Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum Global Warming PSEUDOSCIENCE

It appears, that available data show that CO2 level is rising.

The nitwits claim that reason for that is industrial and car-produced poluton.

Assumingly, atmospheric CO2 rise is the main cause of observed warming.

But it is known, that influx of CO2 is almost precisely balanced by plant photosythesis.

It is much more likely that decline in forestation is the reason of CO2 rise, not the fossil fuels.

So, the right way to prevent global warming is to have more forestation and more other plants.

But the proponents have anti-capitalist agenda.

They want to stick it to US, that it is guilty of global warming.

The reality is that the poor countries that destroy their forestation are the most likely culprits.

ES

ES, I'm not sure to get your point here.

Are you trying to convince us that it's because of the reduction of the forest atmospheric CO2 is not sequestrate enought ?

If poor countries are charged to the global climatic change this means that rich countries will ask them to pay the bill. They won't be able.
Nothing miraculous appears in your plan.

First of all, one must to correctly identify the cause, in order to fix the effect.

If we all stop driving, heating our houses, cooking, etc., the global warming will not be affected, if I am right.

es

I quite agree with the first part of you speech, concerning the importance of identifying the base of the problem. I don't think it's that easy because the gentle warm-up (the natural part) is a step in an oncoming global event.

Most peoples think that human will increase the rate of this event but it's after all a natural event.

As far as I know, human can't do anything against a natural force. This warm-up will lead to a snowball Earth. Knowing that's there is nothing to do, the best is to anticipate the progression of the glaciers and manage the low latitude regions to recieve the amount of living things.

What global event?
Next to where I live, a huge forest patch was just exterminated to give place to new houses.

Did anyone bother to grow comparable forest elsewhere? A rethoric question, obviously.

es

ES, your level of stupidity has always amazed me, but you have reached all-new lows of moronic antiscientific idiocy. Get off your throne of "I am sooo sm@rt!!!!!111" and face the real world sometime. You might be surprised at the amount of real cold hard facts you see, and the lack of a "supreme deity" who "will fix everything so you're right". Go talk to a psychiatrist. Save your yammering for someone who can help you with the cause.

Wake up, I am championing your beloved warming! Halleluia!

e s

Too bad there isn't IDIOT blocking software!!

I agree

es

superman: There is. They're called prophylactics. Unfortunately, in ES's and Thorlord's cases, it's a little too late for them to be effective. Right now, for those two, I'd recommend an elementary lesson in pocket ballistics. Between the eyes.

Get planting a tree, baby.

We are warming 0.02 Celcius grades a year.

ES

Planting trees isn't a solution. On the long term you get a new equilibrium. Trees die, rot and release the stored carbon in the form of CO2.

ES:

Is not much more likely that the cause is one thing or another ... it is much more likely that what is happening is a complex interaction between numerous causes and effects: Some positive some negative.

As Einstein said:
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

Simplicity is for sound-bites.

It depends, what kind of tree and what happen to it after it has died.
We must be smart in what trees and how we are planting, but vegetation is THE consumer of CO2.

With 0.02 C grade a year temp rise, we should not be too wimpy

The good news is, that greenhouse effect can increase temperature not more than 33 C grades.
I mean, if we do nothing.

ES

A bit of philosophy helps when your house is on fire.

I would rather prefer we planted trees instead.

es

sorry to burst your bubble, the the real effect of global warming, is the sun itself. the earth receives more heat that it releases, and will gradually warm up until it ballances. as it does the ice melts.

the cause of the ice age we have enjoyed for the entirity of the human evelution was the yellowstone eruptions over the last 2.1 million years. untill the next eruption occurs the tempature will gradually increase. all humans are doing is accelerating the process.

dehammer wrote:
"the the real effect of global warming, is the sun itself."

Did you perhaps mean cause rather than effect?

And if you did please explain why that should have a greater and greater affect that just coincidentally coincides with the industrial revolution and the increased emission of green house gases by the so-called intelligent residents of this planet.

extrasense,
"It depends, what kind of tree and what happen to it after it has died."

If it turned into coal during the cretaceous period, most of will be back in the atmoshere by 2050.
And there goes your origional premise.
Fossil fuel that was sequestered, (mostly by forests), over geological ages is being released in a period of centuries.
It is evident that that makes a lot more immediate difference in CO2 levels than a change in forestation.

Pragmatist

Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. - Ambrose Bierce - 'Devils Dictonary`

And for those that still don't get it try this:

The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame!

Not my words ... those of Time Magazine. So read on:

Never mind what you've heard about global warming as a slow-motion emergency that would take decades to play out. Suddenly and unexpectedly, the crisis is upon us.

From heat waves to storms to floods to fires to massive glacial melts, the global climate seems to be crashing around us.

The problem -- as scientists suspected but few others appreciated -- is that global climate systems are booby-trapped with tipping points and feedback loops, thresholds past which the slow creep of environmental decay gives way to sudden and self-perpetuating collapse. That's just what's happening now.

It's at the north and south poles -- where ice cover is crumbling to slush -- that the crisis is being felt the most acutely.

Late last year, for example, researchers analyzed data from Canadian and European satellites and found that the Greenland ice sheet is not only melting, but doing so faster and faster, with 53 cubic miles draining away into the sea last year alone, compared to 23 cubic miles in 1996.

One of the reasons the loss of the planet's ice cover is accelerating is that as the poles' bright white surface disappears it changes the relationship of the Earth and the sun. Polar ice is so reflective that 90 percent of the sunlight that strikes it simply bounces back into space, taking its energy with it. Ocean water does just the opposite, absorbing 90 percent of the light and heat it receives, meaning that each mile of ice that melts vanishes faster than the mile that preceded it.

This is what scientists call a feedback loop, and a similar one is also melting the frozen land called permafrost, much of which has been frozen -- since the end of last ice age in fact, or at least 8,000 years ago.

Sealed inside that cryonic time capsule are layers of decaying organic matter, thick with carbon, which itself can transform into CO2. In places like the southern boundary of Alaska the soil is now melting and softening.

As fast as global warming is changing the oceans and ice caps, it's having an even more immediate effect on land. Droughts are increasingly common as higher temperatures also bake moisture out of soil faster, causing dry regions that live at the margins to tip into full-blown crisis.

Wildfires in such sensitive regions as Indonesia, the western U.S. and even inland Alaska have been occurring with increased frequency as timberlands grow more parched. Those forests that don't succumb to fire can simply die from thirst.

With habitats crashing, the animals that call them home are succumbing too. In Alaska, salmon populations are faltering as melting permafrost pours mud into rivers, burying the gravel the fish need for spawning. Small animals such as bushy tailed rats, chipmunks and pinion mice are being chased upslope by rising temperatures, until they at last have no place to run.

And with sea ice vanishing, polar bears are starting to turn up drowned. "There will be no polar ice by 2060," says Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation. "Somewhere along that path, the polar bear drops out."

So much environmental collapse has at last awakened much of the world, particularly the 141 nations that have ratified the Kyoto treaty to reduce emissions. The Bush administration, however, has shown no willingness to address the warming crisis in a serious way and Congress has not been much more encouraging.

Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman have twice been unable to get even mild measures to limit carbon emissions through a recalcitrant Senate.

A 10-member House delegation did recently travel to Antarctica, Australia and New Zealand to meet with scientists studying climate change. "Of the 10 of us, only three were believers to begin with," says Rep. Sherman Boehlert of New York. "Every one of the others said this opened their eyes."

It is time to take off the blinders. It is time to realize that the world you thought you were born into will no longer exist soon. Either start digging a cave and stocking it with food or become part of the solution. There will be no ringside seats for observers.

Now you are coming around.
The feedback loop is a self-accelerating thing, it does not care wheather you emit CO2 ore not!!!

ES

Not if there is a threshold you have to cross before you enter the feedback loop. Compare this with the feedback loop that causes death in case of heart failure...

Well, the claim is that we ARE in the feedback loop.
If the observed changes in ice melting are what they are claimed to be, we are in the loop.

If not, they are just a scaremongering trick.

ES

All loops can be broken. If 1/2 the money spent in Iraq was spent on finding a solution one likely would be found within 10-20 years.

What is fascinating about the current trend is that as temperatures increase ... the need for energy for refrigeration will increase too.

That too is a loop that can be broken.

Not by withdrawing the startup cause, that is for sure.
Instead of fake PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC solution, we need real science on the matter.

ES

extrasense wrote:
"Instead of fake PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC solution, we need real science on the matter."

So you propose firing all of the PhD's and grad students at universities, all of the researchers at NOAA and NASA and replacing them with what? Trained seals?

Not firing of everyone, just of the fools and crooks that are in control now.
opinion/books_entertainment/reviews/MoniqueEStuart/191271.html
ES

Plant windmills

http://www.nativeenergy.com/#

extrasense wrote:
"Not firing of everyone, just of the fools and crooks that are in control now."

Based on your definition that is everyone.

When one person tells you you are stupid you can ignore them.

When everyone tells you you are stupid you need to pay attention.

Everyone at every university, college, and agency such as NASA and NOAA is not a fool. And your proven track record upon which anyone should rely on your statements is?

The facts are biased against Extra Sense's position!

Extrasense is, it appears, a frustrated science student who having failed to make the cut has decided that anyone that does what he can not ... be published in a peer reviewed journal ... is a fool and a crook.

Extrasense ... a bit of unsolicited advise. You have a choice ... change one person, yourself, or change everyone else on the planet.

DA Morgan

"the the real effect of global warming, is the sun itself."

Did you perhaps mean cause rather than effect?...

yes your right. i meant cause.

...if you did please explain why that should have a greater and greater affect that just coincidentally coincides with the industrial revolution and the increased emission of green house gases by the so-called intelligent residents of this planet.

its simple. its not haveing a greater effect, its just that we are in the last phase of the ice age.

when the ice age is over there will not be a polar ice cap, greenland will not have glacers, neither will alaska, and antarica will be farm land 6 months of the year. its happen before.

let me try to explain the way we got to where we are today.

2.1 million years ago. there was no ice age. the permian basin and every thing at that altitude was flooded. then yellowstone erupted for the first time. it spewed several hundred cubic miles (yes miles) of magna into the atmosphere and surrounding land. that magna was so explosive because it was pressurised by co2 and so2. these two gasses react with water differently. co2 does not freeze with water, but will form a type of furtilizer that is washed out of the atmosphere into the soil where plants use it. so2, in the cold of the upper atmosphere, joins with the water to form a type of ice crystal that is very low density, it can stay in the upper atmosphere for decades, although there is a gradual decrease in density as some of it starts falling out. these ice crystals for a cloud cover that is highly reflective and does not absorb heat well.

the yellowstone eruption cause enough sulpheric ice to fill the sky clouds long enough that the tempature of the entire earth fell drastically. in the north, the tempature fell 40 to 60 degrees causing huge fields of ice to form in some cases miles deep. fortuantely the earth was a good bit warmer than it is now, and when the cloud cover thinned enough for the sunlight to once again reach lower altitude, the glacers had reached into colorodo, and some parts of kansas, but not farther. had they reached texas, there would have been so much sunlight reflected that the earth would have continued to get colder.

as i said it stop short of there. so the ice began to retreat as the sun kept heating the earth. so the ice was almost gone. then yellowstone erupted a second time about 1.3 million years ago, fortuantely much smaller. the ice once again headed south and again stopped short of texas. once again the sunlight returned (with the sulpher falling out), and the ice once again retreated.

this was repeated about 64000 years ago then. at that time it kicked out 8000 times as much ash as mount st helens. again, fortuantely this was much smaller and the ice did not extend so far. as with the last two times the ice began to retreat, and, were it not for three smaller super valcanos, the ice might have already been melted already.

74000 years ago, a vei class 7 valcano (yellowstone is 8) erupted in Toba, Indonesia, and almost wiped out the human race, not to mention many other types of animals.

then 10000 years ago (at the same time as the mamoth froze in siberia, interesting connection no?) a much smaller one (vie 6 i beleive) erupted in north america (im not sure where this was, origon i believe). this expanded the ice age, allowing humans to develop in a much cooler area.

then 5000 years ago, the baby of supervalcanos erupted in the mediteranian and extend the ice age a small amount. it also cause a drought that almost wipe out china, and did destroy a south american civilaztion.

as a result, the ice pack is still there and is gradually declining.

some time in the last 2000 years, man began to alter the equation a small amount. he has produced green house gases and has cut down trees in areas that kept water sheds undercontrol, then he did more and more. while these have increased the speed of the loss of the ice shelf, he did not start it, nor has he been the only cause of its increase in speed of its loss.

as more ice is loss, the amount of energy reflected by the snow is deminished and the amount that is absorbed is increased. without man the snow packs decrease in size would be decreasing anyway, but not as fast. man has caused it to disappear faster, but not by that much.

DA Morgan wrote
And for those that still don't get it try this:

The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame!

Not my words ... those of Time Magazine.

so now we are suppose to believe that a scare monger magazine (one that gets most of its readers by writing things that are designed to scare ppl) to be a major authority?

no. just because it was written in a non scientific magazine, we are suppose to believe that this is something that we need to do immeadiately.

the reality is, the feed back loop was started 640000 years ago, then destroy, and rebuilt 74000 years ago, then once again, 10000 years ago. this is much older than man.

by the by. the ice age did not end 8000 years ago. there is still ice in the polar regions and the permian basin is still dry. when these are not there, the ice age will be over.

dehammer wrote:
"its simple. its not haveing a greater effect, its just that we are in the last phase of the ice age."

And you got this information, contradicted by NASA, NOAA, and researchers at most major universities where?

The climate doesn't care whether Time magazine posts hyperbole or pictures of Paris Hilton's underwear. Using someone's responsible, or irresponsible, statements as an argument when we are discussing research results from major scientific organizations around the globe is just plain nonsense and an attempt to change the focus.

You've been caught.

You have some science on your side? ... reference it. You have hyperbole on your side? Blow up a balloon with it.

unfortuantely there does not seem to be a site that list all of the facts in one spot.

here is a good starting point

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/supervolcano/interactive/interactive.html


the problem is that in order to see it, you have to take info from several areas of scince and most ppl are only willing to see their own areas as important and none of the facts from other areas as having anything to do with their own.

an example of this is the ppl you mentioned. "NASA, NOAA, and researchers at most major universities" are concerned with what is happening now. few of them bother with what has happen 600 thousand years ago, let alone what happen 2.1 million years ago.

heres another site to check out

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.html

if you read it states that the earth is usually 8 to 15 degrees c above todays tempature, and only the last billion years have had the amount of glaceral activity as we have now. it also states that the warming trend has been going on for the last 14000 years with a short interuption about 10000 years ago (hmm, wasnt there an eruption of a western us super volcano about then).

a second much smaller interuption accured about 100 bc (interesting enough i found that there was a valcano that erupted then that is on the borderline between super and regular). had it not erupted the ice sheet would have disappeared within the 100 years.

oh, and while im at it, please explain why if he weather is not concerned about times hyberbole, why should we.

ill see if i can find more sites to add to this.

also, i did not intend to say that we are not responsible of an increase in the speed of the warm up. i stated somewhere on the board that we are responsible for increasing the speed, but not the warm up itself.

Just to throw another log on the fire,
(carbon and all):
It's not just about CO2 anymore.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4419880.stm
I find this 'water vapor feedback` possibility most alarming.

Pragmatist

Murphys Law - "Whatever can go wrong will."
McTavishes Corrolary - "And at the worst possible time."
Schlemazzels Theorem - "And guess who gets it in the neck?"

dehammer:
Your web sites are not serious science sites.

Hit Harvard, MIT, CalTech, Stanford, Washington University, Columbia, Oxford, Cambridge, NASA, NOAA. Site with real science conducted by real scientists.

This is not the normal end of an ice. This is warming that can be correlated with human activity. We may not be the entire cause but we are certainly part of the cause.

And cause or not ... future generations will suffer.

There is no way that this warming effect is natural.

I have a write up on an overview of effects of global warming on my site http://tdcanam.blogspot.com/.

Check it out.

CO2 is natural. The ammount being pumped into the atmosphere is def. not natural.

First off, our oceans are being affected. CO2 sequestration in the surface oceans is dropping the oceans pH level, making the water more acidic. As a result, the growth rates of calcium-secreating animals are being deminished.

Coral growth and repair rates are slowing down. Rupert Ormond, a marine biologist from Glasgow University, says that the world's coral reefs will be dead within 50 years because of global warming, and there is nothing we can do to save them.

Without the reefs acting as natural defences protecting our shorelines, we will be left vunerable.

Our oceans are also warming up as a result of global warming. This leads to the melting of ice sheets and caps, and inturn leads to rise in sea level.

Add water to a glass, it fills up. Drop ice cubes in it, it over flows. (the rate of sea-level rise has nearly tripled during the 1970s and since 1993)

The Arctic sea could be free of ice during summer months by 2100. (Average global temperatures are expected to rise 5 degrees by then). From 2002 to 2005, summer Arctic sea ice has covered 20 percent less area than its 1978-2000 summer average.

In Western Siberia, an area of permafrost covering a million square kilometers has recently begun to melt for the first time since it was formed over 11,000 years ago. This permafrost covers the world's largest frozen peat bog. If warming trends continue it will release billions of tons of stored carbon into the atmosphere, accelerating global warming.

Whats worse is that a paper published in 2005 linked a one-degree rise in sea surface temperature to the increase of hurricane intensity.

There were a recorded 26 tropical storms and 14 hurricanes last year, seven of them intense. The 2005 season was the most destructive in recorded history, with 27 named storms and 14 hurricanes, including Katrina, which devastated Louisiana and Mississippi and killed more than 1,300 people.

The forecast for 2006 Atlantic hurricane season, which runs from June 1 to Nov. 30, calls for 17 tropical storms and 9 named hurricanes. Of those hurricanes, five should reach or exceed category 3 on the five-level Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Intensity Scale. There's no relief in sight for the next two decades, for either the number of hurricanes or of particularly intense hurricanes.

Then there is heat. 22 of the hottest years on record have occured since 1980. The six warmest years since the keeping of records began in 1880 have occurred in the past eight years, with 2005 being the hottest year in history.

Things are picking up, and fast. You don't need to be a scientist to see this. Why now? Why lately have things accelerated?

We are nearing a tipping point with our burning of fossil feul, among other things.

We are directly responsible for these effects and it is becoming more and more evident.

Dehammer: Do you have any references for all this?

I'm not saying you're wrong. A few of your dates are off by an order of magnitude, but I think you just left out a zero here and there (e.g., the last time Yellowstone blew was around 640,000 years ago, not 64,000).

Your definition of "ice age" is a lot more long-term than the typical thinking. Not that you're incorrect (you're not), but after the first reading, I thought, "What the hell is this guy talking about??" This comes from my soils oriented training, as most soils are young, geologically speaking. You would probably call my definition of ice age a glaciation. I'll use those terms from here on.

But regardless, what I've read is that the major ice ages (around four have occurred over the last billion years) are believed to be related to changes in Earth's orbit, while the glaciations and interglacial periods are from atmospheric causes.

So my big question is, how would we know if this is the end of the current ice age, or if it's a more minor change regarding glaciation?

soilguy wrote:
Dehammer: Do you have any references for all this?...

yes, i gave a couple of the sites i got the data off of. on another post. though, i was told that the geologist that gave that data are not real science, since they dont work for nasa.

... A few of your dates are off by an order of magnitude, but I think you just left out a zero here and there (e.g., the last time Yellowstone blew was around 640,000 years ago, not 64,000)...

yes, i do occasionally make mistakes. that was suppose to have one more zero. thanks for pointing out that typo. most of the data seems to be correct though.

...Your definition of "ice age" is a lot more long-term than the typical thinking. Not that you're incorrect (you're not), but after the first reading, I thought, "What the hell is this guy talking about??" This comes from my soils oriented training, as most soils are young, geologically speaking. You would probably call my definition of ice age a glaciation. I'll use those terms from here on...

they come from the geological terms. yes most of the soil we have now is young in terms of geological. as i understand it the full glacerial (sp?) period includes both the time the ice is created until its gone. glaceral periods are when the ice is increasing or basically stagnet. (my spelling was never much good, but after a ministroke is even worse, sorry). for the last 14000 years the ice has been retreating, with a few minor and one major blimp. all of which coincide with eruptions of super valcanos or very large normal volcano (the technical term are large and very large volcano, the term super is more of a lay term: lay scientist {read not fully trained} refer to caldera type volcanos by that term).

But regardless, what I've read is that the major ice ages (around four have occurred over the last billion years) are believed to be related to changes in Earth's orbit, while the glaciations and interglacial periods are from atmospheric causes...

they have never been able to fully explain them. also they have never proven how the the earth's orbit would change, esp that fast. on the other hand, there is a good coorlation between ice age and the larger super valcano eruptions. check it out for yourself. as far as atmospheric causes, sulpher dioxide ice clouds do fall under that catagory.

...So my big question is, how would we know if this is the end of the current ice age, or if it's a more minor change regarding glaciation?

simple. use the oscam (my memory for names is terrible) razor. the simplist explaination that fits all the data is most likely the correct one.

heres an example. the mini ice age that occured 10000 years ago. oceanogerphers (sp?) will tell you that it occured because the gulf stream stopped. there is no arguement that it did. but their explination of why it stop is a bit complicated and does not include the fact that there was a supervolcano that erupted at the same time.

heres a much simpler explination. its proven that the super volcano erupted then. its also proven that one of the emission of a valcano of any size is sulpher dioxide. its also proven that the sulpher dioxide will form clouds with the water vaper that will stay in the atmosphere for years. its also a proven fact that the clouds will block off a large portion of the suns light, depending on how thick the so2 ice is. its also proven that the gulf stream is sun driven. ice found in the ice shelf from that time shows an increase in sulpher dioxide for more than a decade with it gradually decreasing. its also been proven that the ice has been melting at simular rate for 4 thousand years about that time.

my hyphothisis is that the sun was blocked off from the gulf stream, causeing it to stop. this did not cause the mini ice age, but was an effect of it. the mammoth that was frozen in siberia was killed by the drop in tempatures from spring or early summer (it was eating spring flowers) and was likely buried by an avalance. this would account for its sudden death, the sudden ceacation of acid reaction (a wet coat transmits heat well, loss of heat stops the reaction.)

simple. straight forward. no unproven theories needed to explain it. all facts covered.

ExtraNONsense posted a link.

To an editorial.

Apparently the personal opinions of a political hack now substitute for serious science and the opinions of those with research expertise in the field.

Sad.

Likely he asks Paris Hilton for advise on manners and how to dress too.

Most of the people can follow links in the "editorial" - this does not include our learned marxist dissenter, apparently

e s

extraNONsense ... can you read?

Lets start just under the black bar.

Line 1: Joseph Farah
Line 2: Between the Lines
Line 3: WorldNetDaily Exclusive Commentary

Don't know what dictionary you use to determine the meaning of words. But in the dictionary I use Commentary means Editorial Opinion.

And politically I'm as close to being a Marxist as Attila the Hun was to being a humanitarian. Funny thing ... I don't recall seeing you in Vietnam. Where were you in 1968? Fighting a bad case of pimples?

tdcanam said:
CO2 is natural. The ammount being pumped into the atmosphere is def. not natural.


depends on what you call natural. all of that co2 came from that atmosphere at one point. at that point the earth was 8 to 15 deg c warmer than it is now. then an ice age came and the plants that had that co2 in them was not able to be broken down by natural processes due to the things that broke down trees being frozen and they became buried but glaceral deposits and erosion bourn down on top of them by the ice and water. after a while the pressure started building causing the liquids to seperated leaving gas and coal, the gas being liquid follow the path liquids do and ended up in crude oil and natural gas fields. the coal remained where they were and eventuall were mined.

all we are doing is reversing what the glacers did. if you call that unnatural, then yes, its not natural. if humans did not do it, eventually it would be susumed by gravity into the magna and returned to the atmosphere by volcanos.

DA Morgan, extrasense, cant you guys just discuss the topic instead of flaming each other.

dehammer wrote:
"depends on what you call natural."

And Bill Clinton said "depends on what your definition of is is."

Knock off the lawyer-talk we all know precisely what tdcanam meant unless, for you, English is a third language.

We are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at a higher rate than would occur were we not doing so. No doubt as the tsunami approaches you will be seen standing on the shore and pointing to a marker proclaiming ... you see the tide is down ... not up.

A load of rubbish you should be ashamed of.

DA Morgan wrote:
Knock off the lawyer-talk we all know precisely what tdcanam meant unless, for you, English is a third language....

i know what he intended to say, but the thing is, from what point of view. from his point of view this is unnatural. but from the earths, its not really unnatural, only a little faster than mother nature intended.

...We are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at a higher rate than would occur were we not doing so...

yes. but that does not mean it would not eventually all get there anyway. that is what i meant. its natural, but we are accelerating it. if you want to call the acceleration unnatural, then by all mean, lable the human race as an unnatural thing. if that makes you feel better, just remember your one of the unnatural things too.

..No doubt as the tsunami approaches you will be seen standing on the shore and pointing to a marker proclaiming ... you see the tide is down ... not up....

if there were no where to run, or i had realised that the island i was on would be destroyed by a volcano before the tsunami reached me, id set there and enjoy the view while it lasted. other wise id be too busy getting out of the way of the water.

there was a book a friend showed me once. a meteor had hit the ocean and all life above the ameba was about to be extingushed with the possiblity of any human surviving at zero (dont ask me, it was the premish of the book), and it detail the last few minutes of ppl's life. one, a surfer, got on his board and went on the ride of a life. i like to think i would be doing the same.

on the other hand if there was any chance that i could survive, id not bother to look at the marker. who would care if it what it indicated few minutes at a time. i might be taking bets on when it pass the lowest point or when it was covered.

you worry that in 100 years the ice age will end and all the animals that evolved during it will have to reevolve, (i know that is not the way you put it, but that it the reality of it) and you choise to put the entire blame on humanity. specificly you choise to blame other ppl. here is something i was once told. when you point the blame at president bush, look at your hand. one finger will be pointing at bush, and three will be pointing at you. bush is one man, he would never stand a chance if all ppl said, enough, lets stop this. nor would all the greedy ppl in power, if they saw that their money would not protect them from the non greedy ppl. unfortuantely, there are not enough non greedy ppl in the world, and your post indicates that despite the public image you wish to project, your not there yourself.

the reality is, while you are worry about the tsunami that is rushing at us, you totally refuse to see the fact that there is a volcano behind us, and the ground has already began to fall. sure ill watch the tsunami, because it will not reach us before the lava will.

...A load of rubbish you should be ashamed of...

why should i be a shame of the truth.

there is a saying i saw else where. "if foolish to argue the truth, but is dangerous not to state it." ive stated it. youve argued it.

dehammer wrote:
"i know what he intended to say, but the thing is, from what point of view. from his point of view this is unnatural. but from the earths, its not really unnatural, only a little faster than"

What planet do you live on? And what source of information supports this rubbishing of facts?

If pumping petroleum out of the ground and mining coal are natural processes please enlighten us all. If then burning them to power motor vehicles and produce electrcity is a natural processes please share with us your divine wisdom.

"Only a little faster"? As I said ... what planet do you live on? Not the same one I do.

the planet i live on is earth's reality.

its plate techtonics.

if we dont release it back in to the atmosphere, it will eventually reach the lvl of magna. at which point it will get blasted back to the atmosphere by lava an valcanos. yes, from your point of view mankind is completely unnatural. but from the view point of the earth (dont drop that rubbish about the earth not seeing or thinging, of course it does not, but neither does water and it always finds its own lvl), it is all part of a cycle. most of the time unless glacers and the occasional bit of erosion manages to bury a forest, the carbon is released back into the atmosphere by the working of virus, bateria, and others common bugs. when it is buried, that carbon will continues its down ward trip until it reaches the magna. in that case it will mix with other elements and being the ligher, will be at the forefront when the magna heads for the surface. most of the carbon that is pulled out of the atmosphere is done so by the ocean, and deposited on the sea bed, and is sussumed back into the magna there.

there earth is very big on recyling things, including co2.

were just creating a shortcut to the carbon but bringing it up before it can be susummed by the presure of the planet.

the thing is, ppl like you want to say that nothing that happen more than 200 years ago matter. or that nothing that happen before man learn to use tools is importain. the reality of the planet is that 200 ears is hardly mark of a letter on a single line on a single page of the earths book. mankind had barely earned a single letter in earths history. its rather difficult to understand how ppl can have such short site as to refuse to see the earths view point when we start talking about things that are covering the entire earth.

before you start claiming how much damage were doing, you really ought to open your eyes and see more then your own fingers. i have trouble discussing things with someone that claims that geologist and volcannoligist (or what every they are called, im too tire to remember so go ahead and ignore every thing and jump on me for this) are not real scientist.

dehammer wrote:
"if we dont release it back in to the atmosphere, it will eventually reach the lvl of magna"

Well duh!

Apparently you live in a place where it impossible to chart change versus time.

Eventually is a valid statement that has absolutely no correspondence with our current pump it, mine it, consume it as fast as you can reality.

well duh!

appearantly what ever rock youve been hiding under does not give you any perspective on the size of the planet and the size of the atmosphere. nor does it allow you memory of what was written before. you claimed it was unnatural for that co2 to be released into the atmosphere and now your bashing me because i said it was being return more quickly (something you failed to quote) than otherwise but still being return.

next time, before you post, you might want to go back and read your own post to refresh your memory of where you stand on a point. its rather hard to argue with someone that turns around so often.

I am quite well aware of both the size of the planet, the size of the atmosphere, and far more importantly the size of the oceans.

But then I also go to the library here at the university and read actual science written by actual scientists in peer reviewed journals. Not the politically inspired rubbish in the popular press.

We are actually the primary cause. Really. We are. I know you find this amazing but it is the fact. And it is fact proven by study after study after study.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

The peer review is stinky fraud, we know that much

e s

yes its been proven in study after study by scientist that are ignoreing the long term (billions of years, not decades) and are paid for by ppl wanting to prove that man is the only cause of the problem.

that is why there are also just as many studies that say that man is not the primary cause, or that there is a cooling trend rather than a warming trend, or that there is no trend at all. those studies can prove what every the scientist wish them to prove, just like polls. as far as what they popular press has to say, i could not tell you, ive not seen any articles on it for decades, not since it was proven that they had no clue what they were saying. i might not live in a libray, but i do have access to a library, its called the internet, and its impossible for school officials to determined what goes into it so as to not rock their ideas.

if you were actually aware of the full size of the atmosphere and the oceans, you would be aware that the total amount of carbon pumped out by humans in the last 500 years (that mean including pre industrial age) is insignificant compair to what a single super volcano can do in four days. what we have done with sulpher is trivial compare to a normal volcano can possible do (mount st helen really was not that large), let alone what a super (or caldera) volcano can do in mare hours. yet these do not destroy the earth, like your average scare monger warming trend advocate would tell you

Says the man who reads and quotes World Net Daily! :p

you want a solution to the increase in co2, how about this one. cut down trees and bury them deep. that takes the co2 out of the atmosphere and insures that there will be coal in the future.

The reason extrasense doesn't like peer reivew is that peer reviewers have rejected his physics papers containing K-12 level math. Sour grapes makes WHINE not WINE.

dehammer thinks cutting down trees and buying them will remove CO2 from the oceans. Wow! Can I get some of what you've been smoking?

i said atmosphere, not ocean.

the ocean has its own way of removing the carbon, which its been using for billions of years, reduce some of whats in the atmosphere and we would slow the amount the that the ocean can absorb over time. currently a tree removed carbon, then releases it when it is burned, rots, or otherwise is destroyed. if the trees are buried instead of burned or allowed to rot, that would take out that carbon. then new trees could be replanted in the same spot.

The atmosphere is nearly irrelevant compared with what we've done to the oceans.

Try to keep your concentration here. There is enough CO2 in the oceans due to our activities that the acidification is measurable and inhibiting the ability of molluscs and corals to grow.

Einstein said:
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler"
It is still good advise.

This is not about the atmosphere. This is not about just the oceans either. It is about the entire ecosystem.

And it is being rubbished while you play political-correctness games.

the chemicals in the ocean will take care of them selfs. the more carbon there is there now, eventually there will be more carbonate material. but in the short term some things will be damage.

what are political correctness games. i have not the foggiest what they are. at the same time i am very aware that there was a time a mere few million years ago that the co2 lvls in both the atmosphere and ocean were much higher than they are now. how can you claim that what has worked for the planet in the past will not work for it now.

dehammer wrote:
"the chemicals in the ocean will take care of them selfs."

I feel so much better now. Thank you for informing me that all of the experts in meteorology at major universities and research centers are incorrect.

Just one quick question though. On what basis did you determine this? Fox News?

no, the fact that the earth could do this long before man was even a distant possiblity. the earth was handling this long before the dinosaurs and will continue handling it long after man is a distant forgotten fossil.

as ive said the meteorology ppl are basising this on the believe that what the world was like 200 years ago is the right conditions for the earth. they dont consider that the earth had a much higher co2 lvl in the past.

explain something to me.

dinosaurs were big creatures. the meat eaters required huge amount of meat much of which came from plant eaters. for the plant eater to have the kind of mass that would feed the meat eaters the plants had to be large. our current atmosphere and climate does not allow plants to grow like that. only an environment
much higher in co2 could sustain that kind of plant. yet ppl like you claim that that kind of co2 would ruin the world. please explain how it did not ruin the world back then.

in addition the plants required a much higher lvl of water vapor and rain than is currently possible with our environment. yet life existed then, and if other life could exist then, we can adapt to it.

dehammer wrote:
"the fact that the earth could do this long before man was even a distant possiblity."

Oh and it can. Over tens of thousands to millions of years. Plan on living that long or do you just not give a rip about anybody except yourself?

Obviously you either have no children or ate them.

i dont believe that we will destroy our children. unlike you, i dont believe that we are capable of destroying the world or its ecology. i believe its a lot more robust than you do, and i beleive that its less likely that things will be completely destroyed. i dont see how you could believe that.

the point is, the earth has been here before, and will be again. we are doing no more than speeding the change. if that.

You've got to be kidding. There are habitat types that were extensive only a couple of centuries ago, and they're almost non-existent today, due to human activity. We're extirpating species at an accelerating rate -- a rate that mirrors the mass extinctions.

No, we won't "destroy Earth," but we are actively destroying the habitats in which many of the present species evolved. We could very well be destroying the habitats in which humans are most comfortable. We're very likely making things hard for future generations of humans.

What about making life liveable for current generations of humans?
If we could do that, the future generations will take care of themselfs too.

ES

"No, we won't "destroy Earth," but we are actively destroying the habitats in which many of the present species evolved. We could very well be destroying the habitats in which humans are most comfortable. We're very likely making things hard for future generations of humans."

yes, many habitats are being destroyed, but are you absolutley sure that humans are the only cause of that. ive said repeatedly that we are accelerating the process, but unless something happens to cause a new glacial period, this ice age is going to end and any species that cant adapt is going to die. how much of that loss of habitats are due to that and now much of it is human caused is not as easy as many ppl want to believe. yes when we build on top of the only habitat a species has, that is likely the cause of that perticular species demise, or when chemicals we use poisons them, we might be the cause. but that is not always the case. species have been dying off long before man showed up on the scene, are we responsible for their demise as well.

as far as our future generations, like other species when the ice age, they will have to adapt or die. personally i would not bother taking bets against their adaption. humans have adapted to every environment on earth and i dont see whats coming as being much harder to adapt to than that. as es said, the future generations will have the ability to take care of themselfs. they are no less capable than you are.

Simple minds don't do well when mucking about with complex systems.

If you are young enough you will live long enough to wish you were eating something other than your words.

The thing is, that we have 7 bln humans already.
Obviously, it is at least 1000 times more than it was 500 years ago.

The only reason that this expansion will not continue for another 500 years, is that the environment will and is turning against us.

So, this is a good thing.

We do not create problem by our actions, but by our very existance.

The well wishers are nutcakes, who want to squre out this circle. You can't.

es

The planet can sustain a lot more humans. And if you don't believe that I invite you to visit Hong Kong sometime.

That said ... some of us are more concerned about quality than quantity.

Obviously, there is a trend, that resource consumption is becoming a problem, with current population levels.
No matter how equally you are going to spread misery, apparently environment is stretched - otherwise we would not be talking about "Global Warming" and such.

it would appear that there is not a human mind complex enough to understand the earth completely and we have not gotten god (which ever one you wish ) to spell it out for us yet in terms humans can understand perhaps there are aliens out there that have a better grip on it, but they are not being very forthcomeing about it either :rolleyes: .

scientist in the 50 figure out that when the population reached 1 billion the worlds economy would crash since there was no way man could feed that many. then it was 3 billion and then 5 and then 7 now there are 7 million and growing and still food is there. as of yet they are still predicting that when we get another 2 billion the world will crash. the thing is the population increases are mostly in countries that would be the first to be hit with the lack of resourses. when those countries hit their ceiling, perhaps we will finally figure out where the limit is.

"The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame!"
- - And yet Ehrlich and the rest of the Chicken Littles originally gathered (1968) to sound the alarm over global COOLING!

"Not my words ... those of Time Magazine."
- - Now THERE is a source!!

"Never mind what you've heard about global warming as a slow-motion emergency that would take decades to play out. Suddenly and unexpectedly, the crisis is upon us."
- - As Rachel Carson warned us, the world will end in 1985! oh wait, that can't be right...

"The problem -- as scientists suspected but few others appreciated"
- - Be careful from whom you take your lead. Very few legitimate climatologists support the whole greenhouse gas/GW theory. Most of the "scientists" making noise on the subject have specialization in other fields... like orthodonture!

"Late last year, for example, researchers analyzed data from Canadian and European satellites and found that the Greenland ice sheet is not only melting, but doing so faster and faster, with 53 cubic miles draining away into the sea last year alone, compared to 23 cubic miles in 1996."
- - And yet the ice crust over Greenland is over 400 feet thicker than it was sixty years ago.

"Ocean water does just the opposite, absorbing 90 percent of the light and heat it receives, meaning that each mile of ice that melts vanishes faster than the mile that preceded it."
- - You are forgetting the mammoth heat sink surrounding our planet. We call it "space."

"This is what scientists call a feedback loop"
- - Only in a closed system, which this ain't.

"Coral growth and repair rates are slowing down. Rupert Ormond, a marine biologist from Glasgow University, says that the world's coral reefs will be dead within 50 years because of global warming, and there is nothing we can do to save them."
- - He may be right about the dying reefs, but he's not a climatologist. More likely the cause is pH, not GW.

"Add water to a glass, it fills up. Drop ice cubes in it, it over flows."
- - When the ice that's already in the glass melts, the level of the water goes DOWN.

"(Average global temperatures are expected to rise 5 degrees by then)."
- - Based on the IPCC temperature data which was faulty.

"...it will release billions of tons of stored carbon into the atmosphere, accelerating global warming."
- - Only if you assume a closed system.

"Whats worse is that a paper published in 2005 linked a one-degree rise in sea surface temperature to the increase of hurricane intensity."
- - Except that there hasn't been a 1? rise in ocean surface temperatures when global conditions are averaged.

"The forecast for 2006 Atlantic hurricane season, which runs from June 1 to Nov. 30, calls for 17 tropical storms and 9 named hurricanes."
- - Less than 2005? How can that be if GW is the cause? Where I live, the weather forecasters can't get it right for tomorrow afternoon. I'm not too concerned about their predictions for the next century...

"with 2005 being the hottest year in history."
- - Not globally, only in isolated areas where the psuedoscientists are reporting. The data that doesn't support their theories tends to end up on the cutting room floor.

"Things are picking up, and fast. You don't need to be a scientist to see this."
- - Actually, you do. The increrase in temperatures over the last 50 years (when corrected for the misinformation) is two digits to the right of the decimal point.

"We are directly responsible for these effects and it is becoming more and more evident."
- - It takes incredible levels of self-esteem (arrogance) to think that we're capable of causing a significant change in global temperatures.

"But then I also go to the library here at the university and read actual science written by actual scientists in peer reviewed journals."
- - I think you should get out more. Those academics are like the jazz musicians who only play for each other because no one wants to hear their stuff. Just because it's published doesn't make it valid.

"We are actually the primary cause. Really."
- - We couldn't be if we wanted to be. We don't have the technology to deliberately increase temperatures globally.

"I know you find this amazing but it is the fact. And it is fact proven by study after study after study."
- - I don't find it amazing, just ridiculous. The studies that allegedly support this wild-eyed theory are based on a closed system. If there was a shell around the earth, instead of space, then these theories would actually be valid.

"Obviously, there is a trend, that resource consumption is becoming a problem, with current population levels."
- - Obvious to whom and based on what?

"otherwise we would not be talking about 'Global Warming' and such."
- - We're talking about GW for the same reason lesser minds talk about Hollowood's (sic) icons - simply because it is in someone's financial interest to have the discussion.

A lot of folks in academia would be out of business if they didn't have a cause celebre. That's why the decided to champion GW instead of GC (cooling).

Elwood wrote:
"A lot of folks in academia would be out of business if they didn't have a cause celebre."

And a lot of crackpots wouldn't have a life if they couldn't pontificate on the internet.

Many of us are concerned about global warming because we are intelligent enough to understand the current environment and its consequences.

You might have taken a moment to determine if I have some knowledge on the subject before you dismiss me...

Don't you wonder about the alarmists like Carson and Ehrlich whose dire predictions continually fail to materialize?

Elwood wrote:
"You might have taken a moment to determine if I have some knowledge on the subject before you dismiss me"

And you might have actually done some work in the sciences before you wrote: "A lot of folks in academia would be out of business if they didn't have a cause celebre." which was more than enough of a calling card for anyone to slam the door on the Tuperware salesperson.

Elwood wrote:
"Don't you wonder about the alarmists like Carson and Ehrlich whose dire predictions continually fail to materialize?"

No. Because science doesn't give a damn about the pontification of self-annointed experts on any side of any debate. We pay attention to results obtained in accordance with the scientific method.

If you can't separate the advertising fluff from the substantive you probably think Tide makes your clothes whiter and brighter and Bucky Beaver brushes his teeth.

Cousin Elwood, youve put in to many points for me to address point by point, so ill say it simple. thank god there is someone else that can see this.

"And you might have actually done some work in the sciences before you wrote: "A lot of folks in academia would be out of business if they didn't have a cause celebre." which was more than enough of a calling card for anyone to slam the door on the Tuperware salesperson."
- - Only to those who have confined their reading to Earth in the Balance.

"No. Because science doesn't give a damn about the pontification of self-annointed experts on any side of any debate. We pay attention to results obtained in accordance with the scientific method."
- - Your statements say otherwise. You've accepted data on someone's say so. I'm just here to tell you you've bought a bill of goods. And who is we?

"If you can't separate the advertising fluff from the substantive you probably think Tide makes your clothes whiter and brighter and Bucky Beaver brushes his teeth."
- - Wow, you've old enough to remember Ipana? I would have guessed you were still in college!

Well, there are things that one can observe directly:
1. Quality of water and its amount is a problem. I have to buy bottled water.
2. The fish that is sold, comes with pollutants, and warning not to eat more than once a week.
3. Forests are being depleated, for habitat etc.
4. Air we breath is not as fresh
That is a cause of PSEUDO science. Which is PARASITING on the problems.

The pollution and the environment must be studied, along with the pollution of science.

ES

Elwood wrote:
" - Your statements say otherwise. You've accepted data on someone's say so. I'm just here to tell you you've bought a bill of goods. And who is we?"

Unless you live at the bottom of an abandoned mine shaft you need to interact with and learn from other members of your species. Of course I accept what others say ... but I do so by looking for generally accepted, verifiable, statements. Which I then evaluate on the basis of the origin of the statement, who benefits, who loses, and the implications of the statement possibly being incorrect. Which toothpaste I use is of little consequence. Whether Greenland is melting has major consequences.

Learn critical thinking skills. They are what separated your ancestors from the Saber Toothed Kitty Cats.

"but I do so by looking for generally accepted, verifiable, statements."
- - If you think the globe is warming due to anthropogenic causes, and/or that the current temperatures are the warmest ever, and/or that we have warmed GLOBALLY by several Celsius degrees, and/or that such trend is irreversible, and/or that such trend is also reflected by atmoshperic temperature readings (do you remember my pointing out that this is not a closed system) then your research efforts have been too shallow and too provincial. Try listening to people with whom you disagree, instead of the amen chorus.

"Which I then evaluate on the basis of the origin of the statement, who benefits, who loses,"
- - not a bad start
"and the implications of the statement possibly being incorrect."
- - which has exactly WHAT to do with its efficacy?

"Whether Greenland is melting has major consequences."
- - It clearly is not.

"Learn critical thinking skills."
- - BTDT

"They are what separated your ancestors from the Saber Toothed Kitty Cats."
- - You believe in evolution of the species as well? Not surprising.

You believe in the tooth fairy, Easter bunny, and Santa Clause as well? Not surprising.

You really should look at doing something about that brainwashing you were subjected to. Got some very shocking news for you.

1. Your family is not better than other families.
2. You community is not better than other communities.
3. You country is not better than other countries.
4. Your religion does not have the ear of the creator.
5. When you are dead ... you are dead. There is no RIP.

If you are going to come to SAGG expect to have to deal head-on with reality.

"1. Quality of water and its amount is a problem. I have to buy bottled water."
- - Some advice for you. Buy a carbon block filtration system and bottle your own water for the following reasons:
1- Much cheaper in the long run and no bottles to dispose of/recycle.
2- Bottled water standards are exactly the same as tap water standards. Want to start your own bottled water company? All you need is a supply of bottles.
3- Plasticizer migration. Bottled water (most of it) comes in plastic bottles. Chemicals migrate from the plastic into the water. If you bottle your own, you can drink it the day it's bottled and before any measurable amount of pollution can occur. Either that or buy Gerolsteiner or others that come in glass.

"2. The fish that is sold, comes with pollutants, and warning not to eat more than once a week."
- - Eat fish that don't eat other fish and eat more veggies.

"3. Forests are being depleated, for habitat etc."
- - Not true. America, for one, has more trees than it had when Columbus landed.

4. Air we breath is not as fresh
- - Not as fresh as what? Air quality in my neighborhood is better than it was twenty years ago. And assuming you don't smoke and haven't ravaged the cilia that protect you, a little crud in the air won't kill you.

"That is a cause of PSEUDO science. Which is PARASITING on the problems."
- - Precisely. When a moron like Al Gore can publish a best seller on a topic on which he is grossly misinformed, we're all in trouble from sycophants like DA who thinks he knows it all when he barely knows his/her way home.

"The pollution and the environment must be studied, along with the pollution of science."
- - Yes, but studied by whom? Our problems lie in the fact that so many have put their trust in people undeserving of it.

"You believe in the tooth fairy, Easter bunny, and Santa Clause as well? Not surprising."
- - Not sure to whom this is directed. I didn't hear anyone post about any of the above, but then you do like to decide what others think so that you can tell them they're wrong!

"You really should look at doing something about that brainwashing you were subjected to."
- - See above...

"1. Your family is not better than other families."
- - Totally agree, never said otherwise

"2. You community is not better than other communities."
- - Actually, there are statistical measurements that say my community is pretty darned good. Probably not the best, but far from the worst.

"3. You country is not better than other countries."
- - As above. I live in the US, the one country above all others that people are choosing over their homelands. Although popularity is a poor measure, GDP, GNP, standard of living, weather, etc. can all be used to demonstrate that my country actually IS better than nearly all others. I'm sure there are several that I haven't considered, so I won't say "ALL."

"4. Your religion does not have the ear of the creator."
- - Actually, it might or might not. Depending upon the actual nature of the Deity, I suspect that ALL religions have the creator's ear equally. For some however, it is better to fly under the radar!!

"5. When you are dead ... you are dead. There is no RIP."
- - On this you are verifiably incorrect. Having been dead, I can assure you that there is more.

"If you are going to come to SAGG expect to have to deal head-on with reality."
- - I was hoping to do just that. Will reality be here any time soon?

Cousin Elwood
"You believe in the tooth fairy, Easter bunny, and Santa Clause as well? Not surprising."
- - Not sure to whom this is directed. I didn't hear anyone post about any of the above, but then you do like to decide what others think so that you can tell them they're wrong!

sorry to tell you this Cousin Elwood, but DA scientific method amount to insluting and trashing anyone that comes up with an arguement he cant counter.

nice meeting you.