The Time to Act Is Now- A great read about Global warming

[billvon 2,434]

> In the Grand scheme of thisng CO2 concentrations are VERY low
>compared to previous historical and prehistoric times.

Just ain't true. They've been going up pretty steadily, and are at about 370ppm now. Going back 1000 years that's a very significant increase. Going back 140,000 years (via ice core analysis) there was a peak at about 330ppm; we are over that now. In other words, we are at the highest CO2 concentrations now than we have been in over a hundred thousand years. That is VERY significant.

>An increase in H20 in the Atmosphere would lead to an increase in cloud cover.

Yes. But compared to the oceans evaporating water (and covering 70% of the planet) the amount of water we put out isn't even measurable.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

What will it take to make you believe that man and his action are causing the earth to heat up more rapidly?

It's difficult, darius. Do I believe that human activity is causing global warming? No, I do not. Do I believe that human activity is probably a factor in global warming? Yes. Do I know that human activity is a factor? No. But I am persuaded that it is.

There are a couple of different burdens to look at. One is a burden of "proof." What one person accepts as proof may not be acceptable to another. Because each person brings along different thoughts, backgrounds, and processes to make these decisions. Me? I'm by my nature a skeptic. Someone wants to tell me something is true, I'll want to see evidence of it. Then I'll make my conclusions - usually based upon some independent research.

in my opinion, it has not been "proven" that human activity is the cause of global warming. Why? Because temperature variations have existed throughout time on this planet - even before humans, and well before use of fossil fuels. Since I like parsimony, I'll go to the simplest explanation, which is, "It's happened before, and it'll happen again, and since it looks like it's happening now, I'll compare it to the other times that it happened, and since human activity was not a cause of the previous ones, I won't attribute this time to this one."

Example? Einstein's theory of general relativity has passed every test to which it's been subjected so far. Yet, there are a large number of people out there who continue to question and challenge general relativity, because it might not be so universally applicable. This actually has the benefit of inceasing the scientific merit of the theory. Hell, challenge the stuff head on and see what it does.

On the other hand, there is another burden that is most useful to the mass population. This is the "burden of persuasion." This is where media comes in. The media digests the reports and states their understanding to the general public, much like they do with skydiving incidents. You'll find the persuasion on statements that amount to "puffing," i.e., "It's clear to virtually every scientific expert in the world" or even, "2000 international scientists agree." Also, "These aren't "REAL" scientists - the "scientists" are actually left-wing pinkos whose sole underlying purpose is destruction of the petroleum industry and lining their own pockets."

Persuasion can be more easily and cost-effectively met by such bandwagoning. "Everybody's running to the movie theater to see Jennifer Lopez in the hit movie, 'Another Dumb-Ass Overdone Romance.' Hop on the bandwagon! Everybody's doign it"

Look, there are plenty of legitimate challenges to the theory that humans are causing global warming, or even accellerating it greatly, marginally, etc. Most of these challenges are handled much as we see on here - "What will it take to prove to you," etc.

We've got guys like billvon, however, who generally posts the research, science, etc., and his understanding of them, to back up his viewpoints. His are actually some pretty centered viewpoints on this, and he generally avoids the puffery and spin that most other posters use. His viewpoints on it are centered and grounded because he sticks to what he thinks he can prove, and doesn't make far-reaching claims. He doesn't state that waters will rise and people will die, etc. He states that these may occur, and are possible or likely results. Hence, I give bill a helluva lot more deference than just about anyone. I'll disagree, but bill has persuaded me on this global warming issue more than anyone else - yes, even those I've spoken to in person.

Storm1977 also posts his understanding of the science. He's got some credibility with me, since it's his job. Most of what he posts makes objective sense to me, just like bill. This means that neither side has proven anything in my book. There are a couple of perfectly understandable and opposite explanations, both based on apparently sound science and logic, though Storm1977 is usually a bit more slanted, but that's also understandable.

Hey, I'm persuaded that CO2 can cause heating. I'm also persuaded that human activity increases CO2, which can cause greater heating. i'm not persuaded that human activity is more than a marginal factor in global wa, nor am I convinced of this.

I will not be convinced by statements that "10,000 scientists have signed a statement that human activity causes global warming." That's not proof. I can find a few million people who think the war in Iraq is justified. How's that for proof, eh? It isn't proof.

Let's focus on the science and let people reach their own conclusions. It works better than telling people what to think.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Some activists have learned that people are getting a bit more sophisticated in their judgements on crazy theories. So they are starting to add pseudoscience to their arsenal of snappy sayings, soundbites and dogmatic statements. Thus people come up with "intelligent design" and write papers about the complexity of the genome and how it would have taken a designer to do all that. They come up with "solar variability" and write papers about how that's really causing global warming. They do psychological analyses on how a group of people can be brainwashed into thinking that six million people were actually killed. Heck, they often even stick a PhD in there somewhere to make it "real." Then, when someone says "that sounds a bit unsupportable to me" they produce a paper, and say "See? Right here? PhD!"

Do you ever get any news from other than left wing news sources and left wing acedemia?
I mean we all know the only approved news comes from your pastor from the pulpit on Sunday morning.

[Darius11 12]

I am not trying to tell people what to think but understand why they think the way they do. If you have facts not bull shit but facts please let me know. I don’t lose anything by realizing there is no such thing as global warming for me that would be great news.

I use common since and try to find facts.

When a statement like this is made.

Quote

"It's clear to virtually every scientific expert in the world" or even, "2000 international scientists agree." Also, "These aren't "REAL" scientists - the "scientists" are actually left-wing pinkos whose sole underlying purpose is destruction of the petroleum industry and lining their own pockets."

I use my common since again. Does it make since that 2000 individual international scientist were bribe and are lying, or the one guy who has an agenda and is writing a novel (to make money) lying?

It is clear to me.
Unless someone is going to show me that all these scientist or even 30-40% of them were bribed or are liars I am not going to believe the one guy who says there wrong.



I am for people making up there own minds but if you are preprogrammed to think it is left wing bull shit then you will never believe it no matter what the facts.

It is just sad that many will not see the truth until it lands on top of their heads like an anvil.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[billvon 2,434]

>. . . many will not see the truth until it lands on top of their heads like an anvil.

A short skydiver, smelling vaugely of tequila, will land on their heads if they don't think climate change has any validity? Yikes!

(sorry, had to be done)

[ReBirth 0]

No shit...put me down for a gross of solar panels and an ethanol still. I don't want Vinny pulling a Jimbo...getting in my burble while we're sitting and slamming down on top of my head

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

If you have facts not bull shit but facts please let me know.

Fact - with a high degree of probability I can state that there are more than 2000 scientists who believe that global warming is a natural thing and that human activity has little to do with it. That's not bullshit. It also proves nothing with regard to whether human activity causes global warming. That's my point. I don't give a shit how many people say something is true (within reason, of course) it does not go towards the merits of their opinion.

Fact - thousands of scientists believe that human activity is a leading cause of global waming. Opinion - human activity is a leading cause of global warming. Opinion - that human activity is a leading cause of global warming is founded on solid scientific principles. My opinion? Scientific method demonstrates that human activity is having some effect on global climate change.

Quote

Does it make since that 2000 individual international scientist were bribe and are lying, or the one guy who has an agenda and is writing a novel (to make money) lying?

It makes sense to me that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Both sides have an agenda. Both sides can make a buck. Both sides probably really believe the essence of what they are saying, but both may puff to make things sound better or worse than they actually are.

When you are dealing with human beings, this is a factor that must be considered with everyone - not just the side that is opposite of your beliefs.

Quote

if you are preprogrammed to think it is left wing bull shit then you will never believe it no matter what the facts.

This is true. So with many, why bother? And if you are preprogrammed to believe that the end of the liveable planet due to global warming is gonna be here in two years, then nobody will likely change your mind no matter what the facts/opinions.

On the other hand, most of us will be perceptive to logic in one form or another. Most of us will fall prey to spin, too. And most of us know that the predictions of impending doom are overstated, and denials of all human involvement are similarly understated.

Quote

It is just sad that many will not see the truth until it lands on top of their heads like an anvil.

I did a quick yahoo search of ""many will not see the truth." Here's the link to my results. http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22many+will+not+see+the+truth%22&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&fr=FP-tab-dir-t

Same thing with google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22many+will+not+see+the+truth%22

Note that the statement itself seems to be used primarily with religious statements. These are the statements that I find objectionable when discussing science. Let the facts, opinions and reasoned conclusions hit people on the head like an anvil.

Thus far, I don't have any bumps on my head from such representations.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"His name is Dr. Ron Sass, and he recently retired. "

He's one of my favourites too, I particularly like the folowing insightful quote...


"The sun did not shine.
It was too wet to play.
So we sat in the house,
All that cold, cold, wet day..."

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[kevinwhelan 0]

A repy to the thread in general
Global warming is now widely accepted to have been largly underestimated because of another effect of pollution, namely Global dimming. This is caused by pollution causing clouds to be more reflective. The result of this is that we have not observed the true effects of greenhouse gasses on Global temprature.
This came to light when it was observed that the evaporation index did not inrease as would have been expected with the observed increase in temprature.
The big problem is that now partical pollution is being reduced, Global Dimming is being reduced, so we are going to get a far larger temprature increase than previously predicted.
see this article
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml

"be honest with yourself. Why do I want to go smaller? It is not going to make my penis longer." ~Brian Germain, on downsizing

[rushmc 18]

Fact
......fpr every number of people you say support the theory there are as many that don't...........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,148]

Recently you were willing to stipulate that the vast majority of scientists who had commented on global warming believed that it's happening, and that people are contributing.

Now you're saying it's evenly split (at least I think that's what you're saying).

Does that mean that the non-scientists are the ones who don't believe in it? If so, why should the beliefs of non-scientists be given much weight in a scientific discussion? Public opinion has no bearing on actual facts. If those facts are in dispute, you focus on trying to figure out what the facts are, not what people think about them.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

The only point I was trying to make mirrors what you just said. The numbers that believe compared to the numbers that do not, do not mean much.....if anything

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[storm1977 0]

Bill, your charts aren't that Old....

PLAESE SEE ATTACHMENT:
Earth's climate and atmosphere have varied greatly over geologic time. Our planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be today, and with far more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than exists today. The notable exception is 300,000,000 years ago during the late Carboniferous Period, which resembles our own climate and atmosphere like no other.



Also, I would like to note that "Tree Ring" research globally does not support the theory that the earth is warming.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[ReBirth 0]

I think the critical point where we can stop going back is when human's appeared. Sure, the dinosaurs liked it hotter with more CO2. That doesn't mean we will.

[storm1977 0]

See, and you think it is about what WE (Humans) want...
It is not my friend.... Humans will come and humans will go. Mother Nature runs the show here, and we are one of Millions of species which will become extinct... and guess what ...something else will take over.

It is the envirnmentalist who are trying to change the natural cycle of thing.

Chris

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[storm1977 0]

Grabbed online: Rings true to me.

Today the Earth warms up and cools down in 100,000- year cycles. Geologic history reveals similar cycles were operative during the Carboniferous Period. Warming episodes caused by the periodic favorable coincidence of solar maximums and the cyclic variations of Earth's orbit around the sun are responsible for our warm but temporary interglacial vacation from the Pleistocene Ice Age, a cold period in Earth's recent past which began about 2 million years ago and ended (at least temporarily) about 10,000 years ago. And just as our current world has warmed, and our atmosphere has increased in moisture and CO2 since the glaciers began retreating 18,000 years ago, so the Carboniferous Ice Age witnessed brief periods of warming and CO2-enrichment.

Following the Carboniferous Period, the Permian Period and Triassic Period witnessed predominantly desert-like conditions, accompanied by one or more major periods of species extinctions. CO2 levels began to rise during this time because there was less erosion of the land and therefore reduced opportunity for chemical reaction of CO2 with freshly exposed minerals. Also, there was significantly less plant life growing in the proper swamplands to sequester CO2 through photosynthesis and rapid burial.

It wasn't until Pangea began breaking up in the Jurassic Period that climates became moist once again. Carbon dioxide existed then at average concentrations of about 1200 ppm, but have since declined. Today, at 370 ppm our atmosphere is CO2-impoverished, although environmentalists, certain political groups, and the news media would have us believe otherwise.

What will our climate be like in the future? That is the question scientists are asking and seeking answers to right now. The causes of "global warming" and climate change are today being popularly described in terms of human activities. However, climate change is something that happens constantly on it's own. If humans are in fact altering Earth's climate with our cars, electrical powerplants, and factories these changes must be larger than the natural climate variability in order to be measurable. So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[ReBirth 0]

That's really my only point here. We should do whatever we can to keep conditions favorable to us as much as that is feasable. I don't care if it's manipulating the natural cycle or not. I take no comfort if our extinction is due to a natural cycle, a natural comet strike, as opposed to a nuclear war.

[billvon 2,434]

>Earth's climate and atmosphere have varied greatly over geologic time.

Right. No one is arguing that.

>Our planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be today . . .

Of course. Heck, five billion years ago it was a glowing ball of molten rock. Do you want to live on such a world? In the Cretaceous there were almost no mammals and almost no trees we would recognize as trees. Is that where you want to live? In the Cambrian the air would have killed us. Want to live there? Six billion years from now, the sun will become a red giant and incinerate us. Does that mean you don't care if someone incinerates your neighborhood, because it was going to happen anyway?

Saying "the earth keeps changing, so we shouldn't care that we're changing it very rapidly" is a silly approach to the whole issue. You will someday die; I imagine it would annoy you if someone else decided that day should be tomorrow instead of in 40 years (and then made it happen.)

Right now we have learned to live on this planet, with this ecosystem, with these ocean levels and this biosphere etc. It will change within the next ten thousand years and we will adapt. If it makes that change happen within the next fifty, we may not be able to. Hence we should not be doing our very best to change the climate as rapidly as possible, and we should not scoff at attempts to slow down that change.

>and you think it is about what WE (Humans) want...

Of course it is. Cockroaches, slime molds and algae will survive no matter what we do, and those are far more important to the ecosphere than we are. But we DO have the power to make OUR lives miserable. And only a fool makes his own life miserable because of his shortsighteness.

>If humans are in fact altering Earth's climate with our cars, electrical
> powerplants, and factories these changes must be larger than the
> natural climate variability in order to be measurable. So far the
> signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change
> has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.

The hockey stick on every graph of CO2 vs temperature in the past 1000 years is VERY distinct from the background noise. See previous graphs.

You seem to be arguing three opposing points, namely:

1) OK, maybe we're changing the climate, but it changes anyway.

2) We're not changing the climate because there's no sign of a change.

3) We're not changing the climate; something else is forcing a change.

So which is it?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

See, and you think it is about what WE (Humans) want...
It is not my friend.... Humans will come and humans will go. Mother Nature runs the show here, and we are one of Millions of species which will become extinct... and guess what ...something else will take over.

It is the envirnmentalist who are trying to change the natural cycle of thing.

Chris

Dam

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

I read his point to mean.....the climates going to change regardless of us humans.

rushmc adds, ......and the issue is really about money, not the climate.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,434]

>I read his point to mean.....the climates going to change
>regardless of us humans.

Of course. The issue is that we are changing it hundreds of times faster than it would normally change.

>and the issue is really about money, not the climate.

So if one spends enough on advertising, climate change stops happening? The science is separate from the money. Money is a factor in how to mitigate the effects though.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>I read his point to mean.....the climates going to change
>regardless of us humans.

Of course. The issue is that we are changing it hundreds of times faster than it would normally change.

>and the issue is really about money, not the climate.

So if one spends enough on advertising, climate change stops happening? The science is separate from the money. Money is a factor in how to mitigate the effects though.

come on baby, lets do the twist!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[storm1977 0]

And my argument is that we are NOT changing it any quicker than it has done before in its cycle.

You are lookng at the last 1000yrs and are sying... "Hockey Stick" and then looking at the last Billion and saying "No hockey Stick"

Break down the Billion yrs to 1000 yrs and looking through them I am sure you will find many hockey sticks both facing up and down, but what you won't find is human interaction.

The environmentalists tote the Line of "Save the Planet"

What they really mean is "Try to keep the earth exactly how we humans want it even if that means changing the planet" at a cost mind you which dwarfs our current budget deficit.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

come on baby, lets do the twist!

Content notwithstanding... now *that* was fuckin' funny! Good one.

• Quote

[gemini 0]

Quote

the climates going to change regardless of us humans.

Bill's chart seems to indicate this as well. It appears that about 20,000 years ago something changed to start a rapid increase in temp, CO2 and Methane. Since that is about the time the last ice age was ending and the chart shows a decrease in dust in the air as well maybe those are two factors.

We may have reached critical mass in the 20th century and sped up the process, but it looks to me like it is something that has been going on for a few years prior to industrialization.

Blue skies,

Jim