Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global warming - fact or conspiracy?
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 31 of 111 (325091)
06-22-2006 11:35 PM


Supplimental topic at "Terry's Talk Origins"
Global warming reality dose.
A pretty well done topic as "TTO's" goes. Quite a few good messages and links.
Currently at message 12. As the topic proceeds to multiple pages, you may have to back up from where the above link sends you, to get to the earliest messages.
Moose
Edited by Minnemooseus, : There's always a quirk you don't catch in "preview".

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 06-22-2006 11:43 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 32 of 111 (325096)
06-22-2006 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Minnemooseus
06-22-2006 11:35 PM


Re: Supplimental topic at "Terry's Talk Origins"
Gotta love the classic argument: "climate is complex; therefore, we shouldn't presume that our actions will have any effect whatsoever, so fuck considering the consequences."
Well, brains are complex, too. And a slight change to the physiology of the brain might very well do nothing at all, or cause someone to forget their piano lessons. On the other hand? A bullet through the forhead has basically one very simple consequence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-22-2006 11:35 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 33 of 111 (325101)
06-22-2006 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by EZscience
06-22-2006 2:02 PM


Re: Grants are plentiful for global warming research
Your argument is a typically conservative one and merely a shallow justification for selfish behavior and disregard for environmental stewardship and the quality of life that future generations will inherit.
Granting that global warming is happening (which indeed is supported by the evidence), the question of what to do about it remains a complex one influenced by many social, political enconomic,and technological factors. This sort of demonization of positions other than your own hardly constitutes a constructive contribution to the discussion.
Let me say this. If you want to see something 'economy-crippling' just watch us stay the present course, because the American economy won't just be crippled by the consequences of global warming, it will eventually collapse to a mere shadow of its former self.
Plese provide empirical evidence that this scenario is certain or highly probable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by EZscience, posted 06-22-2006 2:02 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by EZscience, posted 06-23-2006 12:14 PM paisano has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 34 of 111 (325145)
06-23-2006 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ragged
06-20-2006 1:06 AM


Dad was right it was always global warming
My dad said 30 years ago the winters were much milder than when he was a kid. Yet in school I was told my father errored and that we were experiencing global cooling. This was in the late 70,s freon and particulates were all being banned all in the name of global cooling.
I suspect there is a conspiracy cause too me it was always global warming (my dad was right)(environmentalists wrong)and he always felt that freon and particulates emmissions (including greenhouse gases)were not causing global cooling in the late 1970,s. That it was a scam on fossil fuel to depower the people to not build refineries, drill for oil, burn coal for electricitiy.
Now the shifty environmentalists have shifted the blame so greenhouse gases instead of causing global cooling its now the cause for global warming. It makes sense that clouds including greenhouse gases would absorb heat but greater cloud cover would only increase the amount of sunlight reflected offsetting the amounts absorbed from the earth.
The problem too me is that the oceans are heating up not that the upper atmosphere is heating up and that its all due to the suns over 30 decades of increased output of solar energies. Its a fact that the oceans are heating up but the blame is being shifted from the sun to
fossil fuel.
Is it a (conspiracy)to depower the peoples of the world? I believe it is a conspiracy and I believe global warming is real. Its not going away from my point of view until the sun decreases its present cycle of solar increased energies and even then ti will take a bit longer for the oceans to cool.
On a side note greenhouse gases are simply good for the environment, increases in plant growth, oxygen production. The nitrate problem gives greenhouse gases a bad rap as most of nitrate problem is caused by the farmer polluting the water table with their liquid nitrate fertilizer.
Carbon monoxide (fossil fuel burning) converts naturally to carbon dioxide. We likely all agree in the cities we have the need for scrubbers in factories and catalytic converters in cars to convert monoxide to dioxide for air quality.
Perhaps the answer is to move industry to the countryside so greenhouse gases could be imparted to the farmer and the earth to disperse greenhouse gases. The more greenhouse gases the more plants grow (aerial fertilizer)to feed the planet.
* Supporting references.
Is carbon dioxide a harmful air pollutant, or is it an amazingly effective aerial fertilizer?
http://www.co2science.org/...2ScienceB2C/about/president.jsp
The ocean has a greater capacity for storing heat than the atmosphere, which means it reacts slower than the atmosphere to changes in the balance in incoming/ outgoing radiation. This means that ocean temperatures change more slowly that atmospheric ones, whether this is on a diurnal, seasonal or climate time scale.
Page not found | climateprediction.net
Those looking for the culprit responsible for global warming have missed the obvious choice - the sun. While it may come as a newsflash to some, scientific evidence conclusively shows that the sun plays a far more important role in causing global warming and global cooling than any other factor, natural or man-made. In fact, what may very well be the ultimate ironic twist in the global warming controversy is that the same solar forces that caused 150 years of warming are on the verge of producing a prolonged period of cooling.
Page not found - The National Center

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ragged, posted 06-20-2006 1:06 AM Ragged has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Larni, posted 06-23-2006 11:28 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 37 by deerbreh, posted 06-23-2006 11:32 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 06-23-2006 12:36 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 35 of 111 (325246)
06-23-2006 10:10 AM


Warmest summer in 400 years

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 36 of 111 (325295)
06-23-2006 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by johnfolton
06-23-2006 2:55 AM


Re: Dad was right it was always global warming
johfolton writes:
Perhaps the answer is to move industry to the countryside so greenhouse gases could be imparted to the farmer and the earth to disperse greenhouse gases. The more greenhouse gases the more plants grow (aerial fertilizer)to feed the planet.
What kind of an idea is that? How do you fix the CO and CO2 if you cut down all the country side to build power plants?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by johnfolton, posted 06-23-2006 2:55 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by johnfolton, posted 06-23-2006 2:22 PM Larni has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 37 of 111 (325298)
06-23-2006 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by johnfolton
06-23-2006 2:55 AM


Re: Dad was right it was always global warming
Now the shifty environmentalists have shifted the blame so greenhouse gases instead of causing global cooling its now the cause for global warming.
The problem with this kind of thinking is motive. What possible motivation would environmentalists have for trying to be deceptive? On the other hand, the global warming skeptics are often financially supported by energy companies, who have a financial incentive to keep the fossil fuel economy going.
On a side note greenhouse gases are simply good for the environment, increases in plant growth, oxygen production.
There are several problems with this approach.
1. This is only true if carbon dioxide is limiting plant growth. In many cases it is nitrogen, water, adequate sunlight or some other factor that is limiting plant growth.
2. Not all plants are able to respond to increased levels of carbon dioxide equally, even if other factors are in abundant supply. For example, C3 metabolism plants respond much less to elevated levels of carbon dioxide than C4 metabolism plants. Why is this important? It the crop plant is a C3 plant and some of the weeds are C4 plants we have a problem. Elevated carbon dioxide may also affect plant responses to herbicides and differentially affect weed seed and crop seed germination.
3. There are other "unintended consequences" of elevated levels of carbon dioxide such as higher levels of pollen production which could be devastating for allergy and asthma patients.
http://www.respiratoryreviews.com/...ov00_globalwarming.html
4. We are just beginning to understand the long term effects of elevated carbon dioxide on agricultural and natural systems. Most of the purported benefits are hypothetical - the actual experiments have not been done. The few controlled experiments that have been done have given more reason for pessimism than optimism about a net positive effect from elevated carbon dioxide on agricultural production. There are almost no experimental results on possible effects on natural systems.
For these reasons we should not "hang our hats" on any hypothetical benefit from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by johnfolton, posted 06-23-2006 2:55 AM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by rgb, posted 06-23-2006 1:40 PM deerbreh has replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 38 of 111 (325326)
06-23-2006 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by paisano
06-22-2006 11:51 PM


Some projected impacts
paisano writes:
the question of what to do about it remains a complex one influenced by many social, political enconomic,and technological factors.
Agreed, but as long as there is effectively nothing at all being done about it, those opposed to ANY action are getting what they want - the status quo continued.
paisano writes:
This sort of demonization of positions other than your own hardly constitutes a constructive contribution to the discussion.
No demonization paisan, just calling a spade a spade.
The wealthy industrialists have the most to lose by any changes in the status quo, so they are acting in their own selfish interests as usual by denying human responsibility and opposing any action that would affect their profits. Of course their spin is that 'jobs would be lost' but new, cleaner industries could create new jobs.
paisano writes:
Plese provide empirical evidence that this scenario is certain or highly probable.
Apart from changing weather and stronger tropical storms threatening coastal areas, rising sea levels from all the melting ice will eventually put a large portion of our highest valued coastal real estate under water. At least 5 billion dollars worth in Miami alone would be lost with a sea level rise of one meter. A two meter rise would threaten most of lower Manhattan. A large proportion of all the world populations live in low-lying fertile river deltas and rising sea levels will eventually create 100's of millions of refuges from these areas.
The expansion of the arid subtropical circulation will cause desertification to increase from northern Mexico through the central plains, threatening the agricultural bread basket of the USA. What will happen to our economy if we come to depend not only on oil imports, but also on food imports?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by paisano, posted 06-22-2006 11:51 PM paisano has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 39 of 111 (325334)
06-23-2006 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by johnfolton
06-23-2006 2:55 AM


Re: Dad was right it was always global warming
The problem too me is that the oceans are heating up not that the upper atmosphere is heating up and that its all due to the suns over 30 decades of increased output of solar energies. Its a fact that the oceans are heating up but the blame is being shifted from the sun to
fossil fuel.
Because the amount of heating can't be explained by the amount the output of the sun has risen.
It's really pretty simple. If you're sitting in your house, and the temperature starts to rise, there's two explanations, really - someone turned up the thermostat, or your house is on fire.
Now, certainly one of those things is a minor annoyance that is easily solved and nothing to worry about; the other is going to require vast, expensive alterations to your lifestyle. Trust me, I know about the costs of having your home burn down. So, naturally, we're going to suspect that it's nothing more than the thermostat being set a bit too high.
But if the temperature in your house has risen 300 degrees, that is to say, much more than your furnace is capable of heating the house, it's time to realize that your house is on fire and you need to get out - that there's literally nothing more important right now than dealing with the fact that your house is on fire.
The temperature rise of the Earth can't be explained soley by the rising output of the sun, because the temperature rise has exceeded the change in output. Both the warming sun and anthrogenic climate change are to blame for global warming.
On a side note greenhouse gases are simply good for the environment, increases in plant growth, oxygen production.
You've got a pretty simplistic view of "environment." Just promoting plant growth isn't a good thing. For instance, when they dump a bunch of fertilizer into a lake, you get a lot of plant growth - an algae bloom. The result for that environment?
All the fish die. Environments are much, much more complex than you seem prepared to admit.
Carbon monoxide (fossil fuel burning) converts naturally to carbon dioxide.
Possibly, but along the way it drastically elevates concentrations of atmospheric methane and tropospheric ozone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by johnfolton, posted 06-23-2006 2:55 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 111 (325353)
06-23-2006 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by riVeRraT
06-22-2006 10:13 PM


riverrat writes
quote:
I was under the impression if the ice caps melted completely, that the oceans would rise 20feet.
I know you probably are not thinking of the flood, but just to be on the safe side, I've climbed up to the continental divide on the Rockies several times, and it's many thousand feet more than 20.
quote:
If the caps have melted 40%, where is the 8 feet of water?
The northern ice cap doesn't affect the water level much, since it floating on the water anyway. What some people might be concerned about is the amount of fresh water that is dumped into the ocean, causing the saline level of the ocean to drop... but that's another story. The ice on greenland is more of a local ecological concern because it's not much to be concerned about globally.
What people are worried about is the ice down on antarctica. Because it's a really big piece of land with ice that covers the entire continent and is several miles deep (that's a lot of water), it would be a world wide disaster at every coastal area on Earth if all that ice melt away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by riVeRraT, posted 06-22-2006 10:13 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Omnivorous, posted 06-25-2006 11:41 PM rgb has not replied

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 111 (325356)
06-23-2006 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by deerbreh
06-23-2006 11:32 AM


Re: Dad was right it was always global warming
deerbreh writes
quote:
On the other hand, the global warming skeptics are often financially supported by energy companies, who have a financial incentive to keep the fossil fuel economy going.
Uh... I hate to be a doomsayer, but this really looks like an ad hominem on global warming skeptics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by deerbreh, posted 06-23-2006 11:32 AM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Chiroptera, posted 06-23-2006 1:47 PM rgb has replied
 Message 46 by deerbreh, posted 06-23-2006 2:29 PM rgb has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 111 (325362)
06-23-2006 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by rgb
06-23-2006 1:40 PM


Re: Dad was right it was always global warming
Well, it is not an ad hominem when the phenomenon in question (the bias of scientific research when funded by those who have a vested interest in a particular result) has been demonstrated.
Scientific research funded by tobacco companies showed no link between cigarette smoking and lung disease despite the fact that we all recognized that there is a scientifically demonstrated link.
Scientific research funded by chemical companies found no reason to believe that CFCs would contribute to ozone depletion.
Scientific research funded by oil companies found no link between public health and leaded gasoline.
And so forth.
So, if doubts about the anthropogenic contributions to global climate change are mostly confined to industry sponsored scientists, then a suspicion about a connection is not unwarranted.
Edited by Chiroptera, : typo

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by rgb, posted 06-23-2006 1:40 PM rgb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by rgb, posted 06-23-2006 1:59 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 111 (325372)
06-23-2006 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Chiroptera
06-23-2006 1:47 PM


Re: Dad was right it was always global warming
chiroptera writes
quote:
So, if doubts about the anthropogenic contributions to global climate change are mostly confined to industry sponsored scientists, then a suspicion about a connection is not unwarranted.
I would argue that pointing out something like "Scientific research funded by chemical companies found no reason to believe that CFCs would contribute to ozone depletion" is an ad hominem attack because we could never know for sure (in short of the chimcal companies coming out clean and telling us that they doctored the results) that the company indeed doctored the results.
Yes, there might be enough to warrent suspicion there, but such an attack to invalidate your opposition is not a noble way to do it!
I still maintain that it is an ad hominen to point out something like "Scientific research funded by tobacco companies showed no link between cigarette smoking and lung disease despite the fact that we all recognized that there is a scientifically demonstrated link."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Chiroptera, posted 06-23-2006 1:47 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by ramoss, posted 06-23-2006 2:14 PM rgb has not replied
 Message 48 by Chiroptera, posted 06-23-2006 2:56 PM rgb has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 44 of 111 (325378)
06-23-2006 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by rgb
06-23-2006 1:59 PM


Re: Dad was right it was always global warming
It can safely be said that the chemical companies had a financial stake in the study.
Just like the tobbacco companies had all those studies on how cigarettes were not addictive, nor did they cause cancer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by rgb, posted 06-23-2006 1:59 PM rgb has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 45 of 111 (325382)
06-23-2006 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Larni
06-23-2006 11:28 AM


Re: Dad was right it was always global warming
I agree the answer is not cutting down the forest of Brazil that converts carbon dioxide to oxygen. The increases of the suns energies over decades is obviously being captured by the oceans waters.
I agree the waters of the clouds absorb energy too, but it pales in comparison to the solar energies absorbed by the oceans over decades.
We have a lot of coal that we could burn to increase the carbon dioxide and nitrate levels. We don't need to mass cut forests that could be selective cut.
If the sun is the culprit heating the biggest heat trap (the oceans of the world) then greenhouse gases is simply a drop in the bucket.
This is the question what percentage is this drop in the bucket (greenhouse gases) contributing in comparison to the oceans vastness and its vast ability to aborb the suns energies.
In the 70's one of the reasons they banned freon from auto supply stores because they said it reflected the sun (global cooling). There is a trade off between atmosphere reflecting the sun and absorbing heat from the earth(what is the difference in percentage).
What happens if the sun cools off over decades instead of its present heating phase. Would not the oceans temps drop simply because the sun cooled off just a bit.
To say that global cooling or global warming is caused by greenhouse gases too me is a conspiracy.
I not sure we need any studies how greenhouse gases increases plant production. Its well known that greenhouses use (carbon dioxide) to conserve water and stimulate plant growth.
Building coal power plants all across the country is not a bad idea if greenhouse gases are not the root cause for global warming. I know were told greenhouse gases not the sun is the root cause.
I simply disagree believing instead its the sun heating the oceans that are the root cause of global warming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Larni, posted 06-23-2006 11:28 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by deerbreh, posted 06-23-2006 2:43 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 61 by Larni, posted 06-24-2006 5:57 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024