Climate Change Discussion

[mjarrels]

I have not read each and every thread but I can tell you from experince... just spent two months in the Phillippines. It was hot every day... I am trying to stay warm every day now... burning coal stove now to stay warm. Yea, I am putting bad stuff in the air, but you should see what third world countries put into the air! Phillippies just completed a new coal fired power plant at millions of dollars with about 14 million going under the table (GMA). Correptition is unreaal. Phillippine govt is still paying about $180,000 a day on interest on the nulear pp started in the 80's under Marcus rule. Most of the money goes into the pockets of Govt people. They would lay a mile of copper in the day time... stole a mile of copper at night. Sad but true. Not related, but China and many other countries are not our friends.

mark

 

[Tig]

N80,
I'm doing my best to present and discuss facts and theories from specific credible sources. I'm hoping others can present facts and theories from specific credible sources. The bottom line is I want to learn about this, not teach it.
I do expect all interested to scrutinize the information and sources I provide. There is little point in either summarily accepting or dismissing them at a glance.

 

[Bird]

The more people you put in a given space, such as a room, the warmer it will be with no other outside heat source; just their body heat and breath. So how much has the population increase in the world contributed to global warming?

 

[mjarrels]

Experince is the best teacher... A daily truck picks up the dead bodies along the road in Kenya... Ain't petty. We in America are doing more than any other country.

mark

 

[N80]

N80,
There is little point in either summarily accepting or dismissing them at a glance.

I may have been concise, but I did not summarily dismiss your data. In fact, I think I made a considerable effort to explain why I felt that the graph did not sufficiently explain what it was obviously suggesting.

 

[thingy]

Bird,thats how them vikings stayed warm in the last global cooling,,but,,that will only work so long if you ain't got no trees to burn,,yeah them vikings now are warming to under ground heat,,but bet they are hopeing to get back to greenland to build more better houses once this golble warming thing kicks in,,,scientists,,,they are still looking for the missing link,,,why,,cause they ain't no missing link to be found,,,we didn't come from monkeys,,,they got alot of unproven theorys,,they teach unproven theorys in schools,,,thats why I don't trust scientists,,,they think they got it all figured out,,,but,,they can't provide prove,,they got monkey bone pieces they patch together to prove stuff,,,,just like the dinisors,,yeah,,they was dinasors,,,but,,how do they know what they looked like really,,they say they were reptials,,maybe they were,,but just cause some laid eggs,don't mean the rest did,,,,to much theory and not any prove,,,,so when them same smart people start hollaring global warming,,,,,who's going to believe them anyways,,,this world is bigger than us,,,thingy,

 

[Egon]

Seems I recall the first life forms on earth multiplied so rapidly and extensively they changed the atmosphere so we can survive.

 

[Tig]

I did not mean to poke at you with that last comment N80, sorry. The comment was intended to explain why I want to examine information and the source.
The chart you referenced was posted to illustrate current levels of CO2 in a historical perspective. That's all.
How CO2 factors in can be found by following the links I posted along with the graph. Read about the green house effect and the haze effect. I'm hesitant to summarize because it will be an incomplete bit of a complex issue, presented by a guy who has no credentials, but here goes...... As I understand it, current levels of CO2 are being offset by current levels of aerosols(smog). Over the long term CO2 will accumilate and aerosols will precipitate. The ballance will be lost. This is just a small part of what is going on. I would not expect anyone to believe this just because I said so, but if you are interested the science is there.
If your opinions disagree with my summary or the science I have presented, that's fine, I will respect them.
If you present science to support you thoughts, I will read it and try to understand.

 

[N80]

If your opinions disagree with my summary or the science I have presented, that's fine, I will respect them.
If you present science to support you thoughts, I will read it and try to understand.

I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, so my thoughts are pretty easy to defend.

I guess my approach can be described as pragmatic and skeptical at the same time. So much of the 'science' is not science. But if someone uses the term 'science' or 'scientist' there is a presumed credibility. The main thing I want in these discussions is for people to realize that 'science' isn't foolproof, it isn't immune to corruption, it isn't above bias or ideology. So many of the 'scientists' involved in this issue have approached it with an agenda, then they use 'science' to prove the point which fits their agenda. Its the same in all forms of science, including (and particularly) the pharmaceutical sciences with which I am reasonably familiar. It is nothing new. But in the debate on global warming there is virtually no pure science. There is virtually no pure experimentation. Most of the 'science' is observational, speculative and based on concensus among like-minded peers. This is THE lowest form of science. And while it may be the best we can do, it just isn't all that good and when it all boils down to it, it amounts to speculation. And speculation is not sufficient in my mind to make life-altering decisions about.

Then there is the pragmatism. Like I've said before, even if I agreed with every causation theory the most liberal, anti-private property proponent green scientists in the world, I still don't think there is anything we can do about it but adapt. And we will. But if we expend all our energy trying to stop the locomotive we might not have the energy left to step off the track.

 

[Chuck52]

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of why CO2 is called a "greenhouse gas". It is not simply the correlation between historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and the global temperature which is the sole reason CO2 is called a greenhouse gas. The absorption spectrum of CO2 is such that if one irradiated two greenhouses which were identical except that the atmosphere in one had a higher CO2 concentration, the one with the higher CO2 level would get warmer. That fact is why it makes sense to look for correlations between the Earth's average/mean/whatever temperature and CO2 levels. Clearly, with such a complicated system as our atmosphere and its interactions with the Earth's surface, and the obvious difficulty in obtaining unbiased measurements of both the temperature variation and CO2 concentrations over some extended period of time, a direct, easily seen correlation might be expected to be difficult to obtain. In fact, however, most such studies do suggest such a correlation. The absorption spectrum of CO2 isn't an easily dismissed observation. It is what it is. For a really simple experimental setup, it makes perfect sense that increased CO2 would lead to increased temperatures. In the real atmosphere/Earth complex, there are many more variables, but even so, in the absence of some off-setting covariant, increased CO2 levels should be expected to lead to increased temperatures. Debate where the CO2 comes from. Worry about other potential greenhouse gases and their impact. That makes for a more reasonable argument. Irradiate CO2 and it warms up.

If you don't think man is contributing significantly to CO2 levels, relax and have a homebrew. If you do think man is contributing significantly, but don't feel that we can do anything about it, relax and have a homebrew. If you do think we do and can, it looks like you may get to express your opinion at the polls. Do whatever feels right.

Chuck

Evolve already!