The Global Warming Debate...

[ExAFO 0]

Why is it so venomous on so many levels, specifically religious and political? It makes so many people so very angry...

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[Royd 0]

Well, the same people who swore back in the '70s that we were headed for a new ice age, and tried to punish big business for it, turned out to be wrong, and now they have a new agenda, using the same old techniques.

It's just so 1970.

[shermanator 3]

becasue it is a joke, we all know it is a joke, and pointless.

CLICK HERE! new blog posted 9/21/08
CSA #720

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

becasue it is a joke, we all know it is a joke, and pointless.

That does not answer my question. And I surmise your CSA avatar belies a bias.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[shermanator 3]

no, not biased, just realistic.

CLICK HERE! new blog posted 9/21/08
CSA #720

[auburnguy 0]

A majority of politicians and people pushing global warming have done nothing more than watch an inconvenient truth, which is hilariously far off. CO2 is not what is causing the world to warm up. Its a combination of natural causes, nitrogen and methane gases. The real irony of this whole "CO2 is evil" craze is that every organic renewable energy source requires massive amounts of CO2 to grow. The people who are decrying it as evil right now are going to be begging for more of it in 20 years.

"If you don't like your job, you don't strike! You just go in every day, and do it really half assed. That's the American way."
- Homer Simpson

[bluesidedown 0]

And then all it takes is for some wiseguy to type that a primary cause of this CO2/ methane/ nitrogen/ GG overdose is the 6.7 billion inhabitants of the planet all enjoying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (in some parts, only one of the three)...

Enter politics and religion:

More people means more power means self perpetuation means successful organization... more is better, right? Or is it? Or is it becoming a fast-track to a derailment?

Who knows for sure. All I know is that I can see a lotta smog hangin around and hear a lot of people telling of days when it 'didn't used to be there' ...might as well not waste too much time online and get your jumping done while ya can.

[auburnguy 0]

Most of the methane and nitrogen come from livestock and combustion sources.

"If you don't like your job, you don't strike! You just go in every day, and do it really half assed. That's the American way."
- Homer Simpson

[kschilk 0]

Quote

And then all it takes is for some wiseguy to type that a primary cause of this CO2/ methane/ nitrogen/ GG overdose is the 6.7 billion inhabitants of the planet all enjoying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (in some parts, only one of the three)...

Not far off, really. The increased warming of the planet is a natural progression, though it is relative to its inhabitants. All creatures give off heat and create heat through, if nothing else...kinetic energy. Take into account all the heat produced by each inhabitant, for whatever reason....heating water, heating homes, cooking meals, electronic equipment, autos, etc....it all adds up. Add to that, the fact that we are purposely (probably erroneously) closing off the hole in the ozone, Earth's one and only ventilation duct....well, wuddya' expect? Y'all really should have known.

"T'was ever thus."

[billvon 2,400]

> Well, the same people who swore back in the '70s that we were headed
>for a new ice age . . .

Historical revisionism is all the rage, but with the internet available to so many people now, when you lie about stuff it's very easy to show you're wrong.

===========
In the 1970s, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements. You could find broader "consensus" on a coming alien invasion.
===========

For more info:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

[billvon 2,400]

>CO2 is not what is causing the world to warm up. Its a combination
>of natural causes, nitrogen and methane gases.

Nitrogen makes up 78% of the atmosphere. In the 1800's it made up 78% of the atmosphere. Today it makes up 78% of the atmosphere. It has nothing to do with global warming, outside of some denier articles intended for people who don't know nitrogen from oxygen.

[auburnguy 0]

Quote

>CO2 is not what is causing the world to warm up. Its a combination
>of natural causes, nitrogen and methane gases.

Nitrogen makes up 78% of the atmosphere. In the 1800's it made up 78% of the atmosphere. Today it makes up 78% of the atmosphere. It has nothing to do with global warming, outside of some denier articles intended for people who don't know nitrogen from oxygen.

Actually, your wrong. Nitrogen has several times the green house effect of CO2, even the atmospheric percentage being raised a tenth of a percent is a huge deal.

[/url]http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/releases/2006/challenge.asp[url]

Key point in the article being
"Although excess nitrogen contributes substantially to issues such as changes in the carbon cycle, global warming, water quality, acid rain, biodiversity loss, and air pollution, the issue has so far received little attention from the scientific community."

"If you don't like your job, you don't strike! You just go in every day, and do it really half assed. That's the American way."
- Homer Simpson

[Royd 0]

Re: [Royd] The Global Warming Debate... by billvon
Post: > Well, the same people who swore back in the '70s that we were headed
>for a new ice age . . .

Quote

Historical revisionism is all the rage, but with the internet available to so many people now, when you lie about stuff it's very easy to show you're wrong.

===========
In the 1970s, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements. You could find broader "consensus" on a coming alien invasion.

Funny that I remember it as being an ecological alarmist big deal for quite a while. At least until the earth started to warm up again.

[billvon 2,400]

> Funny that I remember it as being an ecological alarmist big deal for quite a while.

Selective memory can be a great tool.

In reality, there was _one_ paper published that said if upper atmospheric low-albedo particulate pollution continued to increase, that cooling would increase as well, since the particulates reflected sunlight. If it decreased, then the cooling trend would end.

Upper atmospheric particulate pollution decreased, and the cooling trend ended - thus indicating the paper was accurate.

Popular media seized upon this paper and predicted the next ice age, of course - just as they are predicting death and destruction from the current warming trend. Drama sells; science generally doesn't.

[billvon 2,400]

> Nitrogen has several times the green house effect of CO2 . . .

Nitrogen has zero radiative greenhouse effect. It is transparent to longwave radiation.

>"Although excess nitrogen contributes substantially to issues such as
>changes in the carbon cycle, global warming, water quality, acid rain,
>biodiversity loss, and air pollution, the issue has so far received little
>attention from the scientific community."

Nitrogen does none of these things. It is an inert gas that makes up the bulk of our atmosphere. It helps protect us from radiation, keeps our atmospheric pressure up, and provides some thermal mass to buffer temperature swings. It is not an active participant in issues like water quality.

Wait - are you referring to nitrous oxides? If so, then NOx is indeed a significant greenhouse gas, and contributes to acid rain and air pollution. We are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere as well, primarily through our agriculture, but also through combustion (primarily diesel engines.) It contributes about .2 watts/sq m to the forcing we are seeing, which is much less than the CO2 contribution, which is about 1.5 watts/sq m.

[pirana 0]

Excellent couple of posts there billvon. Not only does science not sell, it also a lot more work than clicking on a couple website links (from proponents of either extremity of thought).

I'd only add that we are very lucky to have so much of a conveniently inert gas like Nitrogen around; because with all the Oxygen and Hydrogen about, without the Nitrogen the Earth would burst into flames.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[billvon 2,400]

>because with all the Oxygen and Hydrogen about, without the Nitrogen
> the Earth would burst into flames.

Indeed! At normal sea level pressures, a pure oxygen atmosphere would be nasty indeed. Dirt and asphalt are flammable under such conditions. Heck, people are flammable in pure O2. The first brush fire would end life as we know it.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

> Funny that I remember it as being an ecological alarmist big deal for quite a while.

Selective memory can be a great tool.

In reality, there was _one_ paper published that said if upper atmospheric low-albedo particulate pollution continued to increase, that cooling would increase as well, since the particulates reflected sunlight. If it decreased, then the cooling trend would end.

Upper atmospheric particulate pollution decreased, and the cooling trend ended - thus indicating the paper was accurate.

Popular media seized upon this paper and predicted the next ice age, of course - just as they are predicting death and destruction from the current warming trend. Drama sells; science generally doesn't.

I call bull shit billvon. There may have only been one paper but I heard the mantra over and over on the tv and the radio for over a year. Now, I was 16 then and I did not pay much attention but I remember that story line very very clearly.

My word man, they were talking about blasting somehting into space to cause global warming.

On another note, these "climate disaster" stories have been coming up since printed news. We are just in another cycle, just like the warming we see today

"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 2,400]

>I call bull shit billvon.

Of course you do.

>There may have only been one paper but I heard the mantra over and
>over on the tv and the radio for over a year.

That's what I said. One scientific paper explaining a principle that turned out to be correct. Lots of popular media nonsense.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>I call bull shit billvon.

Of course you do.

>There may have only been one paper but I heard the mantra over and
>over on the tv and the radio for over a year.

That's what I said. One scientific paper explaining a principle that turned out to be correct. Lots of popular media nonsense.

Hhhmm, similar today it seems

"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 2,400]

>Hhhmm, similar today it seems

Indeed. Which is why you should ignore the hysterical "climate change ended in 1998!" and the "climate change will destroy the world!" articles in the popular media, and instead heed organizations like Nature, the UCS, NOAA, NASA etc.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Hhhmm, similar today it seems

Indeed. Which is why you should ignore the hysterical "climate change ended in 1998!" and the "climate change will destroy the world!" articles in the popular media, and instead heed organizations like Nature, the UCS, NOAA, NASA etc.

Ah, yes...those organizations that disregard any material that doesn't come from "the consensus"... I think I'll keep my options open and read what the skeptics have to say, as well.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Hhhmm, similar today it seems

Indeed. Which is why you should ignore the hysterical "climate change ended in 1998!" and the "climate change will destroy the world!" articles in the popular media, and instead heed organizations like Nature, the UCS, NOAA, NASA etc.

Ya, just like when those in the "consensus" cant use data from dates after..............

Ya, I am impressed

"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 2,400]

>those organizations that disregard any material that doesn't come from
>"the consensus"...

Not at all. Read Nature sometime; you'll see plenty of dissent on established positions. It's how science works. Unfortunately for people who have strong political opinions, anger, rhetoric and vehemence are not sufficient to disprove established scientific principles; that requires experimentation and data.

> I think I'll keep my options open and read what the skeptics have to
>say, as well.

That's great. I'd just avoid democratssuck.org, newsmax.com, foxnews.com etc and stick to the scientific publications.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>those organizations that disregard any material that doesn't come from
>"the consensus"...

Not at all. Read Nature sometime; you'll see plenty of dissent on established positions. It's how science works. Unfortunately for people who have strong political opinions, anger, rhetoric and vehemence are not sufficient to disprove established scientific principles; that requires experimentation and data.

Sort of like how Nature discounted McKittrick/McIntyre's view's on Mann's data...which was later shown to be valid...AFTER Nature rejected it?

Quote

> I think I'll keep my options open and read what the skeptics have to
>say, as well.

That's great. I'd just avoid democratssuck.org, newsmax.com, foxnews.com etc and stick to the scientific publications.

Nice... I guess all the left-leaning sources of info are ok, then?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706