Remember that before you label scientists as the political tools you are inferring. If history has proven anything, its that scientists dont bow to any political powers. Quite to oposite actually, and then we have a scientific theory becoming a part of our society, be it the model T ford, or the airbus A380.
Right , so when they detonated the 1st atomic bomb, why were the scientists betting on if it would burn out our atmosphere or not? ah yes they acted on, and took a chance that could have killed everyone ( and about 1/3 of them totally beleived this with all their scientific brains) on something they didnt know what the results would be ,for the better of mankind ... really., thats how it happened only to better mankind, no govt influence at all.
They built and let it explode for one reason, they were told what to do or they lose everything in their world. and im sure this rational government you all love to claim has nothing better to do than have thousands of secret little agendas to keep the common man down, would never stoop so low as to try to influence the political agenda of global warming for profit.
Bush has ties to big oil, and has been fighting against global warming since he took office. He won't even agree to the kyoto pact (whatever it's called).
What government are you referring to cause it sure ain't the US government trying to make a profit off convincing people that global warming is real. Quite the opposite in fact.
Remember that before you label scientists as the political tools you are inferring. If history has proven anything, its that scientists dont bow to any political powers. Quite to oposite actually, and then we have a scientific theory becoming a part of our society, be it the model T ford, or the airbus A380.
Right , so when they detonated the 1st atomic bomb, why were the scientists betting on if it would burn out our atmosphere or not? ah yes they acted on, and took a chance that could have killed everyone ( and about 1/3 of them totally beleived this with all their scientific brains) on something they didnt know what the results would be ,for the better of mankind ... really., thats how it happened only to better mankind, no govt influence at all.
They built and let it explode for one reason, they were told what to do or they lose everything in their world. and im sure this rational government you all love to claim has nothing better to do than have thousands of secret little agendas to keep the common man down, would never stoop so low as to try to influence the political agenda of global warming for profit.
Bush has ties to big oil, and has been fighting against global warming since he took office. He won't even agree to the kyoto pact (whatever it's called).
What government are you referring to cause it sure ain't the US government trying to make a profit off convincing people that global warming is real. Quite the opposite in fact.
stop believing what you are 'hearing' in the worlds media. what freedom have you lost since 9/11? the only "freedom" I have lost is expedited air travel.
What i really dont understand is, why are you so scared bluberryhaze?
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
The same reason you don't want people held in captivity at Gitmo is my same reason ultimately.
of course this would be premised on the belief that people at that facility are there for a reason.
my reason is ...I dont want the rights of soldiers or innocents ( iraqi civilians dead by IEDs ) exterminated. we can argue the semantics of my statement now such as collaterel damage inflicted by the US on iraqis etc. but every war needs 2 sides. im choosing the side of the US and hoping it gets it mission done successfully.
Nasica, i just got very confused looking at the title of this thread and my(our) replies. lol. threads always seem to get bent from the topic it seems.
Remember that before you label scientists as the political tools you are inferring. If history has proven anything, its that scientists dont bow to any political powers. Quite to oposite actually, and then we have a scientific theory becoming a part of our society, be it the model T ford, or the airbus A380.
Right , so when they detonated the 1st atomic bomb, why were the scientists betting on if it would burn out our atmosphere or not? ah yes they acted on, and took a chance that could have killed everyone ( and about 1/3 of them totally beleived this with all their scientific brains) on something they didnt know what the results would be ,for the better of mankind ... really., thats how it happened only to better mankind, no govt influence at all.
They built and let it explode for one reason, they were told what to do or they lose everything in their world. and im sure this rational government you all love to claim has nothing better to do than have thousands of secret little agendas to keep the common man down, would never stoop so low as to try to influence the political agenda of global warming for profit.
Bush has ties to big oil, and has been fighting against global warming since he took office. He won't even agree to the kyoto pact (whatever it's called).
What government are you referring to cause it sure ain't the US government trying to make a profit off convincing people that global warming is real. Quite the opposite in fact.
the global warming issue is a trillion + $$ (US dollars) industry. ( not saying the US spent that much). That level of money means its changing hands at govt levels. So who gets it? the "friends" of the politicians since they decide what ges spent where. To think that the supports of Gore have not profitted HUGELY on this neato thing is absurd. ( hell i made a profit off the fears and im against him, cant imagine how much larger my peice would be if i jump on the bandwagon).
!st i agree we need to move away from internal combustion based on non renewable resources , not for global warming but because its just plain healthier . It might or might not warm up the earth but it DOES hurt my lungs. So im not totally against some of his ideas as a method to improve the quality of life on earth. But i beleive its absolute folly to put all our research , efforts , spending into 1 effort. If they are wrong again ( track record is they have not been right yet) then NO ONE will ever take this seriously again. After wasting all the money and getting people so worked up over this , people wont do it all again when the next theory comes out in another 5 years.
This is where nasa comes in as well , why not spend a few million of that trillion spent so far to set up temperature monitors on other planets , hell even 1 on the moon, if mars is too far away , would be a HUGE benefit to either prove or disprove if the sun happens to be burning a pocket of purer hydrogen this last few decades.
I have to be simple since im no mathmatician so i dont know the correct terms but the ideas ...
The big specific issue ii have, is that they discovered in 1999 that when it gets hotter, greenhouse gasses increase and just ASSUMED it works both ways ( that increasing the gasses raises temp as well). They are banking on the theory that since 1+2=3 and 2+1= 3 , that the climate works that way as well.it doesnt matter where you add the increase( over all temp or gas volume etc) the answer is the same. That there is ZERO or little compensation ( if this was true the 1st volcano that erutps would have burned out the atmosphere btw). They do even know if teh compensation mechanism on earth is limited or not , or even where its at. ( buying a tree does nothing, but it sure made a few hundred people alot richer)
This we do NOT know. The studies to find out if this is true are not reliable, since those methods are the same ones that convinced the same people , that you swear are correct today, that the only way to save earth in 1973 was to detonate a nuc at the north pole. Same guys , same methods, same universities signed off on this study as that one, etc...
it is a huge difference if it turns out to work differently. what if its not like the above example but its like 2-1=1 vs 1-2=-1? ( i dont know what these properties are called sorry the addition one vs subtraction) the point is that we KNOW our tests today are flawed, we KNOW we dont have the technology now, we KNOW we dont have the math worked out yet . no one on either side disputes this.
People say doing something even if wrong cant hurt more than doing nothing . Thats BS. Using hydroggen cars would screw us faster then using the gas cars we have now. and thats just one case where acting with the wrong info could do MORE harm than good.
heres my idea , lets drop the whole gas is bad for global warming thing , and say gas engines are bad for your childrens lungs and health and use those kind of reasons and just say they MAY affect the earth. Everyone wants to protect kids, the whole population would jump on that bandwagon. Then quiety continue research on global warming and find out the REAL reason it happens or if we can do anything about it at all in the 1st place.
i mean think about it , we spent a trillion dollars so far , and temp still going up , no change, that trillion dollars has had zero effect , none, nada. pretty much shows me that maybe its not being used properly.
Most of it BTW was spend on telling the populations of the world to be scared, almost half went to the media frenzy to make you fear warming and hate oil companies. HALF. You would think that since the people controlling this money are also the people who beleive in this crap, they would use it to prove it ,to have real results and not just some pretty carboard pie charts ( my neice in 3rd grade can make those for less that 500 bilion dollars btw if any govt entity on global warming needs a new place to throw the money) but i guess they already know thats a waste of spending, so they use it to convince you they are right.
Hell if they were right who they really need to convince you with a TV commercial using actors and politicians? why just toss real data out there , oh yeah they cant , they dont beleive its accurate and admit it. but as long as you do their job is safe, the grant is same, the funding is safe.
long rant not very technical but im not a technical guy lol .
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
stop believing what you are 'hearing' in the worlds media. what freedom have you lost since 9/11? the only "freedom" I have lost is expedited air travel.
What i really dont understand is, why are you so scared bluberryhaze?
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
The same reason you don't want people held in captivity at Gitmo is my same reason ultimately.
of course this would be premised on the belief that people at that facility are there for a reason.
Of course its interesting to note that most of the Gitmo detainees who have been released this year and sent to a real trial of evidence in the UK have had there cases dismissed out of court due to lack of evidence. Makes you wonder how many of the other detainees are really guilty of anything at all. And what if anything the American Military are doing to determine the truth behind the Detainees.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
stop believing what you are 'hearing' in the worlds media. what freedom have you lost since 9/11? the only "freedom" I have lost is expedited air travel.
What i really dont understand is, why are you so scared bluberryhaze?
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
The same reason you don't want people held in captivity at Gitmo is my same reason ultimately.
of course this would be premised on the belief that people at that facility are there for a reason.
Of course its interesting to note that most of the Gitmo detainees who have been released this year and sent to a real trial of evidence in the UK have had there cases dismissed out of court due to lack of evidence. Makes you wonder how many of the other detainees are really guilty of anything at all. And what if anything the American Military are doing to determine the truth behind the Detainees.
would you please site the cases that you mentioned? how many were there? what triggered them going to the UK for trial?
there of course will be some collataral damage in war, including innocents being detained due to the lack of uniforms on the enemy...and of course people get killed by a big bombs too.
it does not surprise me left leaning countries ...well, you know, have a lot of empathy towards GW Bushes enemies, to put it simply.
to keep this on topic, big bombs do make the world slightly warmer...for a brief second
"real scientifc journals" are wrong, and get disproven on a daily fucking basis...don't try to tell me that it's absolutely credible and true because it's in a fucking journal...GOD, LOOK at how agendized it all is, use some common freaking sense, and do the research on ice core dating like I asked you to, research the assumptions made, research the presuppositions upon which ice core dating is based...then come back to me. Until then, I'll just consider you another lock stepping global warming fanatic.
Articles in real journals do get proven wrong, but only by real scientists writing new articles in those same real journals. If you are rejecting the papers published in major scientific journals you are rejecting science outright. The only agenda involved is from the people who simply don’t like what the published science has to say.
I try to steer well clear of the political nature of Global Warming, as i stated earlier, if its Al Gore... its ignored. If its Empirical data, i will look at it. Al Gore with empirical data to me is questionable at best.
Al Gore simply echoed the published science. He was possibly misleading by omission on a couple issues, but there are no cases where he is outright wrong.
Evaluated purely on the science he does a pretty good job of describing the issue in layman’s terms. If you see his movie as being political in nature the only conceivable reason is you are projecting your own political bias on the issue.
I try to steer well clear of the political nature of Global Warming, as i stated earlier, if its Al Gore... its ignored. If its Empirical data, i will look at it. Al Gore with empirical data to me is questionable at best.
Al Gore simply echoed the published science. He was possibly misleading by omission on a couple issues, but there are no cases where he is outright wrong.
Evaluated purely on the science he does a pretty good job of describing the issue in layman’s terms. If you see his movie as being political in nature the only conceivable reason is you are projecting your own political bias on the issue.
Misleading someone is wrong believe it or not. So is exagerating and so on and so forth ESPECIALLY when it comes to science. Science is built on facts due to research, theories and scientific process. There are also two types of scientists, good scientists and bad scientists. To take results and "exagerate" them or "mislead" others for personal effect is wrong.
" If you are rejecting the papers published in major scientific journals you are rejecting science outright. The only agenda involved is from the people who simply don’t like what the published science has to say."
That right there is just being arrogant, just because you don't agree with things that are published in a scientific magazine doesn't mean you reject science. Perhaps those magazines you read are different then the websites, blogs, or whatever someone else reads. Maybe what he reads has conflicting information. You don't know.
The big thing here is that you sir could very well be wrong in this instance, just as wrong as everyone else could be wrong about it NOT being true. The thing that really kicks me in the pants here is that global warming has turned into a ridiculous argument that is strictly a fear tactic at this point and time.
Rather then complain about the conflicting factors of global warming, why don't we all look at the NON-CONFLICTING factors of pollution and what it's doing to our local and wild ecosystems. The over fishing, the oil spills, the rainforests, the quality of air, I mean these things are infinitely more important then global warming, yet we would rather bitch back and forth about whether or not it's true then look at immediate PROVEN problems that our worlds ecosystem has right now.
there of course will be some collataral damage in war, including innocents being detained due to the lack of uniforms on the enemy...and of course people get killed by a big bombs too. it does not surprise me left leaning countries ...well, you know, have a lot of empathy towards GW Bushes enemies, to put it simply.
to keep this on topic, big bombs do make the world slightly warmer...for a brief second
I like the way you put your reply
Its not so much an Empathy thing its just that unlike countries like Iran North Korea America etc we the UK believe in human rights.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
Misleading someone is wrong believe it or not. So is exagerating and so on and so forth ESPECIALLY when it comes to science. Science is built on facts due to research, theories and scientific process. There are also two types of scientists, good scientists and bad scientists. To take results and "exagerate" them or "mislead" others for personal effect is wrong. " If you are rejecting the papers published in major scientific journals you are rejecting science outright. The only agenda involved is from the people who simply don’t like what the published science has to say." That right there is just being arrogant, just because you don't agree with things that are published in a scientific magazine doesn't mean you reject science. Perhaps those magazines you read are different then the websites, blogs, or whatever someone else reads. Maybe what he reads has conflicting information. You don't know. The big thing here is that you sir could very well be wrong in this instance, just as wrong as everyone else could be wrong about it NOT being true. The thing that really kicks me in the pants here is that global warming has turned into a ridiculous argument that is strictly a fear tactic at this point and time. Rather then complain about the conflicting factors of global warming, why don't we all look at the NON-CONFLICTING factors of pollution and what it's doing to our local and wild ecosystems. The over fishing, the oil spills, the rainforests, the quality of air, I mean these things are infinitely more important then global warming, yet we would rather bitch back and forth about whether or not it's true then look at immediate PROVEN problems that our worlds ecosystem has right now.
One frequently cited example is when Gore talks about sea level rise. He gets the final results bang on with what is being predicted in the scientific literature, but there are currently no good predictions regarding how long it will take so he doesn’t give any timeframes. Are you saying this is grossly incorrect or that he should qualify and hedge on every single statement he makes?
If you reject the process by which science works you are rejecting science because peer review is sciences defense against quackery. Without the filter of peer review you effectively legitimize the “science” behind every tinfoil hat conspiracy theory out there.
What conflicting factors? There is little if any conflict in the scientific literature the US could far surpass every proposed CO2 emissions standard simply by reaching the per person levels of France, Germany, Japan or the UK are already at. Other then the fact some rich oil companies may not be able to make as much money what conflict is there?
Misleading someone is wrong believe it or not. So is exagerating and so on and so forth ESPECIALLY when it comes to science. Science is built on facts due to research, theories and scientific process. There are also two types of scientists, good scientists and bad scientists. To take results and "exagerate" them or "mislead" others for personal effect is wrong. " If you are rejecting the papers published in major scientific journals you are rejecting science outright. The only agenda involved is from the people who simply don’t like what the published science has to say." That right there is just being arrogant, just because you don't agree with things that are published in a scientific magazine doesn't mean you reject science. Perhaps those magazines you read are different then the websites, blogs, or whatever someone else reads. Maybe what he reads has conflicting information. You don't know. The big thing here is that you sir could very well be wrong in this instance, just as wrong as everyone else could be wrong about it NOT being true. The thing that really kicks me in the pants here is that global warming has turned into a ridiculous argument that is strictly a fear tactic at this point and time. Rather then complain about the conflicting factors of global warming, why don't we all look at the NON-CONFLICTING factors of pollution and what it's doing to our local and wild ecosystems. The over fishing, the oil spills, the rainforests, the quality of air, I mean these things are infinitely more important then global warming, yet we would rather bitch back and forth about whether or not it's true then look at immediate PROVEN problems that our worlds ecosystem has right now.
One frequently cited example is when Gore talks about sea level rise. He gets the final results bang on with what is being predicted in the scientific literature, but there are currently no good predictions regarding how long it will take so he doesn’t give any timeframes. Are you saying this is grossly incorrect or that he should qualify and hedge on every single statement he makes?
If you reject the process by which science works you are rejecting science because peer review is sciences defense against quackery. Without the filter of peer review you effectively legitimize the “science” behind every tinfoil hat conspiracy theory out there.
What conflicting factors? There is little if any conflict in the scientific literature the US could far surpass every proposed CO2 emissions standard simply by reaching the per person levels of France, Germany, Japan or the UK are already at. Other then the fact some rich oil companies may not be able to make as much money what conflict is there?
So he talks about the sea levels rising but doesn't regard how long it will take, or accurately portray it but yo uthink that the scientific basis behind it is worth mentioning without a particular timeframe.
Hey then you'll love this. One day the world will end when the sun explodes into a supergiant and then collapses in on itself and forms a black hole. I'll happen, you just wait, I mean I won't give a time frame or anything.. it could be tomorrow for all you know, but it's true, it's proven, and it can't be stopped.
Secondly, science doesn't work by publishing and republishing things in a much-to-do magazine that may or may not publish the works of good scientists. What you're saying is that you're taking information that could very well be right or wrong depending on whos writing it and why, and saying that this is infinitely correct because it was published as so. Meanwhile someone else is saying that they don't get their information from that exact source because those journals have been wrong much of the time, and you bounce back on the defensive and think the other person denounces science because of which.
This is both ridiculous as it is ludicrous and makes no sense to boot. If someone looks at the sports scores on the internet, compared to someone who reads the sports scores in a magazine, they should correlate if the information has no conflicting views and/or scientific evidence to back it up. If you read magazine A and someone else reads magazine B, just because your magazine says something that Mr. Magazine B doesn't agree with, it doesn't mean they "reject the scientific process" it just means they may have information you don't.
Lastly you're confused over the argument of what Global Warming IS. You show that that our emissions are higher, thats fine, this isn't what anyone is contesting. I'm not saying our emissions aren't higher. But what we're looking at scientifically is the correlation between the emissions being higher in comparison to the climate increasing gradually. Right now there is not nearly enough evidence as climate IS VARIABLE and believe it or not that plays an enormous part in this process.
In correlation with the warming periods before, can you prove exactly the levels of biological emissions that created those warming periods? Can you correlate that with the amount that is currently in our atmosphere? Can you accurately trace it and pinpoint what caused it? Can you give an accurate portrayal of how quickly each lasted, what stopped it, and whether it could happen again? Can you show a difference between what is in the atmosphere now compared to then? Can you correlate which region was effected in comparison with the amount of emission that continent produced?
There are a bunch of questions that still need to be answered, and I'm sure many more that I couldn't even fathom.
You see this is one of those "misleading" deals you were talking about. Lets create graphs that exagerate our points, lets make things look so much worse. By the time global warming comes into play the seas will be far overfished, the rainforests will be all but torn down, and cities will be so full of pollution that global warming won't even matter -- we'd have killed ourselves far sooner then global warming could do.
So he talks about the sea levels rising but doesn't regard how long it will take, or accurately portray it but yo uthink that the scientific basis behind it is worth mentioning without a particular timeframe.
Hey then you'll love this. One day the world will end when the sun explodes into a supergiant and then collapses in on itself and forms a black hole. I'll happen, you just wait, I mean I won't give a time frame or anything.. it could be tomorrow for all you know, but it's true, it's proven, and it can't be stopped.
If you are going to use an analogy at least choose one with some semblance of reality. The upper limit established by previous warm periods is 300-400 years. That is the upper limit, and real rise could be faster. The only question is whether this will happen in our lifetime or our grandchildren’s, and unless you are willing to write off my grandchildren’s lives as worthless it should matter which.
Originally posted by maskedweasel
Secondly, science doesn't work by publishing and republishing things in a much-to-do magazine that may or may not publish the works of good scientists. What you're saying is that you're taking information that could very well be right or wrong depending on whos writing it and why, and saying that this is infinitely correct because it was published as so. Meanwhile someone else is saying that they don't get their information from that exact source because those journals have been wrong much of the time, and you bounce back on the defensive and think the other person denounces science because of which. This is both ridiculous as it is ludicrous and makes no sense to boot. If someone looks at the sports scores on the internet, compared to someone who reads the sports scores in a magazine, they should correlate if the information has no conflicting views and/or scientific evidence to back it up. If you read magazine A and someone else reads magazine B, just because your magazine says something that Mr. Magazine B doesn't agree with, it doesn't mean they "reject the scientific process" it just means they may have information you don't.
Do you understand the difference between a magazine and a scientific journal? Scientific journals are where real scientists publish their work so it can be reviewed and critiqued by other scientists. On any contention issue you get many papers on both sides because no one wants to be saying the same thing as everyone. On global warming however, it doesn’t matter which journal you read, arguments opposing global warming are almost non-existent in scientific literature.
Originally posted by maskedweasel
Lastly you're confused over the argument of what Global Warming IS. You show that that our emissions are higher, thats fine, this isn't what anyone is contesting. I'm not saying our emissions aren't higher. But what we're looking at scientifically is the correlation between the emissions being higher in comparison to the climate increasing gradually. Right now there is not nearly enough evidence as climate IS VARIABLE and believe it or not that plays an enormous part in this process. In correlation with the warming periods before, can you prove exactly the levels of biological emissions that created those warming periods? Can you correlate that with the amount that is currently in our atmosphere? Can you accurately trace it and pinpoint what caused it? Can you give an accurate portrayal of how quickly each lasted, what stopped it, and whether it could happen again? Can you show a difference between what is in the atmosphere now compared to then? Can you correlate which region was effected in comparison with the amount of emission that continent produced?
It should be obvious that barring any major changes in the Earths ecosystems, biological and other CO2 sources must be in balance for CO2 levels in the atmosphere to be stable. All living things eventually die and break down releasing CO2 and Methane, so biological sources always average out to zero over the long term.
You also seem to be missing is that CO2 is part of a feedback loop. Warmer climates mean biological material breaks down faster and release their CO2 into the atmosphere. This means that if the earth warms for any reason, you get more CO2 and that CO2 increases the warming effect. This will continue until a new stable point is reached. Cooling has the same effect in reverse. In any feedback system the two elements are linked, one cannot change without also changing the other.
Because there are no massive sources of new CO2 in the last few million years it’s clear that changes in CO2 levels can only initiate that process in the case of manmade warming. In more naturally created warming the Northerner hemisphere warms slightly do wobbles in the earth’s axis. This decreases the amount of CO2 being temporarily stored in the oceans and NH ecosystems, and this CO2 warms the rest of the planet. In fact the only way you can explain why the whole planet warms up is the warming effect of greenhouse gasses.
You can prove the greenhouse effect of CO2 in the laboratory quite easily.
CO2 allows visible light from the sun to pass through it freely. This is an undisputable fact that can easily be confirmed in the laboratory.
Light that hits the earth is re-emitted as long wave infrared according to Stephan-Boltzmann’s law for blackbody radiation. The earth isn’t a perfect blackbody but can easily be confirmed to be close enough by measuring the long wave IR it’s giving off.
CO2 absorbs IR at the wavelengths in question. The CO2 molecule will quickly (~0.01 sec) transfer this energy to a neighboring molecule via vibration (heat) or re-emit it as IR in a random direction. The overall effect is that CO2 impedes long wave IR from passing through it. Again this is an undisputable fact that can easily be confirmed in the laboratory.
If you allow energy into a system from an outside source but block it from escaping, the total energy content within that system rises, which will bee seen as a rise in temperature.
If you are going to use an analogy at least choose one with some semblance of reality. The upper limit established by previous warm periods is 300-400 years. That is the upper limit, and real rise could be faster. The only question is whether this will happen in our lifetime or our grandchildren’s, and unless you are willing to write off my grandchildren’s lives as worthless it should matter which. Sorry but your grandchildrens lives are going to be destroyed way before global warming comes into play as I've already mentioned. As I also stated, I don't care why you think you should be more economical, we all should, unfortunately Global Warming seems to "do it" for you. Thats ridiculous in comparison, but hey, whatever floats your boat. Also, I used that analogy because it was ridiculous, but proven. I don't have to make my analogies use immediate problems for them to be effective. Do you understand the difference between a magazine and a scientific journal? Scientific journals are where real scientists publish their work so it can be reviewed and critiqued by other scientists. On any contention issue you get many papers on both sides because no one wants to be saying the same thing as everyone. On global warming however, it doesn’t matter which journal you read, arguments opposing global warming are almost non-existent in scientific literature. Almost you say? Hmm, downplaying it sounds kind of *misleading* don't you think. Opposing views can sometimes be very persuasive. You still don't understand what I'm saying, all you seemed to hear was MAGAZINE. The point of what I'm trying to say is that you can sit there and read a "journal" that can just as well be critiqued and prodded at by the science community as any publication, or you could read information on the web, read books, or do the experiment yourself. The point I was making was that you don't have to agree with those journals if you don't want to. By not doing so, does not make you automatically out of touch with the scientific community. There are other ways in this world to find viable, direct, and intelligent scientific information other then science journals. Each have equally been known to be proven wrong, so, really, why is this a point of argument?
It should be obvious that barring any major changes in the Earths ecosystems, biological and other CO2 sources must be in balance for CO2 levels in the atmosphere to be stable. All living things eventually die and break down releasing CO2 and Methane, so biological sources always average out to zero over the long term.
You also seem to be missing is that CO2 is part of a feedback loop. Warmer climates mean biological material breaks down faster and release their CO2 into the atmosphere. This means that if the earth warms for any reason, you get more CO2 and that CO2 increases the warming effect. This will continue until a new stable point is reached. Cooling has the same effect in reverse. In any feedback system the two elements are linked, one cannot change without also changing the other. I'm not missing any particular part about the part CO2 plays but rather, the difference between what part it has played previously in comparison with how it plays now.
Because there are no massive sources of new CO2 in the last few million years it’s clear that changes in CO2 levels can only initiate that process in the case of manmade warming. There doesn't need to be new CO2 in the atmosphere for the earth to emitt dangerous levels of it as well as man-made CO2. The question I asked was how much of it is there in comparison to the amounts used in the previous stages of warming. In more naturally created warming the Northerner hemisphere warms slightly do wobbles in the earth’s axis. This decreases the amount of CO2 being temporarily stored in the oceans and NH ecosystems, and this CO2 warms the rest of the planet. In fact the only way you can explain why the whole planet warms up is the warming effect of greenhouse gasses.
You can prove the greenhouse effect of CO2 in the laboratory quite easily. Indeed it can. Anything can be proven on a controlled scale too.
CO2 allows visible light from the sun to pass through it freely. This is an undisputable fact that can easily be confirmed in the laboratory.
Light that hits the earth is re-emitted as long wave infrared according to Stephan-Boltzmann’s law for blackbody radiation. The earth isn’t a perfect blackbody but can easily be confirmed to be close enough by measuring the long wave IR it’s giving off.
CO2 absorbs IR at the wavelengths in question. The CO2 molecule will quickly (~0.01 sec) transfer this energy to a neighboring molecule via vibration (heat) or re-emit it as IR in a random direction. The overall effect is that CO2 impedes long wave IR from passing through it. Again this is an undisputable fact that can easily be confirmed in the laboratory.
If you allow energy into a system from an outside source but block it from escaping, the total energy content within that system rises, which will bee seen as a rise in temperature.
You basically just explained the greenhouse effect to me. This in no way proves your point other then that with an uncontrolled amount of CO2 could potentially cause such an effect. This means nothing and is true in THEORY. The question again is raised, how much CO2 is needed for this effect on a planet the size of earth. What is the difference between whats being excreted not in comparison to what already has been, and if the levels were higher and the temperature greater then what made it stop? If it happened on and off over a period of millions of years whats to say it can't happen again with or without human interaction?
Regardless of this whole conversation, and I do applaud you for your convincing riposte as it is always nice to have an engrossing conversation, you fail to see that I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you.
My purpose is primarily to plays devils advocate on some fields while spread awareness on more pressing issues that affect current wellbeing rather then something that could potentially be hazardous in the future if certain conditions are met. Look to issues that affect us now, and you will find the solutions to the problems you feel could effect us later.
Almost you say? Hmm, downplaying it sounds kind of *misleading* don't you think. Opposing views can sometimes be very persuasive.
You’re grasping at straws. Saying “maybe science is wrong about X” doesn’t prove science is wrong about X. There are people out there who still believe the earth is flat, that the earth is growing and that gravity pushes you rather then pulls you. None of them can make a convincing case either but of you talk to them they say much the same thing you are, that science “may be wrong so we should ignore it”.
You still don't understand what I'm saying, all you seemed to hear was MAGAZINE. The point of what I'm trying to say is that you can sit there and read a "journal" that can just as well be critiqued and prodded at by the science community as any publication, or you could read information on the web, read books, or do the experiment yourself. The point I was making was that you don't have to agree with those journals if you don't want to. By not doing so, does not make you automatically out of touch with the scientific community. There are other ways in this world to find viable, direct, and intelligent scientific information other then science journals. Each have equally been known to be proven wrong, so, really, why is this a point of argument?
Since you still don’t seem to get it scientific journals is where scientific research is published. If you ignore them you are ignoring all the research on the subject. You would have to be a complete moron to discount all the best research on a topic and choose to believe what you read on the web.
There doesn't need to be new CO2 in the atmosphere for the earth to emitt dangerous levels of it as well as man-made CO2. The question I asked was how much of it is there in comparison to the amounts used in the previous stages of warming.
I’m not sure what you are asking. Yes, there does need to be new CO2 for atmospheric concentrations to change because the existing CO2 is simply being exchanged back and forth between living creatures and the atmosphere.
Besides, we know how much fossil fuel we have burnt, and how much CO2 that produces. We also know how much more CO2 is in the air and ocean and this matches what we have dumped into the atmosphere. Furthermore CO2 from burning fossil fuels has a unique isotope footprint, and you can use this to prove the new CO2 is human in origin.
You basically just explained the greenhouse effect to me. This in no way proves your point other then that with an uncontrolled amount of CO2 could potentially cause such an effect. This means nothing and is true in THEORY. The question again is raised, how much CO2 is needed for this effect on a planet the size of earth. What is the difference between whats being excreted not in comparison to what already has been, and if the levels were higher and the temperature greater then what made it stop? If it happened on and off over a period of millions of years whats to say it can't happen again with or without human interaction?
Warming stops when a new equilibrium point is reached. You can crunch the math, run simulations (climate models) or look at historic CO2/Climate. All three give the same range for warming. ~3 dec C every time CO2 levels double. We currently emit enough CO2 each year to raise the CO2 levels in the atmosphere by ~4 ppm. There are no natural sources of new CO2 that come close to this. CO2 levels have gone up from ~280 ppm to 393 ppm since the start of the industrial era. That’s actuly less then the amount humans have emitted because some of the CO2 we have produced has been absorbed by the ocean, but we know that can’t continue because the ocean gives off CO2 as it warms up.
CO2 levels have gone up from ~280 ppm to 393 ppm since the start of the industrial era. Some of the CO2 we have produced has been absorbed by the ocean, but we know that can’t continue because the ocean gives off CO2 as it warms up.
The Earth doesn’t receive enough energy from the sun to rise above zero at the equator, without the greenhouse effect it would be a lifeless snowball. Mercury, with no atmosphere and no greenhouse effect receives 4 times as much energy from the Sun as Venus yet temperatures on Venus are twice as high because of massive amounts of greenhouse gasses in its atmosphere. There is zero question about the role greenhouse gasses play on planetary temperatures.
My purpose is primarily to plays devils advocate on some fields while spread awareness on more pressing issues that affect current wellbeing rather then something that could potentially be hazardous in the future if certain conditions are met. Look to issues that affect us now, and you will find the solutions to the problems you feel could effect us later.
What is more important then the disappearing Tibetan glaciers that provide the water for 2 billion people in China and India ? Let’s not forget that those people are in nations armed with nuclear weapons. What issue do you think is more important then the 500 million people in Bangladesh when the whole country will be under water within 100 years. What is more important then the hundreds of millions of people in Africa that face starvation as the interior of the content changes to desert? What issue do you see as more important then the heartland of North America, that provides the US with much of its food will turn into a desert, and that costal economic centers like New York will be under 20 feet of water? How about the dozens, perhaps hundreds of nuclear power stations that could go underwater?
You’re grasping at straws. Saying “maybe science is wrong about X” doesn’t prove science is wrong about X. There are people out there who still believe the earth is flat, that the earth is growing and that gravity pushes you rather then pulls you. None of them can make a convincing case either but of you talk to them they say much the same thing you are, that science “may be wrong so we should ignore it”. Theres no grasping at straws, you sit here and try to play like your word is absolute when it isn't. Things are proved incorrectly in science all the time, and if scientific data can be argued by conflicting scientific data then both sides should be looked into. You're arguing a point you've sat there and researched, but you havn't researched the opposite arguments. You don't even bother. Even a scientist would acknowledge conflicting research. However, The whole point of arguing with me is ridiculous. My stand transcends global warming. I didn't say global warming is or is not happening. I'm just saying look to both sides to understand what the conflicting evidence is.
Since you still don’t seem to get it scientific journals is where scientific research is published. If you ignore them you are ignoring all the research on the subject. You would have to be a complete moron to discount all the best research on a topic and choose to believe what you read on the web. I understand much about scientific journals, but to think that it is the only place to get scientific information is absurd. Anyone who can't understand that is a supremely ridiculous person. As a member of the local scientific community here I receive a lot of information through the mail from the local science museum and national science organizations that have little to do with your scientific journals. That doesn't mean I don't get credible information.
I’m not sure what you are asking. Yes, there does need to be new CO2 for atmospheric concentrations to change because the existing CO2 is simply being exchanged back and forth between living creatures and the atmosphere.
Besides, we know how much fossil fuel we have burnt, and how much CO2 that produces. We also know how much more CO2 is in the air and ocean and this matches what we have dumped into the atmosphere. Furthermore CO2 from burning fossil fuels has a unique isotope footprint, and you can use this to prove the new CO2 is human in origin. What you're basically saying, is if we were not here right now, there would never be another warming period? I don't believe that for an instant.
Warming stops when a new equilibrium point is reached. You can crunch the math, run simulations (climate models) or look at historic CO2/Climate. All three give the same range for warming. ~3 dec C every time CO2 levels double. We currently emit enough CO2 each year to raise the CO2 levels in the atmosphere by ~4 ppm. There are no natural sources of new CO2 that come close to this. CO2 levels have gone up from ~280 ppm to 393 ppm since the start of the industrial era. That’s actuly less then the amount humans have emitted because some of the CO2 we have produced has been absorbed by the ocean, but we know that can’t continue because the ocean gives off CO2 as it warms up.
CO2 levels have gone up from ~280 ppm to 393 ppm since the start of the industrial era. Some of the CO2 we have produced has been absorbed by the ocean, but we know that can’t continue because the ocean gives off CO2 as it warms up.
The Earth doesn’t receive enough energy from the sun to rise above zero at the equator, without the greenhouse effect it would be a lifeless snowball. Mercury, with no atmosphere and no greenhouse effect receives 4 times as much energy from the Sun as Venus yet temperatures on Venus are twice as high because of massive amounts of greenhouse gasses in its atmosphere. There is zero question about the role greenhouse gasses play on planetary temperatures. Yes I understand the science of it. And again you're arguing with me for no reason, I never once said global warming isn't going to happen, Venus is twice as high because of greenhouse gasses because its a terrestrial planet but doesn't nor cannot sustain life hence it has nothing to absorb the Carbon Dioxide. Venus is neither here nor there though, but it does bring up an interesting point such as the issue of the rainforests being destroyed along with the animals that balance the ecosystem. At the rate we're going the tropical rainforests will be gone completely from the earth in as little as 40 years. To find out what the losses of losing the rainforest are you should do some research on that because that in itself is an immediate problem that WILL happen in your lifetime.
What is more important then the disappearing Tibetan glaciers that provide the water for 2 billion people in China and India ? Let’s not forget that those people are in nations armed with nuclear weapons. What issue do you think is more important then the 500 million people in Bangladesh when the whole country will be under water within 100 years. What is more important then the hundreds of millions of people in Africa that face starvation as the interior of the content changes to desert? What issue do you see as more important then the heartland of North America, that provides the US with much of its food will turn into a desert, and that costal economic centers like New York will be under 20 feet of water? How about the dozens, perhaps hundreds of nuclear power stations that could go underwater?
Well lets start at the rainforests which could possibly help prevent global warming as well as create medicines that could cure hundreds of diseases. Then we can move onto overfishing the seas which is prevalent especially in the eastern territories. That could wipe out a valuable food source as well as an economical resource which, without it, would collapse many economies that rely on it. Then we can talk about the use of pollution which is not only the cause of global warming, but the amount of pollution in the air is one of the largest causes of cancer, lung disease, heart disease, and a plethora of other diseases that will only increase if it isn't regulated. 100 years down the line when everyone starts seeing global warming occuring most of us will be long dead due to diseases caused by the pollution we created and the diseases it caused. Not to mention the economical problems it will cause as far as health care which is already in a state of unrest. These are problems we will see get worse in our lifetime, not in our childrens lifetime, and when we start with these little problems that we've known about for ages, we'll be fixing the bigger problems that never should have happened if everyone just wised up and looked around.
To many scientists and students of scientific history, there really is no such thing as a consensus. There is a preponderant view at any one point in time, but it is largely defined by disagreement, not agreement. Someone comes up with a new framing for how the world works and tests that conception (where possible) through experimentation, observation, analysis and (for complex phenomena without comparable control cases) simulation
By 2050 or so, the world population is expected to reach nine billion, essentially adding two Chinas to the number of people alive today. Those billions will be seeking food, water and other resources on a planet where, scientists say, humans are already shaping climate and the web of life.
Theres no grasping at straws, you sit here and try to play like your word is absolute when it isn't. Things are proved incorrectly in science all the time, and if scientific data can be argued by conflicting scientific data then both sides should be looked into. .
Which, of course, is why I stated quite clearly science is never absolute… IMO You are just trying to use the fact that science doesn’t provide absolutes as a reason to ignore it altogether when you find it convenient.
You're arguing a point you've sat there and researched, but you havn't researched the opposite arguments. You don't even bother. Even a scientist would acknowledge conflicting research.
If there conflicting research you would have a point, but there is none. How can I research things that don’t exist? If you want to cite some conflicting arguments I’ll be happy to debunk it for you, but it’s not my responsibility to provide your counter arguments for you. In fact if I were to provide the arguments for you and then debunk them myself it would be considered a strawman.
What you're basically saying, is if we were not here right now, there would never be another warming period? I don't believe that for an instant.
I already said the exact opposite…
Other factors can influence temperature, and changes in temperature can cause changes in CO2 (which in turn cause further changes in temperature). CO2 is a part of a feedback loop, what that means is if you perturb either temperature or CO2 both change, and both play a role in where the new stable equilibrium point will be. In manmade warming we perturb CO2 levels to start this process, natural climate changes over the past few million years it’s been slight variations in Northern Hemisphere temperatures that started it.
I understand much about scientific journals, but to think that it is the only place to get scientific information is absurd. Anyone who can't understand that is a supremely ridiculous person. As a member of the local scientific community here I receive a lot of information through the mail from the local science museum and national science organizations that have little to do with your scientific journals. That doesn't mean I don't get credible information
Where do you think these science organizations are getting their information? They review the papers published in peer review journal and condense the information for you. To be sure the information in published papers can be echoed reliably in other sources, but if it doesn’t relate back to peer reviewed papers there is no way to separate the unlikely unpublished gem from the mountains of unpublished crap.
Well lets start at the rainforests which could possibly help prevent global warming as well as create medicines that could cure hundreds of diseases.
The existence of other problems doesn’t make the problem of global warming go away. In fact many of the problems you bring up would happen anyway simply due to CO2 warming. The Amazon rain forest for example has nearly disappeared in the past entirely due to warming that is within the projections of what CO2 will cause. While potentially serious, none of the problems you mention have the civilization destroying capacity of climate change.
Which, of course, is why I stated quite clearly science is never absolute… IMO You are just trying to use the fact that science doesn’t provide absolutes as a reason to ignore it altogether when you find it convenient. But all you ever speak in are absolutes. This IS happening this IS the way it will be. You take out the maybe factor which only leaves you with either being 100% right, or 100% wrong. If there conflicting research you would have a point, but there is none. How can I research things that don’t exist? If you want to cite some conflicting arguments I’ll be happy to debunk it for you, but it’s not my responsibility to provide your counter arguments for you. In fact if I were to provide the arguments for you and then debunk them myself it would be considered a strawman. Again you're arguing for the sake of arguing and missing the point entirely. I didn't say global warming isn't going to happen, in fact I promise you it will happen. It's going to happen if we're here or not. I don't think you understand that. Just get yourself all up in a tizzy because thats what you want to do on the topic, all of our precautions won't stop it from happening. It might postpone it, but the world will do it nomatter what precautions we take now.
What you're basically saying, is if we were not here right now, there would never be another warming period? I don't believe that for an instant.
I already said the exact opposite…
Other factors can influence temperature, and changes in temperature can cause changes in CO2 (which in turn cause further changes in temperature). CO2 is a part of a feedback loop, what that means is if you perturb either temperature or CO2 both change, and both play a role in where the new stable equilibrium point will be. In manmade warming we perturb CO2 levels to start this process, natural climate changes over the past few million years it’s been slight variations in Northern Hemisphere temperatures that started it.
You said there needs to be new CO2 but there isn't any new CO2 other then whats man made. So in turn you just said that without the man made Carbon Dioxide we're left without a warming period. In other words, taking away the man-made Carbon Dioxide would stop the gradual warming correct? But whats the difference of a natural warming period in comparison with our man-made warming period? Biologically made CO2 can be just as much of a cause of global warming as man-made CO2 which, in turn proves that not only does the actual man-made warming period mean so little in the scope of things, but that its also meaningless in comparison to the rest of the problems this world has. You're taking something thats going to happen eventually naturally anyway, attributing it solely to our fault and saying that if we get things under control then everything will be A-OK. Our time on this earth will be as short as any other living era nomatter if we move planets, evolve, or kill ourselves off.
Where do you think these science organizations are getting their information? They review the papers published in peer review journal and condense the information for you. To be sure the information in published papers can be echoed reliably in other sources, but if it doesn’t relate back to peer reviewed papers there is no way to separate the unlikely unpublished gem from the mountains of unpublished crap.
Actually not once have I read anything in particular quoted from a published science journal in my local science update. Much of the research written about happens in the actual museum. All I'm saying is if you're looking in a published science journal, fine, but you could be reading anything any kind of scientists whether good or bad wants to experiment on. It's the same way in any publication. As you said before in a rather pompous way, I'm looking for an absolute and you can't give me one with your published science journals. If you can absolutely say that there are no other ways to get information about science other then read science journals then you're going to be wrong. Absolutely wrong.
The existence of other problems doesn’t make the problem of global warming go away. In fact many of the problems you bring up would happen anyway simply due to CO2 warming. The Amazon rain forest for example has nearly disappeared in the past entirely due to warming that is within the projections of what CO2 will cause. While potentially serious, none of the problems you mention have the civilization destroying capacity of climate change.
As I've said before, this is argument for the sake of argument. Do you know how the rainforests actually help the worlds ecosystem. Do you know how much life has already changed since the deforestation has started? I mean if you feel like it's not important ,fine, don't do anything about it, you'll get the same kind of treatment about global warming. You think the rainforests are something to scoff at now, but you'll change your tune when a great deal of what absorbs and changes that CO2 you're all on about is gone. Not only is deforestation part of the problem, but it's part of the solution too. You think all will be well once these companies regulate their CO2? You're going to see another thing coming when the regulation goes into effect but nothings been done about underlying problems we've known about for years. Best thing to tell you is just to wait and see.
In science, what is more important than any individual study or collection of papers (particularly if assembled by someone with an agenda), is the trajectory of understanding. This is particularly true with a problem like the human-amplified greenhouse effect. Not only is it multidisciplinary; it is also not testable through experiments
Comments
They built and let it explode for one reason, they were told what to do or they lose everything in their world. and im sure this rational government you all love to claim has nothing better to do than have thousands of secret little agendas to keep the common man down, would never stoop so low as to try to influence the political agenda of global warming for profit.
Bush has ties to big oil, and has been fighting against global warming since he took office. He won't even agree to the kyoto pact (whatever it's called).What government are you referring to cause it sure ain't the US government trying to make a profit off convincing people that global warming is real. Quite the opposite in fact.
Wish Darkfall would release.
They built and let it explode for one reason, they were told what to do or they lose everything in their world. and im sure this rational government you all love to claim has nothing better to do than have thousands of secret little agendas to keep the common man down, would never stoop so low as to try to influence the political agenda of global warming for profit.
Bush has ties to big oil, and has been fighting against global warming since he took office. He won't even agree to the kyoto pact (whatever it's called).What government are you referring to cause it sure ain't the US government trying to make a profit off convincing people that global warming is real. Quite the opposite in fact.
kyoto protocol.
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
What i really dont understand is, why are you so scared bluberryhaze?
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
The same reason you don't want people held in captivity at Gitmo is my same reason ultimately.of course this would be premised on the belief that people at that facility are there for a reason.
my reason is ...I dont want the rights of soldiers or innocents ( iraqi civilians dead by IEDs ) exterminated. we can argue the semantics of my statement now such as collaterel damage inflicted by the US on iraqis etc. but every war needs 2 sides. im choosing the side of the US and hoping it gets it mission done successfully.
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
Nasica, i just got very confused looking at the title of this thread and my(our) replies. lol. threads always seem to get bent from the topic it seems.
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
They built and let it explode for one reason, they were told what to do or they lose everything in their world. and im sure this rational government you all love to claim has nothing better to do than have thousands of secret little agendas to keep the common man down, would never stoop so low as to try to influence the political agenda of global warming for profit.
Bush has ties to big oil, and has been fighting against global warming since he took office. He won't even agree to the kyoto pact (whatever it's called).What government are you referring to cause it sure ain't the US government trying to make a profit off convincing people that global warming is real. Quite the opposite in fact.
the global warming issue is a trillion + $$ (US dollars) industry. ( not saying the US spent that much). That level of money means its changing hands at govt levels. So who gets it? the "friends" of the politicians since they decide what ges spent where. To think that the supports of Gore have not profitted HUGELY on this neato thing is absurd. ( hell i made a profit off the fears and im against him, cant imagine how much larger my peice would be if i jump on the bandwagon).
!st i agree we need to move away from internal combustion based on non renewable resources , not for global warming but because its just plain healthier . It might or might not warm up the earth but it DOES hurt my lungs. So im not totally against some of his ideas as a method to improve the quality of life on earth. But i beleive its absolute folly to put all our research , efforts , spending into 1 effort. If they are wrong again ( track record is they have not been right yet) then NO ONE will ever take this seriously again. After wasting all the money and getting people so worked up over this , people wont do it all again when the next theory comes out in another 5 years.
This is where nasa comes in as well , why not spend a few million of that trillion spent so far to set up temperature monitors on other planets , hell even 1 on the moon, if mars is too far away , would be a HUGE benefit to either prove or disprove if the sun happens to be burning a pocket of purer hydrogen this last few decades.
I have to be simple since im no mathmatician so i dont know the correct terms but the ideas ...
The big specific issue ii have, is that they discovered in 1999 that when it gets hotter, greenhouse gasses increase and just ASSUMED it works both ways ( that increasing the gasses raises temp as well). They are banking on the theory that since 1+2=3 and 2+1= 3 , that the climate works that way as well.it doesnt matter where you add the increase( over all temp or gas volume etc) the answer is the same. That there is ZERO or little compensation ( if this was true the 1st volcano that erutps would have burned out the atmosphere btw). They do even know if teh compensation mechanism on earth is limited or not , or even where its at. ( buying a tree does nothing, but it sure made a few hundred people alot richer)
This we do NOT know. The studies to find out if this is true are not reliable, since those methods are the same ones that convinced the same people , that you swear are correct today, that the only way to save earth in 1973 was to detonate a nuc at the north pole. Same guys , same methods, same universities signed off on this study as that one, etc...
it is a huge difference if it turns out to work differently. what if its not like the above example but its like 2-1=1 vs 1-2=-1? ( i dont know what these properties are called sorry the addition one vs subtraction) the point is that we KNOW our tests today are flawed, we KNOW we dont have the technology now, we KNOW we dont have the math worked out yet . no one on either side disputes this.
People say doing something even if wrong cant hurt more than doing nothing . Thats BS. Using hydroggen cars would screw us faster then using the gas cars we have now. and thats just one case where acting with the wrong info could do MORE harm than good.
heres my idea , lets drop the whole gas is bad for global warming thing , and say gas engines are bad for your childrens lungs and health and use those kind of reasons and just say they MAY affect the earth. Everyone wants to protect kids, the whole population would jump on that bandwagon. Then quiety continue research on global warming and find out the REAL reason it happens or if we can do anything about it at all in the 1st place.
i mean think about it , we spent a trillion dollars so far , and temp still going up , no change, that trillion dollars has had zero effect , none, nada. pretty much shows me that maybe its not being used properly.
Most of it BTW was spend on telling the populations of the world to be scared, almost half went to the media frenzy to make you fear warming and hate oil companies. HALF. You would think that since the people controlling this money are also the people who beleive in this crap, they would use it to prove it ,to have real results and not just some pretty carboard pie charts ( my neice in 3rd grade can make those for less that 500 bilion dollars btw if any govt entity on global warming needs a new place to throw the money) but i guess they already know thats a waste of spending, so they use it to convince you they are right.
Hell if they were right who they really need to convince you with a TV commercial using actors and politicians? why just toss real data out there , oh yeah they cant , they dont beleive its accurate and admit it. but as long as you do their job is safe, the grant is same, the funding is safe.
long rant not very technical but im not a technical guy lol .
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
What i really dont understand is, why are you so scared bluberryhaze?
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
The same reason you don't want people held in captivity at Gitmo is my same reason ultimately.of course this would be premised on the belief that people at that facility are there for a reason.
Of course its interesting to note that most of the Gitmo detainees who have been released this year and sent to a real trial of evidence in the UK have had there cases dismissed out of court due to lack of evidence. Makes you wonder how many of the other detainees are really guilty of anything at all. And what if anything the American Military are doing to determine the truth behind the Detainees.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
The Great Global Warming Swindle http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle
The Old Timers Guild
Laid back, not so serious, no drama.
All about the fun!
www.oldtimersguild.com
An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it. - Jef Mallett
What i really dont understand is, why are you so scared bluberryhaze?
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
The same reason you don't want people held in captivity at Gitmo is my same reason ultimately.of course this would be premised on the belief that people at that facility are there for a reason.
Of course its interesting to note that most of the Gitmo detainees who have been released this year and sent to a real trial of evidence in the UK have had there cases dismissed out of court due to lack of evidence. Makes you wonder how many of the other detainees are really guilty of anything at all. And what if anything the American Military are doing to determine the truth behind the Detainees.
would you please site the cases that you mentioned? how many were there? what triggered them going to the UK for trial?-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_War#Qualifications
there of course will be some collataral damage in war, including innocents being detained due to the lack of uniforms on the enemy...and of course people get killed by a big bombs too.
it does not surprise me left leaning countries ...well, you know, have a lot of empathy towards GW Bushes enemies, to put it simply.
to keep this on topic, big bombs do make the world slightly warmer...for a brief second
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
that david hicks case war very unique.
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
Misleading someone is wrong believe it or not. So is exagerating and so on and so forth ESPECIALLY when it comes to science. Science is built on facts due to research, theories and scientific process. There are also two types of scientists, good scientists and bad scientists. To take results and "exagerate" them or "mislead" others for personal effect is wrong.
" If you are rejecting the papers published in major scientific journals you are rejecting science outright. The only agenda involved is from the people who simply don’t like what the published science has to say."
That right there is just being arrogant, just because you don't agree with things that are published in a scientific magazine doesn't mean you reject science. Perhaps those magazines you read are different then the websites, blogs, or whatever someone else reads. Maybe what he reads has conflicting information. You don't know.
The big thing here is that you sir could very well be wrong in this instance, just as wrong as everyone else could be wrong about it NOT being true. The thing that really kicks me in the pants here is that global warming has turned into a ridiculous argument that is strictly a fear tactic at this point and time.
Rather then complain about the conflicting factors of global warming, why don't we all look at the NON-CONFLICTING factors of pollution and what it's doing to our local and wild ecosystems. The over fishing, the oil spills, the rainforests, the quality of air, I mean these things are infinitely more important then global warming, yet we would rather bitch back and forth about whether or not it's true then look at immediate PROVEN problems that our worlds ecosystem has right now.
Its not so much an Empathy thing its just that unlike countries like Iran North Korea America etc we the UK believe in human rights.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
So he talks about the sea levels rising but doesn't regard how long it will take, or accurately portray it but yo uthink that the scientific basis behind it is worth mentioning without a particular timeframe.
Hey then you'll love this. One day the world will end when the sun explodes into a supergiant and then collapses in on itself and forms a black hole. I'll happen, you just wait, I mean I won't give a time frame or anything.. it could be tomorrow for all you know, but it's true, it's proven, and it can't be stopped.
Secondly, science doesn't work by publishing and republishing things in a much-to-do magazine that may or may not publish the works of good scientists. What you're saying is that you're taking information that could very well be right or wrong depending on whos writing it and why, and saying that this is infinitely correct because it was published as so. Meanwhile someone else is saying that they don't get their information from that exact source because those journals have been wrong much of the time, and you bounce back on the defensive and think the other person denounces science because of which.
This is both ridiculous as it is ludicrous and makes no sense to boot. If someone looks at the sports scores on the internet, compared to someone who reads the sports scores in a magazine, they should correlate if the information has no conflicting views and/or scientific evidence to back it up. If you read magazine A and someone else reads magazine B, just because your magazine says something that Mr. Magazine B doesn't agree with, it doesn't mean they "reject the scientific process" it just means they may have information you don't.
Lastly you're confused over the argument of what Global Warming IS. You show that that our emissions are higher, thats fine, this isn't what anyone is contesting. I'm not saying our emissions aren't higher. But what we're looking at scientifically is the correlation between the emissions being higher in comparison to the climate increasing gradually. Right now there is not nearly enough evidence as climate IS VARIABLE and believe it or not that plays an enormous part in this process.
In correlation with the warming periods before, can you prove exactly the levels of biological emissions that created those warming periods? Can you correlate that with the amount that is currently in our atmosphere? Can you accurately trace it and pinpoint what caused it? Can you give an accurate portrayal of how quickly each lasted, what stopped it, and whether it could happen again? Can you show a difference between what is in the atmosphere now compared to then? Can you correlate which region was effected in comparison with the amount of emission that continent produced?
There are a bunch of questions that still need to be answered, and I'm sure many more that I couldn't even fathom.
You see this is one of those "misleading" deals you were talking about. Lets create graphs that exagerate our points, lets make things look so much worse. By the time global warming comes into play the seas will be far overfished, the rainforests will be all but torn down, and cities will be so full of pollution that global warming won't even matter -- we'd have killed ourselves far sooner then global warming could do.
If you are going to use an analogy at least choose one with some semblance of reality. The upper limit established by previous warm periods is 300-400 years. That is the upper limit, and real rise could be faster. The only question is whether this will happen in our lifetime or our grandchildren’s, and unless you are willing to write off my grandchildren’s lives as worthless it should matter which.
Do you understand the difference between a magazine and a scientific journal? Scientific journals are where real scientists publish their work so it can be reviewed and critiqued by other scientists. On any contention issue you get many papers on both sides because no one wants to be saying the same thing as everyone. On global warming however, it doesn’t matter which journal you read, arguments opposing global warming are almost non-existent in scientific literature.
Because there are no massive sources of new CO2 in the last few million years it’s clear that changes in CO2 levels can only initiate that process in the case of manmade warming. In more naturally created warming the Northerner hemisphere warms slightly do wobbles in the earth’s axis. This decreases the amount of CO2 being temporarily stored in the oceans and NH ecosystems, and this CO2 warms the rest of the planet. In fact the only way you can explain why the whole planet warms up is the warming effect of greenhouse gasses.
Regardless of this whole conversation, and I do applaud you for your convincing riposte as it is always nice to have an engrossing conversation, you fail to see that I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you.
My purpose is primarily to plays devils advocate on some fields while spread awareness on more pressing issues that affect current wellbeing rather then something that could potentially be hazardous in the future if certain conditions are met. Look to issues that affect us now, and you will find the solutions to the problems you feel could effect us later.
You’re grasping at straws. Saying “maybe science is wrong about X” doesn’t prove science is wrong about X. There are people out there who still believe the earth is flat, that the earth is growing and that gravity pushes you rather then pulls you. None of them can make a convincing case either but of you talk to them they say much the same thing you are, that science “may be wrong so we should ignore it”.
Since you still don’t seem to get it scientific journals is where scientific research is published. If you ignore them you are ignoring all the research on the subject. You would have to be a complete moron to discount all the best research on a topic and choose to believe what you read on the web.
To many scientists and students of scientific history, there really is no such thing as a consensus. There is a preponderant view at any one point in time, but it is largely defined by disagreement, not agreement. Someone comes up with a new framing for how the world works and tests that conception (where possible) through experimentation, observation, analysis and (for complex phenomena without comparable control cases) simulation
By 2050 or so, the world population is expected to reach nine billion, essentially adding two Chinas to the number of people alive today. Those billions will be seeking food, water and other resources on a planet where, scientists say, humans are already shaping climate and the web of life.
Which, of course, is why I stated quite clearly science is never absolute… IMO You are just trying to use the fact that science doesn’t provide absolutes as a reason to ignore it altogether when you find it convenient.
If there conflicting research you would have a point, but there is none. How can I research things that don’t exist? If you want to cite some conflicting arguments I’ll be happy to debunk it for you, but it’s not my responsibility to provide your counter arguments for you. In fact if I were to provide the arguments for you and then debunk them myself it would be considered a strawman.
I already said the exact opposite…
Other factors can influence temperature, and changes in temperature can cause changes in CO2 (which in turn cause further changes in temperature). CO2 is a part of a feedback loop, what that means is if you perturb either temperature or CO2 both change, and both play a role in where the new stable equilibrium point will be. In manmade warming we perturb CO2 levels to start this process, natural climate changes over the past few million years it’s been slight variations in Northern Hemisphere temperatures that started it.
Where do you think these science organizations are getting their information? They review the papers published in peer review journal and condense the information for you. To be sure the information in published papers can be echoed reliably in other sources, but if it doesn’t relate back to peer reviewed papers there is no way to separate the unlikely unpublished gem from the mountains of unpublished crap.
The existence of other problems doesn’t make the problem of global warming go away. In fact many of the problems you bring up would happen anyway simply due to CO2 warming. The Amazon rain forest for example has nearly disappeared in the past entirely due to warming that is within the projections of what CO2 will cause. While potentially serious, none of the problems you mention have the civilization destroying capacity of climate change.
I already said the exact opposite…
Other factors can influence temperature, and changes in temperature can cause changes in CO2 (which in turn cause further changes in temperature). CO2 is a part of a feedback loop, what that means is if you perturb either temperature or CO2 both change, and both play a role in where the new stable equilibrium point will be. In manmade warming we perturb CO2 levels to start this process, natural climate changes over the past few million years it’s been slight variations in Northern Hemisphere temperatures that started it.
You said there needs to be new CO2 but there isn't any new CO2 other then whats man made. So in turn you just said that without the man made Carbon Dioxide we're left without a warming period. In other words, taking away the man-made Carbon Dioxide would stop the gradual warming correct? But whats the difference of a natural warming period in comparison with our man-made warming period? Biologically made CO2 can be just as much of a cause of global warming as man-made CO2 which, in turn proves that not only does the actual man-made warming period mean so little in the scope of things, but that its also meaningless in comparison to the rest of the problems this world has. You're taking something thats going to happen eventually naturally anyway, attributing it solely to our fault and saying that if we get things under control then everything will be A-OK. Our time on this earth will be as short as any other living era nomatter if we move planets, evolve, or kill ourselves off.
Where do you think these science organizations are getting their information? They review the papers published in peer review journal and condense the information for you. To be sure the information in published papers can be echoed reliably in other sources, but if it doesn’t relate back to peer reviewed papers there is no way to separate the unlikely unpublished gem from the mountains of unpublished crap.
Actually not once have I read anything in particular quoted from a published science journal in my local science update. Much of the research written about happens in the actual museum. All I'm saying is if you're looking in a published science journal, fine, but you could be reading anything any kind of scientists whether good or bad wants to experiment on. It's the same way in any publication. As you said before in a rather pompous way, I'm looking for an absolute and you can't give me one with your published science journals. If you can absolutely say that there are no other ways to get information about science other then read science journals then you're going to be wrong. Absolutely wrong.
The existence of other problems doesn’t make the problem of global warming go away. In fact many of the problems you bring up would happen anyway simply due to CO2 warming. The Amazon rain forest for example has nearly disappeared in the past entirely due to warming that is within the projections of what CO2 will cause. While potentially serious, none of the problems you mention have the civilization destroying capacity of climate change.
As I've said before, this is argument for the sake of argument. Do you know how the rainforests actually help the worlds ecosystem. Do you know how much life has already changed since the deforestation has started? I mean if you feel like it's not important ,fine, don't do anything about it, you'll get the same kind of treatment about global warming. You think the rainforests are something to scoff at now, but you'll change your tune when a great deal of what absorbs and changes that CO2 you're all on about is gone. Not only is deforestation part of the problem, but it's part of the solution too. You think all will be well once these companies regulate their CO2? You're going to see another thing coming when the regulation goes into effect but nothings been done about underlying problems we've known about for years. Best thing to tell you is just to wait and see.
In science, what is more important than any individual study or collection of papers (particularly if assembled by someone with an agenda), is the trajectory of understanding. This is particularly true with a problem like the human-amplified greenhouse effect. Not only is it multidisciplinary; it is also not testable through experiments