No, sweetie-pie, I simply asked for clarification of your apparent non sequitur. "lack of meaning relative to the comment it follows"

Um...duh. I direct you to my long-ass post.
We aren't going to prove anything either way until we have enough data to make that proof. Unfortunately, if we prove that global warming is, in fact, caused by man, it will (probably) be too late to do anything about it because we waited too long for proof. I'm in favor of erring on the side on continuing human existence, because, you know, I like living.

If it were real, how would they handle it differently?

Al Gore would take the proceeds of the movie and use them to buy as many people solar-powered bicycles as he could afford. They believe it enough to make political hay, but not enough to affect their own actions. Someone who yells 'incoming!' yet doesn't duck, is probably just trying to see if you'll jump.

The metaphor store was closed today.

With the popularity of SUVs, affordability is not the reason for the lower popularity of fuel efficient vehicles. For the price of an SUV, you could get a hybrid and several bicycles. A bicycle giveaway would be nothing but a stunt if all of the bicycles went straight into the garage and were never used. The money has to be spent wisely. Education is what is needed. Al Gore and the entire Inconvenient Truth movie production/promotion are carbon-neutral. All of Gore's profits go back into the education effort.

What is a serious example of something Gore would do differently if it were real?

Has he gotten his families money out of Occidental yet?

Six years ago, apparently.

Maybe he means it then.

Wow - I thought myopic rationalization died back in the early 1970s when same MBAs were complaining how we would all have to drive Pintos to average 20 miles per gallon. They did that because they were - by definition - anti-American. Also called quitters. mrnoodle, you are doing a same extremist and anti-American logic.

You were provided sources for answers. Even my short posts offered some solutions to your questions. Short? Yes. Sound byte posters hope you are as stupid as to, for example, not demand numbers and underlying reasons why. Those with a quitter’s attitude cried, "woe is me, we are doomed, so we should not try". That attitude is my exact definition of anti-American.

Like 1960s air and water pollution, 1980s water toxins, 1990s ozone layer depletion - in each case the 'woe is me' problem was solvable even as the liars among us denied the problem exists - because their anti-Americanism fears change, innovation, and solutions. Each solution created more jobs, more wealth, healthier lives, less energy consumption, less poverty, pdoucts that stopped failing ..... And yet still we have quitters who once said we would all have to drive Pintos to average 20 miles per gallon.

Article in September 2006 issue of Scientific American called "A Plan to Keep Carbon in Check" defines a 15 slice pie. Any nation that provides any of maybe five slices will be a wealthy and well employed nation. Those who innovate will be selling the future to others with an MBA (quitters) attitude. Only thing that creates jobs, wealth, stability, and better lives is innovation. Those who deny global warming are same type who also said we would all have to drive Pintos to average 20 miles per gallon. They also hyped fears of no more meat, stuffing into tiny boxes, homes without heat, and other lies. All this when, for example, homes were built without insulation. Zero – nada – none. Those who fear had to even proclaim that we could not insulate buildings – because they were that anti-American – and had no science knowledge.

Mankind is contributing adversely to a problem called global warming. Environmental changes are so great that this situation cannot be ignored. Notice how xoxoxoBruce ignores the problem by even denying a simple chart - and posts by never providing numbers. But again, the real questions are not found among those trained to be professional liars such as MBAs, salesmen, lawyers, politicians, communication and English majors, and anyone who sees answers in the words "conservative" and "liberal". The answer is among those whose job means no political agenda. Whose system is structured to find reality despite human nature. The answer is found in a question that only patriotic Americans would be asking: ie how fast and how destructive.

And still we have people lying to all - proclaiming what their peers also did in 1972. They said, using Rush Limbaugh logic, that we would all have to drive Pintos to average 20 miles per gallon. Those were and are the classic anti-innovative, anti-Americans.

Peer reviewers have their own agendas, hobby horses, and pet theories, and woe be to the researcher who presents solid research that goes against conventional wisdom.

Most of those articles don't see print.

I don't dispute that. However, statistically, the system is designed to root out flawed ideas (eventually).

I just read an interesting bit in Scientific American, in a review of two books which are critical of String Theory, which said that young Physiscists who don't even believe in String Theory, feel pressured to pursue it, because they feel they can get a Professorship that way. Apparently "that's the way the wind blows" by and large in the scientific community, right now. However, the fact that people are writing books expressly to criticize String Theory, and the books are getting press in Scientific American, indicates, to me, that a shift is taking place. In other words, science, the institution in principle, is rising above science, the institution in practice, exactly as it is designed to do.

I don't dispute that, either. Science, like all human endeavors, can move at a glacial pace.

However, another thing that happens alot is something like an untrained hobbyist claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine in his garage, and then complains that the scientific community won't take him seriously. Usually there are fundamental errors in this type of "research" that a first-year college student could spot from a mile away. (Not to say that the guy might not be right, and the college coursework might be wrong, and this might all come to light, eventually...)

Also, another thing that happens alot is that those who criticize science as having an "agenda" have an even bigger agenda themselves.
Such as: religious dogmatists attacking evolution, etc. etc. etc.

OK, where were we, helped a friend celebrate her birthday last night and I see it’s been moving here.
Now I started this thread because of that magazine article claiming human contribution to Global warming was very small and had credible evidence to back it up. I couldn’t dispute it, even though it flew in the face of “common knowledge”, I figured you guys would shoot it down right away with something I didn’t know, but on the contrary I found nobody could really shoot it down, just poo-poo it. I also found there is much more disagreement than I thought and that the same numbers look big to some and small to others.

I tried to pin it down to some key points but no answers there either, only generalizations.
Some are entirely skeptical of the whole scenario having heard so many wrong predictions in the past which is probably the media’s fault.
Some buy the problem and are saying, yeah but, what do we do
Some think Global Warming is entirely man made.
I’m sure some think it’s God’s Punishment for queers and abortion.

I think it’s another normal upswing in the natural cycle of the Earth, that man has given a kick so it’s happening faster and probably go higher. But I don’t know if it’s all that bad that it does, and don’t know what if anything we can do about it.

Then there’s tw who reads scientific articles, grabs some buzz words, the starts yelling the sky is falling and it’s all Bush’s fault. Postulating that he, unlike us, is a true patriot and smarter than us because he thinks he’s the only person in the world that knew that Nixon was a crook and there were no WMDs in Iraq.
Tedious at best and I’m getting fed up with the personal attacks on me.

He’s probably got a good point, but posting a graph with no background is bullshit. It’s got to be validated
Being the warm and wonderful guy I am, I’m going to help him out here.

I believe the graph came from a Scientific American Magazine? Since I don’t subscribe and I’m not paying $40 to read it online or go to the library.
I found the source, CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Fort Knox) and OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) organized in 1960.
Every graph I could find refers to an earlier work and the daisy chain leads to Lorius et al. (1985) and amended as cores became available
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/jouz_tem.htm Then this data was peer reviewed and accepted. That means nobody could find anything wrong with the method. The question is, does this Antarctic sample represent the whole earth properly since the Antarctic isn’t where the tracers are developed. Other samples using shorter spans agreed, mostly, but they should because they used his formula for calculation.
From Nature Magazine http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../364218a0.html From Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council I notice the climate wasn’t all sweetness and light before we came along, it’s been cycling for as long as they can tell, sometimes wildly and sometimes very quickly.
They think they know what temperatures were but that’s because nobody has been able to disprove Lorius’ guess yet. It’s not likely they will soon, first because I doubt that’s a high priority at the moment, and just because it’s almost impossible with no records.
Also the climate was far from uniform but highly regional with periods of deviation in different regions at different times. Deviation that may or maynot be reflected in the 400 kyr graph. :nuts:

btw, I'm amazed how much scientific information is available online that you have to pay to see.

Now we have a graph that show the mean temperature has been swinging up and down for as long as they can speculate. The actual temperatures are questionable because the data come from one place in the Antarctic and are accepted because nobody can disprove them, but we do know the temperature and precipitation wasn't uniform the world over, and the temp precip ratio determines the tracer.
That the co2 sample follows the temperature swings is not a surprise either, nor is it indicative of causation. :headshake


The honesty of the government has been called into question. From the Union of Concerned Scientists;
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...l-warming.html "The scientific consensus is clear that the rise in temperature and change in climate are being caused in part by human activities." I didn't think anyone disagreed with that, just wanted to have the effect quantified. How do we act unless we know what things we are doing are causing what?
Now the "government stooges" side.
http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309075742/html/23.html And at the same link a statement explaining how the IPCC works and sometimes can't get the brightest & best, on board. So the government wants some of the Summary for Policymakers wording changed. That doesn't sound good.
But the scientists got the approval of the authors and the main document, the actual results, were unchanged. Eh, that's good.

It appears Wolf is right... I've seen a ton of stories on PBS and in print about scientists starting with Galileo, that paid a heavy price only to be vindicated later. Not all persecution was from religious or secular leaders, but from peers, also.

There seems to be a whole lot of bias, politics and power base building going on...and it's not all from the government.

I'm guessing 99.9% of these scientists are decent people trying to do the right thing, but they have neither the ways nor means to do anything, without some organization to work for them. At the moment it appears to be two choices available;
1- The National Research Council (IPCC) who is compromising a little but has the governments ear.
2- The Union of Concerned Scientists who say they maintain the moral high ground but the policy makers don't listen to.

Of course any organization of people will be comprised of movers/shakers and the rest(read majority) of the members. The personal pride and prejudices of the leaders will have a heavy bearing on any organization.

This Chart showing things that have a heating or cooling effect and how well they are understood, comes from;
http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309075742/html/13.html

That chart shows co2 to add 1.5 watts per square meter. What's that mean? It makes the air a little warmer. From http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309075742/html/12.html
TABLE 1 Removal Times and Climate Forcing Values for Specified Atmospheric Gases and Aerosols Up to the year 2000
Forcing Agent - Approximate Removal Times*- Climate Forcing (W/m2)

Greenhouse Gases
Carbon Dioxide.......................................... >100 years ........1.3 to 1.5
Methane.....................................................10 years ......... 0.5 to 0.7
Tropospheric Ozone......................................10–100 days......0.25 to 0.75
Nitrous Oxide ..............................................100 years......... 0.1 to 0.2
Perfluorocarbon Compounds (Including SF6).....>1000 years........0.01

Fine Aerosols
Sulfate ..................................................... 10 days...........–0.3 to –1.0
Black Carbon................................................10 days........... 0.1 to 0.8

*A removal time of 100 years means that much, but not all, of the substance would be gone in 100 years. Typically, the amount remaining at the end of 100 years is 37%; after 200 years 14%; after 300 years 5%; after 400 years 2%

So it's agreed that co2 is the biggest factor when it comes to man adding to warming. And from my first post, anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect, according to Dr Lindzen.

1-Man produces less than .01% of the greenhouse effect with what is far and away his largest contribution.

2-Man may have/has probably, pushed the natural swing of the climate along quicker and it may go higher because of that. But we just don't know.

3- Running around trying to put a guilt trip on people is sometimes effective for putting a guilt trip on people, but little more.

4-There are people using Global Warming as a tool to achieve political ends, or coerce people to do what the Chicken Littles think they should do.

According to the following graph, the rest of the world is taking a larger role, too. :cool:

Bruce, as I told you in my first post in this thread, I do work for a project that uses climate data. The project's whole reason for being, is research into climate change. No one is saying that America is doing the damage all on its own. The whole western world is, and the developing world is starting to increase industrial development (and thus, emissions), at an alarming rate. It does not end there.

You also have to look at the pollution we pour into the world's oceans, and forest destruction (you, yourself have acknowledged this in your posts). As I tried to explain once before, the story is not a simple one. You cannot just pull out selected figures and draw a conclusion. As you have discovered, there is not a great amount of the research (detailed reports), available on the web - especially up to date, current research. What you will find (as you have done, are "press releases" and summaries). Our research is still reported on paper. I am trying to find a web site that does show why man's contribution matters, but it is very difficult to find one that I am satisfied with. I agree with you in part, that some of the research is used for political ends. You have to remember that most climate research is either directly (government departments and agencies), or indirectly paid for by governments (grants to universities). So politics always comes into it.

If I can find a good web site, I will post its address.

Thanks bluesdave, yes, the more I read the less I know for sure.

Watching Nova's show on Supervolcanos last night, they were throwing our numbers like 75k years ago, one went off in the South Pacific. The magma blown out into the air was the equivalent of the water flowing down the Mississippi in two years time. The sulfuric acid cloud killed forests and critters all over and lowered the temperature of the oceans by 10 degrees. And we have two of those suckers in the USA. Damn, that makes our pollution look like a pee hole in a snowbank. :worried:

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a change. Just cuz I feel like it.

Okay, let's say that supervolcanoes ARE worse than human pollution. Why does it matter? All that means is that the planet is more doomed than we thought, because what we don't destroy, nature will. We're in a buggy headed for a cliff with no way to get off or stop, but that's no reason to whip the horses.

Or something. Nah, I still like the other side of the argument.

Let us take a look at the big picture: nature has a homeostasis.
There is a natural carbon cycle, and we are altering it. The only question is: how much?

The next fact we have is: fossil fuels will eventually run out.
The status quo of our infrastructure is guaranteed to have a dead end.
Should we be prepared, or simply let the momentum of big business carry us off the cliff?

Let us combine the things we know, and think about what to do next.

Of course, who do we believe. An author from caranddriver.com who coincidentally says what George Jr - well proven liar - says? Or from those who come from where the work gets done. This from Ralph J. Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences on 21 Jul 2005 before the US Senate (and I recall Rush Limbaugh mocking this man back then):
Cicerone statements demonstrate reality. Mankind is contributing seriously to global warming. The questions that wacko extremists want to halt and distort: "how much and how destructive". Good people would ask such questions. Fools would insist that global warming does not even exist - as a mental midget president even tried to claim in 2001 and 2002.

Those who deny global warming have a political agenda as demonstrated by the pathetically bad rationalization in that caranddriver.com article. An article with such bad logic that a ferocious challenge is required. xoxoxoBruce I make no apologies for accurately defining the integrity of that article by challenging it accordingly - ferociously.

Bruce, you are absolutely correct - we don't know it all. No one says that we do. It is what makes science research interesting - we are constantly being surprised (and frustrated too).

There are numerous factors that actually work against global warming, such as huge volcanic eruptions (as you mentioned), dust (a good article in last week's Nature), and reflection (that's where pollutants line the top of clouds and actually reflect some of the Sun's heat), to name just a few. That is why climate scientists talk in terms of "trends". It is impossible to accurately predict what next year's weather will be like, when we can't account for unforeseen events, but we can warn of trends, and likelihood. The trouble is that when climate predictions get it wrong, the anti greenhouse lobby then jump on this, and use it as an excuse to throw out all of the research. Understandably, the public wants straight forward, simple to understand, and accurate information, but climate change is an incredibly complex area of research, and we are still learning. Maybe one day we will have quantum computers that can do the job (use some ESP), but that day is still some time off.

Well, one thing we do know, it's getting warmer and the weather patterns are changing. I know that sounds like two things but I think it's really one....actually part of one.

The things they keep coming up with, the previously unknown relationships in nature are fascinating. But yes, everyone (I'll bet including the scientists) wants to know how far it can/will go. Considering we can't get an accurate weather forecast, a climate forecast is asking a lot.
If we knew that, it would be possible to figure out what it's going to take to cope with the changes. At least a hell of a lot easier to figure out than actually getting it done, anyway.:D

Of course we can't worry about the Supervolcanos because there's nothing much we can do about them. If they erupt, millions, maybe billions, dead. Forget politics, Christmas and athlete's foot.....definately a whole new ball game.

Oh....bluesdave, if you figure it all out....you will give UT an exclusive, won't ya?

I´m surprised the Earth's net reflectivity, or albedo, hasn´t entered this discussion until now.

A 1997 UCLA study showed that Los Angeles is 5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the surrounding areas. Because of the traffic causing more CO2 in the air? No, it´s because mostly due to dark roofs and asphalt. Cars and power plants contribute, but only a bit; at high noon, the sun delivers to each square mile the power equivalent of a billion-watt electrical plant.

A mere 0.5 percent change would solve the greenhouse problem completely. Problem is that 70% of Earth is water and that absorbs more light than it reflects.

Uh, I wish I could. All communication with the outside world has to go through the public relations bureaucrats in the government. Anyone caught talking to the public directly, is chopped! :yeldead:

Hippikos:As I have told Bruce, it's not that simple. We have learnt a lot since 1997. Also, don't forget that clouds cover part of the oceans too, but you are generally correct. Water makes up a huge percentage of the Earth's surface. The biggest problem with the oceans are the changes to the oceans' currents. Those changes directly affect precipitation over land (eg. the El Niño - Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon). Another problem is the destruction of algae in the ocean, which we now suspect take out as much carbon from the atmosphere as all the plants on land combined.

One of the things that surprised me about albedo, is that cutting down forests where there is snowfall, creates a more reflective surface and a cooling effect. I'd always assumed cutting forests always leads to a worse condition.
Of course there are a whole slew of effects from deforestation, (mostly bad), but this is one of the little quirks that comes up to show how complicated the science is. :smack:

How did I know there was an attack on religion coming. Hey, maybe I'm a prophet. :right:

But you're not quite at the level of scientist. That is the purest form of human, and is above reproach in all things. Prophet's pretty good though. You should still be able to get into the popular kids' parties.

It's not an "attack" - it's pertinent to my point, IE highly publicized criticisms of science, in our society today, which have a transparent agenda.

Show where anyone posting in this entire thread...or even anyone quoted or linked by a poster......said Global Warming does not exist.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Can't find it? Well how about, show me where somebody claimed human activity has no effect on the climate, no contribution to Global Warming.

Take your time, I'll just paint my house, inside and out, while I wait.

No, huh? OK, an easy one. Show me where you disproved the numbers in my first post. Yeah numbers.....go ahead, disprove the numbers.
Interpretation of how significant very small numbers are, can be discussed ad infinitum, but neither you, nor I, have the background to really say for sure and as the myriad of input from all those scientists shows, mere logical thinking won't do it either, because they are being surprised by their Mother Nature, constantly.

As for your, "accurately defining the integrity of that article by challenging it accordingly - ferociously", that's bullshit, toothless ferociousness. Logical people don't challenge the validity by saying George Bush, (noted liar), agrees so it must be a lie, or claiming the author has no credentials when he cites expert testimony. Want to discredit? Disprove the numbers.
You keep preaching (9 out of 10 scientists agree) the sky is falling, but since I'm not as smart as you, I'll just keep asking questions.


Now, back in the 50's/60's internal combustion engines(primarily vehicles) were spewing a shitload of crap into the air. Over the subsequent 40 years, technology has reduced the nasty crap by something like 99%. Even though there's a lot more engines, the crap emitted is way down. That leaves co2 as the major pollutant, major greenhouse gas, from engines.

CO2 along with cement production seem to be our largest contributions at the moment. Since these human contributions appear to be a small percentage of the big picture, at most fueling the increase in speed of Global Warming, it seems to me it would take a major change in lifestyle to have even a tiny effect.
Plus a major change in the lifestyle of the west might only offset the rapid increase in the east. You can bet China, and it's neighbors, will be a major contributors in the future.

There is a PDF from Technology Review, showing a graph of temperature, co2 and sea levels, for the last 400k years.
http://www.technologyreview.com/arti...imatechart.pdf
That's interesting because all the articles/statements I've seen in the past, say sea levels will rise about 0.9 meters. 15 to 35 meters is mucho more lot biggerish than 0.9,....aw, call it 1 meter. I wonder where this ambiguity comes from? How does he know what the temperature was 3 million years ago? Is Hansen disconnected from the scientific community? Wasn't it Hansen that started, or at least one of the first involved with, this whole Global Warming debate?


One more thing....are we there yet?:D

Yeah, ok Flint.

Somebody commented on climate researchers having an agenda, and I pointed out that those who want to discredit climate research may have an even bigger agenda, IE business interests which benefit by maintaining the status quo. By way of example, the same way that some creationists hope to maintain their own status quo, IE strict Biblical interpretation, and subsequently attempt to discredit evolution research by exaggerating the disagreements among some researchers, or by focusing on the things that are not yet fully understood. Sound familiar?

Let me spell it out for you: my comment was that there appears to be a parallel, in methods, among those who attempt to discredit a branch of science which threatens their particular status quo. I felt this was worthy of comment, in this thread. If you feel this is unworthy of comment, then don't comment on it. Just move on and keep your childish jabs to yourself.

Why don't you keep your childish anti-religion agenda to yourself.
Is it because it so consumes you, it's impossible to consider any situation/problem without it affecting your position, I don't know. :confused:

civil discussion
 

I find your diatribes against me to be as unseemly as they are unsubstatiated.
Resorting to personal insults and "mind-reading" is bad form, in any setting. :2cents:

In that case I apologize from the bottom

You didn't do anything Bruce.

I watched the Nova show on Super Volcanos again and picked up on something new. They were talking about extrapolating temperatures from the oxygen-18 in the ice cores that I referred to earlier in the thread. They said not once but several times, the temperatures were not of the air, but the oceans. If that's true, it makes a big difference because the oceans don't vary nearly as much as the air and change much slower. I've got to look into this. :confused:

There was no discredit, there's only a different opinion. Those who are skeptic about man's influence on climate change are usually the ones who get discredited, especially by those wo have a political agenda.

Having said this, it does not exclude that I'm fully aware of the limitation of the Earth Resources.

That's what I said 5 pages ago:
Lies, damned lies and statistics...

Hmmmmmm...is that like Homer presenting his rebuttal?

I wouldn't go that far, but I'd like to know whether that 420,000 year graph was actually indicating ocean temperature rather than air. It may be, they think they can extrapolate both from the ice cores and did so for different projects. :bonk:

Bruce, you underestimate the importance of ocean temperatures. While the media seems to give more time to air temperature, it is actually the ocean temperature that interests us more. Ocean temperatures can be directly linked to precipitation over land.

BTW, I had a lengthy discussion with our senior scientist about you yesterday, and our on-going debate about global warming. I explained that you are a very smart guy, and an engineer, and that you want to see "proof" that Man is involved in global warming. He said that there isn't any research that on its own actually says: "Man, you did it", which is pretty much what I tried to tell you once. You have to take all of the research and draw conclusions based on the bulk of evidence. He said that no one so far has been able to come up with a single experiment that will prove or disprove man's impact. That is how we work - how science works. You have an idea that you want to test, then design an experiment to test your theory.

In one your posts you said that the world has been warming since the last ice age (12,000 years ago). I was reminded that in fact this is not correct. Air and ocean temperatures climbed to a height at about 10,000 years ago, and then gradually declined again. This continued until around 140 years ago when temperatures started to climb again. This is where the connection to man comes in. It ties in with the Industrial Revolution.

We also talked about the ozone hole over Antarctica. Did you realise that it is now at its second largest size? This also affects the Earth's climate.

If you want to satisfy your engineering need for complicated equations, have a look at this page. It discusses ocean currents in the Pacific.

Here is a great Google resource for finding sites that look at global change. If you dig deep enough you will also find pages that discuss why reflection (reflectivity), is not as simple as some people have made out in this thread. There are many factors that interact, and by chopping down trees you do not automatically reduce air temperature because more sunlight is being reflected. You have to take into account the loss of the transpiration by the trees that no longer exist. Sorry if that sounds like double Dutch, but there is actually a complicated mathematical formula for working out the likely temperature change of a cleared area (we use it in our models).

I hope you will begin to see that we are not idiots. We don't publish papers with dire warnings just for the fun of it. A lot of work (and I mean a *lot* of blood, sweat and tears), goes into each and every research project.

What Uni are you associated with Dave? What's your field of study? Just curiousity here. A lot of what you've said correlates with what my husband keeps telling me. He's with UQ.

For those who don't first learn facts before knowing why, your executive summary is the last paragraph.

Quoting one who says global warming problem does not exist: You gave credence to a clearly distorted and naive editorial. But then you quoted another: xoxoxoBruce quotes naysayers who disagree with a large and growing majority. Why ignore those from responsible science? Lindzen promotes ideas not supported by facts. You quoted someone from the Cato Institute and then insist he is not political? A word is credibility.

You quote Lindzen's congressional testimony whose former co-authors will no longer collaborate with him and who even took him to task, point by point, in the WSJ. You completely ignore congressional testimony from responsible scientists independent of political organizations? Ralph J. Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences on 21 Jul 2005 before the US Senate
You call selective sampling credible? It's called a political agenda.

xoxoxoBruce - your author conceded that CO2 increases will double to levels never seen in earth’s history. Then he denies this is a problem. He says, a warmer earth then radiates more heat; therefore does not get warmer. You accept this nonsense? His own peers don’t. CO2 levels can quadruple and everything will be fine? This is your expert? Yes, xoxoxoBruce, you cite political type from the Cato Institute as an expert. Even his own co-authors publicly dispute his new agenda.

Your own citation - Lindzen - even tried to claim that money for dissident science - science that George Jr promotes - is drying up. Anyone with trivial knowledge knows that is a lie. George Jr – who perverts science for a political agenda – would deny money to those who promote his agenda? Of course not. But then you cited this Cato Institute ‘scientist’ as the only expert. Again, credibility and honesty is not in your first posts.

When asked where you got numbers, you said, That's it. You cite someone from a right wing political organization as science proof? Why do you ignore reams of congressional testimony from those who come from science – not a political organization? Such as Ralph J. Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences on 21 Jul 2005 before the US Senate and others.

xoxoxoBruce - you openly derided whether global warming would create more methane releases. Why? You doubted. That’s it? Doubt without first collecting facts is sufficient for logic? Where is prerequisite science – what one grasps before doubting? Did you notice why I accurately doubted Saddam’s WMDs long before an invasion? Did you learn why George Jr’s claims of a Saddam / bin Laden conspiracy were obvious myths in September 2001? Did I just wildly speculate that the administration was hindering 10th Mountain in Afghanistan - and therefore why we did not get Osama bin Laden? I first learned facts. Your citations were mostly political agendas hyped as if science. - without first learning facts. Even your Nature citation was nothing more than a letter. Where is the peer review of a letter? Again, credibility.

You immediately doubt that temperature increases also increase methane. Post #49 Your assumptions about methane says everything about where your doubts of global warming come from. Why do you doubt without first learning facts? Why do you doubt only because of White House propaganda – especially when this president – an MBA - is one of the world’s most prolific liars? When do you question irrelevant and clearly speculative numbers in a caranddriver.com editorial? Questioned was not that editorial. Questioned was why you cite a political statement as science? Questioned is why you have opinions and could not even spend $40 for the Scientific American issue. Questioned is why you have so many conclusions and yet would not even sit in a library long enough to read only one science publication. My post challenged (and without any insult) – credibility.

. I told you what was wrong with the numbers. Its credibility. Numbers you posted don’t come from science, are taken out of context, or make claims not previously heard – at least in science. Years ago, I posted a highly regarded chart – which you eventually acknowledged. Meanwhile you posted contrary to a chart that was provided days previously. After promoting myths contrary to that chart, you finally conceded to those numbers: You ignored facts because short posts were too long to read? You ignored real world numbers but posted nonsense from caranddriver.com ? Then post an insult (bullshit artist) only because you did not first learn facts? Remember that chart of 2 Oct 2006 at 1603 hrs? More denial: Even Lindzen of the Cato Institute does not deny numbers in that chart. Numbers that show something happening in the past 100 years that has never before happened on earth. Eventually, even Bruce acknowledged the Vostok chart has long been a basis for scientific discussion. But how long did it take to get him to accept reality? Again, so many posts (including the ‘bullshit artist’ insult) rather than first learning even numbers on that Vostok chart.

xoxoxoBruce quickly cited Lindzen as credible. But the Vostok chart? Six days and 61 posts later … xoxoxoBruce finally acknowledged data from a 1980s Vostok chart. Meanwhile Lindzen credibility even among his own peers is what? Cato Institute. Again, a statement not possible if using data of 20 years ago and when we add data to what xoxoxoBruce’s chart does not show. Current CO2 levels go well off that chart – CO2 is rising that fast and is that far above any previous numbers. Temperature changes rose a massive 0.8 degrees in 100 years; 0.4 degress in 30 years; and the curve is rising faster – as CO2 numbers predict. Increases that took tens of thousands of years suddenly increase in only 100? How does mrnoodle say, “planet is pretty much doing the same thing it's always done,”. Only a mental midget president – who would go to CA for money as a Category 5 hurricane kills in New Orleans – would also make that statement. Make claims and never read the PDBs - or numbers in a chart. One would have to be George Jr stupid to believe nothing has changed. Even Lindzen from the Cato Institute admits to massive changes only in the past 100 years.

From Editors of Scientific American: Is that from Scientific American a political agenda? Obviously not. Demonstrated is where xoxoxoBruce’s doubts come from. From political sources masking as science, from an editorial that makes little science sense, by ignoring mainstream facts, by repeatedly denying the Vostok chart (even insulting the messager), and by not even spending $40 to get one issue of Scientific American dedicated entirely to the topic.

Mankind is clearly contributing to a major global warming problem. That is not disputed – except by wacko politicians such as scumbag president’s lawyers. Only question is “how much and how destructive”. Having so successfully made this personal by posting insults (bullshit artist) rather than facts, xoxoxoBruce did just what an anti-American president wants everyone to do. A mental midget needs us all to pervert science for his political agendas. Science has long since moved on to ask “how much and how destructive”. This thread demonstrates why so many in The Cellar believed a lying president’s WMD myths and that Saddam was complicit in 11 September. Too many don't demand the irrefutible fact before jumping to conclusions. xoxoxoBruce has just done that - even assuming a political figure from the Cato Institute would be honest.

It’s called knowing only because Rush Limbaugh, et al said so. That is why Americans are dying in mass numbers, now, in a country declared "Mission Accomplished". Science first demands the numbers and learning the whys – what Limbaugh types fear – such as data from the Vostok chart posted 2 Oct 2006 at 1603 hours. That date and time in this thread demonstrates how long some will deny facts and numbers to believe political myths – six days and 61 posts.

This corrolation is unproven*. The fact that it started at the same time doesn't mean it was caused by the industrial revolution. How can you explain the sudden drop in temperature between the 40's and 70's (scientists predicteda new ice age those days, remember?) when Industrial Activity was a zillion times higher than a century before?


(*another corrolation: 70% of school killers use chewing gum, therefore it's proven that chewing gum causes school killings...)

It's another natural phenomenon.

PS: The only evidence for a role of Carbon dioxide in climate was the hockeystick theory, which has been declared dead by now.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
We won't have proof until the 'experiment' is complete. That is, until there's conclusive proof that we're causing major climatic change. Unfortunately, in all likelihood that will mean it's too late to do anything and everyone will be a BAD position (worst-case scenario: all of life on the planet dies). Now, we know that lots of particulate emissions are bad (they're bad for us breathing, in specific). So, if we can reduce the amount of particulate emissions in the atmosphere, while potentially saving ourselves from extinction, then why err on the side of extinction?

Bruce, have a look at this site.. It shows a number of Earth water temperature stats. Like these:

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/cap-blanc.gif

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/east-afr.gif

Because, as long as it doesn't happen in our lifetimes, it's not our problem.

You misunderstood or I wasn't clear, probably the latter.:o
I was having trouble reconciling the 420kyr graph with all the articles about regional fluctuations of considerable magnitude. The ocean temperature makes more sense because it's slower to react and smooths the fluctuations. It's like sitting in a warm bath when someone opens the door and lets in a draft for a brief time, then closes the door and turns on a heater. The bath won't change much.
That said, the 420kyr graph doesn't show me much, except the environment has never been static and cycles constantly. Also, I'm not convinced the neat, precise numbers are accurate, but I don't care because they are not important, unlike the trends.
Hey now, don't be calling me an engineer...tw is an engineer...I'm just an average working guy that's skeptical of dire warnings from the media. Jaded if you will, by the predictions of dire consequences from a multitude of threats, that never come to fruition.Thank You, it's nice to hear that scientists, unlike engineers, admit there is an uncertainty they can't eliminate entirely. Of course, that position keeps them employed, but kidding aside, the future is a gigantic puzzle with many, if not most, pieces missing. All you can do is keep looking for the key pieces, based on what you do know and gut feeling.
Every time I hear of a scientist winning an accolade, I wonder how many dedicated scientists, his work was based on, got diddly squat recognition?Is this where the predictions of a return of the Ice Ages came from?....or was/is that just media hype?
Hippikos pointed out there was a dip in temperature, mid 20th century, but I think that was explained as the accumulation of aerosols(dirt) in the air from inefficient coal burning during the previous 100 years. Back when the people in Pittsburgh, PA, never saw the Sun because of the smokestacks belching soot. I did not. I've read a considerable amount of information about the ozone layer and I think I understand how and why it works. I am under the impression that variation in that antarctic hole is pretty much out of our control once halocarbons were addressed. Not so? UM,....this is not my vocation.....I'll leave the calculations to yuze guys. :D Thanks for the link. No, it's not double dutch, it's the reality that things are very complicated because of interactions and dependencies in nature.
The other problem with turning the forest into a wheat field is the perspective. One side says look at this wonderful tool of food production, while the other side decries the loss of the bugeyed toad that lived there. Meanwhile, you are stuck in the middle trying to understand the real impact on the future, but neither side will listen to you.Idiots? Never did, never will. The problem is, and has always been, the people that add hyperbole, pro and con, to your reports..... or ignore the reports and just spew the hyperbole.
You must admit, a long, difficult, even career spanning, research project that comes up with accurate data and correct conclusions, is still just a tiny piece of the big puzzle. You know, the work the guy that gets the accolades, is based on. ;)

I really, really, really, appreciate you shedding light on a topic that's already seen enough heat from people that care more about defending their honor or making a political statement, than getting at the truth. Seriously, dude (good thing), you're a breath of fresh air.

Now, I'm not saying you're not using this thread to justify to your boss, hanging out in the Cellar when you should be working. :lol: Just that we're grateful.

At what cost is break point for determining imposed restrictions?
Make a rule/rules governing how much dirt you can generate?
People in favor will probably already be below the specified limit.
People that are not, will ignore or circumvent the rule.
What about people not in your juristiction?.....Third World countries or emerging economies?
Implementation of noble causes is always the problem with them.

Can we impact on the climactic changes that are already in motion?
If we have in fact caused it, is the pooch already screwed?
Are we kidding ourselves by saying if we do this we'll save mankind, when in fact we should have done that?

Face it, Global Warming isn't likely to kill me or you. Look at the time frames in the predictions....common numbers are 2050AD and 2100AD for milestones in changes..... even further for catastrophic events. What we're looking at is the future of the human race, not ourselves.

Now look around and ask yourself.......are they worth saving?:unsure:

OK, I'm kidding..... but seriously, imposing changes because they make you feel warm and fuzzy, without knowing if the changes are actually doing any good, will meet stiff resistance.

:zzz:

This thesis might hurt your Noble Prize nomination... :right:

PS This article might undermine your thesis...

CFCs/halocarbons are inert, so they can't react with ozone. Has anyone asked him/herself why there's only a hole over Antarctica, when halocarbons were released all over the world?

Another fact is that from the produced CFC's only 1% was released whose chlorine content is about 7,500 tons. Mother Nature produces 650 MILLION ton chlorine annually, 90% comes from the sea.

Besides ozone is a lousy UV filter, oxygen and nitrogen filter 99%, ozone: 0,000003%. I remember Al Bore saying the lambs in Patagonia got blind because the ozone hole...:right:

Not in heavy UV light they aren't.Weather patterns. You might as well ask why water collects in puddles, when the rain coats an area evenly.It's a bad UV-A filter, a good UV-B filter, and an excellent UV-C filter.

Yeah, I'd also read it's importance was as a UV-C filter.:cool:

It's the reason we don't even bother mentioning UV-C on our sunblock.

NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center has just put up a new web site which shows the current SST over the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic coast. It should be interesting for you guys living on the East Coast.

Repeated warnings of 11 September were provided to Condi Rice and senior administration officials. But because a specific example was not provided, then no such terror threat existed? xoxoxoBruce uses same logic to proclaim global warming does not exist. Because no one can cite a specific threat or study, then the danger/problem does not exist. xoxoxoBruce - do you really have the intelligence of a mental midget president? Uncertainty proved bin Laden did not intend to attack the United States. Clearly the PDB was wrong because of uncertainty. Since probablility was only 80%, then uncertainty proves global warming does not exist. Classic Rush Limbaugh logic. No wonder so many great Americans were on the trail of and could have averted 11 September. But bosses used xoxoxoBruce's reasoning that proved the threat did not exist. Bosses therefore quashed every attempt to avert 11 September. Learn from history. After all, uncertainty means bin Laden and global warming do not exist.

Doubters first learn facts. Then are doubters who :zzz:
when complexity is too difficult. xoxoxoBruce - engineers and scientists are saying same if you first bother to learn. You know so much that you could not bother to even read one issue of Scientific American? I expect that from Urban Guerrilla - not from you. Why do you fear to learn before knowing? Why do you do what Rush Limbaugh wants?

CFCs measured at about 35 km altitude is about 0,1 parts per trillion (ppt), and that's because CFCs are about 4,5 times heavier than air. The UV radiation with the necessary energy for splitting the CFCs molecules are well above the 45 kms, where no CFCs are found. That UV radiation is known as UV-C. But even if those 0,1 pppt of CFCs release their chlorine atoms, the they cannot react with ozone due to the gaseous phase of chemistry.
Nice try, but incorrect. Chlorine cathalytic reaction allegedly responsible for destroying ozone in the infamous layer has never been demonstrated in any lab essays. They tried many times, but nothing happened. It all relates to the "gaseous phase" of chemical reactions: chlorine only reacts with ozone over the solid surface of ice crystal in the polar clouds over Antarctica. Ask your chemistry professor.
UV radiation with the energy enough to split the highly stable CFC molecule is found well above the 40 km mark, the region where oxygen (although one of the strongest gas molecules –along with nitrogen- it is not as stable as the CFC molecule) absorbs almost all the UV-C radiation that could dissociate the CFC molecules.

Now, if you want to blame something, someone about the ozone hole over the Antarctic, blame the Mother Earth, it produces a hundred thousand times more chlorine than man every year. It's a natural phenomenon, already noticed back in the 50's.

If anyone wants to read some authoritative information on Ozone Depletion, have a look at these sites:

http://www.ciesin.org/TG/OZ/oz-home.html - Click on "Overview"

http://cloud1.arc.nasa.gov/solve/ - Click on "Mission Description"

http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Educat...one/ozone.html

This link is off the previous page, and covers the "for" and "against" arguments.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/chemistry/ - NASA's Goddard Institute - Atmospheric Chemistry site.