157 replies to this topic

[mike250]

even if you manage to reduce CO2 levels in the coming 100 years or so, it will take centuries before the temperature of the Earth stabilizes, this according to the data graph from the IPCC. Increased CO2 is just a symptom not a cause but it seems some are confusing the two words, probably because we can alter how much CO2 we put out.

This is simplistic. CO2 is neither a simple "cause" or "symptom". Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming, this will cause CO2 to be released from natural sources which causes further warming. This is a classic positive feedback loop. You see this kind of thing all the time in science. Our own brains works this way. A synaptic spike (or electrode in the lab) starts a voltage rise in the neural membrane. This causes voltage sensitive sodium channels to open. These cause a large flow of Na+ ion into the cell, which leads to... further voltage rise. The process keeps going until the sodium channels inactivate and potassium channels create a countering flow of K+ ion out of the cell and send the voltage back down. This whole process is called the "spike" and is how we all think and live. The natural world has similar checks that have acted in the past to prevent runaway warming. They do not prevent large swings in climate though, and this is what we must prevent to keep our societies stable and prosperous.

Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will not cause warming. solar activity is what warms or cools the earth. A rise in temperature from the sun is what causes more CO2 to be released, mainly from the oceans.

There is actually a 700 year LAG time for this to occur, so Al Gore's red and green-blue graph showing the correlation between temperatures and CO2 only looks accurate because it is spread out over thousands of years, so the two lines look pretty close on the graph. Basically, the IPCC and Gore have the correlation backwards.

CO2 is actually regarded as a minor greenhouse gas. Water vapor is more potent of a GH gas than CO2.



http://www.redicecre...icle.php?id=506

http://www.telegraph....it/nwarm05.xml

Edited by mike250, 02 April 2007 - 11:29 PM.

[nootron]

Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will not cause warming. solar activity is what warms or cools the earth. A rise in temperature from the sun is what causes more CO2 to be released, mainly from the oceans.

Again, this is simplistic. Of course the sun provides the heat source. It is CO2 that traps more or less of that heat depending on concentration. This is basic physics that has been well understand and demonstrated in the lab since the 19th century.

There is actually a 700 year LAG time for this to occur, so Al Gore's red and green-blue graph showing the correlation between temperatures and CO2 only looks accurate because it is spread out over thousands of years, so the two lines look pretty close on the graph. Basically, the IPCC and Gore have the correlation backwards.

I'm well aware that in some (not all, unfortunately for you) of the historical warmings there is a lag. This is precisely why I posted what I did about neurons. A simplistic interpretation of what is going on in a neuron would claim "it's the electrode current that drives the movement of sodium". Of course, it's the electrode that starts the movement. The rest is a positive feedback due to increased sodium itself.

CO2 is actually regarded as a minor greenhouse gas. Water vapor is more potent of a GH gas than CO2.

This is irrelevant. Simply because something is not the primary effect on something else does not mean we can ignore it. CO2 provides that last few degrees of warming that makes the difference between an ice age and a themal peak where you get tropical forest in Colorado. Furthermore, the argument is over what effects humans are having and we do not produce water vapor as a long term by-product of fossil fuel usage. Any water vapor added to the atmosphere by combustion quickly precipitates out on a short time scale. It is the CO2 (and methane and other trace gasses) that we have added over the last 200 years that has everyone worried.

[mike250]

Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will not cause warming. solar activity is what warms or cools the earth. A rise in temperature from the sun is what causes more CO2 to be released, mainly from the oceans.

Again, this is simplistic. Of course the sun provides the heat source. It is CO2 that traps more or less of that heat depending on concentration. This is basic physics that has been well understand and demonstrated in the lab since the 19th century.

There is actually a 700 year LAG time for this to occur, so Al Gore's red and green-blue graph showing the correlation between temperatures and CO2 only

looks accurate because it is spread out over thousands of years, so the two lines look pretty close on the graph. Basically, the IPCC and Gore have the correlation backwards.

I'm well aware that in some (not all, unfortunately for you) of the historical warmings there is a lag. This is precisely why I posted what I did about neurons. A simplistic interpretation of what is going on in a neuron would claim "it's the electrode current that drives the movement of sodium". Of course, it's the electrode that starts the movement. The rest is a positive feedback due to increased sodium itself.

CO2 is actually regarded as a minor greenhouse gas. Water vapor is more potent of a GH gas than CO2.

This is irrelevant. Simply because something is not the primary effect on something else does not mean we can ignore it. CO2 provides that last few degrees of warming that makes the difference between an ice age and a themal peak where you get tropical forest in Colorado. Furthermore, the argument is over what effects humans are having and we do not produce water vapor as a long term by-product of fossil fuel usage. Any water vapor added to the atmosphere by combustion quickly precipitates out on a short time scale. It is the CO2 (and methane and other trace gasses) that we have added over the last 200 years that has everyone worried.

First have you watched the show? One of the scientists put it very succinctly in that documentary: "We are living in the sun's atmosphere." Just think about what that really means for a minute.

Second you obsess too much about CO2 increase when there are more important factors to consider. Exactly how much CO2 have humans produced over the last 40 years compared to that produced by nature? A tiny fraction of a percent.

Bottom line is that the CO2 story has been trumpeted loudly and repeatedly, and people believe what they hear on a regular basis. It doesn't matter if it is true or not -- people eventually believe and will refuse to accept anything outside of that belief.

Maybe the best we can hope for is that in 20 years when there is a $3 / gallon "carbon tax" on gasoline, people are paying a carbon tax on the amount of electricity that they use, and even taxed on the amount of carbon that we produce annually by breathing, some people will say "well, it's not any hotter than it was 20 years ago...why am I paying these carbon taxes?" and the pendulum will swing the other way.

Edited by mike250, 03 April 2007 - 06:22 AM.

[biknut]

Bottom line is that the CO2 story has been trumpeted loudly and repeatedly, and people believe what they hear on a regular basis. It doesn't matter if it is true or not -- people eventually believe and will refuse to accept anything outside of that belief.

When you say these things to me you're just preaching to the choir, Reverend

I wish more people could think for themselves and not just believe what they're told like robots. I've had so many of my friends tell me it's getting warmer, you can feel it. When I tell them It's only 1 degree warmer they don't understand how that can be.

[nootron]

First have you watched the show? One of the scientists put it very succinctly in that documentary: "We are living in the sun's atmosphere." Just think about what that really means for a minute.

No. I have better things to do than absorb pseudo-scientific propaganda. This little bit of fluff is debunked here for those interested in the truth of the matter. Neither have I seen Gore's movie.

Second you obsess too much about CO2 increase when there are more important factors to consider. Exactly how much CO2 have humans produced over the last 40 years compared to that produced by nature? A tiny fraction of a percent.

This is simply an outright falsehood.

Bottom line is that the CO2 story has been trumpeted loudly and repeatedly, and people believe what they hear on a regular basis. It doesn't matter if it is true or not -- people eventually believe and will refuse to accept anything outside of that belief.

It's so sad that people continue to believe in the round earth theory too. Just because some egghead scientists say it doesn't make it so. I find your insinuation here insulting but entirely characteristic of the typical global warming "skeptic". The blithe assumption that people who accept the theory do so on the basis of faith. This is a common libel I've seen thrown around wherever there are lots of atheists present in particular. A subtle ad hominem linking the person to religious belief. I have not claimed that your views are founded on faith, though I admit that I find your sources dubious.

I wish more people could think for themselves and not just believe what they're told like robots. I've had so many of my friends tell me it's getting warmer, you can feel it. When I tell them It's only 1 degree warmer they don't understand how that can be.

Your friends are not very numerate I suppose. They haven't mastered the tricky concept of an "average" yet.

[biknut]

I can't help myself, I love to stir this pot.

They call this a consensus?

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Saturday, June 02, 2007
"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."

S o said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.

Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.

More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.

My series set out to profile the dissenters -- those who deny that the science is settled on climate change -- and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop -- the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.

Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.
What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world's top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. "The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world," the IPCC Secretariat responded. "The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007."

An IPCC reviewer does not assess the IPCC's comprehensive findings. He might only review one small part of one study that later becomes one small input to the published IPCC report. Far from endorsing the IPCC reports, some reviewers, offended at what they considered a sham review process, have demanded that the IPCC remove their names from the list of reviewers. One even threatened legal action when the IPCC refused.

A great many scientists, without doubt, are four-square in their support of the IPCC. A great many others are not. A petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine between 1999 and 2001 claimed some 17,800 scientists in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. A more recent indicator comes from the U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals, an accrediting organization whose 12,000 environmental practitioners have standing with U.S. government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. In a November, 2006, survey of its members, it found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred, and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions. And 71% believe the increase in hurricanes is likely natural, not easily attributed to human activities.

Such diversity of views is also present in the wider scientific community, as seen in the World Federation of Scientists, an organization formed during the Cold War to encourage dialogue among scientists to prevent nuclear catastrophe. The federation, which encompasses many of the world's most eminent scientists and today represents more than 10,000 scientists, now focuses on 15 "planetary emergencies," among them water, soil, food, medicine and biotechnology, and climatic changes. Within climatic changes, there are eight priorities, one being "Possible human influences on climate and on atmospheric composition and chemistry (e.g. increased greenhouse gases and tropospheric ozone)."

Man-made global warming deserves study, the World Federation of Scientists believes, but so do other serious climatic concerns. So do 14 other planetary emergencies. That seems about right. - Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation. Email: LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com

[biknut]

Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny

June 30, 2007

BY JAMES M. TAYLOR

In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.
If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.

A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.

Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.

Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."

Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.

Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.
Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by example in his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.


James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute.

http://www.suntimes....-REF30b.article

[amar]

Maybe it is a bunch of propaganda from Gorecorp., but regardless of how serious the climate pollution issue is, you can't argue that it's not contaminating the environment, and we should still switch to cleaner, smarter fuel alternatives nonetheless. Even "conservatives" should agree about that, unless they're only interested in conserving our corruption.