Global warming, right...

[mattb]

Well, with all the hubbub around global warming, scientists are reporting some major bleaching in the Caribbean right now.....



due to abnormally cold water temperatures....

[wes]

do we really want to start this whole thread up again?

Right now the northern hemisphere may be going through some cooler periods as a result of a shift in ocean currents. Like I said a dozen times in the other thread, I think that it's silly for us to look at isolated events and make a haphazard amalgamation that doesn't do anything to actually further our knowledge of it.

I do think it's interesting how incredibly varied the changes in climate are, and I think the most important thing we can do is to further develop our models to account for these things.

[Tutmos]

Well, with all the hubbub around global warming, scientists are reporting some major bleaching in the Caribbean right now.....



due to abnormally cold water temperatures....

You just aren't keeping up with the game silly. The fanatics milking the world for billions realized a few years ago that the jig may be up if it turned out there wasn't any global warming. The solution for creating a never ending source of bilking was to instead do a simple label change to "climate change." Under climate change it doesn't matter what happens with the climate, so long as anything happens, it can be claimed to be part of climate change, as such you must continue to buy carbon credits from Al Gore's carbon credit exchange. Nice arrangement, the climate is continuously changing and has been since long before our species existed and now so long as it keeps doing what it always has we get the blame and must spend money to enrich a certain group financially positioned to rake in windfall profits such as Al Gore, who's oddly enough the one telling us how bad we are and how we need to continue to enrich him personally more.

[breiwa1]

You just aren't keeping up with the game silly. The fanatics milking the world for billions realized a few years ago that the jig may be up if it turned out there wasn't any global warming. The solution for creating a never ending source of bilking was to instead do a simple label change to "climate change." Under climate change it doesn't matter what happens with the climate, so long as anything happens, it can be claimed to be part of climate change, as such you must continue to buy carbon credits from Al Gore's carbon credit exchange. Nice arrangement, the climate is continuously changing and has been since long before our species existed and now so long as it keeps doing what it always has we get the blame and must spend money to enrich a certain group financially positioned to rake in windfall profits such as Al Gore, who's oddly enough the one telling us how bad we are and how we need to continue to enrich him personally more.

I agree 100%. Global warming is a scam. It is just another chance for people to make money off other peoples emotions.

[kylesmoney]

seems to me for a forum of people so focused on delicate marine species most would be more worried about things like climate change. There is really no doubt global warming exists i dont understand how people can continue to argue the point. Its science, not a scam. Global warming is melting the ice caps, which are decreasing in size, raising water levels and the problem perpetuates itself. Polar Bears went on the endangered species list this week, why? Global warming.

Doesnt this belong more in the sump?

[wes]

last time I tried discussing information about the climate it got quite heated. Science in general gets neglected pretty quickly when people get emotional, and that really gets me fired up. It became pretty apparent to me that people are rather unwilling to listen to differing opinions on this subject. I sum it up in one way-- people change their opinions to suit their actions. This goes for all parties. I feel like I'm a bit unbiased as I haven't got a lot vested on any political side. But, I'd rather read up than be assaulted, so for the most part, I'm going to try to sit this one out.

[wolmutt]

no one on this forum is really very qualified to discuss this issue as is so blatant in comments made. lets drop it here and now.

[oyam123]

no one on this forum is really very qualified to discuss this issue as is so blatant in comments made. lets drop it here and now.

Sure, silence the people. You must be part of the NWO conspiracy;)

[hypertech]

There are no topics that are so taboo we can't discuss them on the forum but there are posts and attitudes that are not allowed.

So, that said, I'm going to watch this thread carefully becasue it didn't go so well last time around. Don't let it turn into a mess and make me get out my ban hammer.

[Goldpony75]

:tinfoil:

[wolmutt]

Hawkings says that global warming is the number one biggest "man" made threat to our survival. He is the einstein of our time, but what does he know he has lou gehrig's disease which must have clearly gone to his brain and everyone knows that he is in the pocket books of Al Gore who is secretly plotting to take over the world with ManBearPig, lmao.

[wolmutt]

Sure, silence the people. You must be part of the NWO conspiracy;)

for sure, they got lots of money and dish it out to have people like me silence others so that no one will ever know the truth, ha.

[wolmutt]

anyone ever read SILENT SPRING?????? that was just a conspiracy, too. Oh, and the holocaust, need I even say, ha.

[wolmutt]

There are no topics that are so taboo we can't discuss them on the forum but there are posts and attitudes that are not allowed.

So, that said, I'm going to watch this thread carefully becasue it didn't go so well last time around. Don't let it turn into a mess and make me get out my ban hammer.

I know Matt, but I am not very good at avoiding this thread.

[wolmutt]

seems to me for a forum of people so focused on delicate marine species most would be more worried about things like climate change. There is really no doubt global warming exists i dont understand how people can continue to argue the point. Its science, not a scam. Global warming is melting the ice caps, which are decreasing in size, raising water levels and the problem perpetuates itself. Polar Bears went on the endangered species list this week, why? Global warming.

Doesnt this belong more in the sump?

Kylesmoney is fitting, I know it is really funny, and I must laugh, hahahah:nuts:

[oyam123]

Hawkings says that global warming is the number one biggest "man" made threat to our survival. He is the einstein of our time, but what does he know he has lou gehrig's disease which must have clearly gone to his brain and everyone knows that he is in the pocket books of Al Gore who is secretly plotting to take over the world with ManBearPig, lmao.

ManBearPig was killed by NASA when he crossed over from imagination land.
Algor in now selling global cooling.

[wes]

ManBearPig was killed by NASA when he crossed over from imagination land.
Algor in now selling global cooling.

:micro:

[mattb]

Science does not get thrown out the door.... There are just as many marine biologists that do NOT believe in global warming as there are those that do. Saying that there is no science to counter this is like saying that evolution is a fact rather than what is, a theory.

So back to my OP, fact.... Cold water bleaching IS being reported... Btw the estimated population of polar bears has increased the past year.... Only wanted to contribute some facts to the thread...
Just because Hawkin's extremely smart doesn't mean he is correct all the time....

[kylesmoney]

i apologize if it seems i stepped too far, I think I will have to sit this one out. Forum needs a hide thread button for those of us who need a little help avoiding certain ones....

:beerchug: wolmutt

[wolmutt]

Science does not get thrown out the door.... There are just as many marine biologists that do NOT believe in global warming as there are those that do. Saying that there is no science to counter this is like saying that evolution is a fact rather than what is, a theory.

So back to my OP, fact.... Cold water bleaching IS being reported... Btw the estimated population of polar bears has increased the past year.... Only wanted to contribute some facts to the thread...
Just because Hawkin's extremely smart doesn't mean he is correct all the time....

so I suppose if we add the likes of carl sagan among others in there it still doesn't mean anything.

[wes]

gah! I just typed up a nice length reply only to lose it to the 'back' button.

anyway.

I'd be happy to read any studies you have that indicate climate change, on a global scale, is not occurring. not just news links, actual studies.

I also have to say that marine biologists aren't the best source on this subject. Once they are at a high enough level, they become rather specialized. Best to listen to climatologists when it comes to climate. Not hobbyists, not marine biologists, not friends who've done their research, and certainly not the news or what any petition might seem to indicate.

I think that I have a fairly open mind--non-political, non-critical, etc. Of all the material I've read, the stuff I would consider reputable always says confirms what I've stated.

Also, if you're claiming facts, please cite your sources.

[wolmutt]

are there any major world governmental agencies that say that climate change is not real???? lMAO

[wolmutt]

the world is flat and it does not matter what you say, or prove, there is something wrong with your data, etc etc......the world is flat.

[wolmutt]

is there any major academic institution stating that climate change is not real?????????

[hypertech]

I think that I have a fairly open mind--non-political, non-critical, etc.

I'd like to see a citation for a source on that.
:oldman:

[Supposed ot be funny, if anyone takes offense, I'll delete it]

[wolmutt]

:stupid:

[wolmutt]

hahaha

[wolmutt]

I'd like to see a citation for a source on that.
:oldman:

[Supposed ot be funny, if anyone takes offense, I'll delete it]

I'll be the qualified source.

[wolmutt]

Wes, it doesn't matter how much proof you have, how well documented it is, who says it, how many people say it, etc, etc........ When people have decided they know what's up it's like beating your head against a brick wall... consensus means nothing, expert means nothing, etc., etc......

[oyam123]

Even if its not true....I like this idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

[wolmutt]

oyam123, yes! good job. the funny thing is that someone is gonna post on this thread about how the world is flat and it doesn't matter how logical of an argument you make against that, the world is flat.

Also, wiki points out that there is a scientific consensus on climate change being caused by man.

[oyam123]

oyam123, yes! good job. the funny thing is that someone is gonna post on this thread about how the world is flat and it doesn't matter how logical of an argument you make against that, the world is flat.

Also, wiki points out that there is a scientific consensus on climate change being caused by man.

I just wanted you to check out the 911 videos that followed;)

[wolmutt]

those videos are sad. faces in smoke are like watching clouds. the brain is programmed right at birth to see faces. there is scientific consesus on that, too ;)

[morty]

Best to listen to climatologists when it comes to climate.

I'd be willing to bet this is what Hawking did.

So when it comes to the issue of him being "right" or not, we're not talking about Hawking making a hunch based on the weather he sees in his backyard, or watching the temps listed on the Weather Channel, or the sensationalist reporting about warming in the press. He's smart enough not to stake his reputation on such sources. Rather, he, as a scientist, knows where to look for the most reliable insight on an issue: the research that's been done in the field of relevance, i.e. climate science. And he recognizes that there is a very significant consensus regarding the issue. I'd challenge anyone to argue that his interest is only in making a buck off of the "controversy", or that he's too stupid to be able to weed through the chaff and find the best source of info upon which to base his opinion.

[wes]

Even if its not true....I like this idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

I thought you were against action on global warming? This guy is pretty reasonable--he gives extremes without prejudice. Was this guy enough to make you shift?


I'd be willing to bet this is what Hawking did.

So when it comes to the issue of him being "right" or not, we're not talking about Hawking making a hunch based on the weather he sees in his backyard, or watching the temps listed on the Weather Channel, or the sensationalist reporting about warming in the press. He's smart enough not to stake his reputation on such sources. Rather, he, as a scientist, knows where to look for the most reliable insight on an issue: the research that's been done in the field of relevance, i.e. climate science. And he recognizes that there is a very significant consensus regarding the issue. I'd challenge anyone to argue that his interest is only in making a buck off of the "controversy", or that he's too stupid to be able to weed through the chaff and find the best source of info upon which to base his opinion.


Morty, you're all about reasonable thinking. props! For my money, physicists are the most reliable source out there. I wish I could say that without bias...

[mattb]

There's no reason to insult me... Where are your scientific facts?!? So you don't think people, marine biologists, that would be viewing the 'effects' of global climate change wouldnt be versed in what is 'happening'?!? Read the coral lists.... Of course there would be a discipline dedicated to global warming, climatologists.

Sorry, just because Carl Sagan says its so I'm not going to buy it....

I side with neither political party as they are both too f'ed up... Politics has nothing to do with it other than his yet another tool to create more government in our lives which is never good. I don't care which universities say that global warming is happening, nor which countries say its so. Why would bureaucrats know anything about anything other than to extract money from their 'constituents'?!?

Again, back to facts, cold water bleaching is happening and its currently 40 degrees in mid May on Mille Lacs.

Flat worlder who takes comfort with my guns and religion....

[wes]

There's no reason to insult me... Where are your scientific facts?!? So you don't think people, marine biologists, that would be viewing the 'effects' of global climate change wouldnt be versed in what is 'happening'?!? Read the coral lists.... Of course there would be a discipline dedicated to global warming, climatologists.

Sorry, just because Carl Sagan says its so I'm not going to buy it....

I side with neither political party as they are both too f'ed up... Politics has nothing to do with it other than his yet another tool to create more government in our lives which is never good. I don't care which universities say that global warming is happening, nor which countries say its so. Why would bureaucrats know anything about anything other than to extract money from their 'constituents'?!?

Again, back to facts, cold water bleaching is happening and its currently 40 degrees in mid May on Mille Lacs.

Flat worlder who takes comfort with my guns and religion....

If you don't care about a body of research done by a university or even country, where should I get supporting facts? I can't see why independent research would be any less susceptible to corruption. FWIW, I'm really not trying to insult anyone, I don't mean anything I've said to have any demeaning indications.

It's hard for me to believe you have no political belief in this subject because every time it comes up you bring up the "guns and religion" thing, which has nothing to do with this issue as far as I can tell.

I believe that marine biology is an incredibly diverse field, with intense specializations, and that people who do research on the subject may not even concern themselves with the global environment. For instance, someone who studies the polarization of light that stomatopods receive might not have as valid of a background as someone who has spent years studying what we're talking about. BTW, has anyone heard that they(stomatopods aka mantis shrimp) can detect a kind of polarization that no other animal has been known to be able to detect? some kind of spiral polarization, when I get around to it, I really want to look up the physics of it. But that's a whole other (likely much less popular) thread.

Can you link me the coral lists you're talking about? I'm completely up for reading through them anytime.

Believe it or not, I'm not even sure who carl sagan is. Stephen Hawking I know. :-)

[wolmutt]

I'm not sure where I have seen anyone make insults aimed at any one person; however, I do believe there are comments aimed at the logic of some.

[wes]

I'd like to see a citation for a source on that.
:oldman:

[Supposed ot be funny, if anyone takes offense, I'll delete it]

according to google, I'm a of cardinal character. Whatever that means.

http://www.wesleyanargus.com/article.php?article_id=323

[wolmutt]

carl sagan is the scientist who made science cool. he could possibly be the fuel of cultural change that in turn created your interest in science. wes, wes, wes.....ok, the movie Contact with Jodie Foster????? carl sagan wrote the book. He wrote many books that talk about exactly what is happening in this forum. He is a personal hero of mine, and soon to be yours I'm sure.

[wes]

yeah, I just googled him and realized that I know him. I have a terrible memory for names. It's usually worst for authors, so I guess that makes sense that I'd forget him. Also, I never really got into astrophysics all that much. or should I say... yet...

[Tutmos]

I heard a pretty good one last week. Some global warming advocate was going on about how last year was a RECORD year for hurricaines and it's caused by global warming. Well guess what little detail he was hiding and was, in my view, being very dishonest with? Last years record he claimed due to global warming was for the fewest hurricaines! He tried to make it sound like it was the other way around. :nuts:

[Tutmos]

carl sagan is the scientist who made science cool. he could possibly be the fuel of cultural change that in turn created your interest in science. wes, wes, wes.....ok, the movie Contact with Jodie Foster????? carl sagan wrote the book. He wrote many books that talk about exactly what is happening in this forum. He is a personal hero of mine, and soon to be yours I'm sure.


Uhh Carl Sagan died over 10 years ago. Yes I used to watch Cosmos all the time.

[wolmutt]

It's really funny how there is way more money to be lost to big companies than for any others to gain. This is exactly what we saw with big chemical companies when it was found that certain chemicals were causing the softening of predator bird eggs (top of the food chain as are we....chemicals move up the food chain to top thus concentrating in those species). When the book silent spring was written the big chemical companies did everything they cool to attack the character of the writer, a woman, ewwww. They basically tried to create the scarecrow fallacy with her, and when that didn't work they hired scientists to defute her results. Part of the purpose was to create mass confusion in the public who is grossly undereducated in the scientific process and buy time for the sake of money. They didn't give a poop about the fact that DDT was going to kill all of us just as is happening with those whose interests go against the reality of climate change. It's always about big money. The BIG money is not on the side of those stating climate change is true. It's really easy just follow the money.

[wolmutt]

Of course he is dead, so what?

[wolmutt]

yeah, I just googled him and realized that I know him. I have a terrible memory for names. It's usually worst for authors, so I guess that makes sense that I'd forget him. Also, I never really got into astrophysics all that much. or should I say... yet...

Wes, a lot of his books are about the empirical process and its place within society. Check him out...seeing him as just an astrophysicist severely limits what he was and what he wrote.

demon haunted world....very cool.

[wes]

Wes, a lot of his books are about the empirical process and its place within society. Check him out...seeing him as just an astrophysicist severely limits what he was and what he wrote.

demon haunted world....very cool.

I was just saying that's likely why I haven't got him stuck in my head.

Spinning facts does no good for anybody. That hurricane anecdote, if true, really demonstrates the dangers of making/interpreting statements without a full understanding of the subject. No one I would trust would make grandiose statements about a particular season. It's all about trends and long term understanding.

[brendondreher]

Sagan has some really good lectures online. They are definitely worth watching even if its not really your "thing".
I find it interesting that some people here repeatedly have studies/scientists to back up what they are saying and others dont.
Is a thread on religion going to be started soon?

[wes]

Sagan has some really good lectures online. They are definitely worth watching even if its not really your "thing".
I find it interesting that some people here repeatedly have studies/scientists to back up what they are saying and others dont.
Is a thread on religion going to be started soon?

oh gawd, I hope not. I'll just excuse myself now--I once got punched by a young earth chrisitan during what I considered a conversation and he decided was blasphemy.

[brendondreher]

You most have been making some good arguments if he got upset enough to hit ya. :beerchug:

[wolmutt]

lmao :beerchug:

[wes]

ah, we were drunk. I think he hit me for asking him why he was so vehement about defending that part of the bible while completely disregarding other biblical directives.

[morty]

I once got punched by a young earth chrisitan during what I considered a conversation and he decided was blasphemy.

:cool: http://youtube.com/results?search_query=why+do+people+laugh+at+creati onists&search_type :cool:

[wes]

:cool: http://youtube.com/results?search_query=why+do+people+laugh+at+creati onists&search_type :cool:

this makes me glad I haven't fallen asleep yet.

[wes]

part 12 is hilarious! I laughed so hard puppy chow came out my nose. I'm amazed I didn't wake my wife up.

[wes]

part 17 sums up my frustrations with pseudo-science rather well. I have to warn it may be blatantly offensive.

[saltysailor]

i started the other tread so im staying out of this one for good......wes have fun and to every one its a myth get over it lol

[Otolith]

I am always fascinated by reading these threads...

There's cold water bleaching corals in the Caribbean because global warming caused the polar ice caps to melt, which subsequently led to a cool current of water heading south which bleached the corals.

Using the argument in the previous sentence is about as asinine as using the argument that global warming does or doesn't exist because corals bleached due to some cold water or that it's 40 and raining on Mille Lacs.

[fivesmallworlds]

eh... not getting into it this time...

Everyone here is right.... lol

[wes]

Using the argument in the previous sentence is about as asinine as using the argument that global warming does or doesn't exist because corals bleached due to some cold water or that it's 40 and raining on Mille Lacs.

sounds like you might light part 17 of that series...

[Otolith]

How long are all these "parts"?

Edit--nevermind, I see. If I put my mind to it, I'll get to #17 about 3 months from now. :laugh:

[mattb]

WOW! Before I get back to Jim Beam and the walleyes...

I was hardly serious about the temperature at Mille lacs... I was kidding.....

Independent research... Hmmm, well if that's the 'answer', do I take anti-oxidants or not? Do I want drug-coated stents or non-drug coated stents?!? Science is far from perfect...

Sure you didn't insult me, by insulting a certain party, of which a person that is involved in the conversation, you insult the part naturally when you insult the whole.

Back to the Beam!

[Tutmos]

You really need to establish what people are claiming before debating any of this. I see some people sticking by the old line, "global warming - New York City should have been underwater by now" and some others using the "Global Climate change - hrmm the globe has cooled over the last 9 years - we might have made a boo boo. Let's rename it so that if anything changes at all we can claim it's man made."

I'd like to see the two or three people trying to debate via spam state which they claim is true -- global warming or global anything?

[mattb]

If the melting of the polar ice caps are causing cold water bleaching, wouldnt we see this same result in the Indo-Pacific? (SSTs in Indo-pacific are within their seasonal variances).

[Redwinger]

If the melting of the polar ice caps are causing cold water bleaching, wouldnt we see this same result in the Indo-Pacific? (SSTs in Indo-pacific are within their seasonal variances).

Matt that is called "global current change":laugh: Also I saw a reference to einstein and hawking. Both smart individuals however keep in mind einstein was brilliant yet could not even tie his shoes. ;). Yep Sagen is a expert on this considering he has been dead for how long and global warming er climate change or whatever you call it today has only been around for the last 5 years or so?

[Redwinger]

Wow only 17,200 scientists
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/162241/17_200_Scientists_Dispute_Global_Warming

Also all studies show climate change through history. Warming trends cooling trends, for millions of years. But some have packaged it up and sold it to the most ignorant of people that we are to blame. BTW I got some oceanfront property in AZ for ya on the cheap! Hook, line, and sinker they suckered people into buying into it. Someone wants to claim studies on it , look at climate data for millions of years and you see the trends up and down up and down. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. This whole farce is a agenda....

[Redwinger]

Also I pose a question. Because people are the "expert" in their field does that mean they cannot be questioned? Meaning they are the authority on it so we should just accept it?

[wes]

How long are all these "parts"?

Edit--nevermind, I see. If I put my mind to it, I'll get to #17 about 3 months from now. :laugh:

skip ahead, its worth it.


matt- I was not saying independent research was the answer, I'm only asking you what you consider viable data. You stated research by universities and countries wasn't valid, so I was asking what you think is reliable. I think any major peer reviewed publication is a good place to start.

about the icecaps causing the cooling--if you reread otolith's post, you'll see that he was using a silly idea as an example that blanket statements should not be gleaned from singular events.

I've already looked at the petitions for both sides and they're ridiculous. They are based on nothing more than the honor system. Peer reviewed journals are the best way to sort out the BS. a quick search of the journal science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=global+warming

you get abstracts like this:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently released its Third Assessment Report (TAR), in which new projections are given for global-mean warming in the absence of policies to limit climate change. The full warming range over 1990 to 2100, 1.4° to 5.8°C, is substantially higher than the range given previously in the IPCC Second Assessment Report. Here we interpret the new warming range in probabilistic terms, accounting for uncertainties in emissions, the climate sensitivity, the carbon cycle, ocean mixing, and aerosol forcing. We show that the probabilities of warming values at both the high and low ends of the TAR range are very low. In the absence of climate-mitigation policies, the 90% probability interval for 1990 to 2100 warming is 1.7° to 4.9°C.


In a of ocean-atmosphere interaction that excluded biological processes, the oceanic uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) was substantially reduced in scenarios involving global warming relative to control scenarios. The primary reason for the reduced uptake was the weakening or collapse of the ocean thermohaline circulation. Such a large reduction in this ocean uptake would have a major impact on the future growth rate of atmospheric CO2. simulations that include a simple representation of biological processes show a potentially large offsetting effect resulting from the downward flux of biogenic carbon. However, the magnitude of the offset is difficult to quantify with present knowledge.


here's a rather succinct one: An international climate assessment finds for the first time that humans are altering their world and the life in it by altering climate; looking ahead, global warming's impacts will only worsen.

[Redwinger]

I think any major peer reviewed publication is a good place to start.



Yeah the good ole boy checks and balances system. I review yours and you review mine. You wouldn't exactly have your worst enemy peer review your work now would ya.;)

[wes]

Yeah the good ole boy checks and balances system. I review yours and you review mine. You wouldn't exactly have your worst enemy peer review your work now would ya.;)

They don't have a choice, actually.

Peer reviewed does not mean that you give it to your friend and he says "hell yeah, that paper ROCKS!" It means that anything you put up is subject to incredibly intense scrutiny by a field of experts, most of whom are rather cut-throat; when discrepancies do show up, they are torn apart in a matter of days to months. Look at the cold-fusion debacle, for instance. If it's not repeatable or demonstrable it gets tossed out. That is what science is.

[Tutmos]

Prince Charles says we only have 18 months left to fix it! I also seem to recall the chief meteorologist for the NOAA Hurricaine prediction center saying that Al Gore and the rest of that crowd claiming a causal relationship between "man made global warming" and hurricaine activity were completely wrong and had no clue what they were talking about. I think he was actually a little more broad in noting that the global warming claims were specious at best.

I agree that contamination by persistent pollutants such as Mercury, DDT etc. are a real concern that have to be addressed but global warming, as it's presented, is a joke. At the same time I also strongly support every overall efficiency improvement we can make in any system, so long as it IS an improvement overall, unlike hybrid cars.

The sun does not provide a fixed energy output, in fact the drop in global temperature over the past year, yes there was not any global warming, not even holding temps, the global temperature dropped to levels near those prior to the industrial revolution. Why? Because the sun's activity level dropped.

I also fail to understand what all the hub bub is about with the melting of the ice caps. That's one of the major functions to the ice caps and the oceans in general, to act as an enormous thermal buffer for the planet and moderate any drastic overall system changes. If there is too much energy in the system, some of the ice melts to absorb that excess and moderate the temperature. When the excess energy is depleted by creation of too many Soy Mocha Lattes then ice formation increases at the poles. Where is this arrogant attitude coming from that suggests the earth is supposed to be in stasis? But the polar bears are threatened now! Here's a little lesson that I found a complete riot. Remember the spotted owl? The destruction of old growth forests was to blame for its decline and of course it was mans fault. Well guess what? It turns out that man had nothing to do with it after all. The current theory is that the spotted owl was vanishing because it was being out competed by the Barred Owl, a native of the east coast that has migrated west.

Odd, that sounds a lot like evolution in action. We, as a species, are here because the environment has changed over time and we've evolved over time to deal with those changes, as has every other living organism on the planet.

Smarten up and quit worrying about nonsense like global warming and focus your attention on real threats like mercury and other persistant contaminents, like those used in the manufacture of hybrid cars for example. Donate your money to Doctors without borders or famine relief groups that actually save people that may otherwise die, instead of enriching those that scream the loudest and need another vacation home. :greenguy: Worry about population control in the third world. Global warming, if we're lucky enough to really see it, will actually dramatically increase the food production capacity of the planet. There'll be a small loss in production near the equator but it will be dramatically offset by increases in both the northern and southern hemispheres. No I haven't proof read this so excuse the rough nature of it.

[wes]

Wow, lots to discuss there.

Quotes half-remembered or out of context don't really help. I don't think I'd trust a prince with a question deeper than "what's it like to be a prince?"

I think that global warming, as it is presented by the media, is a joke. I would never debate that they are inflationary and thrive on BS.

Yes, the sun plays a huge role in the climate of the earth, but this does not negate that we do, too.

The way you present ice caps melting as a buffer could still mean trouble down the road. Think of a reef tank. If you run down your alkalinity, what happens to your pH and then your livestock?

IMO, it is all about quality of life. I like the earth pretty much as it is, and would like to see it continue in a relatively normal fashion. I know another mass extinction is inevitable, but I'd rather not be at the helm. In my opinion the debate should be about what we like about our existence and how to help ensure that we're not steering it away from that ideal.

Again, I'd love to read any actual studies with evidence that this is a trivial issue.

[Redwinger]

Also I pose a question. Because people are the "expert" in their field does that mean they cannot be questioned? Meaning they are the authority on it so we should just accept it?

Yep still waiting :)

[Redwinger]

Here Wes read away
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mclean/agwfallacies.pdf

[Tutmos]

Wow, lots to discuss there.

Quotes half-remembered or out of context don't really help.

It's Dr. William Gray, he's said quite a lot about it, google away.


I don't think I'd trust a prince with a question deeper than "what's it like to be a prince?"

But you'd trust a politician looking for personal income?


I think that global warming, as it is presented by the media, is a joke. I would never debate that they are inflationary and thrive on BS. We can agree there.


Yes, the sun plays a huge role in the climate of the earth, but this does not negate that we do, too.

That's part of the problem with the whole "climate change" issue. It claims to know exactly what causes everything, and that cause is man while completely ignoring the largest factors, I would suggest essentially lying by omission about it.

IMO, it is all about quality of life. I like the earth pretty much as it is, and would like to see it continue in a relatively normal fashion. I know another mass extinction is inevitable, but I'd rather not be at the helm. In my opinion the debate should be about what we like about our existence and how to help ensure that we're not steering it away from that ideal.

There's the real crux of the problem. The earth will never stay as it is, no matter how much we'd like to think we can control our environment, it will keep changing despite us. Also your appreciated normal may not be what's appreciated by others and as I mentioned no matter how hard you try it will not remain in stasis. Hypotheticaly let's just pretend you could though. What would be the moral judgement with respect to all of those future species that may have evolved into something better that were prevented because you managed to control the climate and keep it from changing as it would have had you not been here? I'll add some other items to my previous list of real concerns, particulates, acid rain, top soil errosion, stripping of the environment to produce more water intensive products like ethanol and on a social level the repression and murder of millions by socialists and communists every year. Time to go back to work...

[Otolith]

IMO, it is short-sited to think that we are not having an affect on the environment and the climate. How much, however, is debatable.

Should we expect the climate to change? Sure. Has it been to this date significant enough to worry? Don't know, and I don't think anyone does and we probably won't know any time soon. :)

[wes]

It's Dr. William Gray, he's said quite a lot about it, google away.




But you'd trust a politician looking for personal income?


We can agree there.




That's part of the problem with the whole "climate change" issue. It claims to know exactly what causes everything, and that cause is man while completely ignoring the largest factors, I would suggest essentially lying by omission about it.





There's the real crux of the problem. The earth will never stay as it is, no matter how much we'd like to think we can control our environment, it will keep changing despite us. Also your appreciated normal may not be what's appreciated by others and as I mentioned no matter how hard you try it will not remain in stasis. Hypotheticaly let's just pretend you could though. What would be the moral judgement with respect to all of those future species that may have evolved into something better that were prevented because you managed to control the climate and keep it from changing as it would have had you not been here? I'll add some other items to my previous list of real concerns, particulates, acid rain, top soil errosion, stripping of the environment to produce more water intensive products like ethanol and on a social level the repression and murder of millions by socialists and communists every year. Time to go back to work...

Don't you hate work? all keepin' you from conversation and such. bah!

I never ever said I'd trust a politician. In fact, I've stated exactly the opposite time and time again. I don't understand why these threads always wind up with people imposing political ideals on me. I'm just not into it.

I don't think any studies done are actually neglecting the sun as the major factor in climate. Never have I seen a study done that claims to know everything about what we're doing. Something like that would never make it in any reputable journal. It would completely negate the scientific process.

When I refer to liking the earth as it is, I include the natural fluctuation due to global processes. I can see how you would think I was advocating an attempt at stability. I assure you, though, I am not. The only constant is change. I think we can affect the rate of change, however, and I believe we have some control over some very vital factors.

I do think you hit on a problem with the discussion, one that I think explains why I always get pegged as "spewing leftist propaganda" and such. We immediately see an arbitrary judgment when we hear this topic. I have never said that it would be "good" or "bad" if there were massive amounts of heating or cooling. Things would change, and in a way that is different because of our actions.

[morty]

Also I pose a question. Because people are the "expert" in their field does that mean they cannot be questioned? Meaning they are the authority on it so we should just accept it?

Sure, they can be questioned, and are. In fact, that's what the peer-review process exactly is. Now, you would look pretty silly questioning such experts, because the extent of your background on the subject probably does not come from any formal training, it seems a lot more likely that your info comes from strident, biased, cherry-picked sources.

However, Red, debating the subject with you is simply a non-starter when the peer-review process gets labelled with a dismissive wave of the hand as a "good ole boy network". I find that sort of blanket statement profoundly uninformed and curiously resonant with AM talk radio themes. What a convenient refuge to run to when one doesn't like what one hears: "They're all in cohoots!"

So, we get to decide when we want to listen to and trust the experts (DDT, mercury = bad) and when we just think they're trying to screw us all over? Way too black helicopter for me.

I can visualize the hands lunging towards their keyboards right now: "But we have PROOF that DDT and mercury are harmful! There's no PROOF that CO2 and global climate are linked!!" And such an assertion would demonstrate more ignorance. There is a ton of empirically collected data that show such a relationship exists, and FWIW, these same data are also in league with Milankovich's forcing hypothesis, which, ironically, is a favorite fallback position to global warming deniers: the earth is continually going through cycles; there's no way humans could alter such cycles. Yes! Milankovich apprears to have been right; a complex relationship of solar variance, axial wobbling, and other factors all work together to create long-term climate trends, and one of these forcing factors is greenhouse gas concentrations. And, in this 600,000+ year sample of climate data, there has never existed a natural source of carbon dumping that even comes close to what has occurred in the past 150 years. The largest volcanos are a mere duck fart (methane, bad analogy) compared to what has been introduced by humans. So the issue isn't about whether the earth will enter another such cycle, it is about the rate at which such a cycle is being forced. Very, very bad for ecosystems. And I find the assertion that "this rapid warming will be GOOD for us!" arrogant and equally uninformed.

But, ears plugged, la-la-la, science doesn't have a shred of evidence upon which to base any assumptions. Or so says a small and shrinking contingent of people with deceptively shrill voices. (And note that a vanishingly small proportion of them can be considered members of the climate scientist community, "good ole boys" or not.)

[wes]

the only non-website citation in that paper was an ad hoc committee. It doesn't even say what committee, who was there, etc... That is a pretty shoddy excuse for a scientific paper. Credentials are not even listed for the one and only author. Here's an actual citation:

6 "Ad Hoc Committee Report on the 'Hockey Stick'


This is not a paper I would put any trust in. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be offensive, but it is built on very, very thin ice (no pun intended).

SPPI is a conservative think tank comprised of individuals brought together because of their unified political beliefs. I do not trust their work and find it narrow sighted and biased.

[Tutmos]

IMO, it is short-sited to think that we are not having an affect on the environment and the climate. How much, however, is debatable.

Now that's a rational opinion, one that's virtually non existent in the public sphere. It's likely we have had some impact, but in the same rational manner you must also acknowledge something else that has as much logical merit but will be deeply terrifying to the standard Climate Change advocates. That it's just as possible that our impact on "global warming" has actually been beneficial to the global climate. The premiss that any change must be bad is baseless.

Although simply speculation on my part is it possible that if there hadn't been any "global warming" that the recent drop in global temperatures would have been even more dramatic and actually caused widespread food shortages and massive starvation problems? There seems to be as much evidence to support this claim I just created as any other climate change claim.



Should we expect the climate to change? Sure. Has it been to this date significant enough to worry? Don't know, and I don't think anyone does and we probably won't know any time soon. :)

Well said, now if only the great scientific global concensus would recognize the limited scope of our true understanding.

[Tutmos]

I think you're being terribly naive about the politics of funding and grants in general within the modern scientific community. Sadly science isn't a bastion of altruistic purity but instead a community of individuals with the same failings as the rest of the world, ego, greed, insecurity, fear, desire for acceptance, jealousy and so on. Unfortunately though it's the best we've got for now, but make sure to recognize its shortcomings.



Sure, they can be questioned, and are. In fact, that's what the peer-review process exactly is. Now, you would look pretty silly questioning such experts, because the extent of your background on the subject probably does not come from any formal training, it seems a lot more likely that your info comes from strident, biased, cherry-picked sources.

However, Red, debating the subject with you is simply a non-starter when the peer-review process gets labelled with a dismissive wave of the hand as a "good ole boy network". I find that sort of blanket statement profoundly uninformed and curiously resonant with AM talk radio themes. What a convenient refuge to run to when one doesn't like what one hears: "They're all in cohoots!"

So, we get to decide when we want to listen to and trust the experts (DDT, mercury = bad) and when we just think they're trying to screw us all over? Way too black helicopter for me.

I can visualize the hands lunging towards their keyboards right now: "But we have PROOF that DDT and mercury are harmful! There's no PROOF that CO2 and global climate are linked!!" And such an assertion would demonstrate more ignorance. There is a ton of empirically collected data that show such a relationship exists, and FWIW, these same data are also in league with Milankovich's forcing hypothesis, which, ironically, is a favorite fallback position to global warming deniers: the earth is continually going through cycles; there's no way humans could alter such cycles. Yes! Milankovich apprears to have been right; a complex relationship of solar variance, axial wobbling, and other factors all work together to create long-term climate trends, and one of these forcing factors is greenhouse gas concentrations. And, in this 600,000+ year sample of climate data, there has never existed a natural source of carbon dumping that even comes close to what has occurred in the past 150 years. The largest volcanos are a mere duck fart (methane, bad analogy) compared to what has been introduced by humans. So the issue isn't about whether the earth will enter another such cycle, it is about the rate at which such a cycle is being forced. Very, very bad for ecosystems. And I find the assertion that "this rapid warming will be GOOD for us!" arrogant and equally uninformed.

But, ears plugged, la-la-la, science doesn't have a shred of evidence upon which to base any assumptions. Or so says a small and shrinking contingent of people with deceptively shrill voices. (And note that a vanishingly small proportion of them can be considered members of the climate scientist community, "good ole boys" or not.)

[oyam123]

Follow the MONEY, it will lead you to the POWER that will lead you to the Answer. This will then lead you back to the POWER that will lead back to the MONEY.:oldman: (could not find the Smilie with the Tin Foil hat)

[wes]

oyam, I'm confused. What's your position?

[wes]

I think you're being terribly naive about the politics of funding and grants in general within the modern scientific community. Sadly science isn't a bastion of altruistic purity but instead a community of individuals with the same failings as the rest of the world, ego, greed, insecurity, fear, desire for acceptance, jealousy and so on. Unfortunately though it's the best we've got for now, but make sure to recognize its shortcomings.

I disagree. I think he's giving it an even plane; you're using it as a double standard. The scientific community is much more transparent than political one, or any of the anti-global warming proponents I've seen. The methods, numbers, models, etc. are there for anyone to test. The strongest leveling factor science has is that it never claims to be infallible.

[Tutmos]

How's this for funny timing? Just saw this on the news.

This is a petition from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which appears, on the surface, to be a legitimate group. They're listing that the petition has been signed by over 31,000 scientists including over 9000 with doctorates, which is right about triple the number that signed onto the UN climate change claims.

The data presented here http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm seems to refute a lot of what's being claimed. I'm skimming through looking at the sources right now. It claims to be peer reviewed, but as I said I just found it so I can't vouch for it quite yet.

Here's the petition that was signed,

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

[wes]

what news was it on? I've read stuff from them and found it to be pretty sketchy.

I've also seen their petition. it is utter tripe. here it is:

http://www.petitionproject.org/


edit: link to actual pdf of petition:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GW_Petition.pdf

"Additionally, many petition signers obtain petition cards from their colleagues, who request these cards from the project."

petitions are horrible, and that goes for both sides.

[wes]

I haven't got time to research every facet of the institution, but if someone else wants to, let me know what you come up with other than this:

The OISM website says it has "six faculty members, several volunteers who work actively on its projects, and a large number of volunteers who help occasionally." The only paid staff person, however, is biochemist Arthur Robinson, the Institute's founder and president. None of its other "faculty members" actually work at the Institute on a regular basis. "They come up on occasion to do some work with us," Robinson told an interviewer in 1998.


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Me dicine

[Tutmos]

Looks like it's the same place. I don't really like where they submitted for peer review but unless the data presented is faked it's very troublesome for global warming claims, I'm ignoring any opinions provided and just looking at the data they've presented.

[wes]

Robinson is a signatory to A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, a petition produced by the Discovery Institute that expresses skepticism about the ability of natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encouraging careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinian theory."

I think this guy is a crackpot. Even Issac Newton went nuts at the end of his life.

Here's an article he recently wrote:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Robinson/art3.htm

"-- falsely claiming that DDT is dangerous to the environment --"

etc.

[Tutmos]

I wonder if the data is valid though, he may appear to be a little marginal after a little closer inspection but I wonder about the raw data that's provided in the document, ignoring the opinions tagging along with it.

To keep from inflating my post count I'll just add this bit as an edit.

I just read through that article he wrote about DDT and I have to tell you he's actually pretty much right on about it. He didn't seem like a crackpot there in the least, maybe he was suffering from trying to hype things a bit like the other side tends to do but overall he's right. A global ban on DDT was horrendously stupid. Limiting its use to brief periods and regions of mosquito born illness outbreaks was the way it should have been handled as the real problem with DDT was continual use since it doesn't break down for extreme periods of time, meaning it would otherwise accumulate in the environment and lead to eventual resistance as well as some side effects in other animals if concentrations rise too high.

The anti Darwin petition, on the other hand, sounds a bit hokey. I've done a bit of reading about the Discovery Institute in the past and the game they've played over the years trying to get it into the schools is pretty lame.

On the size and apparent lack of massive funding, well that's kind of a consequence of not accepting funding from sources that may have an agenda to push. It actually kind of legitimizes their claim that they aren't propped up by the energy companies etc. On the other hand if they had a massive office space in some class A building in downtown NYC I would want to know where all the money comes from to pay for it. As far as I can tell they don't seem to claim to fund their own research but are just collecting existing data from other sources.

[wes]

it's hard not to dismiss someone who seems so blatantly unscrupulous, but I'll check out the data. I have no idea what the current protocols are for collection of this data(that's what the peer review is for), but I'll read it for obvious discrepancies. In any case, I would bet it would be nearly impossible to compile it in any timely manner when working essentially solo.

[wes]

the general theme of his paper is a statement about politics. He speaks in vague words, like that the records were "short" before he wrote his paper, but he fails to provide quantification thereof.

his sources look sound at a glance, but I haven't the time to search through 70 some citations and their articles. He's experienced, but I still think he's a crackpot.



"As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. "

He seems to be implying that CO2 is directly related these things, which is a bit of a stretch. I've read reports that refute his claims that higher CO2 levels will substantially be offset by uptake in plants.

also:

Fresh water is also believed to be in short supply. With plentiful inexpensive energy, sea water desalination can provide essentially unlimited supplies of fresh water.

He seems to be claiming throughout that increased CO2 will be beneficial for a slew of reasons. The scope his paper is attempting to achieve is beyond that any reasonable paper would claim. He is claiming certainty on a very large range of ideas that are only marginally supported. When you look for a solid paper, you want to find one that limits its scope at least somewhat. I don't see that in his paper.

If you could find a peer review done by an actual climatologist, I imagine the holes would widen.

Also, some of the links in his citations are dead. This may not be his fault, but it shows that his "institution" is not well maintained.

[wes]

here's a very solid critique of the arguments against global warming, including those by Arthur Robinson.

http://conflictrecovery.org/bin/BAMOS_GGWS_new.pdf

[wes]

even more...

In early 1998, a senior scientist at The Woods Hole Research Center received a letter sent by an organization identified only as GWPP. Enclosed were several documents: a short note signed by Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences; a photocopied article that had appeared in the Wall Street Journal on December 4, 1997 entitled "Science has Spoken: Global Warming is a Myth;" a scientific paper entitled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide;" and a petition to be signed and returned. The note, which was conspicuously lacking any sort of header or organizational letterhead, urged the reader to sign the enclosed petition and proclaimed that: "Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful." The petition went on to state:

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December of 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth."

The "scientific" paper looks like any other reprint from a scientific journal. However, what the authors fail to mention is that this article was neither peer-reviewed nor previously published in any shape or form. To anyone not intimately familiar with scientific papers, this article would probably help to perpetuate the myth that there is still uncertainty about the warming of the earth. This paper, was in part, produced by employees of the George C. Marshall Institute. This organization, founded in 1980 to issue reports promoting President Reagan's "star wars" defense program, conducts no original research. Most recently, it has focused on issuing reports dismissing climate change

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/skeptics.htm

[Tutmos]

I wish they'd increase the funding for SDI based research. The amount of core scientific discovery that comes out of projects like it is amazing, it's funding they'd never get otherwise.

Back on topic, I wonder if there is anyway to establish vegetation levels throughout the globe in the distant past to correspond to CO2 levels. I'd be really interested to see if there is any correlation. I suppose you could check plant growth rates and reproduction in isolated controlled lab conditions, hrmm that has to have been done already. Anyone know results? Does increased atmospheric CO2 increase plant growth locally? Time to search.

[wes]

I wish they'd increase the funding for SDI based research. The amount of core scientific discovery that comes out of projects like it is amazing, it's funding they'd never get otherwise.

Back on topic, I wonder if there is anyway to establish vegetation levels throughout the globe in the distant past to correspond to CO2 levels. I'd be really interested to see if there is any correlation. I suppose you could check plant growth rates and reproduction in isolated controlled lab conditions, hrmm that has to have been done already. Anyone know results? Does increased atmospheric CO2 increase plant growth locally? Time to search.

it does increase, but not to the levels purported by Arthur. People do it in greenhouses all the time. Or FW planted tanks, for that matter. :-)

Those studies are all out there. Shouldn't take you too long to find 'um.

[Tutmos]

The data I was able to find just now suggests plant growth rate increases of near 40% with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels. This was from a number of different sources with pretty similar figures. Some plants though did not appear to recieve the same benefit but most did. I suppose it makes basic sense since it is a rate limiting reactant for photosynthesis as well as the primary structural component of the entire plant.

I'm surprised it wouldn't act as a feedback mechanism like enzymatic inhibition, the more CO2, the faster the plants grow and strip CO2 out of the atmosphere, which slows growth and allows CO2 to build up again ad infinitum. Who claims that this wouldn't happen and why?

[wes]

links?

Research published by three scientists at Southwestern University in Texas suggests that the price of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is sharply falling nutritional value in staple crops upon which 40 per cent of the world's population relies for its dietary protein.

Daniel Taub, Brian Miller and Holly Allen analysed more than 220 experiments in which plants were exposed to levels of carbon dioxide that ranged from the present ambient level to about double the existing level. They discovered that as the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere goes up, the protein in wheat, barley, rice, potatoes and soy beans diminishes, in some cases quite sharply.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=d06935f3-c41d-4ff0-8f3a-c287a8db5367

I haven't searched for the original studies yet, but I'll keep it goin'. Suffice it to say there is no magic bullet. Pretty much ANYTHING we can think of off the top of our heads has been throughly looked into.

[mattb]

The data I was able to find just now suggests plant growth rate increases of near 40% with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels. This was from a number of different sources with pretty similar figures. Some plants though did not appear to recieve the same benefit but most did. I suppose it makes basic sense since it is a rate limiting reactant for photosynthesis as well as the primary structural component of the entire plant.

I'm surprised it wouldn't act as a feedback mechanism like enzymatic inhibition, the more CO2, the faster the plants grow and strip CO2 out of the atmosphere, which slows growth and allows CO2 to build up again ad infinitum. Who claims that this wouldn't happen and why?

This is the line of thinking that Boomer responded on one of these threads on RC. pH drops, alkalinity increases causing calcification to increase... What would be further interesting is to see how phyto population would increase (are the c limited).... On planet earth, they stated that 70% of the O2 on earth is due to them... Or maybe that was Cyanobacteria.

[oyam123]

oyam, I'm confused. What's your position?
I think the Deforestation and overpopulation of the planet are bigger issues.
They are two things we can stop now, but we don't. So good look stopping a condition that is debatable.
Bottom line is we need to stop adding pollution.

[wes]

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

a synopsis of several arguments against global warming and rebuttals.

[wolmutt]

I think the Deforestation and overpopulation of the planet are bigger issues.
They are two things we can stop now, but we don't. So good look stopping a condition that is debatable.
Bottom line is we need to stop adding pollution.

I think that reducing both are part of the answer to reducing the rate and extent of climate change; however, these two variables are inseparable from climate change and will be naturally corrected if we aren't careful, human population being corrected much quicker than substantial regrowth of forests. Behavioral models on overpopulation are very clear. All of those issues are so interconnected.

[wolmutt]

The data I was able to find just now suggests plant growth rate increases of near 40% with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels. This was from a number of different sources with pretty similar figures. Some plants though did not appear to recieve the same benefit but most did. I suppose it makes basic sense since it is a rate limiting reactant for photosynthesis as well as the primary structural component of the entire plant.

I'm surprised it wouldn't act as a feedback mechanism like enzymatic inhibition, the more CO2, the faster the plants grow and strip CO2 out of the atmosphere, which slows growth and allows CO2 to build up again ad infinitum. Who claims that this wouldn't happen and why?

Doesn't all this rely on how quickly plant life can move with climate change? I mean to say that naturally forests migrate with changing temperatures; however, the argument is that if climate changes too quickly a forest cannot migrate quick enough, thus dying. Also, lets say that this is what happened meaning that only small plants from a forest survives, which means what? I suppose this means more carbon in the air since trees hold more carbon for longer, blah, blah, blah.... It's all so complex it's hard to even skim the surface. I don't know what the answers are, but I do trust in the scientific process. The US is just coming on board with climate change because money decides what happens until it is just too blatant to ignore. If anything there has been a huge deal of propaganda strewn about to confuse the public about climate change. Those who are making the most money are those who have argued against climate change, now all of a sudden those arguing for climate change have money to make?? How do you figure?

[board_rider]

If you have traveled the globe - you quickly realize this world is not as gigantic as you envision it to be when you are staring at your aquarium sitting on your couch in Minnesota.

You will also notice there is sure a lot more people on this planet - more than you envisioned staring at that cool aquarium. You then think - wow if all these people polluted and consumed like we do in the States we are in for some real trouble. Then you notice each time you go to Vietnam, China, Central America, etc - wow this place is changing fast and is becoming more and more like America and man do they have a lot of people.

So if you don't believe in global climate change or its contributing factors - I challenge you to go visit an spot in the world that these scientist say has been greatly impacted by climate change.

I guarantee it will change your prespective....If that doesn't work then perform some expirments on your reef tank to emulate global climate changes effect on the seas and see what happens.

[wolmutt]

Yep still waiting :)

yes they should be questioned until a scientific majority has consensus. this is the empirical process. in this country we rely on research (i.e., the empirical process) because it has shown its strength over any other process of understanding to date. we debate and remain hesitant until the data is overwhelming. the data with DDT became so overwhelming that the major players could not sway public opinion with propaganda anymore. this is exactly what has happened with climate change. even the US government is on board, which still astounds me. let's say that only Hawkings and Sagan were saying that climate change were real. that would not mean anything in terms of the empirical process; however, when there is a consensus within the scientific community which in turn sways the policy of every modern country, etc, etc. its hard to believe the earth is flat.

[Tutmos]

...the data with DDT became so overwhelming that the major players could not sway public opinion with propaganda anymore.

I think you have a lot of reading to do or you really need to start reading something other than the Onion. Unfortunately reading this kind of suggests that the rest of your opinions on this range of topics likely needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

[wes]

DDT has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

good summary. I don't want to get deeper than that on this thread. Granted, this isn't MY thread, but I feel pretty involved in it. :biggrin:

[wolmutt]

I think you have a lot of reading to do or you really need to start reading something other than the Onion. Unfortunately reading this kind of suggests that the rest of your opinions on this range of topics likely needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

In 1962, Silent Spring by American biologist Rachel Carson was published. The book catalogued the environmental impacts of the indiscriminate spraying of DDT in the US and questioned the logic of releasing large amounts of chemicals into the environment without fully understanding their effects on ecology or human health. The book suggested that DDT and other pesticides may cause cancer and that their agricultural use was a threat to wildlife, particularly birds.[4] Its publication was one of the signature events in the birth of the environmental movement. Silent Spring resulted in a large public outcry that eventually led to most uses of DDT being banned in the US in 1972.[5] DDT was subsequently banned for agricultural use worldwide under the Stockholm Convention, but its limited use in disease vector control continues to this day in certain parts of the world and remains controversial.[6]

Along with the passage of the Endangered Species Act, the US ban on DDT is cited by scientists as a major factor in the comeback of the bald eagle in the contiguous US.[7]

I know exactly what I am talking about, and DDT is very related to what is going on with climate change in regards to using science as a confusion tactic trying to sway public opinion. My comparison is big business back then using science against science as can be seen today with climate change. Tutmos I have no idea why you would make such a comment.

[wes]

...DDT is very related to what is going on with climate change in regards to using science as a confusion tactic trying to sway public opinion. My comparison is big business back then using science against science as can be seen today with climate change...

fair enough, buddy. again, my lack of political knowledge bites me.

I still think I've presented a whole mess of info that has yet to be responded to. And, if I recall the last thread, about half of the forum members think that all of that is BS.

[wolmutt]

you didn't ever take environmental studies? The DDT discussion is a main point.

[wolmutt]

who can spot a scarecrow fallacy???? um, um, me, me, I can, I can...

[Tutmos]

Okay you can cut & paste from wikipedia, how does that demonstrate any level of understanding about the issue with DDT? I certainly don't see that as suggestive of "knowing exactly what you're talking about."


In 1962, Silent Spring by American biologist Rachel Carson was published. The book catalogued the environmental impacts of the indiscriminate spraying of DDT in the US and questioned the logic of releasing large amounts of chemicals into the environment without fully understanding their effects on ecology or human health. The book suggested that DDT and other pesticides may cause cancer and that their agricultural use was a threat to wildlife, particularly birds.[4] Its publication was one of the signature events in the birth of the environmental movement. Silent Spring resulted in a large public outcry that eventually led to most uses of DDT being banned in the US in 1972.[5] DDT was subsequently banned for agricultural use worldwide under the Stockholm Convention, but its limited use in disease vector control continues to this day in certain parts of the world and remains controversial.[6]

Along with the passage of the Endangered Species Act, the US ban on DDT is cited by scientists as a major factor in the comeback of the bald eagle in the contiguous US.[7]

I know exactly what I am talking about, and DDT is very related to what is going on with climate change in regards to using science as a confusion tactic trying to sway public opinion. My comparison is big business back then using science against science as can be seen today with climate change. Tutmos I have no idea why you would make such a comment.

[wes]

okay guys, keep it civil...

I did a lot of cut and paste, it doesn't make the information irrelevant. I think all of the science that has been presented against global warming (in this thread) has been addressed, but if someone has more I'd be glad to read it.

Mattb, you mentioned the coral lists several times, can I get a peek at them?

[Bob1]

How about a special Global Warming Section. After 3000 responses it implodes!

[wes]

naw, they all seem to piddle out after 100 or so responses.

[breiwa1]

Glad to see most people still think this is a scam. :beerchug:

[wolmutt]

Okay you can cut & paste from wikipedia, how does that demonstrate any level of understanding about the issue with DDT? I certainly don't see that as suggestive of "knowing exactly what you're talking about."

you're being very rude.

[wes]

Glad to see most people still think this is a scam. :beerchug:

actually, I don't think that there are any arguments against it that I haven't addressed. If you feel my arguments are weak, please show me where.

[NandKBlock]

I've purposely avoided this thread long enough. NOBODY is going to change their mind about this topic so everyone that's trying to do so should just stop and instead devote their time and effort into something productive. It's right up there with religion and politics, people don't change their minds on account of others' beliefs, feelings, and arguments. Any change in belief will come from an internal realization.

Personally, I'd just like to step back and ask a simple, fundamental underlying question. Why is climate change bad?

The climate has been changing forever and will be changing forever. And forever means forever, whatever that means to you. Whether you believe in intelligent design or the big bang, the climate on earth has NEVER been stagnant and won't ever be stagnant. Sure climate change will make things different but why is different necessarily bad? Because our greenhouse gas producing coastal cities may soon be underwater where they won't be producing greenhouse gasses anymore? Not such a bad outcome now is it?

Embrace change.

[wes]

I've purposely avoided this thread long enough. NOBODY is going to change their mind about this topic so everyone that's trying to do so should just stop and instead devote their time and effort into something productive. It's right up there with religion and politics, people don't change their minds on account of others' beliefs, feelings, and arguments. Any change in belief will come from an internal realization.

Personally, I'd just like to step back and ask a simple, fundamental underlying question. Why is climate change bad?

The climate has been changing forever and will be changing forever. And forever means forever, whatever that means to you. Whether you believe in intelligent design or the big bang, the climate on earth has NEVER been stagnant and won't ever be stagnant. Sure climate change will make things different but why is different necessarily bad? Because our greenhouse gas producing coastal cities may soon be underwater where they won't be producing greenhouse gasses anymore? Not such a bad outcome now is it?

Embrace change.

we addressed this earlier in the thread. The problem is not change, it is the rate of change. Saying that change is irrelevant is a slippery slope. I doubt anyone would say that the deaths of those in say, 9/11 and all that has followed, weren't important because those people were going to die anyway. Death is inevitable, but we sure as hell do whatever we can to ensure it's postponement and the quality of our lives until it happens. Change is inevitable, but I would prefer we it happens smoothly and that we are prepared with a solid, scientific idea of the consequences of our actions.

[Redwinger]

Sure, they can be questioned, and are. In fact, that's what the peer-review process exactly is. Now, you would look pretty silly questioning such experts, because the extent of your background on the subject probably does not come from any formal training, it seems a lot more likely that your info comes from strident, biased, cherry-picked sources.

However, Red, debating the subject with you is simply a non-starter when the peer-review process gets labelled with a dismissive wave of the hand as a "good ole boy network". I find that sort of blanket statement profoundly uninformed and curiously resonant with AM talk radio themes. What a convenient refuge to run to when one doesn't like what one hears: "They're all in cohoots!"

So, we get to decide when we want to listen to and trust the experts (DDT, mercury = bad) and when we just think they're trying to screw us all over? Way too black helicopter for me.

I can visualize the hands lunging towards their keyboards right now: "But we have PROOF that DDT and mercury are harmful! There's no PROOF that CO2 and global climate are linked!!" And such an assertion would demonstrate more ignorance. There is a ton of empirically collected data that show such a relationship exists, and FWIW, these same data are also in league with Milankovich's forcing hypothesis, which, ironically, is a favorite fallback position to global warming deniers: the earth is continually going through cycles; there's no way humans could alter such cycles. Yes! Milankovich apprears to have been right; a complex relationship of solar variance, axial wobbling, and other factors all work together to create long-term climate trends, and one of these forcing factors is greenhouse gas concentrations. And, in this 600,000+ year sample of climate data, there has never existed a natural source of carbon dumping that even comes close to what has occurred in the past 150 years. The largest volcanos are a mere duck fart (methane, bad analogy) compared to what has been introduced by humans. So the issue isn't about whether the earth will enter another such cycle, it is about the rate at which such a cycle is being forced. Very, very bad for ecosystems. And I find the assertion that "this rapid warming will be GOOD for us!" arrogant and equally uninformed.

But, ears plugged, la-la-la, science doesn't have a shred of evidence upon which to base any assumptions. Or so says a small and shrinking contingent of people with deceptively shrill voices. (And note that a vanishingly small proportion of them can be considered members of the climate scientist community, "good ole boys" or not.)

Wow! We should all just listen to Wes and Morty as they are experts in the field. Obviously they are more qualified than anyone else, they are climatologists and should never be questioned. In the mean time I am going to check up on the am radio scene as apparently I have been slacking with never listening to it. There is no changing my mind and I don't expect to change others. I just choose not to buy into all the liberal tree hugging BS, as 17,200 "scientists" choose not to buy into either. This thread has run its course for me.

[hypertech]

Me thinks we are past the 100 civil posts and are done here.