REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Scientists agree ... Consensus on Global Warming

POSTED BY: GHOULMAN
UPDATED: Friday, February 10, 2006 01:42
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 15439
PAGE 1 of 5

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 3:25 AM

GHOULMAN


The scientists (yes, science is real!) have been agreeing on Global Warming for years, it's the White House and thier cronies who have failed to give a rat's tiny pink arse.

Any news on the US and the Kyoto Accord or should I just assume Bush pooped on it? :x

I post this so those with a conscience can argue to the liars that yes, indeed, the sky is falling and they are to blame.

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
CLICK LINK FOR ARTICLE


.... here is another article (yes, I stole this story from /.)

Global Warming: A Perspective from Earth History
University of Leicester geologist Jan Zalasiewicz heads a group of eminent geologists which has just published a paper in The Guardian outlining its belief that the world is under serious threat of environmental destruction.
http://ebulletin.le.ac.uk/features/2000-2009/2004/12/nparticle-vkt-hgf
-t4c
CLICK LINK for YADDA, YADDA ...
Global warming: A Perspective from Earth History [A position paper of the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, first published in The Guardian]

Global climate change is increasingly recognised as the key threat to the continued development – and even survival - of humanity. Here, we give the context obtained from earth history, as the pattern of global environmental change in the past provides an indispensable context to establishing likely trajectories of future climate change. We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 11, 2004 2:31 PM

JAYNEZTOWN


more bad news on the enviornment, don't expect Bush to do anything about Kyoto's CO2 treaty

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 11, 2004 8:00 PM

SOUPCATCHER


I seem to vaguely recall that Russia was in the process of approving the Kyoto Protocol. This would make US approval a moot point.

[Does some quick web surfing]...

Yup. Here's something from last month:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/11/18/russia.kyoto.ap/index.html
Quote:
excerpted from article titled "Russia Kicks Off Kyoto Countdown" dated 18th November 2004
NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- Russia formally notified the United Nations on Thursday of its acceptance of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, starting a three-month countdown for the long-debated 1997 pact on cutting greenhouse gas emissions to come into force.

President Vladimir Putin signed the protocol into law earlier this month, allowing it to take effect in 128 nations that ratified it, said U.N. environmental agency spokesman Eric Falt. The United States has refused to join.

On Thursday, Russia's permanent representative to the United Nations, Andrei Denisov, turned over the accession documents to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in Nairobi, where the U.N. Security Council is holding a rare meeting outside its New York headquarters.

"I congratulate President Putin and the Russian Federation for their leadership in making it possible for the protocol to enter into force -- as it will, 90 days from tomorrow on Feb. 16, 2005," Annan said. "This is a historic step forward in the world's efforts to combat a truly global threat."

...

I'm not familiar enough with the Kyoto Protocol to know what exactly will happen on February 16 next year but I hope this is a step in the right direction. Since my country, the US, is far and away the leader in the emission of carbon dioxide and we are not making any changes the affect will be less than what it could be.

On a side note, I just found out about an interesting web resource for those interested in climate science. It's called RealClimate.org and is a sort of blog put out by a number of different climate scientists. It's only been going on for a few weeks but has lots of potential, at least IMHO. Here's an exercpt from an entry dated 9 December 2004:
Quote:
excerpted from http://www.realclimate.org/
...

RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary.

In order to limit the scope to those issues where we can claim some competence, the discussion here is restricted to scientific topics. Thus we will not get involved in political or economic issues that arise when discussing climate change. The validity of scientific information is completely independent of what society decides to do (or not) about that information. Constructive comments and questions are welcome, as are guest articles from other scientists who may choose to contribute on an occasional basis.

Here's some teaser entries from the past few days to give you a flavor for some of the things being posted on the site:
"Are Temperature Trends affected by Economic Activity?" 8 December
"Why does the stratosphere cool when the troposphere warms?" 7 December
"The Surface Temperature Record and the Urban Heat Island" 6 December
"Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays" 6 December
"The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment" 5 December

Since this isn't my field all I can do is peruse the qualifications and employment of the contributors ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10 ) and say this looks like a solid group of knowledgeable experts.

* Thanks to Josh Marshall at TPM for the initial link to the RealClimate.org site


There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 11, 2004 9:40 PM

ROCKETJOCK


Whenever the spectre of global warming rears up its head, I remember the horrible fuss made a few years ago over that hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. Everyone was convinced that it was proof that aerosol propellants had finally done the planet in.

What nobody in the media seemed to notice was that the hole was located fifty miles downwind of Mt. Erebus, one of the largest active volcanos on the planet. Erebus spews out more greenhouse gasses per week than combined human industry does in a year, and, after allowing for a consistant delay, the hole's size varied almost exactly with the volcano's activity cycle. Also, since upper atmosphere ozone regeneration is tied in with solar ultraviolet radiation levels, the polar regions, which are in darkness for months at at time, are much more vulnerable to such problems than the rest of the planet.

But, since none of that is likely to panic the public into watching a TV news show, or buying a magazine, it was largely ignored. Calm consideration just isn't sexy to advertisers.

But back to global warming; I hate the idea of agreeing with the Bush administration on anything, but even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. There's just as much evidence that the planet is heading into a new ice age, and that, ironically, industrial biproducts might be the only thing holding it back.

Anyone interested in the subject should read the novel Fallen Angels by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle and Michael F. Flynn, which, while fictional, is well researched on the subject of global climactic changes.

"I fear nothing, except for the sky falling!" -- Obelix the Gaul

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 12, 2004 7:35 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


No, the sky is NOT falling, and there's not 1 gorram thing anyone could do about it if it were. I know the scientific Drama Queen Crowd would just LOVE to pin this all on Bush, but the hard cold truth of hte matter is, they can't. Can't blame it on Bush, can't blame it on America, can't blame ANY of it on mankind at ALL!

The Earth is roughly 4.6 BILLION yrs old. During her time, this old girl has seen catastrophic collisions, sweeping climate changes on a global scale, massive volcanic eruptions ..and all with in the 1st billion yrs of her young life. Long before mankind stuck a match to his first fossil fuel, the oceans rose and fell due to variations in the global climate. Glaciers pushed across Canada ( not that many even noticed ) all the way to the northern 1/3 of the United States. Then they melted and receeded. How ? Must have been some early cave-man multi national corp that freely burned fossil fuels in order to make all those early cave- man, free market products! OR....it could be that the planet is merely going about its own business...greatly influenced by the cycles of the sun, continental drift and ever changing weather patterns.

The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo,Philipines (1991) released more gasses into the atmosphere than all the factories and automobiles in the entire history of mankind.
Quote:
The volume of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption was about 5 cubic km of dacite. It was the third largest eruption of this century. It produced the greatest volume of SO2 ever measured, 20 Mt, about three times more than El Chichon (McCormick, 1992). This gas reached the stratosphere and circled the globe in three weeks (Bluth and others, 1992).


But hey, lets not get into dusty old details about the history of this planet. It's far more fun to ignore the facts and just blame Bush, right ?

Umm, no.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 12, 2004 8:25 AM

KIRIKOLI


While I've been aware for some time that any good size volcano can do more damage to the atmosphere than we could do in a really, really long time, that doesn't mean that it's open season for pollution. While global warming may be a bunch of bull, there are many other things at stake simply because we do not understand climatology or ecosystems--macro or micro--well enough to make the call that we aren't hurting anything if we give large companies the chance to save a few bucks. Statistically, people are living longer, yes, but they are also less healthy. People are fat, increasingly have asthma, get common colds, need glasses...what happened to improving quality of life over putting a few bucks back in a corporation's pocket?

And maybe these things aren't directly tied to pollution. Astronomy is my area, not biology. Maybe diet is to blame. But then maybe pollution in the soil that grows the food that is eaten by our beef is to blame, not for everything, but for something. Find websites, read statistics...but always keep in mind that any good theory on this stuff should advertise itself as just a theory.

We do know that pollution harms things. It might not melt the polar ice caps and send massive land hurricanes around the globe like in the Day After Tomorrow (dumbest movie ever) any time soon, but really does something have to spell the end of the world for us to do something about it?

A lot of pollution is harmful and, within reason,unnecessary. And you know what? I do blame Bush because he is in a position to do something about it. Not that he's the only one, though. Not by far.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 12, 2004 11:45 AM

SIGMANUNKI


Wow, I wake up and people all of a sudden turn on what basically the entire scientific community has agreed upon. One should also note that this is a consencous of the *vast* majority of the scientific community that crosses disiplines! So, I ask you, how often does this happen? Shouldn't this basic fact kind of tell you something?

The most that I've seen an actual scientist say in the direction that global warming isn't happening is that, it's a natural phenomina that happens in cycles, but we are helping it along. Humans are having an impact on the environment.

What I really don't understand about people that say, it's natural and out of our hands is that, so it. But, even if we aren't doing it on a global scale, we are doing it on a local scale. Why isn't this clear?

Take a look at any oil spill. How many creatures died because of that? How much of the habitate did it kill? The answer is always, a lot?

Take a look at Hollywood. You can't even see the sign anymore because of the pollution.

Winnipeg (where I live) has some of the cleanest air (for a city) in North America. But, when I go out to the country (read: a few kilometers in any direction ) and then come back home, it is noticably stinky (read: polluted). Hell, I even go down outside (I live downtown) and it stinks.

Our collective health is going down. And this is all because a few *large* corps want to make a buck.

Take a look at the Dairy industry. The Dairy farmers, in the US, inject there cows with certain drugs to make them produce more milk. Unfortunatly it makes them more susceptible to infection, especially in there utter. What happens is that puss enters the milk to an unhealthy level (any level is just plain gross ). How many of you think that this won't effect our health?

Take a look at GW's "clean air act" that gives out points (that are transferable) to polluters for being clean or takes away for not. The problem here is that some chemicals that are *heavy* are included in the list. Sure CO_2 is a light gas that will spread, but some aren't. So, what you have in the end is a hot-bed of dangerous chemicals in some areas. Not exactly conducive to home gardens or farming healthy produce. This will also get into the water table, etc.

Take a look at another bill that passed that allows companies to clear cut basically without enviornmental oversight. WHAT THE HELL?

Clear cutting will remove the trees that will then leave the top soil vulnerable so nothing will grow there again since there is no soil. How about land slides? How about all the CO_2 that those trees removed from the air?


The problem is that the US is one of the biggest polluters on the planet and is ignoring this issue far beyond irresponsibility. The rest of the world is becoming more and more friendly toward the enviornment. Germany will reach its Kyoto goal years before it has to. Did it effect there economy? Yes. Did they recover? Yes. So, what the hell is the US thinking?

And even if you don't agree that global warming is happening, it is clear that corps. are currently running in an unsastainible way that is irroding the enviornment. What will happen when there is no more trees to cut down? What will happen where the soil, water, etc is so polluted that nothing will grow there anymore? How much money will be made then?

All I can say is

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 12, 2004 4:40 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:
Erebus spews out more greenhouse gasses per week than combined human industry does in a year.
Not true. Mt Erebus emits less than 185,000 tonnes of CO2 carbon per year, while human activity releases more than 7,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 carbon per year.

http://cobbles.eps.mcgill.ca/~wardell/old%20erebus%20results.htm
Initial measurements show that that the CO2 emission rate for Mt Erebus is 1850 tonnes per day (it calculates to less than 185,000 tonnes CO2 carbon per year.)

http://climate.wri.org/pubs_content_text.cfm?ContentID=2162
Each year, the burning of fossil fuels and biomass, along with other activities such as cement making, releases over seven billion metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere in the form of CO2.

You seem to be confusing the ozone hole with global warming. CO2 is the most prominent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and does not destroy upper atmosphere ozone.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 12, 2004 4:59 PM

SIGMANUNKI


And here is a brilliant graph that displays the increase in Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions over a 1000 year time span. Source is listed on the pic. Note the sharp increase that starts at around the time of the industrial revolution.

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/IPCC1ghgpast.GIF

It has become foolish to think that we as humans aren't affecting the enviornment. Why do people resist?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 12, 2004 6:08 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Ahhhh, there is nothing so fun as a watching a person drown in facts they don't quite understand.
Quote:
Auraptor: The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, Philippines (1991) released more gasses into the atmosphere than all the factories and automobiles in the entire history of mankind. Quote: "The volume of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption was about 5 cubic km of dacite. It was the third largest eruption of this century. It produced the greatest volume of SO2 ever measured, 20 Mt, about three times more than El Chichon (McCormick, 1992). This gas reached the stratosphere and circled the globe in three weeks (Bluth and others, 1992).
Dacite is a rock http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Products/Pglossary/dacite.html, so the '5 cu km of dacite' is type of volcanic ash. I don't quite know how this is supposed to relate to 'released more gasses into the atmosphere than all the factories and automobiles in the entire history of mankind'.

But, moving right along and checking the figures of SO2 gas released from Pinatubo:

Latest global per year estimates for human-generated SO2 sulfur is 92,044 kT (from 1985, before China started burning coal on a massive scale), total Pinatubo emissions were roughly 7,710 kT SO2 sulfur.

http://www.ortech.ca/cgeic/poster.html#Table%201
TOTAL SULPHUR (kilotonnes) 92,044 (1985) human anthropogenic SO2 sulfur
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Projects/Emissions/Reports/Pinatubo/table1.h
tml
17 +/- 2 Mt SO2 (7,710 kilotonnes SO2 sulfur)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 12, 2004 6:16 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


People resist because most of the 'findings' are nothing but inaccurate, misleading tripe intended on creating a 'chicken little ' mentality.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 12, 2004 6:21 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


To highlight the absurdity of the claims, here are the quotes again, with numbers:
Quote:
Erebus spews out more greenhouse gasses per week (505 tonnes) than combined human industry does in a year (7,000,000,000 tonnes).
Quote:
The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, Philippines (1991) released more gasses into the atmosphere (7,710 kT) than all the factories and automobiles in the entire history of mankind (92,044 kT per year).


These claims don't come close to computing with reality.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 12, 2004 6:33 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I never said that Dacite was a gas. Pardon the impression if that's how you read it. My POINT was that eruptions put out more gasses than does mankind. And eruptions aren't just 'one and done' events. They can last for weeks, months, years.... off and on. Mt Pinatubo was a large eruption , but only the 3rd largest in the last CENTURY. There have been many larger ones over the course of time. None of these eruptions were caused by man, but by nature.

So, does that mean we can pump raw sewage into the lakes and streams and not worry about anything ? Nope. Never remotely tried to make that silly claim either. Just put things into perspective, and realize this planet has been around for a whle and seen more than we can imagine.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 12, 2004 6:53 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:
eruptions put out more gasses than does mankind
A point which you fell FAR short of demonstrating. So, please, help yourself to the internet and supply real references for your suppositions. Or, let me speed it up. You will find that human activity at least doubles the global SO2 budget, and is at least equal to the total of ALL naturally occurring sources (not just volcanoes).
Quote:
But hey, lets not get into dusty old details about the history of this planet. It's far more fun to ignore the facts and just blame Bush, right?
But hey, you're not arguing for the status quo, are you? Neither are you partisan, I'll bet. It's just that you and Bush know more than the scientists who actually, you know, study these things. So OK, oh scientific guru, what was the cause of the violent climate shifts over the course of 2 bn years?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 12, 2004 8:36 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
People resist because most of the 'findings' are nothing but inaccurate, misleading tripe intended on creating a 'chicken little ' mentality.


Um, you do know how to read a graph, right?

Human impact is happening. The green house gases have sky-rocketed. There has been more and more violent climate changes from season to season for the past number of years.

As an example, this time of year 2 decades ago, when I was a kid, I made tunnels in the snow in my front yard, and had been doning so for a month or two.

Currently, you'd be lucky to find enough snow on my parents lawn, and there neighbours lawn, and there neighbours lawn... (you get the point) to make one snow pile.

Hello global warming.

What about the massive heat waves in Europe this past summer? What about Winnipeg's (a couple years ago) ever lasting winter (it lasted about 2 months too long)?

Insurance companies are starting to notice increased claims.

Rue's posted links, I got found that graph on http://www.davidsuzuki.org/. I get my knowledge from those that are "in the know." So, I now echo Rue's request. Please provide some links to where your information comes from.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 13, 2004 12:32 AM

SIMONWHO


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Just put things into perspective, and realize this planet has been around for a whle and seen more than we can imagine.


The survival of the planet isn't in doubt. What is in question is "life as we know it". People who go on about how the planet adjusts automatically have a point but the best way it has of getting back to a balanced system is to wipe us out, not that we're not doing our level best to do this ourselves.

People talk about "Well, the Earth naturally produces twice as much CO2 as mankind outputs." That may be true but this of it this way. If you were to eat an extra 50% on all your meals, how long before you were a bloated giant?

An ecosystem is like a seesaw, push one end down and something else pops up. There's going to be consequences if we keep casually messing around with the Earth and it's our children who will pay the price (plus me, I'm going to live forever).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 13, 2004 4:53 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


EPA has quite a lot of info on Global Warming as well. They seem to take it pretty seriously.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 13, 2004 9:08 AM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:

The survival of the planet isn't in doubt. What is in question is "life as we know it". People who go on about how the planet adjusts automatically have a point but the best way it has of getting back to a balanced system is to wipe us out, not that we're not doing our level best to do this ourselves.


Exactly!!! I have perfect confidence that the Earth will survive anything that we can throw at it. But, I also have full confidence that we can't survive what changes the Earth goes through because of what we throw at the Earth.

It's time for things to change. Europe has been doing this for some time and I know for a fact that there are forests in Germany that are coming back along with the animals that used to live there.

It's proof that if we do something, things can get better. That is, if we aren't past the point of no return already. I don't think we are... yet, but there are scientists who do.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 13, 2004 1:49 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Rue:
Quote:
The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, Philippines (1991) released more gasses into the atmosphere (7,710 kT) than all the factories and automobiles in the entire history of mankind (92,044 kT per year).


Yeah, my comments per Mt Pinatubo ( released more gases into the atmosphere than all the factories and automobiles in the entire history of manking.. ) way out of whack and I can't account for why/where I heard my info...thus I retract that statement. One minor corretion.... the amount of SO2 released by Mt Pinatubo was closer to 20 Kt, not 7, and that 20 Kt figure was mainly w/ in the 9 hr time span of the height of the eruption. Overall, the bulk of the volcanic activity lasted from June 12 - 16th, with minor events ocuring pre and post eruption.

Here are the facts.
June of 1991 Mt. Pinatubo erupted and released volcanic products that made a large impact on the stratosphere. (NASA web page) On June 15, 1991 the climatic eruption occurred with a duration of 9 hours, this eruptive event disgorged a cubic mile of volcanic debris and vented 18.14 million metric tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere and after reaching the stratosphere encircled the Earth in 3 weeks. This was the largest sulfur dioxide cloud ever detected to date by satellite (McGee 2001), and was 3 times more sulfur dioxide than was released by the El Chichon eruption . (Average comp. Pinatubo web page)


Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons). Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!

As well as sulfur, CO2, H2O, and a small amount of chlorine were released to the stratosphere (Gerlach and others, this volume), and some of the water may have been important in early formation of aerosols. Electron microprobe analyses of glass inclusions and matrix glass in Pinatubo dacitic pumice suggests that up to 4.4 wt% H2O was exsolved from the magma to a gas phase, implying the release of about 250 to 500 Mt of H2O during the June 15 eruption (Westrich and Gerlach, 1992; Gerlach and others, this volume). Although 3 Mt of chlorine was erupted (Gerlach and others, this volume) and was potentially available for subsequent participation in ozone-destroying reactions (Turco, 1991), observations by airborne infrared Fourier transform spectrometry of the stratospheric cloud 3 weeks after the June 15 eruption showed little increase in HCl above stratospheric background levels (Mankin and others, 1992; Wallace and Livingston, 1992). Erupted chlorine, as HCl, is highly soluble in water and is very efficiently scavenged by water droplets in the eruption column and rapidly returned to the surface of the Earth as precipitation (Tabazadeh and Turco, 1993). Much of the chlorine may have thus been removed from the atmosphere during or shortly after eruption.


Long story short, there is a clear increase in green house gases being recorded, but the jury is still out as to how these affect the atmosphere. In reality, there hasn't been NEAR enough time to conclusivly say whether or not man's activities are afecting the global climate.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 13, 2004 2:29 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Long story short, there is a clear increase in green house gases being recorded, but the jury is still out as to how these affect the atmosphere. In reality, there hasn't been NEAR enough time to conclusivly say whether or not man's activities are afecting the global climate.


OK, fine, lets say that everything that we are doing isn't effecting the global climate one little bit.

It has been seen that we are effecting the local climate significantly. Look to any paper about smog trapping heat, etc. Look to any paper about toxins entering the water-table, soil, etc.

So, it has been proven that even with the assumption above, we are killing ourselves.

So, at this point, you're going to have to explain to me why we as a world, shouldn't implement Kyoto or any other enviornmental protection scheme beyond it.

Isn't our own survival more important than a couple dollars? After all, no-one can make much money if we are only fighting for survival and no-one can make any money if everyone is dead.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 13, 2004 3:57 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


sigmanunki,

We're killing ourselves? Wasn't it 30 yrs ago that the Ohio River caught on fire because of all the dumping and filth? Things aren't as bad as they use to be, but I'm not so naive to think that we've done ALL that we can. I remember the doom and gloom images from back in the 70's and the 80's about how horrible the world will be by the year 2000. Well, 2000 came and went, and we're no where near those catastrophic predictions.



" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 13, 2004 6:48 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
sigmanunki,

We're killing ourselves? Wasn't it 30 yrs ago that the Ohio River caught on fire because of all the dumping and filth? Things aren't as bad as they use to be, but I'm not so naive to think that we've done ALL that we can. I remember the doom and gloom images from back in the 70's and the 80's about how horrible the world will be by the year 2000. Well, 2000 came and went, and we're no where near those catastrophic predictions.


Since then, the laws have changed. We've become better when it comes to these things... sorta. Chemical dumping, etc has been exteremely restricted, but the other things that effect the atmosphere (ie greenhouse gases) haven't.

How about how we drug our food? Do you really think that all the antibiotics/other drugs that are injected into the animal aren't in it's meat? Do you not think that that has an impact on our health?

Back in those days that you refer to, our cars were gas guslers. Then the automotive industry made a more fuel efficient car. Problem is, is that far more people drive now than then. I mean, how many cars per family on average did a family in the 70's have? How many cars per family now? More. How many people walk when they can in the US instead of driving? Not that many.

We (North America) have become worse in a more subtle way. You seem to be ignoring the failing health of people in general. You seem to be ignoring our polluted water tables, etc. ie Just because you still can get clean water, doesn't mean that your getting it from the same place nor does it mean that even the cleanest water availible doesn't require a lot of processing before human consumption.


Remember that thread a little while ago:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=6990
"
200 Number of regulation rollbacks downgrading or weakening environmental laws in Bush's first three years in office.
"
"
0 Number of times Bush mentioned global warming, clean air, clean water, pollution or environment in his 2004 State of the Union speech. His father was the last president to go through an entire State of the Union address without mentioning the environment.
"
"
1 Number of paragraphs devoted to global warming in the EPA's 600-page "Draft Report on the Environment" presented in 2003.
"
...
There is more in there about exactly how much GW cares about the environment. The read is quite enlightening about how GW "addresses" environmental concerns.

How is this helping address the environmental concerns of people? How is this helping?


It is clear that something drastic must be done before something drastic happens to our planet. She can take it, but it is clear that we cannot.

So, some questions for you.

Do you really think that it is natural to have so many people with asthma? Do you think that it is natural/healthy for cities to have smog alerts? Do you really think that it is natural/healthy to have a lot of cities declare that it's air is so polluted that it's more healthy to exercise indoors instead of doing it outdoors?

If you'd take those narrow minded goggles off for just a second, you'd see *tonnes* of environment related illnesses on the rise, and *a lot* more evidence around you than you'd care to admit. The problems are all around you, you just have your blinders on is all.

Environmental policy needs to change, period.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 14, 2004 10:29 AM

HERO


Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
The scientists (yes, science is real!) have been agreeing on Global Warming for years, it's the White House and thier cronies who have failed to give a rat's tiny pink arse.

Any news on the US and the Kyoto Accord or should I just assume Bush pooped on it? :x

I post this so those with a conscience can argue to the liars that yes, indeed, the sky is falling and they are to blame.


From Yahoo! news:
Climate Change Impact? Look in Your Backyard
By Juana Ines Casas

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (Reuters) - To witness the impact of a warming planet, one need not make a costly trip to the melting Arctic ice cap. Proof of climate change is right there in most people's backyards, scientists said on Tuesday.
**************************

Looked in my backyard this morning. Snow, 3 inches. Pretty much same as last year and year before that.

Turns out it was snow falling last night, not the sky. Nobody's to blame...just happens this time of year.

As I was gassing up my SUV this morning I paused to reflect on the Kyoto Accords. I heard a noise, it was an Accord spinning its wheels trying to get out of the parking lot onto the icy roads. Decided to stick with my SUV.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 14, 2004 11:34 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Sigmanunki:
Quote:
00 Number of regulation rollbacks downgrading or weakening environmental laws in Bush's first three years in office.
"
"
0 Number of times Bush mentioned global warming, clean air, clean water, pollution or environment in his 2004 State of the Union speech. His father was the last president to go through an entire State of the Union address without mentioning the environment.
"
"
1 Number of paragraphs devoted to global warming in the EPA's 600-page "Draft Report on the Environment" presented in 2003.
"
...
There is more in there about exactly how much GW cares about the environment. The read is quite enlightening about how GW "addresses" environmental concerns.

How is this helping address the environmental concerns of people? How is this helping?


It is clear that something drastic must be done before something drastic happens to our planet. She can take it, but it is clear that we cannot.

So, some questions for you.

Do you really think that it is natural to have so many people with asthma? Do you think that it is natural/healthy for cities to have smog alerts? Do you really think that it is natural/healthy to have a lot of cities declare that it's air is so polluted that it's more healthy to exercise indoors instead of doing it outdoors?

If you'd take those narrow minded goggles off for just a second, you'd see *tonnes* of environment related illnesses on the rise, and *a lot* more evidence around you than you'd care to admit. The problems are all around you, you just have your blinders on is all.


First of all, drop the 'narrow minded' card. If someone has a differnt view than you, that does not make them 'narrow minded ' by default. You speak of all these 'problems' that are everywhere. I'm out and about in the world every day, and don't see them. Does that mean I'm living in Utopica? Nope. But life is by definition a struggle, and I think folks tend to forget that.

Just because the people on the t.v. SAY it's not healthy to exercise outdoors doesn't make it so. Sorry, but I live in one of those cities that has 'smog alerts' and I've never had one hint of a problem breathing. Do I see the smog ? Yep, in the summer. When the conditions exist that, on occasion, does trap more particulates in the air. The term 'hazy days of summer' isn't new. I also know that tougher air quality controls are being put in place, even where the actaul air quality has gotten BETTER.

As for the President and what he SAYS about 'global warming' in a S.O.T.U. address, is irrelevent. It's his position that the threat of global warming is highly suspect and /or greatly exaggerated. I happen to agree with him on this issue. It makes perfect sense that if he doesn't view global warming to be a major issue, then there's little reason for him to pay it much attention.

And don't make the judgement that if others don't see eye to eye with you on a topic that it means they don't CARE. That's the biggest crock of go se in the world. We all have our lists of priorities and just because someone elses doesn't match yours, point for point, don't make them out to be some sort of villian. No body WANTS dirty air, dirty water or contaminated food, and it's just folly to project the idea that they do.

You actually sound a lot like I did when I was in H.S. I had this very engaging discussion w/ a classmate about how man kind was using up the natural resources and we'd better be careful...or else! I had believed what I was seeing on the news and reading in the papers about the deteriorating air/ water quality, food resources would be taxed to the limit.... it was the end of the world unless we acted RIGHT NOW!!!

That was almost 25 yrs ago. And while I do agree that we can do better, and we HAVE done better in some areas, there's no need for alarm.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 14, 2004 11:34 AM

SIGMANUNKI


For those of you who want to read the article that our dear "Hero" is refering to:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041214/sc_nm/environment
_climate_dc_3

But what he doesn't mention is the most interesting. For instance:
"
Butterflies that migrate to the Netherlands from Southern Europe used to arrive in May, but the recent warm years have produced first sightings in January.
"
You know, from May to January. Seems a significant time shift to me. But, maybe our "Hero" doesn't think that 4 months is significant.

There are more tid-bits in there to be sure.

All this kind of spells warmer to me.

Also, while talking to my wife, she has stated that because of the warmer temps. the apple orchards in Germany have had to switch the apple variety as the one prior doesn't survive or do well in the current climate.

Hmmm, seems to be changing to me... and everybody else that actually reads the articles.

Hero, thanks for another misleading post.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 14, 2004 12:06 PM

SIGMANUNKI


@AURaptor:
You make the fallacy that only I get my information about this sort of thing from the news papers; I don't. Most of the information I get comes from a wonderful community of science.

Secondly, I have asked many questions in my previous posts that you have skillfully avoided. Perhaps you should try to answer those questions before you make a knee-jerk reaction towards me.

You may be able to ignore all the evidence that global warming is happening, but I won't.

Third, you also seem to be ignoring any and all arguments that I've put forth based on the assumption that we aren't causing global warming. This is where I get the narrow minded opinion of you. Care to change that?

Lastly, these things are starting to effect the economy:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/global_climate_change/
"
Climate change matters to California. The repercussions of a change in climate are serious. They challenge the state's infrastructure investments and touch all sectors of the economy: water supply, agriculture, forestry, energy production, health, transportation, tourism and others.
"
also
"
Responding to climate change need not be an additional burden but can, in fact, promote economic development, ensure energy and economic security, and improve public health and safety.
"
So, it can be good for the economy.


Some notes:
I never said that people want dirty... I implied that people don't care and/or don't know.

I never said that if we don't do something that it'll all be over unless we do something RIGHT NOW! I stated that if we don't do something we're all . And I said that I don't think that it is too late... explicitly. Read before you imply these things.

And don't try to minimize what I know and think about climate change by stating that this is similar (read: not exactly as you imply) to what you thought in highschool. There are a lot of very respected scientists that this is what they do that think the same as me. So, you must forgive me if I listen to them and not a layman like yourself.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 14, 2004 4:07 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


SigmaNunki

Many respected scientist also thought that Dinosaurs were cold blooded. Some still do. There will always be disagreements when it comes to matters of science. That is the beauty and the bane of science, there is no 'absolute and complete ' conclusion.

Yes, I am a layman on this issue and make no claims to the contrary. But I too read up on science, and am aware of how competing views can grow into heated( no pun intended ) rivalries and even deep seeded animostity.

I'm also aware of how politics can influence one's perspective. While reading up on some volcanic info in regards to global warming, I came across a rather thinly veiled comment about how President Bush was 'installed' in 2000. With out opening up that can of worms, let me say that there was no reason for that comment to be put in there UNLESS the writer had some agenda in which to promote. Slipping that in simply wasn't germane to the issue at hand.

Finally:
- I made no 'fallacy' of how you obtain your info. I was reiterating MY personal experience. Don't try to read more into my words than I indend.
- I'll try to get back to your questions as best I can. There has been no attempt to intentionally avoid your questions.
- Ignore the evidence? Right now , it's mid December, and the outside temp is BELOW normal. But more to the point, my perspective on this issue isn't to focus on the past 10,50 or even 1000 yrs., but 100,000's and even millions. 75 million yrs ago, the Gulf of Mexico covered the heartland of the US and reached all the way up into Canada, seperating the West and the East US by a shallow, warm sea. The earth gradually cools and heats up over not decades but millions of yrs. During those cycles, there are bound to be fluctutations. We don't know the causes of this, but we DO know it occured long before man ever roamed the savannahs of Africa.

- I doubt I'll be able to change your opinion. As for my part, I'll continue to follow this issue and position my views according to the data. If it changes, then so be it. I wonder if you can be so 'open minded' yourself.



" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 15, 2004 10:17 AM

SIGMANUNKI


@AURaptor:
It's just not many scientists, it's a scientific concensus. There is a significant difference.


I listen to scientists that research this stuff because they know. If they figure something out that changes there minds, then I'll read, understand and follow suit.


You say that it's below the average temp where you are. Well, if you do indeed read up on this stuff then you are aware that global warming is for the global average temp. That there are predictions of more exterem weather. That this temp of your fits the description.


And by the way, if some scientists somehow work in some opinion about some social issue in there paper, it in no way affects there results. There results are there results, it speaks for itself. How does working something more in effect the results? It doesn't. And if it was published in a journal, then it went through peer review and as such is considered good science. Thus, there is no reason to doubt it's conclusions.


And by the way, you dismissed my post that linked to a previous thread about what GW had done. You seemed to think (I have this opinion b/c it's what you typed) that it was from a S.O.T.U address. Well, it wasn't. It's what he did do in the first 3 years of office.


But, since I don't think that we can produce anything more productive, I'll say, you stay on your side and I'll stay on mine. Time will tell what's what. Somehow I think that'll be somewhere in the middle.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 15, 2004 10:51 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


20 Kt, not 7
I used the figure 17 plus or minus 2

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 15, 2004 11:00 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


It seems AURaptor is waiting for .... something. He understands science evolves, and so, rather than acceed to what is NOW understood, he is hoping for something more compatible with his own preconceived outlook. And that is the difference betwween science and dogma - science goes where the data takes it, dogma does not.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 15, 2004 2:50 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Rue - you got one thing wrong. We DON'T understand the dynamics of global climate change. We've barely scratched the surface. Carl Sagan, whom I respect and admire greatly, was none the less wrong a time or two. He and others , using computer models, predicted the impact of the over 700 Kuwait oil well fires from the Gulf War. They emphatically stated that this enviro disaster would lower the average temperatures globally. However, the effects were far LESS disasterous than they predicted. They were wrong. That doesn't discredit ALL that he did, not by a long shot. But it did show that when it comes to weather patterns and global climate predictions, we really don't know what we're doing - yet.

So yes, I am still waiting. Waiting till mankind gets a better understanding of the world he lives in and the 'verse from which we all come.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 15, 2004 3:24 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Right now, global warming IS the better understanding. To fail to come to grips with that indicates you are clinging to dogma rather than following the data.

But say you're unbiased. What is your basis to determine that the science is 'good enough'? Does it have to come into common wisdom? Does it have to have an irretrievable impact on your life? Or do you propose to analyze the data on your own?

As scientists do more to understand more, that future understanding will then be the 'better understanding', b/c that's where the data will have led. And you won't see me clinging to the old model either.

Neither should you be clinging to the old model now.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 15, 2004 6:08 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Right now, global warming IS the better understanding. To fail to come to grips with that indicates you are clinging to dogma rather than following the data.

But say you're unbiased. What is your basis to determine that the science is 'good enough'? Does it have to come into common wisdom? Does it have to have an irretrievable impact on your life? Or do you propose to analyze the data on your own?

As scientists do more to understand more, that future understanding will then be the 'better understanding', b/c that's where the data will have led. And you won't see me clinging to the old model either.

Neither should you be clinging to the old model now.


Rue - what will it take ? It'll take time. Not years or decades, but possibly 100 - 500 yrs. Who can say for sure ? But one thing I'm not ready to do is take a swan dive into the lastest "Cause of the Month" Club when it comes to trendy fads.


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 16, 2004 6:46 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Let me approach this from another perspective. You feel the science is not good enough. Therefore, you are, indisputably, placing yourself in judgement of the science. If it is not good enough now, what will it have to be to be good enough? That's all I'm asking you to consider with this post.

What is your criteria for YOU to accept global climate science as 'good science'?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 16, 2004 7:26 AM

HERO


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
what will it have to be to be good enough? That's all I'm asking you to consider with this post.

What is your criteria for YOU to accept global climate science as 'good science'?


Looked out my window. More snow. Opened the door. Cold. That's 'good enough' for me.

I'm never gonna take your science serious if you keep telling me about global warming in the middle of December. The sky aint falling, thats snow, same snow as last year, two years before that, the century before that, the millenium before that and, God willing, the millenium century, and years to come. Its cold in the winter, warm in the summer, sometimes not so cold, sometimes not so warm, sometimes it rains too much, sometimes not enough, every now and then a big storm comes, once in a while the Earth moves. The only thing that is really constant is the people shouting "the end is near" everytime any of the above happens. It was funny the first thousand years, since then ya'll are just sad.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 16, 2004 12:44 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Hero,
I already know what you think, you posted it earlier.

AURaptor,
I'm still wondering what criteria you are using to judge the science as good enough or not yet up to snuff. Since you are saying it isn't good enough yet, you are waiting for something. What is that something?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 16, 2004 12:47 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Let me approach this from another perspective. You feel the science is not good enough. Therefore, you are, indisputably, placing yourself in judgement of the science. If it is not good enough now, what will it have to be to be good enough? That's all I'm asking you to consider with this post.

What is your criteria for YOU to accept global climate science as 'good science'?


I told you. Time. Once we see the Statue of Liberty wading knee deep in NY Harbor because the oceans have risen, THEN I'll be satisfied. ( sarcasm off ) How about some good, hard evidence, recorded over a vast amount of time? So as to make sure that we're not misidentifying the cause/effect scenario for something that it ISN'T ? Oh, call me crazy.

Q for you, rue: How do you explain the receeding polar caps....on OTHER PLANETS ? eg: Mars? Tell me Mars is somehow being effected by the planes, trains and automoblies down here on Earth. This i gotta hear.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 16, 2004 12:56 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


HERO

Here Here! .. for good old common sense. Seems that stuff is in short supply these days. Glad to know it still can be found.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 16, 2004 7:27 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


You edited your post. This answer reflects your original post which did not single out Mars:

http://eaa.iop.org/index.cfm?action=summary&doc=eaa%2F4430%40eaa-xml
Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics
"In the solar system, the Earth, Mars and Neptune's major satellite Triton are known to possess polar caps."
http://www.plutoportal.net/aboutplutocharon.htm
"the (Pluto) maps reveal polar caps and other high-contrast surface units. Perihelion was reached in 1989; the system is now receding from the Sun."

That both of Earth's polar caps and its glaciers are receding is not in doubt.

Mars' southern polar cap may be retreating, but that conclusion is not certain because it was only a one year observation.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html
There is no evidence the north polar cap is shrinking year to year.

There is a site that indirectly indicates Triton's southern polar cap is growing. http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/ v30n3/dps98/247.htm

As for Pluto/Charon, one site indicated the polar caps grow and shrink with the seasons. However, since the Pluto is receding from the sun, I don't think the polar caps will be shrinking soon.

There is no generalized 'melting' of polar caps, whether ice, CO2, methane or nitrogen going on for the solar system. However, there IS a generalized melting of ice on Earth.

Quote:
How about some good, hard evidence, recorded over a vast amount of time? So as to make sure that we're not misidentifying the cause/effect scenario for something that it ISN'T ?
Some problems with your answer. One: length of observation doesn't address cause/effect. Only close study will do that. So, to put it in your terms: even if Earth's ice were completely melted and the Statue of Liberty was drowning, you couldn't tell from that fact alone what was cause and what was effect. You need additional information. Two: the earth is indisputably warmer. I don't know why you need for ALL the ice to melt to figure that out.

So your 'common sense' (or Hero's) is what you depend on to condemn science. At least we've clarified things a bit. You've gone from feigning scientific discernment to saying you're just agin' it 'cause it doesn't square with your notions.

Finally, I noticed you didn't answer my question about severe global climate change on Earth over 2 bn years. You may be reluctant to look it up, thinking it's a red herring. So, let me give you this hint: it's a real question with a real answer. In fact, here's another hint: the reasons do not apply to earth today.

Now, impress me with your knowledge. The clock is ticking.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 16, 2004 8:04 PM

KUKOO


Having just read an article today on msnbc about the current affects of global warming, I thought I would post a link to it and recap the highlights for those who are saying that global warming is not affecting the environment because it is still snowing in December. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6720088/

- 2004 was the 4th warmest year on record.
- The 10 warmest years, since records have been kept have all been recorded since 1990.
- Over the last ten years there has been an increase in severe weather activity, including in 2004, the 4 hurricanes in the carribean, typhons in Asia, and heat waves in Europe.

Now, severe weather and hurricanes have always been around, but it does seem to be getting worse. And while the earth's weather patterns are constantly changing, for both economic and humanitarian reasons we want those changes to happen at a slow enough pace for us to adapt, or get the hell out of the way. The concern for me is that due to all of the crap we are pumping into the environment, we are forcing these changes at an ever increasing pace, which may change our environment quicker then we can adapt to it.

On a sidenote, not only does the scientific community seem to want emissions control and reductions, the international community does as well, and how can we expect the international community to do what we want on issues important to us when we refuse to even negotiate or discuss issues important to them?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 16, 2004 8:05 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


rue:

The clock is not ticking, except perhaps in your mind. If I have the time and the interest , I'll get around to answering your needlessly inane questions. This is a message board. I'm stating my opinions and not here to 'win you over' or try to impress you. It is not a concern of mine that you are impresed by me in the least. For you see, it is you, not I that has an issue. I see no reason to discuss that which isn't of any real enviromental concern, for the very reasons I've already posted.

In no way do I 'condemn science'. I have no idea where you're getting that notion from, as I have made clear that I appreciate and admire HONEST, real science, and not politically driven pseudo science. I can site specific cases where 2 highly regarded scientist in the same field , both bearing the highest of credentials and utmost respect by their peers offer up directly opposing views on a single issue. Their goals are exactly the same, to learn and understand as best they can, yet they see the same evidence in different lights. There agreements far outnumber their disagreements, but at a critical point, their views separate. This is how science works. It's not perfect, but it IS self correcting - over time. Sorry there isn't a quickie answer for all your questions, scientific discovery doesn't offer us a drive thru sevice. If you wanted fries w/ that, you'll just have to wait.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 16, 2004 9:18 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

If I have the time and the interest , I'll get around to answering your needlessly inane questions.


I'll read this as, "I don't want to answer questions that will inevitably lead me to a conclusion that I don't want to admit."


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I can site specific cases [snip]


Anyone can say this. So, cite away.


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Sorry there isn't a quickie answer for all your questions, scientific discovery doesn't offer us a drive thru sevice. If you wanted fries w/ that, you'll just have to wait.


You are aware of the history behind the scientific concensus, right? I mean, you do realize that it's been decades of an uphill battle for those that believed and then finally had enough evidence to convince even the most skeptical people on the planet, right?

Those most sckeptical being scientists. We tend to be rather sckeptical to new contravertial ideas but open enough to admit when they are true.


And I find it funny that you try to make it seem that this global warming thing just popped up out of thin air one day. At least with this comment anyway.


I got this off realclimate.org:
http://www.gcrio.org/gwcc/booklet1.html

And this one:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/

From this last link you can find this one:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm

That is a nice representation of an increase in average global tempurature. Here's a nice quote from the last link:
"
Nevertheless the rate and duration of warming of the 20th century has been much greater than in any of the previous nine centuries. Similarly, it is likely that the 1990s have been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium.
"

Perhaps you should read and learn about what you are talking about before you form an opinion. Quite frankly, it scares me what you consider common sense.


I've also noticed that Rue, Kukoo, SoupCatcher and myself have posted links and spoken about where we've gotten our info supporting that this is happening.

Geezer has even posted a link to your own federal government that supports that global warming is happening and I posted a link from Cal. gov. the states the same. This leads to the conclusion that you are on very shaky ground saying that it isn't.

So, if you'd enlighten us with where you get your info that has kept you so very sckeptical on what the experts agree on, it'd be appreciated.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 18, 2004 11:29 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


AURaptor,
Just a sampling of your global warming comments:
Quote:
Earth has seen sweeping climate changes on a global scale
the planet is greatly influenced by sun cycles, continental drift
The earth gradually cools and heats up over millions of yrs. We don't know the causes of this

You claim historic perspective. I challenged your understanding of the history you yourself referenced. There is no doubt that Earth's climate underwent large-scale, sometimes abrupt climate changes. There is a cause for that, and it doesn't apply to Earth today. You obviously don't know what it was that caused the past climate shifts you referenced.
Quote:
most of the 'findings' are nothing but inaccurate, misleading tripe
there hasn't been NEAR enough time to conclusively say (if) man's activities are affecting the global climate
I agree (with Bush) the threat of global warming is highly suspect and /or greatly exaggerated
I appreciate and admire HONEST, real science, and not politically driven pseudo science.

You dismiss the science simply because it doesn't square with your notions. You have no analysis on which to base your opinions. They rest on personal bias.
Quote:
can't blame ANY of it on mankind at ALL
there's no need for alarm
politics can influence one's perspective
politically driven pseudo science

Have you looked in the mirror lately for politically driven pseudo-science?

I'd also like to point out that the international scientific community is not funded the same way the US scientific community is funded, nor is it driven by US-internal considerations. The international scientific community has been working on this for decades, struggling to come to a conclusion: compiling over a century of maritime data (mean sea temperatures), drilling ice cores all over the planet, monitoring greenhouse gases, studying the effects of tropical forests, noting the decline of boreal forests around the globe, measuring the shrinking of both polar ice caps as well as glaciers around the world, using expensive supercomputer time to model the climate ... and more. Of all the things one can profitably discuss about global warming, the fact that the Earth IS warmer is not one of them. And yet you are so narrow-minded and provincial, you can look at a 30 year global effort of competing research teams, and think that it's all a recent political scam (politically driven pseudo science) to get Bush. Sheesh.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 18, 2004 1:59 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Rue:

No, I dismiss them for the very valid reasons I stated, not your self reinforcing spin.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 19, 2004 10:35 AM

SIGMANUNKI


@Rue:
I find it interesting that we've both posed very good questions to AURaptor that he refuses to answer.

I also find it interesting that we've supported our opinions about this with links to various sites and documents that AURaptor refuses to even address. He's even refused to do the same.

I've even gone so far to assume that this global warming is all just nonsense and was still gave a list of reasons why we should adopt the same enviornmental conservationist mentality. Something else that he didn't comment on.

We've both confronted him and said, give me links. Give me the science that you so adamantly defend. And he has failed to produce one single thing.

I would conjecture at this time, because of these things, that this "science" he speaks of, is as you say, his own personal feelings based on nothing but what he thinks, based on no actual knowledge of the subject at hand.

It is very interesting to see a grown man effectively cover his ears and yell "LA LA LA, I'M NOT LISTENING, LA LA LA!"

It's sad really.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 19, 2004 2:17 PM

SOUPCATCHER


In reading this thread I had an aha moment. It reminds me of engineering analysis problems where the key is deciding where to draw the boundary. From my perspective, the differences between the position of AURaptor/Hero/others and that of Rue/SigmaNunki/others is a conflict between the size of the boundary. If I define a small localized boundary to the problem of global warming then I can see the point of view of AURaptor/Hero: namely that if I don't see immediate changes in my own environment then this isn't a problem that will affect me personally during my lifetime. If I define a very large boundary to the problem then I can see the point of view of Rue/SigmaNunki (although, in all fairness, this is my position anyway so it's not difficult to see my own point of view ).

If I take a first person empirical approach to global warming and step outside and use that as my primary measurement then there is no problem. I live in California. It's a very mild climate. If anything, it seems a bit colder this year than in previous years. So just from my own perspective, global warming is not something I concern myself with.

If I look at myself as one small part of the human race and think in terms of the long view and of a planetary ecosystem then there is a problem. The drastic changes in the Arctic in regards to tundra and the potential mass extinctions that would follow from a climate change directly affect my species. So from a long term perspective, global warming is something I concern myself with.

But I see limited success in having a dialogue on this topic when the boundaries that people are working from are so different. We're really talking about apples and oranges.

Just thinking out loud is all.


There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 19, 2004 4:00 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Sigma....

Yep, you're right. You win the debate. I lose. Doesn't change a damn thing in the 'verse though. Feel better now ?

Played this game w/ Young Earth Creationist and Holocaust deniers. You believe what you want, as will I.



" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 19, 2004 5:37 PM

HERO


I was catching up on the latest discussions here on global warming.

Just an update from my backyard: more snow. Lots more snow. Been snowing all day. Snowed last night. Snowed every day this week, but more today then every other day combined...today is what we herebouts call a "snow storm".

Most scientists are unfamiliar with the concept. Its caused by global cooling that occurs every year bout this time in the northern hemisphere. Cold air from Canada crosses Lake Erie and poof: snow up to my dog's ass. Most of the scientists don't recognize this type of event. I can understand their confusion. They were all down in Rio. Maybe they need to hold a December climate conference in Cleveland, then talk about global warming.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 20, 2004 7:47 PM

SIGMANUNKI


@SoupCatcher:
I agree with your analysis, but I must point out, that like yourself, I acknowledge the global part of the term global warming.

@AURaptor:
Please refer to my prior remark about you behaving childishly.

@Hero:
It is clear by your comments that you don't actually know what is meant by the term global warming.

Please take the time to look it up.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 20, 2005 5:16 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


An article about other threats to global environment in addition to global warming:

Professor Jared Diamond, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said society was on the brink of irreversible decline unless 12 major environmental problems were tackled.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=603040

Independent

Next generation may be doomed to live in 'global Somalia'
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
21 January 2005

An environmental collapse that would transform the world into a "global Somalia" could begin in 50 years if we fail to do anything about it, a world authority on the rise and fall of civilisations warned yesterday. Professor Jared Diamond, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said society was on the brink of irreversible decline unless 12 major environmental problems were tackled.

Professor Diamond, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author, has spent many years studying the reasons why some societies in history thrived and others slipped into decline. He cited present-day Somalia as among several places where environmental degradation has already helped to trigger a collapse of government and the rule of law.

"Conditions of Somalia will spread," he said. "Somalia is an example of a worst-case scenario. State government has collapsed; it is a dry landscape, difficult to manage and, not surprisingly, it has problems of environmental degradation.

"There are plenty of countries where state government is moving towards collapse ... We will be living in a global Somalia if we don't do anything about it. My children, who are 17 years old, will be living in a global Somalia unless we solve our problems."

He warned that the omens were not looking good for the rich countries to survive the 21st century without a serious and possibly catastrophic drop in their present standard of living.

"If we continue doing the things we are doing now the outcome, which is not the worst-case scenario but the actual outcome, would be that we don't arrive at the end of the century," Professor Diamond said. "Most of our problems are ones with 30- to 50-year time fuses. That is the rate at which we are exploiting the world ... So if we carry on we do not arrive at the end of the century with a First-World lifestyle."

Professor Diamond, who was in London to publicise his book Collapse: How Societies Chose to Fail or Survive, said there were several possibilities if exploitation of the planet and its resources continued at the present rate. "The worst-case scenario can range from an apocalypse to something greyer. An apocalpyse would include fighting in dead earnest [over natural resources]," he said.

"There are also gentler outcomes. Today, there are countries that are poor and getting poorer. So one gentler outcome would be that poverty just spreads. Today, most African countries are poor and quite a few South American countries are poor. A gentle-worst-case scenario is that Brazil becomes poorer and Mexico becomes poorer and in Europe poverty spreads. Instead of eastern Europe catching up to western Europe, western Europe declines towards eastern Europe."

Most of the problems, such as deforestation and soil erosion, were similar to those that led to the collapse of societies ranging from the Maya in Mexico, the Easter Islanders and the Norse inhabitants of Greenland, he said. But the world was also facing global warming and more toxic pollution. "We need to do much more than we are doing now," Professor Diamond said.

© 2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Oops! Clown Justin Trudeau accidently "Sieg Heils!" a Nazi inside Canadian parliament
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:24 - 4 posts
Stupid voters enable broken government
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:04 - 130 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:09 - 7499 posts
The predictions thread
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:02 - 1190 posts
Netanyahu to Putin: Iran must withdraw from Syria or Israel will ‘defend itself’
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:56 - 16 posts
Putin's Russia
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:51 - 69 posts
The Olive Branch (Or... a proposed Reboot)
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:44 - 4 posts
Musk Announces Plan To Buy MSNBC And Turn It Into A News Network
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:39 - 2 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:35 - 4763 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:05 - 565 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:01 - 953 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, November 24, 2024 16:24 - 4799 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL