mollusks. The current levels are deadly, just not to us.

Yeah I suppose it is relative. You know I learned in biology class that some of the the greatest mass extinctions in history were because of too much oxygen in our atmosphere. You know, the Iron revolutions. Are you afraid that O2 levels will build up to deadly levels some day and kill us all?

oh come on. I try to give every opinion a chance. What do you wanna talk about. I'm gonna try to be fair.

You know this test is kind of skewed, but why do you think the Heartland institute would try to cover up a real problem? Are they evil capitalists out to screw the world? Come on, lets talk.That quiz leaves out a lot of important facts, quotes scientists affiliated with TASSC, and misrepresents facts.

They don't consider it a problem, so they're not "covering up" anything in that sense. I think its because they see environmental regulation of business as more harmful than good, even though this simply isn't the case.

Yeah I suppose it is relative. You know I learned in biology class that some of the the greatest mass extinctions in history were because of too much oxygen in our atmosphere. You know, the Iron revolutions. Are you afraid that O2 levels will build up to deadly levels some day and kill us all?The O2 levels? Hardly. We'd probably have starved to death due to the foodweb collapsing before that ever happened :D

The O2 levels? Hardly. We'd probably have starved to death due to the foodweb collapsing before that ever happened :D

Yes, that would probably happen first.

That quiz leaves out a lot of important facts, quotes scientists affiliated with TASSC, and misrepresents facts.

They don't consider it a problem, so they're not "covering up" anything in that sense. I think its because they see environmental regulation of business as more harmful than good, even though this simply isn't the case.

I would agree then that regulating our economy will probably have more negative effects on us than our environment will. What do you think are some critical issues that this quiz fails to mention?

I think its because they see environmental regulation of business as more harmful than good, even though this simply isn't the case.

I don't think this can be repeated enough. Say it again... just to be clear.

I don't think this can be repeated enough. Say it again... just to be clear.

Okay, than. I think its because they see environmental regulation of business as more harmful than good, even though this simply isn't the case.

I'm sorry, what? I don't understand you.

can you please define thing and test so I can either argue or agree with you.

the quiz. the test in the title of the thread. what are you, slow?

"lies of omission"? are you catholic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Types_of_lies

Okay, than. I think its because they see environmental regulation of business as more harmful than good, even though this simply isn't the case.

Not true. See CFC regulation and the effect that had on the businesses involved.

I can't believe how many of you guys are content not to give this quiz the time of day. Y'all are beyond the point of reckoning or debate, you're fanatical about your belief in global warming. I'm gonna start calling y'all the global warming army.

Yeah, we're so fanatical about the facts.

the quiz. what are you, slow?


Okay, for some reason I thought you might be talking abou some GW theory of something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Types_of_lies

I know, I know, its just that catholics like to use that phrase alot.

So the quiz is crippled because it leaves out so many important facts? What about the fact that the sun is getting hotter? Is that not a factor? Is that bullshit?

What about the fact that the sun is getting hotter? Is that not a factor? Is that bullshit?

Well, the whole "it not happening" thing kind of removes its chances of being a factor.

What about the fact that the sun is getting hotter? Is that not a factor? Is that bullshit?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13256618&postcount=32
try to keep up

Not true. See CFC regulation and the effect that had on the businesses involved.

I know, I agree with you. business regulation usaually does more harm than the environment. But you said that that phrase cannot be repeated enough so I repeated it.

I don't think this can be repeated enough.

Agreed.


They don't consider it a problem, so they're not "covering up" anything in that sense. I think its because they see environmental regulation of business as more harmful than good, even though this simply isn't the case.

I know, I agree with you. business regulation usaually does more harm than the environment. But you said that that phrase cannot be repeated enough so I repeated it.

Are we talking to each other? Are you replying to things I said or replying to the invisible monkey that sits on your shoulder and says wicked things into your ear?

I would agree then that regulating our economy will probably have more negative effects on us than our environment will.Of course. The negative impacts come from the businesses. And they're often quite nasty, as in the case with Donora, Ethyl Co., and numerous others.
What do you think are some critical issues that this quiz fails to mention?For one, there is no mention of how big a difference in average temperature of one or two degrees celsius really is. The graph that plots global temperature, for instance, uses two graphs that were developed quite independently from oneanother. The temperature graph is actually more of a climate graph; the source was concerned with rainfall and distribution of climatic belts, not actual temperatures.
Also, the question about CO2 from coal powerplants chooses to avoid the real issue. No one I know really claims that CO2 damages trees in that matter, but burning coal in coal powerplants will damage trees unless the flue gas is scrubbed for SO2 and NOx. This isn't even an issue of economic harm; the scrubbed flue produces raw materials for the plaster industry, making the initial investment into scrubbing technology the only real issue. In the long term, even being forced to use a scrubber is profittable.
The "drastic" is quite funny too (last question). What the scientific consensus proposes will most likely be considered drastic by the average pro-businesser.

You know I learned in biology class that some of the the greatest mass extinctions in history were because of too much oxygen in our atmosphere. You know, the Iron revolutions.

right, life had evolved to live under a particular set of conditions. those conditions were changed and lots of stuff died. this is precisely the problem with anthropogenic climate change (and environmental degradation more generally). and this time, instead of resulting from essentially random factors, it is the product of conscious beings who can understand the consequences of what they do, who can do things differently, and who bear a moral responsibility for their actions.

I know, I agree with you. business regulation usaually does more harm than the environment. But you said that that phrase cannot be repeated enough so I repeated it.

do all of you denialists here not speak english as your first languages?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13256618&postcount=32
try to keep up

So if the sun is not heating up fast enough to account for recent climate change, what is doing it then? And also what has made the earth cool down in the past 100 years? I am referring to the hottest year of the past century, 1932. What made the earth cool down and then heat up again in just a few decades?

Yeah I suppose it is relative. You know I learned in biology class that some of the the greatest mass extinctions in history were because of too much oxygen in our atmosphere. You know, the Iron revolutions.
Not actually true. The greatest mass extinctions in history had nothing to do with oxygen levels.

Not actually true. The greatest mass extinctions in history had nothing to do with oxygen levels.

Don't they not really know what was the cause and therefore don't we not know what... any gas levels had to do with it?

So the quiz is crippled because it leaves out so many important facts? What about the fact that the sun is getting hotter? Is that not a factor? Is that bullshit?As a reliable source of information? Yeah.

Where'd you read that the sun is getting hotter? Sounds like bullshit to me...

So if the sun is not heating up fast enough to account for recent climate change, what is doing it then? And also what has made the earth cool down in the past 100 years? I am referring to the hottest year of the past century, 1932. What made the earth cool down and then heat up again in just a few decades?One year does not a trend make.

Are we talking to each other? Are you replying to things I said or replying to the invisible monkey that sits on your shoulder and says wicked things into your ear?

What?! how do you know about the monkey?

One year does not a trend make.

okay, well there is a trend of warming and cooling in the U.S. we are in the second warming phase of the past century.

What?! how do you know about the monkey?

I eliminated the impossible and what remained, though improbable, led me to the only conclusion I could make.

As a reliable source of information? Yeah.

Where'd you read that the sun is getting hotter? Sounds like bullshit to me...

Thats what I was taught in astronomy class.

okay, well there is a trend of warming and cooling in the U.S. we are in the second warming phase of the past century.

What part of "one year does not a trend make" did you not understand?

Of course. The negative impacts come from the businesses. And they're often quite nasty, as in the case with Donora, Ethyl Co., and numerous others.
For one, there is no mention of how big a difference in average temperature of one or two degrees celsius really is. The graph that plots global temperature, for instance, uses two graphs that were developed quite independently from oneanother. The temperature graph is actually more of a climate graph; the source was concerned with rainfall and distribution of climatic belts, not actual temperatures.
Also, the question about CO2 from coal powerplants chooses to avoid the real issue. No one I know really claims that CO2 damages trees in that matter, but burning coal in coal powerplants will damage trees unless the flue gas is scrubbed for SO2 and NOx. This isn't even an issue of economic harm; the scrubbed flue produces raw materials for the plaster industry, making the initial investment into scrubbing technology the only real issue. In the long term, even being forced to use a scrubber is profittable.
The "drastic" is quite funny too (last question). What the scientific consensus proposes will most likely be considered drastic by the average pro-businesser.

hmm, thats interesting

okay, well there is a trend of warming and cooling in the U.S. we are in the second warming phase of the past century.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?s=hottest+year&submit=Search&qt=&q=&cx=009744842749537478185%3Ahwbuiarvsbo&client=google-coop-np&cof=GALT%3A808080%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A34374A%3BVLC%3AAA8610%3BAH%3Aleft%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3AFFFFFF% 3BALC%3A66AA55%3BLC%3A66AA55%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A66AA55%3BGIMP%3A66AA55%3BFORID%3A11%3B&searchdatabase=site

Don't they not really know what was the cause and therefore don't we not know what... any gas levels had to do with it?

Oxygen levels were fairly constant during the Big Five. The second largest, the K-T extinction, has been pinned down pretty well to falling temperatures, increased glaciation leading to shallower seas, the eruption of a large portion of the Indian subcontinent, and at least one massive asteroid impact. The largest, the Permian extinction, is likely related to desertification. The causes of the other three are unknown, but there is no evidence to suggest oxygen levels are related.

okay, well there is a trend of warming and cooling in the U.S. we are in the second warming phase of the past century.There's the problem with that assessment. It's largely irrelevant to something called global warming when viewed on its own.

.....you watched FOX?:eek:

I haven't watched CNN since I started watching FOX. Guess that's 4 or 5 years now. :)

What part of "one year does not a trend make" did you not understand?

I mean what I said. We are in the second warming phase of the past century.

I haven't watched CNN since I started watching FOX. Guess that's 4 or 5 years now. :)

I'm sorry to hear of your loss.

I haven't watched CNN since I started watching FOX. Guess that's 4 or 5 years now. :)


Well.... that explains a lot. I suggest you, at least, watch both. Although perhaps you might consider abandoning FOX all together, hm?

hmm, thats interestingI study Environmental and Resource Management, meaning I deal with all aspects of Environmental Regulation. It's not nearly as bad as some companies make it out to be, and if you realize how much money they save by postponing regulation, their tactics make perfect sense.

So what do you all think of this article?

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html (http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html)

it says


The Duke physicists also introduce new statistical methods that they assert more accurately describe the atmosphere's delayed response to solar heating.

Well.... that explains a lot. I suggest you, at least, watch both. Although perhaps you might consider abandoning FOX all together, hm?Ugh. I suggest watching news instead.

Although perhaps you might consider abandoning FOX all together, hm?

That wouldn't be "fair and balanced" now, would it. :)

That wouldn't be "fair and balanced" now, would it. :)

It would be preferable to watching FOX.

That wouldn't be "fair and balanced" now, would it. :)It hardly matters where infotainment is concerned, so that won't matter.

How did I know this was going to be an anti-global warming site. Just because there is more water vapor doesn't mean anything CO2 could have a greater effect than water vapor. When will these people learn that nothing gets done until it's too late and it is better to fix what might be a very bad problem and doesn't cost much. These people are in denial because they don't think it could really happen. But it can and will. This site uses just as many tainted graphs as they claim Al Gore uses. Regardless of global warming's existence, we should fix it just in case and it will make the planet better. It can reduce pollution that affects our health. These people say it's perfectly fine to spew chemicals into the air because it doesn't really cause global warming. Whether it does or doesn't, I still don't want to breathe it! Sheesh.

right, life had evolved to live under a particular set of conditions. those conditions were changed and lots of stuff died. this is precisely the problem with anthropogenic climate change (and environmental degradation more generally). and this time, instead of resulting from essentially random factors, it is the product of conscious beings who can understand the consequences of what they do, who can do things differently, and who bear a moral responsibility for their actions.

Yes! that is where we disagree. Humans may be responsible for the .5 degrees Celsius that the Earth has risen in the past 25 years, but its doubtful considering the history of earth and its ability to undergo violent temperature changes on its own. And why is this climate change bad for us? Its not going to kill trees, heck, its not even going to really kill humans either. With something like 95% of the CO2 coming from volcanoes and the ocean, and with clouds being responsible for something close to 90% of the greenhouse gas effect, why would I ever believe that human industry is going to change the temperature of the earth in a meaningful way much less a harmful way?

How did I know this was going to be an anti-global warming site. Just because there is more water vapor doesn't mean anything CO2 could have a greater effect than water vapor. When will these people learn that nothing gets done until it's too late and it is better to fix what might be a very bad problem and doesn't cost much. These people are in denial because they don't think it could really happen. But it can and will. This site uses just as many tainted graphs as they claim Al Gore uses. Regardless of global warming's existence, we should fix it just in case and it will make the planet better. It can reduce pollution that affects our health. These people say it's perfectly fine to spew chemicals into the air because it doesn't really cause global warming. Whether it does or doesn't, I still don't want to breathe it! Sheesh.

Why are you so convinced that this will destroy us all? It seems so benign and natural. The earth heated up less than 1 degree celsius, oh shit! what are we gonna do about it? Where is this concensus that we are controlling the giga joules of free energy about our earth?

But air quality and polution are serious issues, I just don't get this global warming attitude of carbon dioxide apocalypse.

Yes! that is where we disagree. Humans may be responsible for the .5 degrees Celsius that the Earth has risen in the past 25 years, but its doubtful considering the history of earth and its ability to undergo violent temperature changes on its own.If by "violent" you mean "rapid and to a great degree" then you are wrong. Temperatures have changed during the history of the earth, over a long period of time.
And why is this climate change bad for us? Its not going to kill trees, heck, its not even going to really kill humans either.Trees, yes. Many trees are not suited for extreme changes in weather, particularly in temperate areas. Climate change will kill some. Not all, but I'm sure there will be those that will be missed. And no, climate change will not kill humans directly. It's the lack of food that would do that, albeit not everyone.
With something like 95% of the CO2 coming from volcanoes and the ocean, and with clouds being responsible for something close to 90% of the greenhouse gas effect, why would I ever believe that human industry is going to change the temperature of the earth in a meaningful way much less a harmful way?Huh? Oceans aren't exactly CO2 producers, if anything, they're CO2 sinks. And volcanoes hardly contribute.

So what do you all think of this article?

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html (http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html)

it says

I think it shows that not all science is in agreement as to what is causing global warming. It could be the natural cycle of the earth and not all this Al Gore the sky if falling hype.

Let's all sit back, take a deep breath, and let the scientists fight it out. What we need is solid proof, not just theory and neither side has provided that.

Yes! that is where we disagree. Humans may be responsible for the .5 degrees Celsius that the Earth has risen in the past 25 years, but its doubtful considering the history of earth and its ability to undergo violent temperature changes on its own.
Scientists seem to disagree with you.
And why is this climate change bad for us? Its not going to kill trees, heck, its not even going to really kill humans either.
Depends on where you live. In "developed" nations, places close to water maybe affected as will agriculture. However, in third world countries this will be a HUGE probelm
Climate change 'hitting Africa'

Climate change is already affecting people across Africa and will wipe out efforts to tackle poverty there unless urgent action is taken, a report says.

Droughts are getting worse and climate uncertainty is growing, the research from a coalition of UK aid agencies and environmental groups says.

Climate change is an "unprecedented" threat to food security, it says.

It calls for a "climate-proof" model of development and massive emissions cuts to avoid "possibly cataclysmic change".

The report, Up In Smoke 2, updates previous research from the organisations - Oxfam, the New Economics Foundation and the Working Group on Climate Change and Development, an umbrella group of aid and green groups.

It says that although climates across Africa have always been erratic, scientific research and the experience of the contributing groups "indicates new and dangerous extremes".

Arid or semi-arid areas in northern, western, eastern and parts of southern Africa are becoming drier, while equatorial Africa and other parts of southern Africa are getting wetter, the report says.

The continent is, on average, 0.5C warmer than it was 100 years ago, but temperatures have risen much higher in some areas - such as a part of Kenya which has become 3.5C hotter in the past 20 years, the agencies report.

Andrew Simms, from the New Economics Foundation, said: "Global warming is set to make many of the problems which Africa already deals with, much, much worse," he said.

"In the last year alone, 25 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa have faced food crisis.

"Global warming means that that many dry areas are going to get drier and wet areas are going to get wetter. They are going to be caught between the devil of drought and the deep blue seas of floods."

He added that the "great tragedy" was that Africa had played virtually no role in global warming, a problem he said was caused by economic activity of the rich, industrial countries.

Mr Simms said unless climate change was tackled all the "best efforts" to help Africa could come to nothing.

One of the biggest threats is growing climate unpredictability, which makes subsistence farming difficult, the report says.

The average number of food emergencies in Africa per year almost tripled since the mid 1980s, it points out.

But it says that better planning to reduce the risk from disasters, together with developing agricultural practices that can withstand changing climates, have been shown to work and could help mitigate the impact if used be more widely.

'Overwhelming'

Up in Smoke 2 also laments the failure of industrialised governments to help developing countries adapt to climate change.

Between $10bn (£5.2bn) and $40bn is needed annually, the report says, but industrialised countries have given only $43m - a tenth of the amount they have pledged - while rich country fossil fuel subsidies total $73bn a year.

The agencies say that greenhouse emissions cuts of 60% - 90% will ultimately be needed - way beyond the targets set in the Kyoto agreement.

"Climate change is overwhelming the situation in Africa... unless we take genuine steps now to reduce our emissions, people in the developed world will be condemning millions to hunger, starvation and death," said Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth.

The report comes two weeks before a key summit on climate change in Nairobi, where delegates will look at the progress made on the Kyoto agreement that requires industrial nations to cut their emissions by an average of 5.2% from 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012.

Delegates will also consider what system should be adopted when the current period ends.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6092564.stm

With something like 95% of the CO2 coming from volcanoes and the ocean, and with clouds being responsible for something close to 90% of the greenhouse gas effect, why would I ever believe that human industry is going to change the temperature of the earth in a meaningful way much less a harmful way?

Because the Earth is sensitive. The discharge from volcanoes have always been here. Humans haven't. When humans add other substances to the atmosphere the Earth is going to try and establish Equilibrium/homeostasis again and will change. We don't like these changes.

Yes! that is where we disagree. Humans may be responsible for the .5 degrees Celsius that the Earth has risen in the past 25 years, but its doubtful considering the history of earth and its ability to undergo violent temperature changes on its own.

there is no mechanism other than anthropogenic input of gigatons of carbon into the air. nothing else, i repeat, nothing else, explains the data. we've checked.

With something like 95% of the CO2 coming from volcanoes and the ocean

bullshit. source it.

and with clouds being responsible for something close to 90% of the greenhouse gas effect

bullshit. and even when we charitably reinterpret this to mean something closer to true (water vapor, not clouds, for example), you'd still be just babbling. we aren't talking about the entire greenhouse effect which keeps the planet from being a frozen wasteland. we are talking about changes on top of that.

why would I ever believe that human industry is going to change the temperature of the earth in a meaningful way much less a harmful way?

because you'd have to be stupid to do otherwise

we should fix it just in case and it will make the planet better. It can reduce pollution that affects our health....Whether it does or doesn't, I still don't want to breathe it! Sheesh.

Now, someone who finally makes sense. So, how do we get China, India, and third world countries on board? China is one of the biggest polluters on the planet.

I think it shows that not all science is in agreement as to what is causing global warming. It could be the natural cycle of the earth and not all this Al Gore the sky if falling hype. Particularly this part:
The physicists said that their findings indicate that climate models of global warming need to be corrected for the effects of changes in solar activity. However, they emphasized that their findings do not argue against the basic theory that significant global warming is occurring because of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases.

Let's all sit back, take a deep breath, and let the scientists fight it out. What we need is solid proof, not just theory and neither side has provided that.An opinion like that is despicable. You should be ashamed of yourself, fueling the false controversy tactics like that.

Now, someone who finally makes sense. So, how do we get China, India, and third world countries on board? China is one of the biggest polluters on the planet.

We can hope and set an example. Saying "BUT HE'S NOT HELPING" won't help anyone. We can control our own pollution, that should be our first concern as we do emit a lot of it.

Let's all sit back, take a deep breath, and let the scientists fight it out. What we need is solid proof, not just theory and neither side has provided that.

your side has no science to it and hasn't for over a decade and a half. the fight is over as far as the science is concerned. all that's left are working out the details and the particulars. the political fight continues, however, because of eager dupes like you believing obvious lies from scammers.

We can hope and set an example. Saying "BUT HE'S NOT HELPING" won't help anyone. We can control our own pollution, that should be our first concern as we do emit a lot of it.Depends. China is far more polluted than the US, but the US produces more CO2. In fact, the US is the world's biggest producer, at the moment.

Here's just a couple of the scientific sources debunking that movie:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

http://www.csiro.au/resources/pfxg.html

Heh good comeback. Ok, I agree, that documentary was very one sided. I guess I didn't really see that as a big deal when I watched it considering all the other other one sided stories I'd heard on global warming from the media. Still, not great.

I'm not going to take back what I said about it being worth watching though - until I saw it I just blindly accepted all the global warming theories as fact - at least watching the Great Global Warming Swindle made me question the global warming issue. Best to stay open minded about it methinks.

If by "violent" you mean "rapid and to a great degree" then you are wrong. Temperatures have changed during the history of the earth, over a long period of time.


That is something that I don't believe ice core samples can show. Do you really know that the temperature change we are experiencing is unprecedented?

[/QUOTE]


Huh? Oceans aren't exactly CO2 producers, if anything, they're CO2 sinks. And volcanoes hardly contribute.

Oceans are indeed the largest producer and reducer of carbon dioxide on the earth. Volcanoes do not account for much, but they do account for more than human emission do.

anthropogenic

Damn. You makiin this old man work. Thanks, I learned a new word today. If you ain't learning something new every day, you ain't living. YEA! I'm alive. :D

For the unknowing:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
an·thro·po·gen·ic /ˌænθrəpəˈdʒɛnɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[an-thruh-puh-jen-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
caused or produced by humans: anthropogenic air pollution.
[Origin: 1885–90; anthropo- + -genic]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
an·thro·po·gen·ic (ān'thrə-pə-jěn'ĭk) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1. Of or relating to anthropogenesis.
2. Caused by humans: anthropogenic degradation of the environment.

there is no mechanism other than anthropogenic input of gigatons of carbon into the air. nothing else, i repeat, nothing else, explains the data. we've checked.



bullshit. and even when we charitably reinterpret this to mean something closer to true (water vapor, not clouds, for example), you'd still be just babbling. we aren't talking about the entire greenhouse effect which keeps the planet from being a frozen wasteland. we are talking about changes on top of that.


So nothing but carbon dioxide is causing temperature change? Yet there are other things that keep our planet warm. But they aren't causing climate change, only carbon dioxide is and only the carbon dioxide that humans emit through industrial processes.

did I understand that right?

and please don't call me stupid if you want me to change my opinion.

Now, someone who finally makes sense. So, how do we get China, India, and third world countries on board? China is one of the biggest polluters on the planet.

Did you know that by 2009 American cars will not meet China's emissions standards? China could do better but so can we.

Oceans are indeed the largest producer and reducer of carbon dioxide on the earth. Volcanoes do not account for much, but they do account for more than human emission do.

Source?

Here's a hint, you won't be able to get one for the volcano one, so don't even bother looking. Krakatoa itself put less than one thousandth of we do every year, from the last numbers I checked.

Oceans are indeed the largest producer and reducer of carbon dioxide on the earth. Volcanoes do not account for much, but they do account for more than human emission do.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) sink is a carbon reservoir that is increasing in size, and is the opposite of a carbon dioxide "source". -Wiki definition.

Oceans are one of the main natural sinks, they are not sources according to both wiki and by biology text book. Where did you hear that from?

That is something that I don't believe ice core samples can show.

they can for the time we have them for. you see, there is this interesting thing that involves the differential sorting of oxygen isotopes into the atmosphere and the oceans on the basis of temperature. changes in this ratio shows up in the ice cores.

Oceans are indeed the largest producer and reducer of carbon dioxide on the earth. Volcanoes do not account for much, but they do account for more than human emission do.

source?

Carbon dioxide (CO2) sink is a carbon reservoir that is increasing in size, and is the opposite of a carbon dioxide "source". -Wiki definition.

Oceans are one of the main natural sinks, they are not sources according to both wiki and by biology text book. Where did you hear that from?

Ten bucks it's Rush Limbaugh.

Depends. China is far more polluted than the US, but the US produces more CO2. In fact, the US is the world's biggest producer, at the moment.
I said that we should stop polluting, regardless of what other people do, we are is disagreement..... how? Why was I quoted?

That is something that I don't believe ice core samples can show. Do you really know that the temperature change we are experiencing is unprecedented?Do you really know that it isn't? You asserted that this temperature change is similar to those of the past. That kind of dramatic change will show in the fossil record, primarily because animals don't grow thick fur or lose fur overnight.

Oceans are indeed the largest producer and reducer of carbon dioxide on the earth. Volcanoes do not account for much, but they do account for more than human emission do.The current massive increase comes from human contribution and not volcanoes. One can tell by measuring the concentrations of different carbon isotopes in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Oceans, if anything, are a net sink. Their production of CO2 is largely irrelevant in determining the atmospheric content unless you take their reduction into acount, in which case it is negative.

Oceans are indeed the largest producer and reducer of carbon dioxide on the earth. Volcanoes do not account for much, but they do account for more than human emission do.


It's true that natural fluxes in the carbon cycle are much larger than anthropogenic emissions. But for roughly the last 10,000 years, until the industrial revolution, every gigatonne of carbon going into the atmosphere was balanced by one coming out.

What humans have done is alter one side of this cycle. We put approximately 6 gigatonnes of carbon into the air but, unlike nature, we are not taking any out.

Thankfully, nature is compensating in part for our emissions, because only about half the CO2 we emit stays in the air. Nevertheless, since we began burning fossil fuels in earnest over 150 years ago, the atmospheric concentration that was relatively stable for the previous several thousand years has now risen by over 35%.

So whatever the total amounts going in and out "naturally," humans have clearly upset the balance and significantly altered an important part of the climate system.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/233610/33

I said that we should stop polluting, regardless of what other people do, we are is disagreement..... how? Why was I quoted?Disagreement insofar as you're muddling pollution in general and CO2 production. They are seperate issues and both deserve to be addressed accordingly. Not doing so may cause confusion. ;)

Ten bucks it's Rush Limbaugh.

did anyone ever figure out if he got the ridiculous volcano thing from somebody else or just made it up himself back in '91 or whenever?

Source?

Here's a hint, you won't be able to get one for the volcano one, so don't even bother looking. Krakatoa itself put less than one thousandth of we do every year, from the last numbers I checked.Indeed. If anything, volcanoes produce cooling effects due to the sulphur oxides emitted to the atmosphere.

An opinion like that is despicable. You should be ashamed of yourself, fueling the false controversy tactics like that.

Lack of proof by either side in a scientific debate is "false controversy tactics?" I thought real science was about developing a theory then gathering the evidence to prove your theory is true or not true. Neither side in this debate has been able to do that.

To make matters worse, you have the ultra liberal, the sky is falling, left wing radicals like Al Gore frightening people into believing that there is actually scientific proof for their theory.

The bottom line is should we do something about the theory that there is global warming that could be caused by humans? The answer is yes, we should. We can and should become more environmentally friendly. However, we should ask the whole world to do something to help, not just the industrial world. And Al Gore (what is his carbon footprint?) should stop trying to scare people into believing that the "world will end tomorrow if you don't."

Oceans, if anything, are a net sink.

though last i heard, there is starting to be some evidence that the sink is getting full

Lack of proof by either side in a scientific debate is "false controversy tactics?" I thought real science was about developing a theory then gathering the evidence to prove your theory is true or not true. Neither side in this debate has been able to do that.

To make matters worse, you have the ultra liberal, the sky is falling, left wing radicals like Al Gore frightening people into believing that there is actually scientific proof for their theory.

The bottom line is should we do something about the theory that there is global warming that could be caused by humans? The answer is yes, we should. We can and should become more environmentally friendly. However, we should ask the whole world to do something to help, not just the industrial world. And Al Gore (what is his carbon footprint?) should stop trying to scare people into believing that the "world will end tomorrow if you don't."

I like how you don't have any understanding whatsoever of how science operates.

Lack of proof by either side in a scientific debate is "false controversy tactics?"No. Hacking at scientific proof with the rationale "not all science is in" is a very, very common tactic used by businesses. It's people like you that make it possible and its disgusting.

This isn't just about global warming, it gets used every time someone points out that lead poisoning is bad for you or that you get skin cancer and cataracts from increased UV radiation or that smoking causes lung cancer. EVERY FRIGGIN TIME.

Lack of proof by either side in a scientific debate is "false controversy tactics?" I thought real science was about developing a theory then gathering the evidence to prove your theory is true or not true. Neither side in this debate has been able to do that.

To make matters worse, you have the ultra liberal, the sky is falling, left wing radicals like Al Gore frightening people into believing that there is actually scientific proof for their theory.

The bottom line is should we do something about the theory that there is global warming that could be caused by humans? The answer is yes, we should. We can and should become more environmentally friendly. However, we should ask the whole world to do something to help, not just the industrial world. And Al Gore (what is his carbon footprint?) should stop trying to scare people into believing that the "world will end tomorrow if you don't."
You gave me an excellent idea to use against my wife. The next time she asks me to mow the grass, I'll check and see if the neighbors have mowed theirs. If they hadn't - it's a day of video games for me! Excellent.

did anyone ever figure out if he got the ridiculous volcano thing from somebody else or just made it up himself back in '91 or whenever?

To my knowledge it's never been traced further back than him. So it was either something he or one of his writers pulled out of his ass.

though last i heard, there is starting to be some evidence that the sink is getting full
Hard to tell. Ocean pH is still dropping, so they're probably still taking up CO2.

Source?

Here's a hint, you won't be able to get one for the volcano one, so don't even bother looking. Krakatoa itself put less than one thousandth of we do every year, from the last numbers I checked.


my sources:

link (http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/2006/03/stop-the-volcanoes-before-they-destroy-us-all.html)
linkhttp://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html

Did you know that by 2009 American cars will not meet China's emissions standards?

Why do I doubt that?

[/QUOTE]China could do better but so can we.[/QUOTE]

Yes, we could.

my sources:

link (http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/2006/03/stop-the-volcanoes-before-they-destroy-us-all.html)
linkhttp://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html

As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass cycling maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about 2.2X10^15 kg. Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a (net) 17.6X10^12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69X10^15 kg of CO2. Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from man-made sources. For more detail, see Morse and Mackenzie, 1990, Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates.

I love it when someone destroys themselves with their own sources.

To my knowledge it's never been traced further back than him. So it was either something he or one of his writers pulled out of his ass.

that reminds me - one of the things i've always found amusing about arguing with creationists and their intellectual allies is that we wind up knowing their claims better than they do.

Lack of proof by either side in a scientific debate is "false controversy tactics?" I thought real science was about developing a theory then gathering the evidence to prove your theory is true or not true. Neither side in this debate has been able to do that.

To make matters worse, you have the ultra liberal, the sky is falling, left wing radicals like Al Gore frightening people into believing that there is actually scientific proof for their theory.

http://www.realclimate.org/

The bottom line is should we do something about the theory that there is global warming that could be caused by humans? The answer is yes, we should. We can and should become more environmentally friendly.
Good boy.
However, we should ask the whole world to do something to help, not just the industrial world.

But we're the ones causing the problem. For example, why would Chad, who produces 125 tonnes of CO2 a year, have to do something when the USA produces 6,049,435 tonnes? They really can't reduce that by much.
And Al Gore (what is his carbon footprint?) should stop trying to scare people into believing that the "world will end tomorrow if you don't."

Move on past Al Gore, listen to scientists if you don't like him, why does he even matter?

Why do I doubt that?


Because you watch FOX news?

my sources:

link (http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/2006/03/stop-the-volcanoes-before-they-destroy-us-all.html)
linkhttp://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html

Ouch:
Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from man-made sources

Do you really know that it isn't? You asserted that this temperature change is similar to those of the past. That kind of dramatic change will show in the fossil record, primarily because animals don't grow thick fur or lose fur overnight.

Yes thats it, I am willing to say that I do not know.


The current massive increase comes from human contribution and not volcanoes. One can tell by measuring the concentrations of different carbon isotopes in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Oceans, if anything, are a net sink. Their production of CO2 is largely irrelevant in determining the atmospheric content unless you take their reduction into acount, in which case it is negative.

that part about the oceans is true. /they are a net sink. But since the earth gets warmer and colder on its own, which it has done a lot in the past centuries (medevil warm period anyone?) why do you point the finger at human emissions?

Indeed. If anything, volcanoes produce cooling effects due to the sulphur oxides emitted to the atmosphere.

Yeah I've heard that too. perhaps a decrease in volcanic activity could cause global warming?

No. Hacking at scientific proof with the rationale "not all science is in" is a very, very common tactic used by businesses. It's people like you that make it possible and its disgusting.

Well, isn't that exactly what the other side of the debate is doing? Or, are the ignoring the science that could disprove their theories?

But since the earth gets warmer and colder on its own, which it has done a lot in the past centuries (medevil warm period anyone?) why do you point the finger at human emissions?

Because it happens way more slowly? Also, the Medieval Warm Period was limited to western Europe and parts of the eastern seaboard of North America. In other words, it was a localized warming.

Now, someone who finally makes sense. So, how do we get China, India, and third world countries on board? China is one of the biggest polluters on the planet.

"They're not doing it, so we won't either" is childish. How does the fact that China isn't doing shit about CO2 and other pollutants excuse the fact that we aren't?

But since the earth gets warmer and colder on its own, which it has done a lot in the past centuries (medevil warm period anyone?) why do you point the finger at human emissions?

because
that
is
the
factor
that
has
changed.

there
are
no
other
factors
that
explain
the
data.

also, you may want to go look up the medieval warm period in order to not get your ass handed to you on the subject. cause we know all about it, and i think you don't.

Well, isn't that exactly what the other side of the debate is doing? Or, are the ignoring the science that could disprove their theories?

Well, point out the science that's been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that has not been later taken apart and we'll talk. Until then, you've got nothing.

Yes thats it, I am willing to say that I do not know.And I'm not willing to risk my climate on your ignorance.




that part about the oceans is true. /they are a net sink. But since the earth gets warmer and colder on its own, which it has done a lot in the past centuries (medevil warm period anyone?) why do you point the finger at human emissions?You mean the medieval warming period in Europe?

Ouch:

Yeah, I pointed that out. It was a priceless moment.

You gave me an excellent idea to use against my wife. The next time she asks me to mow the grass, I'll check and see if the neighbors have mowed theirs. If they hadn't - it's a day of video games for me! Excellent.

I have no idea how that has anything to do with what I said, but...hey...if it works. :D You could also tell her it is more eco friendly to have longer grass as it absorbs more CO2. :D

Well, isn't that exactly what the other side of the debate is doing? Or, are the ignoring the science that could disprove their theories?Sometimes. Businesses and their affiliated scientists are by far more prone to such behavior.

that reminds me - one of the things i've always found amusing about arguing with creationists and their intellectual allies is that we wind up knowing their claims better than they do.

That reminds me of the time in an older EvC thread where I actually had to explain to a creationist what the argument he was trying to use was.

I also took it apart in the same post, but the former is the part I remember because it was just so cute.

I love it when someone destroys themselves with their own sources.

I know, I read that too. ohh, its true, volcanoes don't produce nearly as much CO2 as we do. Kind of a minor point though. I still have my pride, oh wait..

And I'm not willing to risk my climate on your ignorance.

Well I'm not willing to risk my economy on yours.

You mean the medieval warming period in Europe?

yes

"They're not doing it, so we won't either" is childish. How does the fact that China isn't doing shit about CO2 and other pollutants excuse the fact that we aren't?

Beijing to introduce tougher auto emission standards next year

BEIJING, Nov. 4 (APP) -- Beijing will introduce tougher auto emission standards at the beginning of next year, as air pollution has become a major concern for the city in the preparation for the 2008 Olympic Games.

It is expected the new standards will reduce the amount of sulphur dioxide pumped out onto the streets of the nation’s capital by automobile exhausts by 1,840 tons every year, said an official with the Beijing environment protection Bureau, Feng Yuqiao.

Automobile distributors in Beijing are preparing for the new China IV standards that are equivalent to the Euro IV standards in the European Union, the official added.

“All the gas stations in Beijing will provide gasoline and diesel that meet the requirements of the new standards starting from Jan. 1,” the official media quoted Feng as saying.

The current China III standards, equivalent to the Euro III standards, have reduced sulphur dioxide emissions from automobile exhausts by 2,480 tons annually since it was enforced at the end of 2005, according to the official.

Officials believe it’s not enough. “Air pollution caused by automobile exhaust is still serious,” Feng said.

To reduce pollutants in emission, some buses in Beijing have already used fuel that meets the China IV standards.

http://www.app.com.pk/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20145&Itemid=2

It all depends on which technologies you are using, and how you deploy them. So the key is appropriate use of technology. We have to keep in mind that technology is a means to an end and not an end in and of itself.

So do most sources of energy. The question is how much. Corn-based ethanol is worse than standard fossil fuels. However, there are other forms of ethanol, such as those using certain forms of agricultural waste and prairise grass, which are better.

Nuclear Power, Geothermal Power, Hydroelectric Power, and (theoretically) Fusion Power, should we ever get it working, generate no CO2. And I'm sure there are other sources we have not considered yet.

Nuclear does generate water vapor, but Le Chateliers Principle (look it up on the internet, it's a very basic tenet of chemistry so yes this will improve your grades) tells us that any change to the equilibrium of the system will be countered by a movement against the addition, so what Water Vapor is placed in the air will correspond to recondensation of Water Vapor OUT of the system, though whether there would be any remainder I'm not sure.

True, but that still makes them a significant contributor. And reductions are going to be required from all significant contributors in order to make the overall necessary reductions.

I absolutely agree with you, which is why I support EV's. They're better for the environment AND have a longer service life, plus the potential of better performance on the road (Electricity was once used to power Locomotives). Still, Coal is responsible, according to http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html, for around 37% of emissions, slightly more if you include the emissions of methane and petroleum based emissions resulting from the Coal Extraction.

Source?

Ah yes, sorry about not including a source.

http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/trends/farmnumbers.htm

Surf the other publications as well. It's interesting. Also look at this:

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Farms_and_Land_in_Farms/fncht4.asp

Then there's:

http://www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/documents/Demographics_complete_file.pdf

"By contrast, population losses were common on the Great
Plains, where the agricultural economy is employing few workers
because of productivity gains, population density is low, natural
decrease is common and young adults have been leaving in
large numbers for generations" (3)

Explain.

Open Spaces with Forests growing can absorb the CO2 and turn it back in to Oxygen. Supporters of Ethanol claim that this is why Ethanol should be used, as Open lands (farms) are needed to create the Ethanol in the first place. However, the trouble with this assertion is that the land that will be used for these farms is already doing exactly that, and further, turning wide open forest land in to farmland (as is exactly what would be done) would create a host of other environmental issues, perhaps more serious ones, and generate additional CO2 through the use of farm machinery.

Agreed. Or better yet, use marginal cost pricing, which requires those who consume more to pay the additional marginal costs of producing more power.

The only trouble with marginal pricing is the cost of the beaureacracy behind it, and the chance for someone pulling the strings in that beaureacracy to manipulate things for some kind of demented self-benefit. I think simply charging the real price of the electricity would do the trick.

Besides, if they're creating that much more wealth by using the extra power that they can pay for it, why not let them keep at it. If they're, oh let's say, producing Aluminum so we don't have to make Titanium alloys for airplanes, or recycling Steel so we don't have to dig more Iron out of the ground, and they can pay the fair market price because it really is their primary cost, why not?

Solar is still expensive but rapidly improving. Wind is becoming cost competitive with fossil fuels (especially once you factor in the real costs of fossil fuels), and it only getting cheaper while fossil fuels get more expensive.

The trouble with Wind is that it doesn't always blow, and storage would be a bear economically. Solar's productivity would have to improve more then you could believe before it would be even close to economical, as it has a storage issue. Still, there would be one proposition with Solar that might make sense in small amounts: check out a business called Nanosolar that's apparently trying to develop a pavement for roads that also works as a solar panel. See, that way, you'd be paying for three things at once (You would need power line running through it), and so long as it's not TOO much more expensive then Fossil Fuels, it might be economical in some amount, though only as much as we have roads. Likewise, if you use Wind in small enough quanitites that the lights won't totally go out when the wind stops blowing, it might be feasible as then you wouldn't need storage.

Overall though, I think the future belongs to Nuclear, Geothermal, and maybe Fusion if they can get it to work. And thank you for the intelligent discussion.

because
that
is
the
factor
that
has
changed.

there
are
no
other
factors
that
explain
the
data.

also, you may want to go look up the medieval warm period in order to not get your ass handed to you on the subject. cause we know all about it, and i think you don't.

Oh shit, yeah I better.

So then you believe that the greenhouse gas effect involving carbon dioxide is causing warming? Is that right? are there any other ways that CO2 could warm the earth?

Well I'm not willing to risk my economy on yours.Meh. Stricter regulation will not hurt the economy, it will hurt bad businesses. The economy as a whole will be better off.

yes
You're aware the issue at hand is "global" and not "regional" warming, no?

Oh shit, yeah I better.

So then you believe that the greenhouse gas effect involving carbon dioxide is causing warming? Is that right? are there any other ways that CO2 could warm the earth?
...would it matter it would still be warming the Earth. And yes, it is fairly established that the Greenhouse Affect is causing Climate Change.

Nuclear Power, Geothermal Power, Hydroelectric Power, and (theoretically) Fusion Power, should we ever get it working, generate no CO2. And I'm sure there are other sources we have not considered yet.

Unless there's a gigantic flaw that the scientists have been missing, we'll have the first fully functional fusion reactor around 2050.

I wish people would just forget all the hair-splitting pedantry over what is causing our climate to change. Seriously, it doesn't matter.

Has Earth's climate changed in the past? Of course it has. It's a dynamic system that has been changing in one way or another since it our planet was first massive enough to hold onto an atmosphere.

Are there long-term shifts in global temperature that might provide a part-answer to why the temperature is changing today? As with point 1, yes, of course there are.

Do I think that human activities contribute to the change? Absolutely. Solely looking at CO2, if we accept that it acts as a greenhouse gas - and I have yet to see any credible source say that it doesn't - and we accept that industry produces a net increase in CO2, then it makes no sense at all to deny that mankind is contributing to it.

Do I think that anthropogenic effects cause the majority of it? I'm not convinced. There are, as people continually point out, periodic volcanic emissions that also dump massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere - but, although there doesn't seem to be any consensus on how these emissions compare to those of industrial society, they are also just part of the situation. Besides, they're one of those factors that we really don't have a great deal of control over.

However, the bottom line is that it really, really doesn't matter. No matter what the causes, and no matter how the denialists try to slice it up or attribute said causes to various (natural) phenomena the stark fact remains that the climate is changing. Not only that, there will be a 'tipping point' - that's how transitional systems work, after all - beyond which there will be nothing at all we can do.

Earth has been on the go for billions of years. We (as in post hunter-gatherer society) have occupied a tiny slice of that time, taking full advantage of the amenable conditions since the end of the last Ice Age some 11,000 years ago to reproduce in huge numbers and colonise most of the surface. If the permafrost melts, and the currently-frozen methane trapped therein is released, industrial emissions of CO2 will be the least of our worries. When another Toba-scale volcanic eruption occurs - and it will - and we find ourselves in the midst of a volcanic winter, industrial society's CO2 effluent will be irrelevant.

Make no mistake about it. Whether it's climate change brought about by man or by natural events the climate will continue to change and, as creatures evolved to live in a certain type of climate, we will suffer when it does. Rather than quibbling over why things are changing we should be deploying our much-vaunted technological capabilities towards balancing it out and looking for ways that we can adapt our lifestyles.

Of course we should be looking to adjust our systems to reduce any negative environmental impact since to do anything else would be criminally stupid, but it should be recognised by all that this issue is not some political football to be tossed around in the search for votes. That kind of short-term thinking is only going to land us, as a species, well and truly in the shit.

Do I think that anthropogenic effects cause the majority of it? I'm not convinced. There are, as people continually point out, periodic volcanic emissions that also dump massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere - but, although there doesn't seem to be any consensus on how these emissions compare to those of industrial society, they are also just part of the situation. Besides, they're one of those factors that we really don't have a great deal of control over.


Check back in the thread. We do know how much volcanoes emit compared to us. It's only a tiny fraction. Just because people claim we don't know doesn't mean that we don't know.

Originally Posted by Free Soviets:

because
that
is
the
factor
that
has
changed.

there
are
no
other
factors
that
explain
the
data.

:cool:

Other things have changed in the past 200 years. Amount of Pavement. Type of Pavement. Type of Building. Number of People. Cremation becoming Popular. Batteries. New Methods for producing things using lasers, electric arcs, and other high-heat devices...

This said, I currently think the Greenhouse Effect is the most likely theory. But that doesn't mean it's the only theory...

Oh shit, yeah I better.



Here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

Check back in the thread. We do know how much volcanoes emit compared to us. It's only a tiny fraction. Just because people claim we don't know doesn't mean that we don't know.
For what it's worth, I never did subscribe to the whole "meh, volcanoes do that every year" type, head-in-sand point of view. I've seen claims for both sides of the volcano "debate" and those who claimed that they were so productive in CO2 terms that we were irrelevant by comparison were never convincing anyway.

Oh, and I've read the thread, which is why I was careful to state that they present only a part of the problem - a part that I find easy to dismiss because, let's face it, we currently have no chance whatsoever of preventing an eruption... when the Earth's gotta go, it's gotta go :p

Well I'm not willing to risk my economy on yours.

And what makes your pathetic failing economy worth more than an entire climate?

OK so this is part of my problem with the greenhouse thoery:

From an unpublished manuscript that one of my professors showed me entitled:

Falsification of the Atmospheric greenhouse within the framework of physics

by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralph Tscheushner,

It says "the insulating effect of the atmosphere cannot be ignored even in the total absence of green house gasses." referring to winds and convection currents.

"There is near equality between solar energy striking the earth and Infrared radiation leaving the earth when averaged over a year."

The paper goes on to say that green house gases actually block more of the sun's heat than they trap. The truth is, the more I dive into the science of global warming, the more I begin to believe that there are too many things that we do not understand. While you can say the carbon dioxide is warming the earth, how do you even begin to accurately prove or predict that. While you all like to remind me that so many scientists approve of the global warming theory, I know plenty that do not. Namely, the 7 head professors in my chemistry department.

OK so this is part of my problem with the greenhouse thoery:

From an unpublished manuscript that one of my professors showed me entitled:

Falsification of the Atmospheric greenhouse within the framework of physics

by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralph Tscheushner,

It says "the insulating effect of the atmosphere cannot be ignored even in the total absence of green house gasses." referring to winds and convection currents.

"There is near equality between solar energy striking the earth and Infrared radiation leaving the earth when averaged over a year."

The paper goes on to say that green house gases actually block more of the sun's heat than they trap. The truth is, the more I dive into the science of global warming, the more I begin to believe that there are too many things that we do not understand. While you can say the carbon dioxide is warming the earth, how do you even begin to accurately prove or predict that. While you all like to remind me that so many scientists approve of the global warming theory, I know plenty that do not. Namely, the 7 head professors in my chemistry department.

Falsification of the Atmospheric greenhouse within the framework of physics (http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/october_2007/summary_of_gerhard_gerlich_criticism_greenhouse_ef.htm)
.

And what makes your pathetic failing economy worth more than an entire climate?

Thats what I'm talking about. Why do you believe that global warming is going to destroy the environment? There is so much propaganda out there that tells us that climate change will be the end of humanity as we know it. I will admit, I would rather have cheap energy than a planet that is a fraction of a degree cooler.

OK so this is part of my problem with the greenhouse thoery:

From an unpublished manuscript that one of my professors showed me entitled:

Falsification of the Atmospheric greenhouse within the framework of physics

by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralph Tscheushner,

It says "the insulating effect of the atmosphere cannot be ignored even in the total absence of green house gasses." referring to winds and convection currents.

"There is near equality between solar energy striking the earth and Infrared radiation leaving the earth when averaged over a year."

The paper goes on to say that green house gases actually block more of the sun's heat than they trap. The truth is, the more I dive into the science of global warming, the more I begin to believe that there are too many things that we do not understand. While you can say the carbon dioxide is warming the earth, how do you even begin to accurately prove or predict that. While you all like to remind me that so many scientists approve of the global warming theory, I know plenty that do not. Namely, the 7 head professors in my chemistry department.

And chemistry has what to do with climatology?

And chemistry has what to do with climatology?

Oh my God!? are you serious. I swear I am about to jump out a window.:headbang:

Oh my God!? are you serious. I swear I am about to jump out a window.:headbang:

The proper answer was "a fuck-ton less than actual climatology". In other words, there no reason why I should trust someone who is speaking about something not in their area of expertise.

From an unpublished manuscript that one of my professors showed me entitled:

Falsification of the Atmospheric greenhouse within the framework of physics

by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralph Tscheushner,


In other words, it's entirely worthless until it has passed peer review.

.

Yes that completely goes along with my point. With so many variables and unknowns, the green house effect remains unproven at best.

That papers actually very interesting, thanks Soyut. We don't really have anything to compare to, and I'm about to log out for the evening to go to an Advent Service, but if anyone else would like to we might start looking in to the actual Global Warming research and seeing if the claims this guy makes about the supposedly unphysical, unmathematical nature of this research are accurate, and if so, what else could it be?

My money's on asphalt. It's produced from oil, so if the oil's not causing the rise in the atmospheric temperature, maybe something proliferated by the oil is...

EDIT: I know the rest of you don't consider this all that important, but you could have a situation where there was some bad assumption that the climatologists did not look at or did not know how to look at, and yes, Physics and Chemistry has to do with EVERYTHING, and that would also explain why this man is being blackballed, as they want to cover up their mistakes so their research funding doesn't get cut. So while I'm not saying this guy is correct, he could be, and he might not get a chance for peer review because what he is attacking is such a mainstay of the Climatology science.

Yes that completely goes along with my point. With so many variables and unknowns, the green house effect remains unproven at best.I thought it was your point.

The proper answer was "a fuck-ton less than actual climatology". In other words, there no reason why I should trust someone who is speaking about something not in their area of expertise.

I can't beleive you said that. Do you really think chemists don't know anything about climatology? heat capacity of gases, energy radiation? What do you think climatology is? some kind of black art that is above a chemist's understanding? The whole green house theory is based on basic principles of chemistry! That is the first thing I have heard today that genuinely frustrates me.

Thats what I'm talking about. Why do you believe that global warming is going to destroy the environment? There is so much propaganda out there that tells us that climate change will be the end of humanity as we know it. I will admit, I would rather have cheap energy than a planet that is a fraction of a degree cooler.

Who said anything about destroying the environment and all of humanity? Climate change will drastically alter the earth and wipe out millions of species. Obviously some will survive, but the ecological ramifications will mean that entire ecosystems will vanish and agriculture will need to be adapted several times over to keep up. That's a heck of a lot more important than your economy (which is already in the dumps).

Oh, and a fraction of a degree? That's a heck of a lot. You clearly know nothing about climate change if you can just shrug it off; you may not notice half a degree, but a great many other things do.

Who said anything about destroying the environment and all of humanity? Climate change will drastically alter the earth and wipe out millions of species. Obviously some will survive, but the ecological ramifications will mean that entire ecosystems will vanish and agriculture will need to be adapted several times over to keep up. That's a heck of a lot more important than your economy (which is already in the dumps).

Oh, and a fraction of a degree? That's a heck of a lot. You clearly know nothing about climate change if you can just shrug it off; you may not notice half a degree, but a great many other things do.

Okay, that kind of disaster would take centuries if not millenia assuming that the temperature of the earth continues to rise. That sort of climate change would probably happen even if we didn't emit carbon dioxide so what can we do about it?

And if you truly think that climate change is a problem that we have the power to deal with today, then you should look to your economy for the answer.

I can't beleive you said that. Do you really think chemists don't know anything about climatology? heat capacity of gases, energy radiation? What do you think climatology is? some kind of black art that is above a chemist's understanding? The whole green house theory is based on basic principles of chemistry! That is the first thing I have heard today that genuinely frustrates me.

Oh, they know something about it. They are not, however, experts on it, and as such their opinions mean nothing.

Oh, they know something about it. They are not, however, experts on it, and as such their opinions mean nothing.

Doesn't that render Al Gore's opinions meaningless as well? Or, for that matter, pretty much any environmentalist without training in climatology?

"They're not doing it, so we won't either" is childish. How does the fact that China isn't doing shit about CO2 and other pollutants excuse the fact that we aren't?

My point is why the hell the environmentalist always beat up the US on environmental issues and seldom beat up countries like China and India? :mad:

Okay, that kind of disaster would take centuries if not millenia assuming that the temperature of the earth continues to rise. That sort of climate change would probably happen even if we didn't emit carbon dioxide so what can we do about it?



Really. Then explain why "that kind of disaster" is happening every day? And you want us to ignore it because "it would probably happen even if we didn't emit carbon dioxide." My, what wisdom. Let's all lie down and surrender to inevitability. Why even bother living your life if you're just going to die at the end for that matter? Oh wait, natural global warming would only "probably" happen anyways. Come back when you have an actual argument.

And if you truly think that climate change is a problem that we have the power to deal with today, then you should look to your economy for the answer.

The economy is the thing that caused the mess in the first place. The economy can bear the monetary burden of fixing it. And the economy had better smile as we take money from it too.

My point is why the hell the environmentalist always beat up the US on environmental issues and seldom beat up countries like China and India? :mad:

because we are worse, both per capita and in absolute, except where our beatings have forced cleanup efforts already. no beatings, no cleanup.

Doesn't that render Al Gore's opinions meaningless as well? Or, for that matter, pretty much any environmentalist without training in climatology?

Yes, it does. Your point being?

Oh, they know something about it. They are not, however, experts on it, and as such their opinions mean nothing.

that is one of the most ignorant thing I have ever heard on the internet

And chemistry has what to do with climatology?

What does Al Gore have to do with climatology? I'm sure scientists (and chemistry professors are scientists) know more about the subject than a former politician and tree hugger. :mad:

What does Al Gore have to do with climatology? I'm sure scientists (and chemistry professors are scientists) know more about the subject than a former politician and tree hugger. :mad:

Not entirely sure gore was trying to write a peer reviewed paper on the subject like the chemist

Edit: And there is a difference between someone who is an advocate and one who claims to be an expert

I am not saying that the chemist is or is not one just saying there is a completely different standard they should be held to

Really. Then explain why "that kind of disaster" is happening every day? And you want us to ignore it because "it would probably happen even if we didn't emit carbon dioxide." My, what wisdom. Let's all lie down and surrender to inevitability. Why even bother living your life if you're just going to die at the end for that matter? Oh wait, natural global warming would only "probably" happen anyways. Come back when you have an actual argument.

"that kind of disaster" refers to the extinction of millions of species. Millions of species do not go extinct every day. The history of the earth is full of climate change and extinction. It will happen again wether we polute or not.


The economy is the thing that caused the mess in the first place. The economy can bear the monetary burden of fixing it. And the economy had better smile as we take money from it too.

your a socialist.

Yes, it does. Your point being?

None, actually.

Not entirely sure gore was trying to write a peer reviewed paper on the subject like the chemist

Edit: And there is a difference between someone who is an advocate and one who claims to be an expert

I am not saying that the chemist is or is not one just saying there is a completely different standard they should be held to

Dude, climatology is chemistry.

Scientifically speaking, how does CO2 generate heat?

Scientifically speaking, how does CO2 generate heat?

CO2 doesn't generate heat. It traps it.

Dude, climatology is chemistry.

Where did I say it was not?

I was merely saying that the credentials needed to be an advocate vs an expert were completely different.

Where did I say it was not?

I was merely saying that the credentials needed to be an advocate vs an expert were completely different.

my bad. I'm sorry.

OK so this is part of my problem with the greenhouse thoery:

From an unpublished manuscript that one of my professors showed me entitled:

Falsification of the Atmospheric greenhouse within the framework of physics

by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralph Tscheushner,

It says "the insulating effect of the atmosphere cannot be ignored even in the total absence of green house gasses." referring to winds and convection currents.

"There is near equality between solar energy striking the earth and Infrared radiation leaving the earth when averaged over a year."

The paper goes on to say that green house gases actually block more of the sun's heat than they trap.

sad joke of a paper is a sad joke.
seriously.

While you can say the carbon dioxide is warming the earth, how do you even begin to accurately prove or predict that.

shit, even ignoring all of the other evidence, you personally can directly measure the difference between two different atmospheric makeups in the privacy of your own home with just a little bit of work. you just need a couple cans of coke, a couple two liter bottles, a way to loosely stop up the top of the bottles and a couple thermometers. step one, open one of the cans and agitate it and let it go flat. when it's flat, pour it in one of the 2 liter bottles. then open the other can, pour it in the two liter and agitate that. now stick the thermometers in with the stoppers (so you are measuring the internal gas temp within the bottles). you now have two different atmospheres - one made up mainly of N2 and O2, and the other made up mainly of CO2. put in the sun and watch the temps rise.

you can do this more rigorously, but it takes more work. the results hold up though.

Ever notice the nay sayers quote mathematicians and now physicists for their proof and yet ignore climatologists?

But that is the way of things these days. People tend to only think short term and immediate gratification.

At least the rest of the world is working towards something, the US will simply play catchup yet again.....

----edit

As to the original link; I would ask who sponsored the study and what was the follow up if any from 2005....

Scientifically speaking, how does CO2 generate heat?

it doesn't. it works more like this, at least for the very basic general picture:

solar radiation, in the form of ultraviolet and visible light, largely passes through the atmosphere and some of it is absorbed by the earth - this is what makes the ground warm in a sunny spot. the earth then must give off heat (otherwise it would keep getting hotter and hotter), and it does so at a different wavelength than the incoming radiation was at. this infrared radiation that is given off doesn't pass through co2, like the original solar radiation did, but is instead absorbed by it and converted into heat. this heat is then radiated both up into space and back down to the earth. the more co2 (and other greenhouse gases) you have, the more heat you have transfered back down to earth before achieving a new equilibrium.

Dude, climatology is chemistry.

Not really.

Climatology is a field of its own, with roots in chemistry, physics and biology.

CO2 doesn't generate heat. It traps it.

That's what greenhouse gases are supposed to do. If we didn't have something that kept heat in half of the world would completely freeze over every night. I still haven't seen proof of direct correlation between rising CO2 levels and Earth's temperature. However, I do accept that industrialization has driven up the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, so that part is caused my humans and we should do what we can to keep CO2 levels steady, there's no reason to not at least do that.

The difference of .5 degrees celcius is bird migratory patterns. They'll go south a little bit less to stay in the best weather and that can disrupt other ecosystems, and also shows how it can affect trees, which have no ability to migrate to stay alive.

I doubt global warming thus far is manmade, but we shouldn't take any risks. I agree with cutting back on CO2 emissions enough to stabilize growing CO2 levels- we don't want to see what happens when there IS too much CO2.

I thought I sent this post but I don't see it so I'm sending it again..

sad joke of a paper is a sad joke.
seriously.



shit, even ignoring all of the other evidence, you personally can directly measure the difference between two different atmospheric makeups in the privacy of your own home with just a little bit of work. you just need a couple cans of coke, a couple two liter bottles, a way to loosely stop up the top of the bottles and a couple thermometers. step one, open one of the cans and agitate it and let it go flat. when it's flat, pour it in one of the 2 liter bottles. then open the other can, pour it in the two liter and agitate that. now stick the thermometers in with the stoppers (so you are measuring the internal gas temp within the bottles). you now have two different atmospheres - one made up mainly of N2 and O2, and the other made up mainly of CO2. put in the sun and watch the temps rise.

you can do this more rigorously, but it takes more work. the results hold up though.

Yeah I know that CO2 lowers the heat capacity of the atmosphere. And this is why the earth is warming right? More CO2 from humans = hotter air. The atmosphere will take heat faster, but wouldn't the atmosphere lose temperature faster too?

Do you think that a net CO2 increse on the scale that humans are emitting will raise the temperature of the earth by 10 degrees celsius? I did a heat capacity experiment between nitrogen gas and air and the heat capacty is very similar. its like 1 to 1.4. I think that if CO2 concentrations raised to a level high enough to cause massive heat change, we would have to make alot more CO2. Something comparable with the amount the earth makes natuarly.

Do you think that we will ever make that much CO2. And do you know much about the earth's ability to recycle CO2?

Not really.

Climatology is a field of its own, with roots in chemistry, physics and biology.

Climatology is a bullshit feild invented by recent global warming concerns. It is propaganda designed to make alarmists sound better than people who really understand the earth like astronomers, chemists and geologists.

most of the answers that are accurate are also misleading. "hey, co2 was higher in the jurassic, and back before there was any oxygen in the air. no worries!"

Yes, and it fails to mention that most of what are now the coasts were underwater and a small sea ran through what is now the area around the Mississippi River.

Do you think that a net CO2 increse on the scale that humans are emitting will raise the temperature of the earth by 10 degrees celsius?

10 is extreme, but assuming business as usual until we run out of fossil carbon, and given some positive feedback from thawed methane and high water evaporation, i don't see why it would be utterly impossible. but we don't need 10 to totally fuck shit up.

I think that if CO2 concentrations raised to a level high enough to cause massive heat change, we would have to make alot more CO2. Something comparable with the amount the earth makes natuarly.

Do you think that we will ever make that much CO2. And do you know much about the earth's ability to recycle CO2?

we already do produce more 'new' carbon than the earth does naturally. by a huge amount. we aren't that big compared to the total flux, but the total flux is in balance except for us digging up all that fossil carbon and putting it back into circulation, where it hasn't been for millions and millions of years.

Climatology is a bullshit feild invented by recent global warming concerns. It is propaganda designed to make alarmists sound better than people who really understand the earth like astronomers, chemists and geologists.
Oh, please.

Climatology has been an recognisable scientific discipline for centuries. That it suits your point of view to rubbish it doesn't make it suddenly 'bullshit'.

Climatology is a bullshit feild invented by recent global warming concerns. It is propaganda designed to make alarmists sound better than people who really understand the earth like astronomers, chemists and geologists.

It started back in around 1000 AD in Asia, had it's current European debut in the 1600s and became relevant in the 1800s.

Hardly a recent bullshit field, considering it was that field which mapped out the Gulf Stream, for example, something that only a climatologist would be interested in.

Climatology is a bullshit feild invented by recent global warming concerns. It is propaganda designed to make alarmists sound better than people who really understand the earth like astronomers, chemists and geologists.
Georgia Tech has been teaching Atmospheric Science for ages. And it is mainly chemistry and physics. Lot's of thermodynamics... The classes I took in the college were fun.

But to all the folks that think a chemist is unqualified to research climate change, I say Bull!. One studies what one is interested in, then lets the academic community decide if a contribution has been made to the body of knowledge.

Climatology is a bullshit feild invented by recent global warming concerns. It is propaganda designed to make alarmists sound better than people who really understand the earth like astronomers, chemists and geologists.

If by recent you mean has roots to the 1000 AD era

If by recent you mean has roots to the 1000 AD era

Are you trying to tell me that Al Gore has spent that 1000+ years screwing around with Global Warming, and only just recent history thought to give us the internet?

"that kind of disaster" refers to the extinction of millions of species. Millions of species do not go extinct every day. The history of the earth is full of climate change and extinction. It will happen again wether we polute or not.

http://library.thinkquest.org/26634/text/forest/animal/extinction.htm

Over a hundred species die every day. This isn't a process that happens overnight, but over a much shorter period of time than normally happens. No doubt without us, something drastic will happen, but that's no reason for us to do it.

your a socialist.

Yes I am. How does that counter my argument?

10 is extreme, but assuming business as usual until we run out of fossil carbon, and given some positive feedback from thawed methane and high water evaporation, i don't see why it would be utterly impossible. but we don't need 10 to totally fuck shit up.



we already do produce more 'new' carbon than the earth does naturally. by a huge amount. we aren't that big compared to the total flux, but the total flux is in balance except for us digging up all that fossil carbon and putting it back into circulation, where it hasn't been for millions and millions of years.

I really wonder what changes the "new carbon" will cause. If it does indeed warm the planet's atmosphere, I really don't see how it could get hot enough to totally ruin the environment. I don't really think that the idea that we control our atmosphere to any great degree holds water.

I really wonder what changes the "new carbon" will cause.

well, you could, you know, look at the evidence we have...

If it does indeed warm the planet's atmosphere, I really don't see how it could get hot enough to totally ruin the environment. I don't really think that the idea that we control our atmosphere to any great degree holds water.

sounds like a personal problem

I really wonder what changes the "new carbon" will cause. If it does indeed warm the planet's atmosphere, I really don't see how it could get hot enough to totally ruin the environment. I don't really think that the idea that we control our atmosphere to any great degree holds water.
Well, unfortunately for you it doesn't matter what you think. It matters what scientists think as they have much more evidence than you.

Climatology is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time,[1] and is a branch of the atmospheric sciences.

source - wiki

I guess the first person to observe that deserts are hotter than tundras was a climatologist. However, if an accurate physical model of the earth's climate is ever discovered, I would count on a physicist or physical chemist to derive it and not someone who looks at temperature patterns and makes graphs. And I mean something more detailed and accurate than the greenhouse gas model which leaves alot to be desired in my opinion.

well, you could, you know, look at the evidence we have...

I do study the evidence, like heat capacity ratios, thats why I doubt claims of any catastrophe.


sounds like a personal problem

suc my dick

Well, unfortunately for you it doesn't matter what you think. It matters what scientists think as they have much more evidence than you.

I'm a scientist. I study chemistry, and look at lots of information about global warming.

I'm a scientist.

bullshit

bullshit

okay, maybe not a professional scientist. I'm just an undergrad student actually. :(

Originally posted by Free Soviets:

shit, even ignoring all of the other evidence, you personally can directly measure the difference between two different atmospheric makeups in the privacy of your own home with just a little bit of work. you just need a couple cans of coke, a couple two liter bottles, a way to loosely stop up the top of the bottles and a couple thermometers. step one, open one of the cans and agitate it and let it go flat. when it's flat, pour it in one of the 2 liter bottles. then open the other can, pour it in the two liter and agitate that. now stick the thermometers in with the stoppers (so you are measuring the internal gas temp within the bottles). you now have two different atmospheres - one made up mainly of N2 and O2, and the other made up mainly of CO2. put in the sun and watch the temps rise.

you can do this more rigorously, but it takes more work. the results hold up though

Congratulations, you've established that CO2 has a lower heat capacity then a mixture of N2 and O2. A few questions:

-In this case, you're partially using plastic (2 liter bottle) to convert the light energy (the sun) to thermal energy, though you are right in some of it being converted by the gas as well. (Note: thermal energy may be absorbed straight differently then it is converted.) Does the atmosphere act as a piece of plastic with regards to converting light? And does it do it enough? Or is more of it wasted/generated by some issue with regards to the material structure of plastic that might enhance/deplete heat absorption? What mathematical relationship can you derive to show that on the small percentage-wise scale occurring in our atmosphere it can create a SIGNIFICANT similar effect. There are lots of things that occur on small scales and have very little effect, like the Mercury in our atmosphere (except in Beijing j/k) or the natural decay radiation in our bodies.

-Likewise, how do you know that there are not countereffects, like convection, that occur and might destort any warming that does occur on an atmospheric scale? Not to say it wouldn't have an effect, but would it have the same effect?

-And lastly, what about secondary effects with regards to the natural decomposition of H2CO3, which decomposes to an equilibrium, releasing CO2 and H20, and might be pushed to decompose to a lesser equilibrium by the prescence of additional CO2 in the atmosphere (La Chatelier's Principle).

In short, you would need several very quantitative experiments under many different conditions to prove anything beyond the obvious (CO2 holds heat).

Congratulations, you've established that CO2 has a lower heat capacity then a mixture of N2 and O2.
...
In short, you would need several very quantitative experiments under many different conditions to prove anything beyond the obvious (CO2 holds heat).

what's your point? that this self-described very simple experiment isn't enough to deal with any but the most obvious stupidities that have been pushed in this thread (like the unpublished draft paper mentioned earlier that denies precisely what you and i find obvious)? yeah, and?

Congratulations, you've established that CO2 has a lower heat capacity then a mixture of N2 and O2. A few questions:

-In this case, you're partially using plastic (2 liter bottle) to convert the light energy (the sun) to thermal energy, though you are right in some of it being converted by the gas as well. (Note: thermal energy may be absorbed straight differently then it is converted.) Does the atmosphere act as a piece of plastic with regards to converting light? And does it do it enough? Or is more of it wasted/generated by some issue with regards to the material structure of plastic that might enhance/deplete heat absorption? What mathematical relationship can you derive to show that on the small percentage-wise scale occurring in our atmosphere it can create a SIGNIFICANT similar effect. There are lots of things that occur on small scales and have very little effect, like the Mercury in our atmosphere (except in Beijing j/k) or the natural decay radiation in our bodies.

-Likewise, how do you know that there are not countereffects, like convection, that occur and might destort any warming that does occur on an atmospheric scale? Not to say it wouldn't have an effect, but would it have the same effect?

-And lastly, what about secondary effects with regards to the natural decomposition of H2CO3, which decomposes to an equilibrium, releasing CO2 and H20, and might be pushed to decompose to a lesser equilibrium by the prescence of additional CO2 in the atmosphere (La Chatelier's Principle).

In short, you would need several very quantitative experiments under many different conditions to prove anything beyond the obvious (CO2 holds heat).

The green house gas theory is way to oversimplified. Most of the infrared heat comming from the sun does not even bocome absorbed or trapped by the atmosphere. Glass actually absorbs more heat from the sun than rock salt does. Even though rock salt is opaque, it is invisible to infrared.

And once this heat is absorbed by the earth, winds and water convection currents play a big part in how it gets released. I want to see a theory that explains all of this.

The green house gas theory is way to oversimplified. Most of the infrared heat comming from the sun does not even bocome absorbed or trapped by the atmosphere. Glass actually absorbs more heat from the sun than rock salt does. Even though rock salt is opaque, it is invisible to infrared.

And once this heat is absorbed by the earth, winds and water convection currents play a big part in how it gets released. I want to see a theory that explains all of this.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

knock yourself out

I'm a scientist. I study chemistry, and look at lots of information about global warming.

Well then show it. Pull out the information that you have studied because to my knowledge every point that you have made has been refuted.