Global Warming

[palerider]

Wow! great comparison.... i seem to remember a comment you've made previously, it went something like. "you can't compare 18th century standards to modern times." this was in reference to slavery, but i hope you get my point when comparing what "scientists" thought 500 years ago.

i hope you keep an open opinion to global warming. it would be a shame if your mind was already made up.

who hasn't seen an inconvenient truth? did you see it? everyone has seen it.

There is little doubt that the earth is heating up. It has been doing so for a very long time. Long enough to have melted the ice cap back from about Texas to the north of canada and when one looks at paleohistory and the fact that for most of the earths history it has been so warm that no ice existed anywhere, there is little doubt that it is going to continue to heat up until once again, the earth is ice free.

What is rediculous here, is that considering the cycles of warm and cool , over the past 500 million or so years, that anyone would be gullible enough to believe we were causing it.

If I tell you that I am going to make the sun or moon go dark on a certain date, can I get you to pay me money to bring them back? Claiming man made global warming in the face of the history of the earth warming and cooling is the very same thing.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

There is little doubt that the earth is heating up. It has been doing so for a very long time. Long enough to have melted the ice cap back from about Texas to the north of canada and when one looks at paleohistory and the fact that for most of the earths history it has been so warm that no ice existed anywhere, there is little doubt that it is going to continue to heat up until once again, the earth is ice free.

What is rediculous here, is that considering the cycles of warm and cool , over the past 500 million or so years, that anyone would be gullible enough to believe we were causing it.

If I tell you that I am going to make the sun or moon go dark on a certain date, can I get you to pay me money to bring them back? Claiming man made global warming in the face of the history of the earth warming and cooling is the very same thing.

the history of the earth is science correct? and according to your own medicine, consensus isn't science. consensus is politics.

claiming the earth as a scientific constant is one thing, but ignoring the co2 variable is even worse.

 

[palerider]

the history of the earth is science correct? and according to your own medicine, consensus isn't science. consensus is politics.

claiming the earth as a scientific constant is one thing, but ignoring the co2 variable is even worse.

I agree, ignoring CO2 is even worse. It is clear that you are unaware that according to all ice core data, increasing CO2 lags behind increased temperatures. That is because warm oceans don't hold as much CO2 as cold oceans. Rising CO2 is an effect, not a cause. And man's contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 is not even enough to overcome the natural deviation from year to year.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

If Global Warming is the "hoax" Inhoffe insists it is, why does this administration block the science from reaching the public so often?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/03/exclusive_repor_1.html

 

[USMC the Almighty]

If Global Warming is the "hoax" Inhoffe insists it is, why does this administration block the science from reaching the public so often?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/03/exclusive_repor_1.html

First of all, I'm not necessarily convinced the Global Warming is a hoax, rather I believe that mankind is less than 2% responsible for any climate change -- something overridden by solar variance, natural phenomena, etc. and I additionally believe, with support of NASA, that we are at a solar maximum -- the hottest point -- and a steep cooling trend is going to ensue, somethin that troubles me more than any "warming".

But to answer your question -- I don't know, I'm not a member of Bush's Cabinet. Perhaps they don't want to create a hysteria over nothing.

 

[saggyjones]

Hydrogen is a pipe dream. It takes more energy to strip hydrogen from water than the hydrogen could ever produce. No real scientist (physicist & chemist) sees any future for hydrogen powered cars.

I did some research and it turns out that hydrogen takes a lot of energy to get by itself. But biofuel is a good alternative, and advances are being made to clean up the process.

The new process, proposed by chemical engineers led by Rakesh Agrawal of Purdue University in Indiana in a paper published in this week's edition the U.S. journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is unique because it uses hydrogen from renewable energy sources to trap all the CO2 produced when making biofuel.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1096

 

[palerider]

I did some research and it turns out that hydrogen takes a lot of energy to get by itself. But biofuel is a good alternative, and advances are being made to clean up the process.

From your article:


"Though running cars on diesel fuel would still generate CO2 emissions, that CO2 could effectively be reabsorbed from the atmosphere by growing more biomass - essentially creating a balanced CO2 cycle. "

It sounds like they are talking about teraforming the earth and only allowing an amount of CO2 to be produced that could effectively be scrubbed out of the atmosphere by the biomass. And where are they going to grow this additional biomass?

It sounds like pie in the sky to me saggyjones. A lovely thought, but not practical in any way at all.

One of the most serious questions with biofuels saggyjones, is where do we clear enough land to grow the raw materials? You are going to have to choose to either reduce food crops or clear forest land. Which is more acceptable to you?

 

[saggyjones]

From your article:


"Though running cars on diesel fuel would still generate CO2 emissions, that CO2 could effectively be reabsorbed from the atmosphere by growing more biomass - essentially creating a balanced CO2 cycle. "

It sounds like they are talking about teraforming the earth and only allowing an amount of CO2 to be produced that could effectively be scrubbed out of the atmosphere by the biomass. And where are they going to grow this additional biomass?

It sounds like pie in the sky to me saggyjones. A lovely thought, but not practical in any way at all.

One of the most serious questions with biofuels saggyjones, is where do we clear enough land to grow the raw materials? You are going to have to choose to either reduce food crops or clear forest land. Which is more acceptable to you?

There is plenty of land out there to grow biomass on. I don't know where you got the idea that there isn't.

 

[palerider]

There is plenty of land out there to grow biomass on. I don't know where you got the idea that there isn't.

And you are willing to see it changed from its natural state?

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

USMC will enjoy this...

"My message, I think, is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move toward the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere"
- Newt Gingrich

 

[USMC the Almighty]

USMC will enjoy this...

"My message, I think, is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move toward the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere"
- Newt Gingrich

Haha. But he doesn't say because of global warming. Pollution is one thing, global warming is another.

 

[vyo476]

The argument here seems to, at least partially, be, "some scientists are politically motivated and therefore we can't listen to them."

Until you can conclusively prove that a scientist is being a sensationalist I really don't think that should be a viable argument, especially in light of the fact that (I'm assuming) no one here has a degree in climatology. I certainly don't. When all of you start going off about carbon dioxide variances and solar winds I'm completely lost and I'm only a little ashamed to admit it. People like me (and by that I mean anyone who hasn't taken the time to study in depth the science and earned a degree - or several - in it) have to rely on scientists for their information and if we can't...well, what's the point of arguing about it then?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

The argument here seems to, at least partially, be, "some scientists are politically motivated and therefore we can't listen to them."

Until you can conclusively prove that a scientist is being a sensationalist I really don't think that should be a viable argument, especially in light of the fact that (I'm assuming) no one here has a degree in climatology. I certainly don't. When all of you start going off about carbon dioxide variances and solar winds I'm completely lost and I'm only a little ashamed to admit it. People like me (and by that I mean anyone who hasn't taken the time to study in depth the science and earned a degree - or several - in it) have to rely on scientists for their information and if we can't...well, what's the point of arguing about it then?

That's hardly the focus of our argument, vyo. I agree with most of your second paragraph. You're right, I'm not a climatologist. Instead, I read the research of those scientists who are, and use what I have read to form a collective conclusion, which is that human contibution to warming is virtually negligble, and that earth's warming period is coming to the end (solar maximum) and we should be truly worried about global cooling and an ice age. Warming is better than cooling. It always has been.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

That's hardly the focus of our argument, vyo. I agree with most of your second paragraph. You're right, I'm not a climatologist. Instead, I read the research of those scientists who are, and use what I have read to form a collective conclusion, which is that human contibution to warming is virtually negligble, and that earth's warming period is coming to the end (solar maximum) and we should be truly worried about global cooling and an ice age. Warming is better than cooling. It always has been.

Im curious though, how many of the climatologists and scientists that you've read state the opposite of your position. have you read any science journals arguing that man made contributions to warming are having an effect? If you only read one side of the debate, how does that make you informed?

and the Newt quote was during his debate with Kerry on Global Warming.

 

[palerider]

Until you can conclusively prove that a scientist is being a sensationalist I really don't think that should be a viable argument, especially in light of the fact that (I'm assuming) no one here has a degree in climatology. I certainly don't. When all of you start going off about carbon dioxide variances and solar winds I'm completely lost and I'm only a little ashamed to admit it. People like me (and by that I mean anyone who hasn't taken the time to study in depth the science and earned a degree - or several - in it) have to rely on scientists for their information and if we can't...well, what's the point of arguing about it then?

While I don't have a degree in climatology I do hold two degrees in hard science and feel more than qualified to examine the science and determine for myself whether I am being snowed or not.

You seem to discount the notion that a scientist would sensationalize pseudoscience for profit. Consider the fact that a decade or so ago, a climatologist might hope to make 25K per year unless he or she got a cushy job as a weatherman on a cable station. Since that time, the press has made climate change a big business. Billions of dollars per year are being pumped into the research because of a sense of crisis. No crisis, no money.

Today climatologists can easily make 5 times what they were making a decade ago because of the crisis money. Maybe you don't grasp the science, and maybe you don't want to take the time to learn enough to grasp it, but I do and I can honestly say that the bulk of AGW theory is bunk.

I provided these graphs some pages back, but will gladly post them again. They are honest assesments of man's contribution to greenhouse gasses. One doesn't need to be a rocket surgeon to see that man's contribution to any of them is not even enough to overcome the natural deviation from year to year in the earth's own gas making machinery.

The fact is that we have been coming out of an ice age for the past 20,000+ years. The ice has melted back from most of the northern and southern hemispheres and if the patterns of paleohistory are any indication (and there is no evidence that they aren't) then the ice will continue to melt until no ice exists at either pole. The temperature will rise until the average mean is about 21.5 degrees C and it will hold there for several million years until the next ice age begins.

Don't you find it somewhat suspicious that the AGW crowd conspicuously avoids discussion regarding the earths historic temperature cycles? Here is a simple, but accurate chart that shows the temperature cycles of the past, in light of this, what exactly about current climate change would lead you to believe that we have anything at all to do with it? You might as well suggest that we have effected the rotation of the earth and therefore changed the day/night cycles because we instituted daylight savings time.