Comment on In the Middle of America
everybody is coming around except Exxon, G and Bush. looks like you are the one in a cult. religious leaders, scientists, good politicians and most of the world has recognized climate change as a serious issue that needs to be addressed ASAP. Even major oil company BP has gone green sort of speak. ppl like you seem to think sucking on tail pipes is okay.
actually, Bush and Exxon know global warming is NOT a hoax, they just don't want to lose any profit fixing the problems they helped create.
-Hype
G.
I have a degree in this kinda stuff.
A few corrections. We actually do have several hundred years worth of data and such things and diatoms can tell us much more. The majority of anthropomorphic damage (increased CO2 etc) began at the start of the industrial revolution, so more like over 100 years (rather than 50). Ice cores taken from glaciers show a marked increase in carbon at that time (ice cores are like trees - they can be dated). For every "expert" that thinks this is hogwash I can send you a list of about a 100 well-known, respected researchers who think otherwise.
Part of the problem is the term "global warming". This misleads people. They expect to be growing crops in the arctic. Its actually just a FEW degrees AVERAGE over the entire globe, but enough to cause many changes. There IS melting going on - evidenced by (and I'm not kidding here) polar bears drowning trying to travel between ice floes, and other such strange things. You also have to realize that melting isn't the only source of sea level rise - water expands when it warms, and considering the volume of water in the oceans, a little bit can make a huge difference. Sea level is rising about an inch per decade, temperatires in the Antarctic peninsula are rising twice as fast as the rest of the earth, the West Antarctic ice sheet is thinning in some places up to 3-4 m/year and glacial retreat is accelerating. A specific example: In Antarctica, the Larsen A ice shelf, which measured 1,600 sq km, broke off in 1995. The 1,100 sq km Wilkins ice shelf fell off in 1998 and the 13,500 sq km Larsen B dropped away in 2002.
Evidence more obvious to us right now is our weather, and by that I mean active, worldwide. So magnitude and quantity of such things as swings in temperature, electrical storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, typhoons etc. is increasing.
The climate IS changing, and its changing MUCH faster than it did in pre-history because of what we've done and are continuing to do.
Anyway, I could go on and on, but thats a snapshot. If you want more reliable info, I'd be happy to provide it.
Boo
don't you think it could be a combination of things? i think that humans have contributed to the warming of the earth and couple that with the el ninos and la ninas and what not- this is what we see. why does it have to be one or the other? we aren't completely to blame but we do have to recognize that we are not doing all we can to conserve and preserve the planet.
Boo, again: I dont debate the climate is changing slightly, I'm not sure anyone does. This is the crux of the Global Warming Cult's power over people's impression.
There has not been anything near creditable that we can use to quantify the Industrial Revolutions impact on true blue climate change. The ice measurments that are being made today, using modern technology with sonar and sounding equipment coupled with computer models is being then compaired to mariner reports from rope and weight soundings done from 75 years ago (think there might be a slight margin of error there?).
The drilling they've done to try and measure levels of CO2 in the ice seems to only be from the last ice age I'd suspect since we know that the entire Earth was much warmer before then.
We've tried to say that the hurricanes and other weather are suddenly worse than ever before, but we've only been reliably tracking them for the last 20 years. Before that, there may have been more or less "critical" storms int the tropics, but without the aid of satalite and aircraft survelance, pluse comptuer modeling, we've no clue do we?
This entire debate is centered around the presumption that man is somehow changing the climate with smokestacks and SUV's... yet we know the climate has shifted and changed much more drastically in the past before these evils ever graced the earth.
We also know that recent activity in our Solar system has increased temps on Mars as well, and that solar radiation has picked up.
CFC's, the boogie man destroying our ozone, are heavier than air, so the presumption that your refrigerator and styrofoam cups are killing us is a myth as well (note that one has dropped off the Enviro-Agenda?).
20 years ago we were headed for an Ice age, now we're headed for a firey hell on earth...
The computer model that 99% of the Global warming crowd use for the justification of temp increase due to man's impact was just debunked because the algorithm used in it's simulation was proven to hyper-exagerate increases in temps, and under-exagerate decreases, and shorten median periods.... So the "hockey stick" graph is just a target driven program with a desired result that was achieved.
Lets play out another senario: If man is to blame for melting ice caps and higher temps... lets say that we had to raise the temps even more for some reason.
Lets pretend that a big ice blanket was coming at us and we had to save the planet by heating it up. Barring nukes how would we? How COULD we?
We dont have the capability to raise the earth's temp even on purpose... yet these guys would have you belive we do it by accident for 20+ years?
And then to boot: What's the solution to their proposed problem (this is where the motivation for the lie comes from)?
Send their orginizations money and donation for useless "campaigns" that never achieve anything, adn/or shut down all economic development in the US while leaving C
as a note: I belive whole heartedly in local polution of the environment, and stand firmly behind the efforst to riegn in the dumping of chemicals and pollution into the ground water supplies and the other destruction to local envirionment. But these two things are mutually exclusive.
I think that companies should get more than fined for dumping. Most fines are pocket change to them and they would rather pay them than to have the expense of changing their ways. I also think that weather goes through cycles and global warming supporters are a bunch of people trying to make laws that would make it difficult for the average person. Look at liberal Hollywood - flying all over (living in Idaho, working in CA), driving their huge cars and complaining about pollution. When they start taking public transportation, then they can complain.
By the way, Pat Robertson should have been around in 1930. Apperently the temps then were hotter than today...
In fact, we have not broken a record yet set back then. Click HERE to see how we could have declared Global Warming more than 70 years ago by Pat's logic.
Mr. Robertson is scared. He has a lot to explain at his last judgement, which he now thinks is near.
sherry and G you are fighting a losing battle.
liberal hollywood is not the cause of your problems. they can no more affect change in this country than you or i. small change but nothing big like we need. and the term 'liberal hollywood' shows your true ignorance. it is right up there with 'liberal media' which i think is a slam against jews. hollywood is not all liberal and they don't control the world. (and they definetely cannot affect very much change if half or more of the US just writes them off as nutty liberals.)
puhhhlease stop with your ill informed science.
the debate is over. you lost this a long time ago. go over to realclimate.org and debate the scientists with your junk science.
-Hype
ok :D
are you going to go over the realclimate.org and debate the scientists with your junk science?
you seem to think sucking on a tail pipe is okay. air pollution is just as important as ground pollution.
-Hype
sure 
Well, if every day the world is burning a few million barrels of oil, plus a few million tons of coal, and natural gas, charcoal and lumber, then I would think the world is getting warmer.
Imagine all of that being burned in just one great pile. Who could stand close to that? Who could breathe the fumes?
Just because we spread the bonfire around, doesn`t make it any less intense.
My own concern would also be with the rise in CO2 levels, apparently much increased over the last century.
Again, more than the temperature rises, I worry about the pollutants released during the burning of fossil fuels, the stuff is virulently poisonous.
So, would it stand to reason then Landskier that if the sun had a couple of flares... it would have more of an effect on the earth's temp than anything man could do? I mean, it does heat and warm the earth, even with the great vacume of space in between us.
I'd imagine that Americans wouldnt want to tank the entire American economy on the whim of some shoddy research... but heck, look at Hype.
G, I have only a basic grasp of science, I hear what you are saying about the Sun flares and that. But the atmosphere here on earth is finite, and we are most definitely adding CO2, plus the pollutants from the fossil fuel.
Yes I know that the economy of America, and most of the west relies upon fossil fuel.
Seems like the oil companies like selling oil, because that is how they make a living.
The american economy could adapt to other sources of power, only losers would be oil companies and coal miners.
Landsker:
I am just not sold on humans having this drastic of an impact. When Mt. St. Helen errupted, it spewed more noxious fumes and pollutents into the air than the entire western seaboard of man had done in 20 years.
Volcano's are more destructive in terms of air pollution than all of the SUV's combined... yet volcanos errupt all the time (relativly) and have never been blammed for the warming of the earth?
I think we quickly try to use some logic that ignores other basic realities to prove a point that I personally feel is politically motivated.
G shows how much he really knows about the climate system.
"Volcano's are more destructive in terms of air pollution than all of the SUV's combined... yet volcanos errupt all the time (relativly) and have never been blammed for the warming of the earth?"
source for this? because you are off your rocker.
and the where is your source for the info about the Sun causing global warming.
because the real studies show the exact opposite of those junk science studies created by the oil industry.
-Hype
Okay. Back from the weekend and I see I haven't gotten anywhere with G. And no one else has either.
Saw a presentation by these guys last week. http://www.iea.org/ Have a look.
I think the attitude that we're not impacting the earth in a negative way is very naive. Maybe you need better sources G.
I agree that its difficult to compare today's trends with historical ones. We haven't been here long enough.
BUT, have you seen the Matrix? When Agent Smith calls humans a virus? Its an apt analogy - we're the only species on the planet that doesn't find a balance to live with the earth. We take, take, take and say "oh we'll never run out - technology'll save us".
I assume you're aware of the great extinctions which have happened since the formation of the earth? The dinosaurs would be the one most people are familiar with. Did you know that we're in middle of one right now? And its 100% being caused by us? Do you know how dangerous the loss of biodiversity is to us and the planet?
I don't care how political the debates are regarding global warming. If there's a conspiracy there it certainly isn't coming from governments - the cost to them to improve/retrofit to reduce emissions is enormous.
If it takes this large an issue/debate to get people thinking about what we're doing here, and keep in mind we've no where else to go, then I'm for it.
Re carbon in ice cores... Here's a link http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2.../co2/
vostok.htm to a scientific paper which states: " The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr"
Here's another: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/war...ories/
nojs.html Have a look at the 1900-Air Pollution section.
GHGs and volcanoes: "Worldwide, sulfur dioxide emissions from volcanoes add up to about 15 million tons a year, compared to the 200 million tons produced by power plants and other human activities." from: http://www.tdn.com/helens/noFlas...=1114807288&
w=P
and CFC's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Chl...onmental_issues
not to mention that benzene is a component of styrofoam - do I need to tell you about benzene too??
If we keep treating the earth like we do now - there won't BE one here for your grandchildren...
good work Boo... it is nice to see some still do their homework.
-Hype
btw, i just read an article in the Dallas Morning News about a study conducted to test if the new atmostphere in 50 years would be growing more plants like some have said. Well, the study showed the exact opposite. Plants, like animals, have a hard time living in polluted environments. The extra heat does not help.
-Hype
I think the attitude that we're not impacting the earth in a negative way is very naive. Maybe you need better sources G.
Once again, the pollution of local environment is being confused with global warming.
The earth heating up is not directly paralleled to local dumping of chemicals into a river.
This is another tactic used by Global Warming enthusiates to try and "dispute" those opposed to the pretense of it being man-caused.
NO ONE disputes the ability of man to wreck his environment. I could go out right now and dump a gallon of gas on my tree and it would die: Presto! i just wrecked the environment of that tree and surrounding grass.
I'm talking about the actual sustained heating of the earth. The kind of energy it takes to do that is almost incomprihensable. To keep the earth at it's current temprature is an amzing feat in its own right, much less increase that temp.
Now, I ask again, how, if we were trying, would we melt the ice caps? Using only those elements blamed for global warming... how?
How, if we had to, would we heat the earth up 5 degrees?
If we cannot answer this question with a realistic answer, how can we assume that the theory being put forth now about man's responsibility, is anything but conjecture?
dude it is all related..
you are off your rocker!
so do you still smoke or not?
-Hype
G. As Hype says - it IS all related.
When you kill that tree in your yard, you're robbing the atmosphere of not only its oxygen, but also the carbon (as CO2) that it sequesters.
Now multiply that by the number of trees, whole forests, that are being laid to waste...
I'm not saying we're the only cause - I'm saying we're accellerating the process.
Think on this - please:
There are compounds in the atmosphere that are there only because we put them there. Do you understand the greenhouse effect? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Gre...eenhouse_effect
aarrgghh - i lost most of that note...
i'll try again
There is currently a great deal of research being done on particulate matter. These particles have the ability to change the chemistry of other molecules in the atmosphere...
A lot of it comes from diesel fuel.
I work in emissions research. My job DOES NOT depend on belief in global warming. So I'm for the science, not the hype...
I'll give you an example with numbers.
cont'd
There are currently 3200+ locomotives (freight) in service in Canada.
In 8 hours, at an average power rating, one locomotive puts out over 15000 LBS of CO2 per MINUTE.
3200x15000 = 48,000,000 LBS/MINUTE of CO2 alone.
(there was 480,499 gallons of fuel burned in Canada in 2004 by locomotives)
Now add in all the other GHGs and chemicals coming out, like N2O, CO, NOx, SOx and CH4 (we also analyze over 160 hydrocarbons in the emissions)
Now add in passenger locomotives, light rail, heavy trucks, buses, cars, SUVs, ships, aircraft, power stations, industry, etc.
Now subtract the loss of sequestration from the lumber industry and land clearing AND add in all that carbon.
Now make that number global - rather than national.
NOW tell me we're not having an effect on the climate.
ok:
We're not having an effect on the global climate.
Here are some other fun facts:
"In its 1998 "State of the World" report, for example, the Worldwatch Institute claims "The world's forest estate has declined significantly in both area and quality in recent decades." Lomborg documents, however, that U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization figures show global forest cover has actually increased from 30.04 percent in 1950 to 30.89 percent in 1994."
" Lomborg cites figures from the Census Bureau, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and European Environment Agency to show that world population growth has sharply slowed since 1964; international debt has declined since 1984; the inflation-adjusted price of oil is half what it was 20 years ago; and sulfur emissions and resulting acid rain are down substantially since 1984."
Got those from This Site
Not Hurricanes Too!
The Sun? What?
Courtesy NASA/TRACE
The real culprit in "global climate change" is the sun: Long-term studies document that fluctuations in the intensity of solar radiation are closely correlated with warming and cooling trends in the Earth's temperature. These facts are scrupulously ignored by those determined to use the "global warming" myth to destroy industrial civilization.
(cont')
Shifting Predictions and Inconclusive Results? HUH?
In the 1970s and the 1980s, computer models of climate prophesied a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) content in the atmosphere during the next 6O years. The greenhouse effect of this CO2 increase, together with that of other greenhouse gases released by human beings into the atmosphere – CH4, N2O, CFC-11 (freon), and CFC-12 – was supposed to increase the average global surface air temperature by 5°C. In polar regions, the increase was projected to be 10°C. Later, in the 1990s, climatologists truncated the computer model estimates of the man-made increase of global temperature by the year 2100, first to 3,3°C3,5 and then to 2°C.7
Well heck, this here is just a clearinghouse of info debunking many of the ideas put forth about it: http://www.junkscience.com/
Lastly:
I can't help noting that some of the prominent global warmers of today were global coolers of not so long ago. In particular, Steven Schneider, now at Stanford, previously at NCAR, about 30 years ago was sounding the alarm about an imminent ice age. The culprit then was particles belched into the atmosphere by human activities. No matter how the climate changes he can correctly say that he predicted it. No one in the atmospheric science community has been more successful at getting publicity.
Read this and more discussion from physicist and meteorologist Craig Bohren, distinguished professor emeritus at the Pennsylvania State University HERE
Lomborg? are you freaking serious?
you have to prove your claims.. look into "Nine Things Journalists Should Know About the Skeptical Environmentalist"
created by Lomborg's Danish colleagues to refute his conclusions
why use just one lone cast away scientist? this is what you always do.. find the one guy who supports your agenda and then you don't even analyze his work.
typical.
where is the source for the article from NASA? you have to provide sources, so i can look it up. i bet it is the summary judgement of a panel that is not consistent with the actual report they are summarizing. typical. the scientists are saying global warming is real and the government is suppressing my research.. you are clueless.
junk science is just what it says.. junk science.. science fiction writers and lobbyists aren't scientists.
your sources are suspect as usual. this is hilarious.
-Hype
There were four other lines in my posts there? You didnt read any of those did you?
But ok... seriously, in two years, when all this "hype" has died down, and we're on to the next dooms-day call for money and support... dont whine to me.
those guys are bending to market pressure.
that has been the problem the whole time. same with Lomborg.
your sources are suspect. the main body of science doesn't support these lone quack scientists.
we can go back and forth on this all day.
you never answered my question.. do you still smoke?
-Hype
No, proudly I dont. Sorry, i thought you were inferring that I was smoking crack or something... lol
no, not at all.. i remember you gave up smoking. was it for health reasons? do you think smoking cigarettes causes cancer?
-Hype
this is getting involved... I'm gonna check out your links and maybe do a climate change post on my blog. I'm gettin tired of typing long responses and having them disappear when I try to publish them... sigh.
This IS fun tho...
I think that it cannot be good for you (the obvious idea of sucking smoke into your lungs...). But more than the cancer scare I was tired of the weezing and coughing.
Just so you know, this line of logic wont apply. I've already stated that I do not belive local polution and global climate change to be related.
Boo, for the long responses:
just paste the whole thing, then post. WHen it comes up, and half is missing, paste a second time, and trim off the top part where the last left off.
but just fyi: 3,000 characters per comment.
thanks G.
stay tuned...
Regarding forest cover – here’s a link to an organization citing scientists specializing in these statistics: http://www.globalforestwatch.org.../about/
faqs.htm “Increasing” my aunt fanny!!!
Regarding hurricanes - here’s an article citing scientists that says exactly the opposite as yours:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/
...1099102,00.html
Regarding the sun – you’re sources are not the greatest G. From Stanford University: “looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun” – that’s temperature variations they’re talking about: http://solar-center.stanford.edu.../glob-
warm.html
From Wikipedia re Lomborg… he’s not even a physical scientist! He’s a political scientist with little credibility!! “Bjørn Lomborg (born January 6, 1965) is a Danish political scientist and former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen. He is most known for his best-selling controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist. In the wake of the book's publication, Lomborg was confronted with allegations of scientific dishonesty from members of the Danish scientific community. These allegations were investigated by the appropriate arms of the Danish government. In the end, no official charges were left standing against Lomborg; however, a great many individual scientists—indeed, the vast majority of climatologists—remain critical of Lomborg's assertions. He is now an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School.”
cont'd:
Here’s one citing scientists as being convinced about our impact on the temp rise and why. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp.../
clim010998.htm
Note: John Christie, the researcher mentioned here that published a study saying the earth isn’t warming, is known to have changed data to suit his theories. Peer review of his research proved he was fudging the numbers.
Here’s NASA’s links about climate change… http://gcmd.nasa.gov/Resources/p.../
glob_warm.html
There’s A LOT of respected researchers and institutions here…
Here the NOAA Global Warming site… http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/
clim...balwarming.html
They say the research on Earth’s orbit changes and the Sun isn’t substantial enough to report the Sun’s effects with any certainty, BUT they are certain the GHG’s are a cause.
Want more????
yep, in G's mind the local is not connected to the global.. they exist entirely on their own and don't mingle...
so in G's mind, that smog cloud that floated away from China, will not affect us here. this is the logic G uses to argue everything. totally disconnected from reality.
-Hype
El Niños are not caused by global warming. Clear evidence exists from a variety of sources (including archaeological studies) that El Niños have been present for hundreds, and some indicators suggest maybe millions, of years.
A rather abrupt change in the El Niño - Southern Oscillation behavior occurred around 1976/77 and the new regime has persisted. There have been relatively more frequent and presistent El Niño episodes rather than the cool La Niñas. This behavior is highly unusual in the last 120 years (the period of instrumental record). Changes in precipitation over the tropical Pacific are related to this change in the El Niño - Southern Oscillation, which has also affected the pattern and magnitude of surface temperatures. However, it is unclear as to whether this apparent change in the ENSO cycle is caused by global warming.
The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Warming, assisted by the record El Niño of 1997-1998, has continued right up to the present, with 2001 being the second warmest year on record after 1998.
I love NOAA, good stuff. You just have to read it all because they do a fair job of overstating "there is not enough conclusive evidence..." over and over and over and over.
One more link, actually read it though!
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Should help to see why all the "science" behind this stuff is suspect.
Now, we've obviously exhausted ourselves on citing sources that dont agree, and we're at a point where you think it's man made, and I dont... and neither of us are changing minds...
More importantly, what would/could we do about it?
Kyoto, the favorite one that evil Bush voted down would have cost the world over $221 billion (and counting) while the potential temperature saving by the year 2050 so far achieved by Kyoto is 0.002299767 °C.
Better yet, if we did something even more drastic, we could maybe move it a whole degree, and just tank the entire worlds economy! Let's all go back to the dark ages eh?
The problem with this is that there is no real solution, and the reason there is no real solution is because we're not the real cause.
Find me one report, one scientist, who says that if all human economic/industrial activity on earth stopped right now... the temp would drop. You wont find anyone you'd like to cite.
Like I've said: In two years, we'll all be on to the next calamity, because the Cult of Global Warming has pushed this one too far too fast to back away from the doomsday predictions now. They've got a very short ammount of time before there will be mass doubt about the theory... but then again, most of them will probably move on to a third theory (first it was the Global Ice Age) for people to donate to and fund their existance.
And hype: Thanks for brining up China... they alone are the biggest argument I have against the entire Global Warming movement.
Dont you find it suspect that China has roving smog clouds, roving acid rain, and exponetial cancer rate increases, yet all the Cult of Environmental ignores them to point the finger at us?
IMHO, we can affect change by providing the better role model.
China is following in our footsteps.
-Hype
okay - thats a good article (I read every word) BUT... (there's always a "but").
While I see that we'll have to agree to disagree, please note that CO2, which I suppose I focused on in my example, is not even considered a greenhouse gas "officially" when it comes to GHG regulation. The main culprits are N20 and CH4.
Can you find me something similar on that site debunking the warming properties of those compounds? (I saw where they said 45% of N2O and 90% of methane in the atm. are caused by agriculture).
I'll have a look later... but if you come up with anything...
Hype:
Pay attention to the world around you.
China is following in our footsteps.
? China is essentially mid way through their plan set into motion about 50 years ago to bring the "Middle Kingdom" back into the most powerful nation in the world. They see all forigners as "devils and barbarians", and only adopt the economic policies of the west that seem to lead to successful growth. They've always had a blatent disreguard for human life that open apalls the United States, yet have balked at the US for our "interest in Chinese affairs".
They would as soon "follow in our footsteps" as Hezbollah will convert to the Jewish faith.
Boo:
I'll dig around a bit more, but at least I'm hoping you see why (unlike many many others) I'm not buying the line. And check back this afternoon, I have more evidence coming about what I think the real agenda is.
follow in our footsteps is regarding industrialization and capitalism.
you didn't make an argument otherwise, so i'll leave it at that.
-Hype
China followed the world's footsteps, Western culture in general, in industrialization... there really isn't two ways to go about it, and capitalism... Hype, they've got their own hybrid communism/capitalism going on, they're not following ANYONE's footsteps.
That's the argument, China is not going to copy the US, UK, France, Brazil, or anyone else, they think they are the "Middle Kingdom" and are working to reclaim their "rightful place in the world" as the dominate power.... I think you need to study some world politics before make some of these assumptions.
and.. your point would be?
should i have said China is following in the industrialized world's footsteps?
does it matter, considering the US claims to have been the main contributor to this?
you are getting industrialization and capitalism confused with systems of government. aahhhh, but i already knew this was all about dominance, something i am against.
-Hype
Commenting by HaloScan
