Page 1 of 150 1231151101 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 1497

Thread: Global Warming -much ado about nothing

  1. #1
    Silver Member masonranch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,482

    Default Global Warming -much ado about nothing

    Is Global warming so transparent? The International Panel on Climate Control (IPCC) in their 2007 summary states that man is responsible for 3.5% of the annual carbon dioxide load (23 gigatons vs 670 gigatons from all sources). So does it really matter whether our part is 3% if everybody Kyoto'd or 4% if nothing were done? Because Co2 has risen from 0.03% to 0.04% or increased by 25% in the last 150 years they say our 3.5% caused it. That's a stretch. That 25% increase in Co2 they say is responsible for 0.61 degrees F rise in temperature (1.66 W/m2) according to the summary. If we were really concerned about Co2 (I'm not) shouldn't we look at the other 96.5% to see if we could do something there? For example Termites are a bigger contributor than are we are (8.2% to our 3.5%, call an exterminator?). Suppose our 3.5% really caused only a 3.5% rise in Co2 then we are responsible for 0.09 degrees F. Since most of Global Warming occurred before 1940 our part is most likely this low. But even accepting their highly inflated estimates we're supposed to believe that our 0.61 degree rise will lead to monster hurricanes, melting ice resulting in awful sea level rises and droughts and famines, a biblical apocalypse now, all of it very negative. Just the fact that not a single benefit from a warmer earth, like, for example, an ice free northwest passage, is listed should set off alarms that this is pseudo science. We're all supposed to believe that man fared better when the earth was cold as in the little ice age with it's 111 famines, than in the Medieval warm period when the Vikings settled Greenland, population expanded and the British were able to grow wine grapes. Oh! did I mention that water vapor, not Co2, is responsible for 95% of all Greenhouse gases leaving Co2 to compete with other gases for the remaining 5%.

    Then the last insult to our intelligence is the summary speculates about increasing fossil fuel use by double or triple our current amount. It seems we as a species are running out of fossil fuels now. So just where are we going to get all this additional oil and fossil fuel? The tragedy is cult thinking like this falsely stops real solutions like oil shale development.
    Last edited by masonranch; 12-17-2009 at 03:23 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by masonranch View Post
    Is Global warming so transparent? The International Panel on Climate Control (IPCC) in their 2007 summary states that man is responsible for 3.5% of the annual carbon dioxide load (23 gigatons vs 670 gigatons from all sources). So does it really matter whether our part is 3% if everybody Kyoto'd or 4% if nothing were done?
    Apparently, yes. From the same Summary from which you quote:

    A global assessment of data since 1970 has shown it is likely that anthropogenic warming has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems (emphasis Zen's).

    Much more evidence has accumulated over the past five years to indicate that changes in many physical and biological systems are linked to anthropogenic warming. There are four sets of evidence which, taken together, support this conclusion:

    1. The Working Group I Fourth Assessment concluded that most of the observed increase in the globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. (A subset of about 29,000 data series was selected from about 80,000 data series from 577 studies. These met the following
    criteria: (1) Ending in 1990 or later; (2) spanning a period of at least 20 years; and (3) showing a significant change in either direction, as assessed in individual studies.)

    2. Of the more than 29,000 observational data series, from 75 studies, that show significant change in many physical and biological systems, more than 89% are consistent with the direction of change expected as a response to warming (Figure SPM-1) [1.4].

    3. A global synthesis of studies in this Assessment strongly demonstrates that the spatial agreement between regions of significant warming across the globe and the locations of significant observed changes in many systems consistent with warming is very unlikely to be due solely to natural variability (emphasis Zen's) of temperatures or natural variability of the systems (Figure SPM-1) [1.4].

    4. Finally, there have been several modelling studies that have linked responses in some physical and biological systems to anthropogenic warming by comparing observed responses in these systems with modelled responses in which the natural forcings (solar activity and volcanoes) and anthropogenic forcings (greenhouse gases and aerosols) are explicitly separated. Models
    with combined natural and anthropogenic forcings simulate observed responses significantly better than models with natural forcing only [1.4].
    Somehow, saying "That's a stretch" just doesn't seem to rise to the level of conclusions based on 29,000 data series. But that's just me.

    Happy Earth Day.

    ZC
    "The founding fathers, in their wisdom, devised a method by which our republic can take one hundred of its most prominent numbskulls and keep them out of the private sector where they might do actual harm." -- P.J. O'Rourke

  3. #3
    Silver Member masonranch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zen Curmudgeon View Post
    A global assessment of data since 1970 has shown it is likely that anthropogenic warming has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems (emphasis Zen's).

    Much more evidence has accumulated over the past five years to indicate that changes in many physical and biological systems are linked to anthropogenic warming. There are four sets of evidence which, taken together, support this conclusion:
    ZC
    The Marshall Institute refutes most of WG 1's conclusions. See Table 1 in their critque at

    http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/515.pdf

    Then From the people that provide a monthly averaged measurement of the whole earth from satellite, the last 5 years have not been remarkable with Jan 2007 being up 0.29 C and July 2004 being down 0.38 from the mean over that period (see the attached graph).

    The IPCC has a political agenda that trumps good science. Let me repeat we are only responsible for 3.5% or so of total Co2. Termites are melting more glaciers than are we by 2 to 1!!! Even cow farts and belches outdo us. Again much ado about nothing!! But the biggest, by far, contributor to Global warming is the sun and the earth's orbit. In the last 4 interglacial periods, the temperature peaked before crashing into the next Ice age (Global warming?) and the peaks were higher than our present temps. (see the Vostok Ice core graph for the last 400,000 years, and the last 4 Ice ages)

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by masonranch View Post
    The IPCC has a political agenda that trumps good science.
    That's an interesting claim. Is there any evidence to support it?

    ZC
    "The founding fathers, in their wisdom, devised a method by which our republic can take one hundred of its most prominent numbskulls and keep them out of the private sector where they might do actual harm." -- P.J. O'Rourke

  5. #5
    Forum Royalty large's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    14,078

    Default

    3. A global synthesis of studies in this Assessment strongly demonstrates that the spatial agreement between regions of significant warming across the globe and the locations of significant observed changes in many systems consistent with warming is very unlikely to be due solely to natural variability (emphasis Zen's) of temperatures or natural variability of the systems (Figure SPM-1) [1.4].
    According to several publications (books) about the Geophysical history of our little sphere, at least 2 times (provable) has the atmosphere become CO2 toxic to oxygen breathers, meaning the percentage of CO2 was greater than the oxygen balance. This is found by noting the extensive plants at particular times in the geological make up, some of which were responsible for the tremendous layers of plants and vegetative matter creating Oil . .

    And of course there is a Political/Economic agenda . . First being, of course, those who want to sell their book (or movie) about "Global Warming" or man's decimation of the planet's ecology . . that of course, goes way back, pre '60's . . Global Cooling, Global Overpopulation, yada, yada . . the fact that those authors might have been wrong, is forgotten, but the fact that they got rich while being wrong has been recognized by even fewer. Very few, if any, labor to create arguable statistics, publish a book, promote the same for purely altruistic reasons . . they want to retire on the proceeds, and become famous in the process . .

    Outside of that . . of course, there's no agendas . .
    "A man with a firearm is a citizen... a man without one is a subject"

  6. #6
    Silver Member masonranch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,482

    Default Double Bind - You can't have it both ways

    Quote Originally Posted by Zen Curmudgeon View Post
    That's an interesting claim. Is there any evidence to support it?

    ZC
    Everyone seems to agree that the IPCC reflects a political agenda, the question is whos political agenda? Is it that of the participating scientists? Do participating scientists in fact have a "political agenda" or instead do they have many competing political agendas? Or is the political agenda of the IPCC that of the participating governments? But do participating governments in fact have a "political agenda" or many competing political agendas?

    . The IPCC tries to have things both ways by asserting governmental participation without governmental influence. This makes no sense, and participation is meaningless absent influence. As a result, how people view the legitimacy of the IPCC will therefore most likely be an inkblot test on their views of governance by experts versus the democratization of knowledge. One thing seems clear, global governance of the IPCC would be much more straightforward, and its role far easier to understand, with some explicit answers to who controls the IPCC, scientists or governments?

    Add to this the selection process for IPCC scientist and you have a situation akin to the Nazis (book burning and all) search for Aryan Supremacy in WWII by funding archeological studies that would come to that conclusion i.e. if as archeologist you find proof that the Jews were in fact a significant historical influence you weren't hired you were shipped to Auschwitz instead. There are many scientist that disagree with the IPCC's results and spin. Therefore one can only conclude that the IPCC's agenda is government controlled. What might that agenda? Right here, right now, that's exactly what this forum in miniture is an expression of.

    I've just pointed out in this thread that human's are responsible for about 3.5% of Co2 production i.e. other process and species are responsible for 96.5%. It seems that many have such myopia that they can only see the 3.5%, and not the 96.5% from other sources. If you were even slightly objective, it is ludicrous on it's face to focus on that 3.5% and ascribe all aspects of Global Warming to our minuscia. So, if I were an advocate of human caused Global Warming then I'd have to challenge the 3.5%. Absent a challenge, the conclusion is inescapable that humans have little to do with Global Warming except that we are here now and weren't here for the past many Ice Ages where temperatures exceeded this one by up to 8 degrees F without any help from us. Its that simple!!![/I]

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by masonranch View Post
    Everyone seems to agree that the IPCC reflects a political agenda, the question is whos political agenda?
    Oh, not quite everyone. Again, have any evidence for this claim?

    ZC
    "The founding fathers, in their wisdom, devised a method by which our republic can take one hundred of its most prominent numbskulls and keep them out of the private sector where they might do actual harm." -- P.J. O'Rourke

  8. #8
    Forum Royalty large's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    14,078

    Default

    The problem being, the only people who really agree are the people with agendas, the rest, both global warming advocates and those who believe climate change is a normal phenomenon cannot provide incontrovertible proof of either argument.

    In either case, many of the same "Symptoms' or indicators are present. Those who have studied the earth's past Geophysical History believe the planet has had wide swings of temperature, and the atmosphere has been different than we know it to be . . And it isn't necessarily tied to "cycles" although NOAA has indicators that the current warming trends may be part of a "Cycle" . . Polar Ice Cap advances and recessions have been occurring since the initial cooling of the planet, again not being tied as much to cyclic process as to Solar, Volcanic, and Oceanic.

    It's too bad we don't know anymore about the complex weather system than we do, but even with satellite observation, we are no more than observers watching a "Reality Show" with an educated guess about what is going to happen in the next 6-8 hours . . after that, it's still no more than a crap shoot.

    Without the knowledge to forecast weather accurately more than 8 hours in advance, it's damned near impossible to predict even trends 10-20 years down the road.

    As far as agendas, most still has to do greatly with money. We have refused to advocate Nuclear Power rather than coal, or wind and other expensive alternates, we talk of charging people to drive their Vehicles in certain areas, or at all. We talk of raising the cost of fossil Fuels to cut down on their use. We talk of Ethanol which will still pollute the air with more Ozone and CO2.

    And in the end, the expense doesn't inconvenience the rich who are proposing those ideas, they can afford to pay the costs . . it affects the people who spend the most money in the marketplace, the middle class . . and the poor . . In other words, we're enriching those who have, at the expense of those who'll have even less . .
    "A man with a firearm is a citizen... a man without one is a subject"

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by large View Post
    The problem being, the only people who really agree are the people with agendas, the rest, both global warming advocates and those who believe climate change is a normal phenomenon cannot provide incontrovertible proof of either argument.
    If you're looking for "incontrovertible" proof of anything, take up astrology or get born again. Science is not about absolutes, it's about best informed judgments, always subject to new data that clarifies things previously not understood.

    The typical climate change scoffing runs along the lines of this Letter to the Editor to the Arkansas Democrat Gazette:

    "You may have noticed that March of this year was particularly hot.

    . . . This should come as no surprise to any reasonable person. As you know, Daylight Saving (sic) Time started almost a month early this year. You would think that members of Congress would have considered the warming effect that an extra hour of daylight would have on our climate. Or did they?

    Perhaps this is another plot by a liberal Congress to make us believe that global warming is a real threat."
    ZC
    "The founding fathers, in their wisdom, devised a method by which our republic can take one hundred of its most prominent numbskulls and keep them out of the private sector where they might do actual harm." -- P.J. O'Rourke

  10. #10
    Forum Royalty large's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    14,078

    Default

    Yer wrong . . Science is about absolutes . . "Informed Judgements" are what we are supposed to make in a voting booth . . Informed Judgement does not make an airplane fly . . Scientific fact does . .

    Having been supposedly involved in Medical Science, you, of all people should understand that . . Try using "informed judgement" or consensus of opinion instead of fact in a Malpractice Trial . . or Treatment of Cancer . .

    The same goes for Climate Change or in your political world, "Global Warming" . . a group of Actors and Politicians may agree that the humans cause global warming, and along with certain scientists who might agree because there are conditions that might indicate this to be so . . But none of them can reach even consensus upon the results of the effect, nor how to turn the problem (if there really is one) around . . or even if it can be . .

    The greatest reason I doubt the human caused scenario? Back to the fable of "The Little boy Who Cried Wolf" or the Story of Chicken Little . . The same people, more or less who've promoted Global Cooling, Population Explosions, Nuclear Winter and on and on . . to me, their creditability is starting to wear a little thin, and their arguments show far too little scientific argument. For almost ( I use almost because I haven't read every one of their treatises) all of their postulations, there is an opposite argument, just as factual, and often dealing with historic fact or Observation . . as in the case of the "Polar Bear", not becoming extinct, but migrating into other areas, as they have done for millennia.
    "A man with a firearm is a citizen... a man without one is a subject"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •