The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge

[speedy 0]

Quote

There is quite solid evidence that:

1) man has increased the amount of CO2 in the air by 50%

Fact is CO2 has increased by 50%, man is most likely responsible for this.

Quote

2) it is not being removed fast enough by natural processes

Fast enough for what?

Quote

3) CO2 is a greenhouse gas that warms planets progressively more as the concentration goes up

The effect of rising CO2 concentrations dimish as they go up. That is to say that a rise from 100 ppm to 200 ppm has far more effect than 300ppm to 400 ppm. But you know that. Your wording sounds alarmist though.

Quote

4) the earth has indeed been warming, and that warming has pretty closely matched CO2 concentrations.

Depends how you cherry pick, adjust and present the data.
Do you think that the planet would be cooling without the CO2 increases? Or do you think the temperature would be constant? I bet you would not agree to the temperature would be rising anyway.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 2,426]

>How does one explain this when it predates industrialization by man..
>in fact, previous warming and cooling periods predate man?

?? The planet has been warming and cooling for billions of years. It was once mostly lava; it was pretty hot then. At certain points it's been almost completely covered with ice.

These can happen slowly, as with Milankovitch cycles, over tens of thousands of years. Generally the biosphere adapts to these. Or they can happen quickly, over the course of a few decades, due to massive meteor impacts or volcanism. These generally cause mass extinctions.

We are now driving a change in a matter of decades. In the past it took a big meteor to make such a change; this time we're doing it with CO2. If this warming trend is similar to previous rapid changes in respect to the biosphere, it will likely cause similar extinctions.

Will it wipe all life on earth out? Nope, we've survived worse. Should we be trying our level best to make the change as drastic as possible? Perhaps not. Perhaps scaling back to a more gradual forcing would allow us more time to do things like move agricultural belts, relocate people living in low-lying areas etc. Or perhaps we'd prefer to allocate money for all of that and just deal with the consequences.

But one thing is for sure - the future will arrive whether or not we plan for it. The smart money is on planning for it, and deciding NOW whether we want to pay now or later.

>Recent warming periods date to Roman Empire times as well as medieval times.

The Medieval Warm Period happened primarily in Europe; it did not affect global temps very much (on the order of .2C.) We are well past that now.

[billvon 2,426]

>Fast enough for what?

Fast enough to compensate for our emissions of them.

>The effect of rising CO2 concentrations dimish as they go up.

Yes - which is why we're seeing a few degrees of increase instead of dozens.

>Do you think that the planet would be cooling without the CO2 increases?

I think it would be doing what it normally does - varying a bit, staying around the same average temperature in the short term, varying a lot in the long term.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Billvon, no disrespect intended but what you support and post is a
>prediction too!

Yes. Here is a provable prediction:

Smoking regularly makes it much more likely that you will die of lung cancer or heart disease.

Here is a NON provable prediction:

You will certainly die of lung cancer if you smoke.

See the difference?

Global warming and the who/what the cause is is what we are talking about. Not this tired lame non-relative analogy

"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 2,426]

>Not this tired lame non-relative analogy

The cigarette industry got very worried in the 1950's, because people thought their products were harmful. So they founded institutes, funded research and paid for ad campaigns to show how "the jury is still out" on whether or not cigarette smoking was dangerous.

The fossil fuel companies are now very worried because people think that using their products changes the environment. So they've founded institutes, funded research and paid for ad campaigns to show how "there is no consensus" on whether or not CO2 emissions cause warming.

You're right, there's no analogy there! Continue to ignore the past; there is nothing to be learned from it. After all, it's _old._

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

3) CO2 is a greenhouse gas that warms planets progressively more as the concentration goes up

The effect of rising CO2 concentrations dimish as they go up. That is to say that a rise from 100 ppm to 200 ppm has far more effect than 300ppm to 400 ppm. But you know that. Your wording sounds alarmist though.

I was wondering about that "progressively more" business.

Quote

***4) the earth has indeed been warming, and that warming has pretty closely matched CO2 concentrations.

Depends how you cherry pick, adjust and present the data.

The commonly used graph of CO2 levels taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory has a nice steady continuous incline... but the global temps from 1960 (where the CO2 graph starts) to the late 70s stayed in a sideways channel.

Hmm

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Not this tired lame non-relative analogy

The cigarette industry got very worried in the 1950's, because people thought their products were harmful. So they founded institutes, funded research and paid for ad campaigns to show how "the jury is still out" on whether or not cigarette smoking was dangerous.

The fossil fuel companies are now very worried because people think that using their products changes the environment. So they've founded institutes, funded research and paid for ad campaigns to show how "there is no consensus" on whether or not CO2 emissions cause warming.

You're right, there's no analogy there! Continue to ignore the past; there is nothing to be learned from it. After all, it's _old._

OK, if you do not want to talk about GWing and things related I understand. But I am not talking about smoking and wether you think it a fair analogy or not it is a waste of time.

So, do you want to get the thread back on track?

The point was that all you was doing was making a prediction too. Fair or not?

"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 2,426]

>The point was that all you was doing was making a prediction too. Fair or not?

I am definitely making predictions. For example, I'll bet you that over the next 10 years the CO2 concentration continues to rise - AND the average temperature will continue to rise. Will you take that bet?

If not, you would seem to agree with my prediction!

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>The point was that all you was doing was making a prediction too. Fair or not?

I am definitely making predictions. For example, I'll bet you that over the next 10 years the CO2 concentration continues to rise - AND the average temperature will continue to rise. Will you take that bet?

If not, you would seem to agree with my prediction!

Thanks for the admission. I do believe that CO2 may or may not increase and the same for temps. But for you the cause of global temp changes is really the issue now isint it?

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

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>The point was that all you was doing was making a prediction too. Fair or not?

I am definitely making predictions. For example, I'll bet you that over the next 10 years the CO2 concentration continues to rise - AND the average temperature will continue to rise. Will you take that bet?

If not, you would seem to agree with my prediction!

Yeah, I'll take that bet! But considering you wrote "CO2... warms planets progressively more as the concentration goes up", when the truth is the effect of rising CO2 concentrations dimish as they go up, you'd better clarify exactly what you mean.

Are you saying that CO2 levels will rise every year and annual global temps will also rise every year? Or are you saying CO2 levels and global temps in 2017 will be higher than current levels?

I want to clarify this because I'm not interested in (10 years down the road) you giving cherry picked examples where your prediction came true and you claiming you were right, even though you were wrong looking at this globally.

[billvon 2,426]

>Are you saying that CO2 levels will rise every year and annual
>global temps will also rise every year? Or are you saying CO2 levels and
>global temps in 2017 will be higher than current levels?

ON THE AVERAGE, CO2 levels will continue to climb and average temperatures will continue to climb. You can have an anomalous year in either direction; one year that's unusually warm or cold (as always.) But the _average_ will increase.

[billvon 2,426]

>I do believe that CO2 may or may not increase and the same for temps.

So you believe it's basically random? That the increases we've seen are a fluke? That the six billion tons of CO2 we add annually to the atmosphere probably have nothing to do with the increase in CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere?

I have heard several smokers make a very similar argument to justify their behavior.

>But for you the cause of global temp changes is really the issue now isint it?

It's one of the issues concerning climate. It's an important one if we want to reduce further warming.

[Gravitymaster 0]

I was surprised you took the challenge to begin with after reading the contests parameters. My original post was obviously taunting and sarcastic and a bit trollish.

Please keep the $15 and buy yourself a case of beer or a jump ticket on me. Thanks for playing.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>I do believe that CO2 may or may not increase and the same for temps.

So you believe it's basically random? Not radndom but cyclicalThat the increases we've seen are a fluke? That depends on the measurment accuracy That the six billion tons of CO2 we add annually to the atmosphere probably have nothing to do with the increase in CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere?Mabe but I believe it to be minimal

I have heard several smokers make a very similar argument to justify their behavior.give this one up as it makes no sense

>But for you the cause of global temp changes is really the issue now isint it?

It's one of the issues concerning climate. It's an important one if we want to reduce further warming.

Your prediction, not yet a scientific fact. And this has been the main thrust of my point all along

"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 2,426]

>Your prediction, not yet a scientific fact.

I made no prediction in what you replied to. It IS a fact that we need to understand the causes of global warming if we want to reduce it. I am in favor of researching the causes, and indeed we have come a long way towards understanding the various things that "force" the climate. I get the feeling you are in favor of any theory whatsoever (no matter how valid) as long as it "proves" man bears no responsibility for anything that happens.

And again, that is quite similar to the outlook some smokers have; if smoking does not cause cancer, then they don't have to make a difficult change in their behavior. I know you don't understand that, but it's worth reflection.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>The point was that all you was doing was making a prediction too. Fair or not?

I am definitely making predictions. For example, I'll bet you that over the next 10 years the CO2 concentration continues to rise - AND the average temperature will continue to rise

Quote

And now, why "predictions" are not science.

Nature Mag recently reported that freon effect on ozone depletion is at least 60% less than first thought. A sturdy by atomospheric cemists have stated now that they do not really know what is causing the ozone to go away. But the last sentence ot the article states that they "think" that freon still has something to do with it so the ban should remain.

Ah yes, predictions, based on agenda, not science.


http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html oh ya, you will have to buy your own copy

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

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Are you saying that CO2 levels will rise every year and annual
>global temps will also rise every year? Or are you saying CO2 levels and
>global temps in 2017 will be higher than current levels?

ON THE AVERAGE, CO2 levels will continue to climb and average temperatures will continue to climb. You can have an anomalous year in either direction; one year that's unusually warm or cold (as always.) But the _average_ will increase.

What average? Two year? Five year? Fifty Year?

[billvon 2,426]

>What average? Two year? Five year? Fifty Year?

Call it a ten year moving average.

[ChrisD 0]

I was speaking with some undergrads at MIT yesterday. The topic was "summer jobs." We all noticed a number of posters and flyers that were pasted and stapled to walls everywhere, litter'arly everywhere. Most universities have a policy that you need to register or at least be a student to post shit paper in the halls walls....

So without the "stamp" of approval you can tell when some "outside" agency or company has littered the walls with junk paper.

This mass posting of offers for "Summer Jobs for The Enviorment" was everywhere so the topic of disscussion was who and why were they doing this, and what can we do about it other than remove the offensive and against school policy postings?

So some of the students I spoke with decided to give the 1-800 number a call and see who and what was and is behind this.

Turns out that this work at home job consists of monitoring web sites: Blogs, forums, news stations, etc.. And then responding with: Moderate, middle of the road comments debunking global warming and other ecology minded responses. All for about 7 dollars an hour. Reminds me of religion and Judas?

Seems they install some sort of keystroke monitoring software and yo get paid for how much time yo spend cutting and pasteing "canned" responses to any "search" of topics that have the key words: Global Warming, etc.," in the phrase or similar.

Some job hu?

Seems also that the "supervisors" are trained to find individuals with a lot of time on there hands, need money, and are a bit of social outcasts....

Never mind the fact that they are also selected on thier personal views and knowledge level of issues pertaining to science. In other words lot's of buisness majors and liberal arts students are the ones that get these "desirable" jobs.

Go to any college or public place like "Harvard Square," and you will see these same ads stapled to telephone poles or posted on the walls outside popular hangouts!

Grass roots advertising, or companies with millions to spend any way they see fit? Please keep in mind that the average super bowel 20 seconds of time cost 2.5 million. That's $125,000.00 peer second!

So how much do big coal and the crotch brothers have to spend? How miuch is just one percent of their gross?

Can yo say that one percent of the conglomerated energy companies gross is over one trillion dollars?

You all need to start focusing on the cure to understand why the fat cats spend less than one percent to ensure their going to survive at the publics expense. Nothing new here, History is rife with explotation at the expense of the mindless and powerless... and gulliable....


All you have to do is count the number of posts on a subject to see who and what these Judas's are. Do a search for Global Warming, and respond only to those, move on to the next webb site...


How can some people post the amount they do, and in the same breath claim they have full time jobs?

Figure it out for yourself folks; paid advertising or public forum?

C

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[CygnusX-1 42]

So, how much money did you just make posting to this (almost) six year old thread?

[kallend 1,644]

Is there an echo in here?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ChrisD 0]

CygnusX-1

So, how much money did you just make posting to this (almost) six year old thread?

Didn't make a penny dude,...

just trying to illustrate my point in a different mannar about how little it can cost to push your opinion on everyone....

It's funny that no-one notices this stuff???


And I imagine more than a few will wait a couple of days and then start up again on a different posting or thread...

I also have been timing , the amount of time it takes to write little blurbs and do searches on other sites...

It takes a considerable amount of time to do some of this...


Which leads me to believe that more than a few have a really lot of spare time on their hands, which is understandable considering the weather of late or something else is going on????

You also raise an interesting point about the age of "threads."

If everyone did a search for on topic posts there would be a handfull of threads but with a lot of posts????

But that is not what we have, the question you should be asking is WHY?

Perhaps if you could apply that wounderfull wit of yours
No one likes being manipulated, but you need to see it in order to understand.

And yes I am trying to manipulate you as well, but I am also trying to get you to understand for yourself!

C

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."