Global warming?

[TheMercenary]

First you have to accept that it is not a natural event.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

But, but, Pico, I thought you were an EXPERT!

Not possible! You are our resident EXPERT!

[TheMercenary]

Obama issues global warming rules in January, gives GE an exemption in February

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/...#ixzz1CwyGLL5h

[TheMercenary]

eet the global weirdos. They’re the ones telling you that all the snow outside is proof that it’s getting warmer. Only, they don’t call it “warming” anymore.

No, that was back in the “Earth has a fever” days. Back when Al Gore was predicting that the ice caps were melting, the polar bears were drowning and Manhattan would sink beneath 20 feet of water “in the near future.”

But then something happened. Since 1998, temperatures have been relatively flat. We’ve got more polar bears than ever, and Manhattan is buried under snow. For a planet-roasting crisis that threatened the human race with extinction, there doesn’t seem to be much actual warming.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opi...icleid=1314036

[plthijinx]

ok let me get this straight. refineries, cfc's, humans are causing global warming. hmmm ok...there may be some relevance to that but what about when the asteroids hit and wiped out the dinosaurs? it left a cloud of dust and smoke that obliterated the sun from the earths surface. everything froze. finally the dust and smoke settled then things started warming up a bit. over the thousands of years it's still getting hotter, though mind you some years were colder or warmer than others, but the ice age from a historical point of view was caused by the as i'll call it blackout. things take time to heal. the earth is going to heal. it's going to warm up. ice core samples have proven that the earth has gone through a plethora of temperature changes. to say man caused them? i call foul.

[plthijinx]

from cnn no less

Other scientists and observers, a minority compared to those who believe the warming trend is something ominous, say it is simply the latest shift in the cyclical patterns of a planet's life.

The average surface temperature has warmed one degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the last century, according to the National Research Council.

now fromhere

A new theory to explain global warming was revealed at a meeting at the University of Leicester. The controversial theory has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by scientists over the last hundred years or so could be due to atmospheric changes that are not connected to human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil. Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude could damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth's surface.

and it goes on....

The Tunguska Event, sometimes known as the Tungus Meteorite is thought to have resulted from an asteroid or comet entering the earth's atmosphere and exploding. The event released as much energy as fifteen one-megaton atomic bombs. As well as blasting an enormous amount of dust into the atmosphere, felling 60 million trees over an area of more than 2000 square kilometres. Shaidurov suggests that this explosion would have caused "considerable stirring of the high layers of atmosphere and change its structure." Such meteoric disruption was the trigger for the subsequent rise in global temperatures.

now in defense....

Many natural gases and some of those released by conventional power stations, vehicle and aircraft exhausts act as greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide, natural gas, or methane, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are all potent greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide and methane are found naturally in the atmosphere, but it is the gradual rise in levels of these gases since the industrial revolution, and in particular the beginning of the twentieth century, that scientists have blamed for the gradual rise in recorded global temperature. Attempts to reverse global warming, such as the Kyoto Protocol, have centred on controlling and even reducing CO2 emissions.

then...

However, the most potent greenhouse gas is water, explains Shaidurov and it is this compound on which his study focuses. According to Shaidurov, only small changes in the atmospheric levels of water, in the form of vapour and ice crystals can contribute to significant changes to the temperature of the earth's surface, which far outweighs the effects of carbon dioxide and other gases released by human activities. Just a rise of 1% of water vapour could raise the global average temperature of Earth's surface more then 4 degrees Celsius.

The role of water vapour in controlling our planet's temperature was hinted at almost 150 years ago by Irish scientist John Tyndall. Tyndall, who also provided an explanation as to why the sky is blue, explained the problem: "The strongest radiant heat absorber, is the most important gas controlling Earth's temperature. Without water vapour, he wrote, the Earth's surface would be 'held fast in the iron grip of frost'." Thin clouds at high altitude allow sunlight to reach the earth's surface, but reflect back radiated heat, acting as an insulating greenhouse layer.

[plthijinx]

and finally:

As such, Shaidurov has concluded that only an enormous natural phenomenon, such as an asteroid or comet impact or airburst, could seriously disturb atmospheric water levels, destroying persistent so-called 'silver', or noctilucent, clouds composed of ice crystals in the high altitude mesosphere (50 to 85km). The Tunguska Event was just such an event, and coincides with the period of time during which global temperatures appear to have been rising the most steadily - the twentieth century. There are many hypothetical mechanisms of how this mesosphere catastrophe might have occurred, and future research is needed to provide a definitive answer.

[BigV]

Hey. I'm bumping it, not beating it.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Coign

The problem is the computer models cannot prove or disprove climate change is man-made. And it is not even that they need to prove if it is happening or not, it it proving that carbon dioxide, the stuff that makes plants grow, is the cause of it.

Until we know it is happening, and more importantly know what it is causing it, anything we do to slow/halt/reverse it is just an unnecessary tax/control against an economy that does not have the money to spend.

What do you consider "proof"? I believe it is imperative to agree on an answer to this question before any kind of understanding can be shared on the actual facts. Until then, you cite your legitimate sources, I cite mine, and we continue to talk past each other.

The second sentence there, fingering CO2 is an example of getting ahead of ourselves. I think we can agree that with a system as complex as the earth one source, CO2, is unlikely to be the cause of such a widespread effect. There are many factors that influence climate change.

As for your second paragraph, now now, if we "don't know what is happening or causing it" how can you "know" a given effort is unnecessary? It might be necessary, it might be helpful, you yourself just proposed that you don't know.

[Coign]

My point is we are doing damage to our economy, our rights, and social structure in the attempt to fix something that most likely doesn't even need fixing.

It is the equivalent of Dark Age medicine. We know a fraction of what we need to, yet we are bleeding ourselves out in hopes that it will cure us.

My offered solution, is quit trying to fix it until you know what it is you are trying to fix. You are causing way more damage than you are pretending to solve.

[Happy Monkey]

We don't have what you would accept as proof, and therefore it "most likely doesn't even need fixing"?

The vast majority of climate scientists are in agreement. That's as close to proof as science gets. If you wait until 100% of scientists agree before you take action, you never will.

And even if 100% of scientists agree, in will come people saying "science has been wrong before, so they're probably wrong now!"

[tw]

Originally Posted by Coign

My point is we are doing damage to our economy, our rights, and social structure in the attempt to fix something that most likely doesn't even need fixing.

The Dark Ages is when you deny well proven science only because political types - no different than wizards - tell you how to think. We know global warming exists, that it has long term negative consequences, and is caused by mankind. That is not even disputed (where logical people learn from numbers - not from Limbaugh hearsay). Remaining questions are the details. More specifically in better defining the numbers.

If you think a problem does not exist even though numbers say so decisively, then it is 100% on you to prove why well prove why research, facts, and numbers are wrong. Show me without subjective posts that only insult any honest person. Ironically the same people who 'knew' Saddam had WMDs also used same subjective lies. If you know what science does not, then where are your numbers?

Nations that addressed environmental problems first were then wealthier selling that technology to other naysayers. Or do we forget economic lessons from the 1960s? Nations who ignore global warming will eventually have to purchase that technology from the more intelligent innovators. Not just to solve global warming. But to also solve other problems directly traceable to the same obsolete technologies.

[Undertoad]

We have already had this discussion in this thread HM. And apparently you failed to learn from took nothing from decided to ignore my post about how your notion of science is incorrect, so I won't repeat it.

i'll just link to it :P

[Happy Monkey]

I looked back at the thread and discovered that I didn't ignore your post, and actually did respond to it.

Sure, consensus isn't a guarantee. Sure, the scientific community can be wrong. But it's the best thing we have available.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Coign

My point is we are doing damage to our economy, our rights, and social structure in the attempt to fix something that most likely doesn't even need fixing.

What damage to the economy? The long term damage to the economy will be a result of the US falling behind China, India etc in developing clean energy technologies.

What rights have been damaged? The right to keep using incandescent light bulbs after 2014? The long term damage, at least to some degree, is the adverse health impacts for many as a result of the increasing levels of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

What damage to the social structure?