Should global warming result in global cooling

[gc1765]

In the interests of saving you from walking around with a glowing dunce hat, here's what you originally said:

"...have all issued statements concluding the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling."

Here's the argument you're now trying to flog as if it was the original one:

"there has been a dramatic increase of CO2 since the industrial revolution."

Let's see if you can figure out the difference between those two statements. It shouldn't be hard, since it's the main point of debate in the whole GW debate. Go for it!

Well, I already pointed this out to you, but perhaps you missed it. From the same link:

"Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution."

[B. Max]

name='stevoh' date='Jul 3 2007, 01:49 PM' post='234199']

Why is the assumption made that using resources other than non-renewable ones will somehow lead to a global meltdown in the economy?

The point is of no importance because there are no other resources that work.

I mean, certainly, oil and gas companies will scream and whine as their business is whittled away, but isn't that business simply being directed elsewhere?

Well if you can come up with the trillions of dollars needed to cover all the losses first. Then go for it. If you can't you will have war. Nobody is going to lay down die for you. Who do you think the oil companies are.

When we use oil we:

1. Search for the most likely area to contain oil, and test.

2. Set up infastructure to pump, refine and transport it.

3. Deliver it to the customer.

When we use solar energy we:

1. Search for the most likely area to have the strongest most consistent sunlight, and test.

2. Set up the infastracture (solar arrays) to collect and transport it.

3. Deliver it to the customer.

What customer. Most of them closed their doors and layed everybody off when the oil companies shut down. The farmers, miners, and loggers did also. Along with the petro chemical companies and their suppliers. It's all interconnected. Unless you have seen what it takes to find oil, get it to the refinery and then to market you don't know what your talking about. The transportation industry shut down because their was no fuel, but it didn't matter because there was nothing to transport.

Really, isn't using non-polluting (or less polluting) renewable resources just mean that someone ELSE, besides existing oil companies, still all working people, are getting money? Its not like we don't need power or transportation any more, its just that we will be getting it from different sources.

Those jobs wouldn't even be close to one an another. It's all apples and oranges. Exxon alone has 80 some thousand employees. That is a drop in the bucket compared to all the business and people who work indrectly for Exxon. Exxon or any oil company for that matter hire out all of their work. The 80 some thousand that work for Exxon are almost entirely all managers.

Why is it that the jobs created by oil and gas are somehow more valuable than the jobs created by utilizing other energy sources?

For the most part there are no other comparable sources and without the energy industry there is nothing else. Of the four core industries the energy industry is probably the most important.

[B. Max]

Well, I already pointed this out to you, but perhaps you missed it. From the same link:

"Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution."

Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas. Not CO2.

[gc1765]

Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas. Not CO2.

Tell that to George Bush.

[ScottSA]

Well, I already pointed this out to you, but perhaps you missed it. From the same link:

"Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution."

No I didn't miss it. I actually read it. What you left out, either through sloppiness or dishonesty, is the context. Here's the context. Does this still sound like he's saying what you're claiming he's saying?

There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity.

Yet, the Academy's report tells us that we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it.

[B. Max]

Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas. Not CO2.

Tell that to George Bush.

No I'm telling it to you.

[gc1765]

No I didn't miss it. I actually read it. What you left out, either through sloppiness or dishonesty, is the context. Here's the context. Does this still sound like he's saying what you're claiming he's saying?

...

Yet, the Academy's report tells us that we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it.

Maybe if I try one more time, but this time putting the emphasis on a different part:

"Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution."

It IS possible for human activity to have a significant impact on global warming without knowing exactly how much other effects may have.

If you still can't see that, I can't help you...

[ScottSA]

No I didn't miss it. I actually read it. What you left out, either through sloppiness or dishonesty, is the context. Here's the context. Does this still sound like he's saying what you're claiming he's saying?

...

Yet, the Academy's report tells us that we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it.

Maybe if I try one more time, but this time putting the emphasis on a different part:

"Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution."

It IS possible for human activity to have a significant impact on global warming without knowing exactly how much other effects may have.

If you still can't see that, I can't help you...

You are either being obtuse or dishonest. Obviously I can't help you either. Guess we'll have to leave the other folks to decide if Bush is agreeing with you in the claim that man is causing global warming. Kinda too bad you refuse to see it in context though...

[Canapathy]

The fact that atmospheric carbon levels have risen 35% since humans started burning fossil fuels around 150 years ago, but were relatively stable for the previousl several thousand years does at least suggest a manmade cause.

No it doesn't. It suggests that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen. The link between that and GW is specious at best and does nothing whatsoever to explain much more extreme fluctuations in temperature in the past, before and since the entrance of man onto the world stage. One thing we can be reasonably sure of is that the industrial revolution has nothing to do with the current GW on other planets.

Are you saying that you believe that:

1) Rising CO2 levels are not a cause of global warming?

or

2) The rise in CO2 levels is natural?

or

3) Both?

[speaker]

Well, it looks to me like that is settled then.. So we should move on to finding ways that we can act to slow down and turn the global warming issue around. Here's a couple of articles that came up when I googled for global warming solutions. The first is a personal and corporate responsibility initiative which is good to see. It'll be interesting to see if the American Government acts on it. The second is a reference guide for investing funds in responsible business activities.

Personally I still think that our own use of fossil fuels and our daily behaviour is of primary importance. Let's plant some trees, recycle, re-use, and reduce consumption.

http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_read....id=124703612006

http://dmoz.org/Business/Investing/Sociall...sible/Research/

[B. Max]

Well, it looks to me like that is settled then.. So we should move on to finding ways that we can act to slow down and turn the global warming issue around.

http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_read....id=124703612006

http://dmoz.org/Business/Investing/Sociall...sible/Research/

What kind of gobbledygook is that. Nothing is settled. Although the alarmist are sure in hurry to claim that it is. Before to many people find out the truth. I think that to many already know the truth, and telling ever more scarier tales of gloom and doom and ever larger lies only serves to wake more people up to what is really going on. It also makes it easier to expose the lies for the fabrications that they are.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...V3/N13/EDIT.jsp

[speaker]

That's an interesting piece of journalistic , what's the expression?, gobbledy gook? yah that's it. Ok so tree rings all around the world have grown faster over the last seventy years and this is sometimes attributed to CO2 forced global warming, but the hypothesis here is that it has nothing to do with global warming but primarily to do with human caused CO2 increases which coincidentally increase global warming.

The editorial staff then speculates that there may be some other factors which are keeping CO2 induced global warming down. I wonder if it could be that trees are taking in more CO2 thereby relieving some of the forcing from global warming? Now wouldn't it be nice if forests weren't being harvested at rates which are wiping out forests which are helping with global warming.

cause and effect, it's just that some can have it right in front of them and not see it.

[ScottSA]

That's an interesting piece of journalistic , what's the expression?, gobbledy gook? yah that's it. Ok so tree rings all around the world have grown faster over the last seventy years and this is sometimes attributed to CO2 forced global warming, but the hypothesis here is that it has nothing to do with global warming but primarily to do with human caused CO2 increases which coincidentally increase global warming.

The editorial staff then speculates that there may be some other factors which are keeping CO2 induced global warming down. I wonder if it could be that trees are taking in more CO2 thereby relieving some of the forcing from global warming? Now wouldn't it be nice if forests weren't being harvested at rates which are wiping out forests which are helping with global warming.

cause and effect, it's just that some can have it right in front of them and not see it.

I seem to remember seeing something that says there are far more trees around the world today than 50 years ago.

One doesn't need to be a scientist to understand the exponential magnification of error in a multi-variant hypothesis. There are so many variables at so many different levels feeding into this ridiculously labelled "consensus" that it is completely and utterly impossible to call it anything other than a faith based thesis.

We are not even sure if there is a global warming trend, because the various levels of data are imprecise or corrupted, with some indicators suggesting warming and others cooling, and still others than weather is regional or even local.

Even if we were to concede that GW is occuring, we run into the same issue of variables again in terms of causation, each with huge margins of error, each of which magnifies the potential of error from the stage before it. In fact, at this stage we're really just batting in the dark, pasting together marginally observable and imprecise data to form an a priori conclusion.

The next stage is to take the essentially meaningless data, massage it, and feed it into hypothetical "models" that would be error prone even if they had to deal with certain, proven data. Needless to say, at this point anything can pop out, and the only thing controling the output is the bias of the researcher who chooses the input.

Finally, and this is the real kicker, we are all assured that GW will be bad. Why will it be bad? Tree rings are bigger? Doesn't that mean trees are growing faster? Doesn't that mean growing cycles are longer and stronger? Doesn't that mean more food can be produced in a shorter time and more people can be fed? Doesn't that mean the same thing will happen as happened in the Little Optimum (one of those other inconvenient cogs in the gears of the manmade GW hysteria), and more prosperity will ensue? And what will we pay for all this added bounty? Hurricanes are 2-3 miles an hour faster than before, and the sea level rises a bit. Shouldn't we be actually increasing the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere on the off chance that it will have the slightest effect on the weather?

[speaker]

There are now about six and a half billion people on the globe, that is the same one that you might concede is actually warming. On this globe there is a history of migration when things get tough, either too hot, too cold, too dry, etc. Up until now there has been land that was not already populated to the max. Let's assume just for a minute, as the UN and World Health Organization, and all of the other scientific and political organizations mentioned earlier in this thread do, that there will be areas hit by serious drought, where do you think that migration is going to go this time and what shape will it take?

There will be areas where the warmer temperatures could concievably encourage more crop production from existing farmland, (there is no likelihood of it creating additional farmland for the foreseeable future), so it would be possible to grow more food to send to areas starving if the fortunate ones are so inclined. However there is a serious problem with fertilization, chemicals and fuels for farm machinery that all combined to give us the green revolution, and provided us with our current food wealth. Unless we cut back on our wastage of fossil fuels there may not be such assistance for future crop production. Not only will we be short of our present capability but we will have the expanded problems of drought, untimely storms, earlier snowmelt, possibly glaciation in northern Europe.

Talk about your basic industries.