Global Warming

Maxwell511 · Jan 16, 2007

KenH said:
What caused the last major ice age to end which was thousands of years before man's industrial activity? What caused global warming then?

There is a natural cycle in CO2 and warming due to changes in the Earths orbit. This however is not what we are talking about generally when we talk about global warming in its modern context. If you look at the graph below you will see that current CO2 levels are about 25% higher than the highest peak in the cycle in the last 400 thousand years. This is our doing. We were already at this natural peak before we started throwing huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. You cannot blame these natural processes on current global warming.

upps64 · Jan 17, 2007

I'm responding to the question that started the thread, I don't that that the U.S. is skecptical, rather more of disbelive of the whole thing. Yea there are groups and advoctes of GW, but for the most part I think a simple majority think its a load of crap, cause it's made more or less just for political uses. Many Nasa guys have come out and said that if they did not say this or that about GWing they would loss their gov. funding, so they say what ever their told.

Now, where I stand if your wondering is that I think GWing in any type of exsitance is part of a natural cycle with the planet, but the human effect is zilch, at most non-effective. And looking at what tech. has done, it has lowwer co2 levels in industry and any vehical to such a low amount that when combined and then compared to any natrual co2 producing naturally occuring, we contribut to an extermaly low amount to the total co2 levels. Tech. has gotten so good that on some aircraft the outgoing air is actually cleaner than the intaked air. Now that might just be on millitary air craft but I know they got the engines. Tire wear on your car pollutes more than fumes coming out of the tail pipe of cars now, and auto exects will admit to this.

If anyone wanted to stop any kind of GWing they would have to have the ability to stop an earthquake or volocano. The oceans, deep vents, produce huge amouts of co2, in a day that make la's pullution levels look paridise. The fact is no one can stop the natural earth events that cause about 90% of all co2 levels, heat temps, weather effects. And this hasn't even gotten to the earths mag. field, or other solar events. If any one country thinks that they can manipulate such a massive feat as to control overal heat of the planet, they would also be able to make, destroy, direct and control the power of any weather patern involed. And the only thing that I've heard of to this effect is just the creation of rain clouds, but one can not really control the size, direction or strength of such events, and are only attempt in time of extream drought.

chaim · Jan 17, 2007

I don't mean to be harsh mate - but you have no idea what you are talking about. Could you please name some of these NASA guys who have been made to say things about global warming? Because I am pretty sure you have it completely backwards - there have been several instances of people in NASA and other federal agencies being censored for try to speak up about global warming (link )

If the current warming is natural - what is causing it? Climate scientist have established a robust causal link between increased CO2 and warmer climate - the onus now is on those who keep claiming it is natural to show what the natural mechanism is that is causing the earth to warm. So far no one has.

Your rant about emissions and industry is way off the deep end, if you had taken a minute to look at the data you would see that the US GHG emissions are steadily growing, (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads06/06Trends.pdf)

You are dead wrong about volacnic sources of CO2 - they are insignificant when compared to man made source. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide)

Yet again, a global warming skeptic demonstrates their lack of understanding of global warming.

upps64 said:
I'm responding to the question that started the thread, I don't that that the U.S. is skecptical, rather more of disbelive of the whole thing. Yea there are groups and advoctes of GW, but for the most part I think a simple majority think its a load of crap, cause it's made more or less just for political uses. Many Nasa guys have come out and said that if they did not say this or that about GWing they would loss their gov. funding, so they say what ever their told.

Now, where I stand if your wondering is that I think GWing in any type of exsitance is part of a natural cycle with the planet, but the human effect is zilch, at most non-effective. And looking at what tech. has done, it has lowwer co2 levels in industry and any vehical to such a low amount that when combined and then compared to any natrual co2 producing naturally occuring, we contribut to an extermaly low amount to the total co2 levels. Tech. has gotten so good that on some aircraft the outgoing air is actually cleaner than the intaked air. Now that might just be on millitary air craft but I know they got the engines. Tire wear on your car pollutes more than fumes coming out of the tail pipe of cars now, and auto exects will admit to this.

If anyone wanted to stop any kind of GWing they would have to have the ability to stop an earthquake or volocano. The oceans, deep vents, produce huge amouts of co2, in a day that make la's pullution levels look paridise. The fact is no one can stop the natural earth events that cause about 90% of all co2 levels, heat temps, weather effects. And this hasn't even gotten to the earths mag. field, or other solar events. If any one country thinks that they can manipulate such a massive feat as to control overal heat of the planet, they would also be able to make, destroy, direct and control the power of any weather patern involed. And the only thing that I've heard of to this effect is just the creation of rain clouds, but one can not really control the size, direction or strength of such events, and are only attempt in time of extream drought.

chaim · Jan 17, 2007

We have gone over this many times in previous threads - ice ages are caused by orbital dynamics. This both causes the ice age and then warms the earth up afterwards. The changes in the earths orbit, decreases then increases the amount sunlight hitting the earth, hence it cools and then warms. Current measurements of the solar constant show no such variation at the moment - so clearly this is not the mechanism causing the current warming. The previously posted graph of atmospheric CO2 should also be a fairly good indicator that something funny is going on.

KenH said:
What caused the last major ice age to end which was thousands of years before man's industrial activity? What caused global warming then?

The Lone Gunmen · Jan 17, 2007

If the representatives that tout global warming preach to us proles about how important it is that we make profound changes in our lives, but proceed to fly around in the country in private jets, it can't be that big of a deal, can it?

draper · Jan 17, 2007

The Lone Gunmen said:
If the representatives that tout global warming preach to us proles about how important it is that we make profound changes in our lives, but proceed to fly around in the country in private jets, it can't be that big of a deal, can it?

And the politicians who don't address global warming obviously don't use jets, right?

Really -- the idea that the personal conduct of a politican who has taken a side on a given matter should subtract from the problem the matter represents is very absurd.

The Lone Gunmen · Jan 17, 2007

draper said:
And the politicians who don't address global warming obviously don't use jets, right?

Really -- the idea that the personal conduct of a politican who has taken a side on a given matter should subtract from the problem the matter represents is very absurd.

If someone wants to tell me that I need to conserve whatever, in order to protect mommy earth and all that jazz, then they had darn well better be doing that themselves otherwise, for some strange reason (Gee, I wonder what that might be.) I find myself somewhat disinclined to believe the message that they are trying to present.

If not, they can go suck eggs or pound sand.

chaim · Jan 17, 2007

So you think because Al Gore (I assume that is who you are talking about) flies on a private jet that somehow invalidates the science behind climate change? I guess you also think we shouldn't be honorable because politicians (Mark Foley) and religious leaders (Ted Haggart) aren't?

There are plenty of environmentalists who practice what the preach, just like there are plenty of religious leaders who practice what they preach (I won't say as much about politicians.)

Keep up with the pellet stove it is a good start!

The Lone Gunmen said:
If someone wants to tell me that I need to conserve whatever, in order to protect mommy earth and all that jazz, then they had darn well better be doing that themselves otherwise, for some strange reason (Gee, I wonder what that might be.) I find myself somewhat disinclined to believe the message that they are trying to present.

If not, they can go suck eggs or pound sand.

The Lone Gunmen · Jan 17, 2007

So you think because Al Gore (I assume that is who you are talking about) flies on a private jet that somehow invalidates the science behind climate change? I guess you also think we shouldn't be honorable because politicians (Mark Foley) and religious leaders (Ted Haggart) aren't?

No, but the fact that he flies around in a plane makes it quite clear how important global warming is to him, and the amount of worry I should waste on it.

Maxwell511 · Jan 17, 2007

The Lone Gunmen said:
No, but the fact that he flies around in a plane makes it quite clear how important global warming is to him, and the amount of worry I should waste on it.

But most of the things that people can do are a direct benefit to themselves. Saving electricity, good insulation and better fuel efficient cars, save you money.

Zimfan · Jan 17, 2007

chaim said:
Your rant about emissions and industry is way off the deep end, if you had taken a minute to look at the data you would see that the US GHG emissions are steadily growing, (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads06/06Trends.pdf)

U.S. greenhouse emissions have grown 17% over the past 15 or so years, while the economy has grown 51%? That's actually not nearly as bad as I would have expected, especially when you consider how much higher emissions per capita compared to GDP per capita are for some supposedly more environment-friendly countries(Canada being the most obvious example).

I hope the country's gdp continues to rise much faster than emissions per capita, preferably with the latter starting to actually go down.

chaim said:
You are dead wrong about volacnic sources of CO2 - they are insignificant when compared to man made source. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide)

Yet again, a global warming skeptic demonstrates their lack of understanding of global warming.

Where in that link is there a comparision between volcanic and man made sources made? The best I can find is a graph that shows that emissions have gone up far more quickly since the industrial revolution.

I'd be a bit curious about how the two sources stack up. I hear a lot of people argue that volcanoes throw far more CO2 molecules into the air than say, factories, but I've never seen any numbers.

Also, did you find this somewhat alarming, too?
"In 1997, Indonesian peat fires may have released 13%40% as much carbon as fossil fuel burning does"

That must be a lot of peat. I grew up in Pittsburgh and I've seen how much smoke burning coal can put into the air.

Sycophant · Jan 17, 2007

The Lone Gunmen said:
No, but the fact that he flies around in a plane makes it quite clear how important global warming is to him, and the amount of worry I should waste on it.

Maybe he feels the work he can do by promoting emission reduction outweighs the negative effects of something like that. I dunno.

One person who is putting their money where their mouth is on this one is Richard Branson who was a climate-change skeptic until fairly recently, but is now investing billions into biofuel and is committed to reducing the emissions of Virgin's aircraft.

I admire Branson and am pleased to see him tackling something like this, because unlike the existing fuel companies he has no vested interest in fossil fuel, and is a person who commits to achieving his goals.

Sycophant · Jan 17, 2007

Zimfan said:
I'd be a bit curious about how the two sources stack up. I hear a lot of people argue that volcanoes throw far more CO2 molecules into the air than say, factories, but I've never seen any numbers.

I believe the issue with natural sources of carbon is that the earth traditionally has a equilibrium in emission and absorption. However the human influence does two things - increase overall carbon (industrial emission, large-scale livestock farming, etc) and reduce the absorption abilities of the earth (deforestation, pollution etc). So while natural emissions quite possibly exceed man-made emissions, the existing equilibrium is affected negatively, resulting in a net increase in carbon versus traditional natural levels and cycles.

chaim · Jan 17, 2007

My point was that the previous poster was wrong about decreases in greenhouse gases. Per country the US is the largest CO2 emitter in the world, per capita it is between 1st and 5th in the world depending on whose data and what year you look at. It should be noted that the countries above the US are almost all Middle Eastern countries with cheap oil and lots of refining.

From the wikipedia page on CO2:
"Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources Volcanic releases are about 1% of the amount which is released by human activities."

For a more in depth source :http://www.bgs.ac.uk/programmes/landres/segs/downloads/VolcanicContributions.pdf

The volcanoes produce more CO2 is used repeatedly by global warming skeptics even though it is not supported by the data. It is intellectual dishonesty.

Zimfan said:
U.S. greenhouse emissions have grown 17% over the past 15 or so years, while the economy has grown 51%? That's actually not nearly as bad as I would have expected, especially when you consider how much higher emissions per capita compared to GDP per capita are for some supposedly more environment-friendly countries(Canada being the most obvious example).

I hope the country's gdp continues to rise much faster than emissions per capita, preferably with the latter starting to actually go down.

Where in that link is there a comparision between volcanic and man made sources made? The best I can find is a graph that shows that emissions have gone up far more quickly since the industrial revolution.

I'd be a bit curious about how the two sources stack up. I hear a lot of people argue that volcanoes throw far more CO2 molecules into the air than say, factories, but I've never seen any numbers.

Also, did you find this somewhat alarming, too?
"In 1997, Indonesian peat fires may have released 13%40% as much carbon as fossil fuel burning does"

That must be a lot of peat. I grew up in Pittsburgh and I've seen how much smoke burning coal can put into the air.

upps64 · Jan 17, 2007

You had asked about the sources of those NASA guys. Was off of both NOVA, which covered the subject quite objectively, from guys in greenland, and antartica, as well as Frontline, had a few other guys, and in other various interviews over the past couple years, both on tv and radio. (but is all determinate on the person interviewed)

And if you want to just leave out the volcanos thats cool, but the oceans itself creates about 70-80% of all co2 levels on the planet. This can also be found in water samples taken at extrem depths for oceans and in some cases if the lake is deep enough. Take froozen hydregen, which lays on the bottom of the ocean. It is one thing that oil riggers sometimes see which is sight created by a distrubance to it froozen state. It causes it to ignite and you see flames under the waters surface. There are large enough fields of this that if disturbed by an earth quake, could lite the the square miles of this stuff thus effecting temps up 10degrees with in a few months, as opposed man made crap taking years. This froozen H has gone through plans to harvest to be a new fuel srouce but dubed to unstable to harvest at this moment in time.

You can question the auto comment that I made, but having been trained for automotive design, and listening to executives, and in some cases heads of design and engineering, as well as taught by some I think you would be quite surprised.

chaim · Jan 17, 2007

Frozen hydrogen??????? What on earth are you talking about? I think you may be trying to make a reference to methane hydrates - which may have had an impact on past climate change. However they are clearly not driving current climate change as we do not see hugely elevated levels of methane in the atmosphere.

As for CO2 emissions from automobiles - the data does not lie GHG emissions from both industry and autos in the US are increasing every year. I would like to see some evidence to the contrary.

upps64 said:
You had asked about the sources of those NASA guys. Was off of both NOVA, which covered the subject quite objectively, from guys in greenland, and antartica, as well as Frontline, had a few other guys, and in other various interviews over the past couple years, both on tv and radio. (but is all determinate on the person interviewed)

And if you want to just leave out the volcanos thats cool, but the oceans itself creates about 70-80% of all co2 levels on the planet. This can also be found in water samples taken at extrem depths for oceans and in some cases if the lake is deep enough. Take froozen hydregen, which lays on the bottom of the ocean. It is one thing that oil riggers sometimes see which is sight created by a distrubance to it froozen state. It causes it to ignite and you see flames under the waters surface. There are large enough fields of this that if disturbed by an earth quake, could lite the the square miles of this stuff thus effecting temps up 10degrees with in a few months, as opposed man made crap taking years. This froozen H has gone through plans to harvest to be a new fuel srouce but dubed to unstable to harvest at this moment in time.

You can question the auto comment that I made, but having been trained for automotive design, and listening to executives, and in some cases heads of design and engineering, as well as taught by some I think you would be quite surprised.

TheReasoner · Jan 18, 2007

Sycophant said:
As far as I know, most of the world accepts, more or less, that global warming exists, is a problem and should be addressed.

However from the US (politicians, media, citizens) I've seen quite common doubt, refute, mocking and various other things essentially denying global warming.

Why?

I've seen Fox News presenters mock the idea as 'european', and critisise a children's movie about penguins for being 'greenie propaganda'. Here I've seen people enclose it in scare quotes, dismiss it, laugh it off and outright deny it. I've heard quite conflicted quotes from US politicians about it.

So, what's the deal with the US and global warming? Why so skeptical? Or is I am getting the wrong impression?

The whole thing is simple. USA is exceedingly capitalistic. And they believe environmentalism will be at the expense of their profit. As we all know, money is more important than our globe...

Honestly, it may be at the expense of their economy now. Their economy is based on consumption. Oil is very central, and consumption of oil pollutes. It would mean a change in lifestyle. And this the US of A citizens do not want. Understandable, but still utterly moronic. If they do not change, we face irreparable damage to our globe within 30 years. But of course this is just "greenie propaganda". As is the extreme weather we are facing. I am sure all the temperature increase is just an elaborate hoax.

Zimfan · Jan 18, 2007

chaim said:
My point was that the previous poster was wrong about decreases in greenhouse gases. Per country the US is the largest CO2 emitter in the world, per capita it is between 1st and 5th in the world depending on whose data and what year you look at. It should be noted that the countries above the US are almost all Middle Eastern countries with cheap oil and lots of refining.

That must be some very different data than I had to study in a class I took for college a couple years ago. They told us the U.S. produced about 25% of CO2 emissions(and about 25% of the worlds goods) annually, which did place it as the number one emmitter, but it was something like number 15 or so for per capita emissions, and almost every country higher on the list was in Eastern Europe(Russia and former Soviet Republics, mostly). Several of them had per capita emissions in the range of 2, 2 1/2 times higher. Most likely that will lower just as a result of them modernizing their industry, if nothing else.

Australia and Canada were about level with the U.S.

I tried to look up some statistics, but except for nation master(kind of like wikipedia, good for basics but beware the statistics), all I could find were one article citing Australia as the highest per capita polluter in the developed world (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/18/1087245110190.html)
and some .gov site putting Canada's "energy intensity (energy consumption per dollar of gross domestic product)" as much higher than the U.S. at 15,000 btu vs 12,000. [/quote]

chaim said:
From the wikipedia page on CO2:
"Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year. Volcanic releases are about 1% of the amount which is released by human activities."

For a more in depth source :http://www.bgs.ac.uk/programmes/landres/segs/downloads/VolcanicContributions.pdf

The volcanoes produce more CO2 is used repeatedly by global warming skeptics even though it is not supported by the data. It is intellectual dishonesty.

1%? That's just sad. I wonder who started spreading the idea that volcanos produced more than we do?

Alarum · Jan 18, 2007

Zimfan said:
1%? That's just sad. I wonder who started spreading the idea that volcanos produced more than we do?

I'm reasonably sure that one can be traced back to Rush Limbaugh, who was either using the Cl2 statistics (irrelevent, since they never last long in the atmosphere) or the Krakatoa event (one of the anti-science movement's favorite examples).

chaim · Jan 18, 2007

Some good news for a change:

Pelosi seeks to set up new committee to deal with global warming

Maybe, just maybe politicians will finally listen to what scientists have been telling them for the past couple of years.

Global Warming

Contributor

Regular Member

Veteran

Veteran

The Lone Gunmen

Guest

Perspicacious Poster

The Lone Gunmen

Guest

Veteran

The Lone Gunmen

Guest

Contributor

Well-Known Member

My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard

My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard

Veteran

Regular Member

Veteran

Former christian, current teapot agnostic.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Similar threads