Global Warming

[cgarrett]

_if_ you do believe that the worlds climate is changing and that the record temperatures being experienced world wide are factual (and not created by zionists, fascists, communists, neo-cons, whatever who are everywhere adding or subtracting readings from thermometers) then the following is not argued even by oil companies:

- that carbon dioxide is a green house gas

- that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are 40% higher than they were at the beginning of the industrial revolution

- that mankind is currently adding two parts per million of carbon dioxide every year to the atmosphere

- that no other reason for the change of weather patterns can be identified (even admitted directly by the 'we don't know whats happening' ceo of exxon).

so, is mankind creating weather change? maybe not... but this is kinda like a fireman investigating a house fire and being told that junior was playing with matches in his bedroom at the time of the blaze. it could have been for some other reason...

what i find most worrisome is that _if_ this _is_ happening, then most baby boomers are convinced that they will be dead before anything catastrophic is going to happen. yet, i would be moving from florida if i had was retired there! we are seeing the effects... now.

[pioneer]

b max dont waste your time on anyone from b.c!they are about out of touch with the real world as they get!probably some d.p from somewhere else anyway!

[ndpnic]

b max dont waste your time on anyone from b.c!they are about out of touch with the real world as they get!probably some d.p from somewhere else anyway!

I'm from Ontario, and I find that I have alot of the same Economic, Social, Environmental, and Political concerns as many people not just from BC, but all oveer the country!

Would it be considered Genocide to wipe out the Boomers? (just kidding!)

[pioneer]

boomers are real canadians!

[cgarrett]

b max dont waste your time on anyone from b.c!they are about out of touch with the real world as they get!probably some d.p from somewhere else anyway!

hey, pioneer... don't bother to use your brain to comment on my argument. i'm from b.c.!

instead, i will repost b.max's link to the identification of global warming _terrorists_! please read again! hilarious!

www.lewrockwell.com/orig/englund5.html

sorry, but i can't get enough of this kind of thing... gorbachev and qadhafi are behind the whole thing! ha!ha!ha!ha!ha!ha!

[WageSlave]

I would be somewhat concerned with ozone depletion for the sake of skin cancer. But other than that, if you look it up you will note that the earths' temperature has steadilly risen since at least 500 years ago, before industrialisation.

[Guest eureka]

Atually, it hasn't. There was quite a cool spell in the first half of the nineteenth century. The dramatic rise began after that and after the Industrial Revolution and is now accelerating.

Do you know that last year for the first time in documented history, there was a hurricane in the South Atlantic: a product of Warming. There were also six more hurricanes in the North Atlantic than in an average year. I had been saving that for the original optimist who claimed that hurricanes were nota growing problem but you will do.

[WageSlave]

Atually, it hasn't. There was quite a cool spell in the first half of the nineteenth century. The dramatic rise began after that and after the Industrial Revolution and is now accelerating.

Do you know that last year for the first time in documented history, there was a hurricane in the South Atlantic: a product of Warming. There were also six more hurricanes in the North Atlantic than in an average year. I had been saving that for the original optimist who claimed that hurricanes were nota growing problem but you will do.

Even at the peak of an ice age, you will have small "warm spells" this doesn't speak for the overall trend though.

Again, if you look it up (I'm rather computer illiterate so I can't post a link), you will note that the earths temperature has with a few exceptions been getting much warmer since long before industrialisation.

There has actually even been a theory going that sudgests that it is this warming trend that has madfe it even possible for human civilization to blossom.

[Shakeyhands]

I kinda miss MapleSyrup... alot

[WageSlave]

I kinda miss MapleSyrup... alot

What was she banned for?

[Guest eureka]

There were warm spells before that and cold spells. They are part of the anchor whose chain is not long enough that the apologists for the energy industry use to stop the buffeting.

However, those spells, in either direction, have little resemblance to what is going on today. The warming that has occurred in the past 150 years is on a far steeper curve and follows the same pattern as the increase in CO2. Both have broken out above any level that has been discovered in research into the past.

[Luke]

Hello to all. This is my first post on this board.

Is climate change happening? Sure, it always has, but there is no reason to believe CO2 levels are causing it this time or that altering our tiny contribution to CO2 levels would make any difference.

MYTH #1: 'Humanity is the Primary Cause of Global Climate Change.'

Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences at Ottawa's Carleton University, says this is very unlikely. The geologic record reveals that the only constant about climate is change. Long before our species inhabited the Earth, there were far more extreme changes in climate than what we see now. In the past million years, the Earth has been subjected to at least 33 ice ages and interglacial warm periods where temperatures soared far above that ever recorded in humanity's short history. Patterson and others show that, even in the past thousand years, there were periods much warmer and colder than today.

For more than 90 percent of Earth's history, conditions were much warmer than today. Two million years ago forests extended nearly to the North Pole. As recently as 125,000 years ago, temperatures were high enough that hippopotami and other animals now found only in Africa made their homes in northern Europe.

However, over the last 1.6 million years, it has generally been much cooler than this, with periodic rapid fluctuations from cooler to warmer intervals known as interglaciations. The causes of these dramatic climate variations include continental drift, changes in ocean/atmospheric circulation, natural wobbles in the Earth's orbit called Milankovitch cycles and variations in solar energy.

Despite a 0.7 degree C warming that has occurred over the past century (as much warming occurred before 1940 as since then, even though the large majority of the CO2 buildup in the atmosphere occurred after 1940) , overall, global temperatures have dropped about 2°C over the past 5,000 years (depending on latitude: a 6 degree C drop in some Arctic areas; a 0.5 degree C drop in some lower latitudes). Another ice age is expected to begin within the next few thousand years and so any gradual global warming could be a blessing, as it could delay the onset of the next glacial period, or at least reduce its severity.”

Many other scientists are skeptical of the fashionable view that people are causing significant climate change. A particularly compelling one is Dr. Fred Singer, president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project.

[Guest eureka]

Be careful of yout sources, Luke. Singer for one has worked for energy industry corporations in the past and the organization he founded was originally funded by Rev. Sun Moon's interests.

He has published no original research on Climate Change in twenty five years and nothing that is peer reviewed in that time.

He is nothing more than a front man for the kooks now. To be charitable, it is probably some form of dementia or nostalgia for his past that drives him now.

[Luke]

Be careful of yout sources, Luke. Singer for one has worked for energy industry corporations in the past and the organization he founded was originally funded by Rev. Sun Moon's interests.

He has published no original research on Climate Change in twenty five years and nothing that is peer reviewed in that time.

He is nothing more than a front man for the kooks now. To be charitable, it is probably some form of dementia or nostalgia for his past that drives him now.

Thats a nice attack on Singer, which may or may not be true. I know nothing of Singer. However, it is totally irrelevant since the piece I posted was not from Singer.

I find it very hard to believe that castastrophic climate change could be caused by an increase in a factor - CO2 levels - that plays such as small part in determining climate, and since about 90% of all CO2 is naturally occuring, I find it even more difficult to believe that we could effect climate by limiting the small amount of CO2 that we are responsible for.

[Guest eureka]

I don't know where you and your lonely little band of non-believers get your information from. 90% of all C02 is not naturally occurring though it may have been at one time in the distant past.

Naturally occurring CO2 is more or less constant over time while C02 concentrations have risen dramatically. Thos concentrations are expected to double over the next 60/100 years. That is anthropogenuc activity and not, most definitely not, natural.

And, that is not an attack on Singer. It is a factual statement on the qualifications of one of the apologists for the economic interests. Singer was a first rate "rocket" scientist in his day. His later associations are not very convincing.

If you know nothing of Singer, why do you tell us that he is "a particularly compelling" spokesman?

[Luke]

I don't know where you and your lonely little band of non-believers get your information from. 90% of all C02 is not naturally occurring though it may have been at one time in the distant past.

Naturally occurring CO2 is more or less constant over time while C02 concentrations have risen dramatically. Thos concentrations are expected to double over the next 60/100 years. That is anthropogenuc activity and not, most definitely not, natural.

And, that is not an attack on Singer. It is a factual statement on the qualifications of one of the apologists for the economic interests. Singer was a first rate "rocket" scientist in his day. His later associations are not very convincing.

If you know nothing of Singer, why do you tell us that he is "a particularly compelling" spokesman?

Yes I am a non-believer and will remain so until somebody can answer the question I posed: how could catastrophic climate change be brought about by a variation in a factor (co2 levels) that plays such a small role in determining climate? The greenhouse effect is not the only thing that determines climate, and co2 is less than 3% of greenhouse gases.

MYTH #3: 'The Buildup of Human Induced Greenhouse Gases, and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in Particular, Will Cause a Catastrophic Planetary Warming.'

The hypothesis that rising CO2 levels result in a direct increase in temperature originated in 1896 with Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius. However, the concept was abandoned in the 1940s because global temperatures had not even remotely matched the 1°C rise predicted by the theory. Since then, the rate of global warming has slowed despite the acceleration in industrialization and CO2 emissions.

A good example of the sort of misinformation that is being publicized regarding this topic is seen in the following quote from Dr. (Zoology) David Suzuki in the June 21, 2002 version of his "Science Matters" column that appeared in newspapers across Canada: "Increased concentration of carbon dioxide, the most important heat-trapping gas, has pushed up global temperatures, which will continue to rise unless emissions are stabilized and reduced."

Dr. Tim Ball, environmental consultant and climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg for 32 years, responds, "The Suzuki comment displays an ignorance of climate science. Even the Greenpeace report on global warming concedes that water vapour is the most abundant and most important greenhouse gas. Water vapour is ignored because the models can't include clouds. Imagine recommending devastating economic and therefore social policy based on a climate model that can't even include clouds!" In fact, CO2 is less than 3 percent of greenhouse gases (GHG). Water vapor constitutes 97 percent. Other GHG are methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and trace gases.

It is very revealing that an increase in the production of water vapor at the equator during the 1998 El Niño climate event caused worldwide average temperatures to spike by almost 1°C that year. The human contribution to the atmosphere's total water vapor content is trivial by comparison. A study by Dr. Kevin Telmer, Assistant Professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, and Dr. Jan Veizer, Professor of Geology at the University of Ottawa, demonstrates that the larger amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere at higher temperature permit more CO2 to be absorbed by plants (see www.spacedaily.com/news/greenhouse-00zf.html). Thus, we have a self-regulating system that helps keep the climate in check.

Of the 0.7°C global temperature rise in the past century, half of it occurred before 1940, although most of the buildup in human-induced CO2 has occurred since then. It is also important to understand that our Sun, the ultimate source of all atmospheric warmth, is currently brighter than at any time in the past 400 years. Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences (Paleoclimatology) at Carleton University concludes, "With our star's variability accounting for about half of all the recorded warming in the last hundred years, only 0.3°C is left over for everything else, including urbanization and land use. The amount is even less if an additional 0.1-0.2°C of natural temperature fluctuation is factored in. If increased C02 levels have contributed to global warming at all in the past century, its contribution must have been very minor indeed."

Dr. Sallie Baliunas and Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics blame variations in the Sun's brightness, not CO2 levels, for most of Earth's climate change. This idea is further supported by climatologists Marcel Fligge and Sami Solanki who demonstrated in a recent edition of the respected journal, Geophysical Research Letters, that the warming or cooling of the Earth during the past four centuries closely matches variations in the Sun's brightness. Whether they were looking at the Little Ice Age of the latter seventeenth century, the rapid warming in the early part of the twentieth century or the relatively unchanging temperatures of recent decades, our star's output and global temperatures were closely correlated. NASA's Paal Brekke explains, "... the Sun may be a much more important contributor to global climate change than previously assumed." Dr. Ball sums up, "Ignoring the Sun and water vapor as causes of climate change is like ignoring the transmission and engine when the car is not working."

Like carbon cycle modelers, Dr. Ball and Dr. Veizer believe that CO2 merely responds to temperature changes; it does not cause them. Here is some of the evidence that supports this hypothesis:

Global mean atmospheric concentration of CO2 has been found to lag behind changes in tropical sea surface (and hence atmospheric) temperature by six to eight months. As the ocean warms, it is unable to hold as much CO2 in solution and consequently releases the gas into the atmosphere contributing to the observed CO2 level rise;

Ice core records show that, at the end of each of the last three major ice ages, atmospheric temperatures rose several hundred years before CO2 levels finally increased;

At the beginning of the most recent glacial period, about 114,000 years ago, atmospheric CO2 remained relatively high even as temperatures plummeted.

Finally, recent publications in the prestigious journals, "Science" and "Paleoceanography" show that CO2 levels were higher at the end of the last ice age than during the much warmer Eocene period, 43 million years earlier. These studies also found that CO2 levels are far higher today than they were during the relatively hot Miocene period, 17 million years ago.

Clearly, variations in the Sun's brightness should be far more interesting to those concerned about future climate change than the relatively trivial and inconsistent effect of changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.

Dr. Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, concludes, "It is highly probable that global average temperature will go up and down during future years regardless of what we do."

[PocketRocket]

Well, I wouldn't mind living closer to the ocean, and in a warmer climate.

Need a place to tan, man

Gotta bring the ocean levels up about 900 feet to get it anywhere near me, so we better start melting those ice caps now.

Bring on the heat, I say.

That's why I drive a V-8

[Luke]

Well, I wouldn't mind living closer to the ocean, and in a warmer climate.

Need a place to tan, man

Gotta bring the ocean levels up about 900 feet to get it anywhere near me, so we better start melting those ice caps now.

Bring on the heat, I say.

That's why I drive a V-8

I don't know where you are but if you need 900 feet you've got a problem. Driving a v-8 isn't going to get it! Your going to have to move to where I am - Vancouver Island.

Personally, I think high energy consumers should get a discount, or tax breaks or something. There is an ice-age coming. A little extra co2 is probably going to come in handy. Help save the world - turn up your thermostat and drive a big car.

[Guest eureka]

Luke, if you want to show whether you have the intelligence for this sort of debate - not that there is anything to debate any longer - why don't you start with some display of thought. Posting screeds of nonsensical information does not do it. It asks only for the posting in return of the hundreds of more authoritative studies, studies and not opinions, that show the reality.

Water Vapour is the most abundant Greenhouse Gas as everybody with any interst in this knows. It is also well documented that oncreasing CO2 plays a role in the formation of that as well as the simple fact that it does not take a very great increase in the amount of CO2 to affect the trapping and reflection of heat.

As for the sun, that is also well researched and does not account for the changes.

Some of the so-called claims in your misinformation are outright lies based on elementary physics. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than it has ever been for as far back as it can be reasonably assessed. That limit has been shown as 20 million years and the 43 million in your pulled together of smatterings is not even in the realm of speculation.

There is an exact relation between the CO2 levels and temperatures. CO2 does not follow warming in any research done. Your sources who say that are simply lying. Every reputable researcher and peer reviewed study of that shows it and you can find them very easily since the contributors to the world gatherings of real scientists say so. They also publish their findings and they are reviewed.

Frankly, I think you are a damn fool of you accept the garbage you are peddling. Try reading the scientifc material instead of limiting yourself to the charlatans you would like to believe.

Do you really think that the government of Britain and Germany would have committed themselves to a sixty % , that,s right 60, reduction in CO2 emissions if the science were not there.

I thoroughly despise those "scientists" you cite and the sheep who listen to them. This planet is on the edge of a catastrophe that may make it unfit for human habitation and you think it funny to drive a V8 as do they.

Louis XIV was a piker by comparison. After all, he only thought that France would be flooded.

[B. Max]

Luke, if you want to show whether you have the intelligence for this sort of debate - not that there is anything to debate any longer - why don't you start with some display of thought. Posting screeds of nonsensical information does not do it. It asks only for the posting in return of the hundreds of more authoritative studies, studies and not opinions, that show the reality.

Water Vapour is the most abundant Greenhouse Gas as everybody with any interst in this knows. It is also well documented that oncreasing CO2 plays a role in the formation of that as well as the simple fact that it does not take a very great increase in the amount of CO2 to affect the trapping and reflection of heat.

As for the sun, that is also well researched and does not account for the changes.

Some of the so-called claims in your misinformation are outright lies based on elementary physics. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than it has ever been for as far back as it can be reasonably assessed. That limit has been shown as 20 million years and the 43 million in your pulled together of smatterings is not even in the realm of speculation.

There is an exact relation between the CO2 levels and temperatures. CO2 does not follow warming in any research done. Your sources who say that are simply lying. Every reputable researcher and peer reviewed study of that shows it and you can find them very easily since the contributors to the world gatherings of real scientists say so. They also publish their findings and they are reviewed.

Frankly, I think you are a damn fool of you accept the garbage you are peddling. Try reading the scientifc material instead of limiting yourself to the charlatans you would like to believe.

Do you really think that the government of Britain and Germany would have committed themselves to a sixty % , that,s right 60, reduction in CO2 emissions if the science were not there.

I thoroughly despise those "scientists" you cite and the sheep who listen to them. This planet is on the edge of a catastrophe that may make it unfit for human habitation and you think it funny to drive a V8 as do they.

Louis XIV was a piker by comparison. After all, he only thought that France would be flooded.

The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than it has ever been for as far back as it can be reasonably assessed.

Then why has the temperature been decreasing over the last 40 or so years, at a time they claim it has been warming. Which is a proven fact that throws cold water on the global warming fear mongers with their junkscience and outright lies. You make wild claims based on nonsense and have not been able to prove one thing you say, nor have the scientists who preach global warming who's entitlement to their next government grant depends on doing the bidding of their socialist government masters.

Ooops

http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=16...2-04&do_alert=0

[Guest eureka]

I am not really interested in arguing with you, BM, or with any bloody short sighted idiot who is still playing in a sandbox while the world around collapses.

Read the true reports of the conference and not just that piece of underground nonsense. Ilianov was the only dissenter: he has made a career of being anti-science. Why do you think the Russian government ignores him.

Perhaps I should not have asked you to think about it. That would be painful, I am sure.

[Luke]

Putin has said quite bluntly that the science is not there to justify Kyoto, and that Russia was signing on strictly because of pressure from other countries - mostly the EU.

Eureka, you have swallowed the "global warming/sky is falling" theory hook line and sinker. You are a devout believer. Your mind is closed on the subject, and thats fine - whatever makes you feel good, but don't equate that to intelligence. Intelligence is always seeking, questioning, believing nothing.

My hunch is that a little more co2 won't do us any harm.

"A recent paper by Robinson, Baliunas, Soon and Robinson concludes, "A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century … has markedly increased plant growth rates… the [future] effect on the environment is likely to be benign. Greenhouse gases cause plant life, and the animal life that depends upon it, to thrive. What mankind is doing is liberating carbon from beneath the Earth's surface and putting it into the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living organisms." "

[B. Max]

I am not really interested in arguing with you, BM, or with any bloody short sighted idiot who is still playing in a sandbox while the world around collapses.

Read the true reports of the conference and not just that piece of underground nonsense. Ilianov was the only dissenter: he has made a career of being anti-science. Why do you think the Russian government ignores him.

Perhaps I should not have asked you to think about it. That would be painful, I am sure.

The fact is eureka, you don't have an arguement. You have presented nothing that could possibly make arguement for that which you claim to be fact. Further, you and the chicken little science can not stand up to the scrutiny of close examination of the claims, made by the sky is falling crowd. Your arguement for your claims seems to revolve around calling people idiots "The last refuge of a scoundrel" who do not buy into the socialist junk science, misleading information, and outright lies. Driven by the politics of envy, socialists have always relied on lies to advance their agends, also discredited, and relegated to histories trash heap.

[Guest eureka]

Max, I don't have to present an argument. The whole world of science has. You are swallowing the absurdity that temperatures have not been increasing in the past forty or so years. Only a blind and deaf fool could do that.

And, your argument seems to be limited to "Socialist " are behind it. You must be quite limited in your understanding of political views. I can't be bothered dealing with that one. Only an egregious stupidity could say it.

Putin has not said what you claim. And the "advisers" who are supposedly saying that it is not happening have published no research.

There is not a single peer reviewed study that would support the absurdity that temperatures are not increasing. Not even from those who try to give you comfort.

This is serious and I am not remotely interested in discussing it with you. Your arguments are about on the same level as those made by the interests that thought Mr. Hitler was doing good.

[Luke]

I suggest a program of free valium for all the hysterical types like eureka so the rest of us can continue to enjoy the best standard of living ever achieved brought to us by capitalism which they are trying to destroy. I like cars and suburbs and big warm houses and lots of lights everywhere. If the earth gets a little warmer, big deal. Lets enjoy it while it lasts. One thing the scientists do agree on is that another ice age is coming and it will probably last several million years.