One Year...

[irerancincpkc]

to stop Global Warming. (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf) (PDF File)

Artic Ice is melting faster than expected. (http://www.carbonequity.info/images/seaice07.jpg)

CO2 emissions are accelerating. (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/carbon-dioxide-emissions-are-rapidly-accelerating.php)

Global Warming Is Accelerating. (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-is-three-times-faster-than-worst-predictions-451529.html)

[Gilshalos Sedai]

ZOMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING! (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080107143109.htm)

[Sei'taer]

Thank GOD! We'll only have to deal with whichever dipshit gets elected for 6 months! This is the best news I've heard all year.

[Brita]

Spammer- I for one find this amazing. Of course I live far from an ocean and in a climate that could use a little global warming...so I'm a little torn on which way I want this to go ;)

Up here global warming is a promise not a threat.

[Sinistrum]

Gee thanks chicken little :p *goes back to driving his car around*

[Terez]

The models the IPCC used were conservative (for obvious reasons) so it's not unexpected that things could actually degenerate quicker than predicted.

And it's not fear-mongering, no sky falling...more like, "You know Sini...your ass is leaking. You should plug it up."

The concept that we need to dedicate some research and development money in this area is just one of those simple, logical things of life. No eschatology here, just "Damn, we have to do something about this or it could get out of hand."

What's baffling is this mind-numbingly irrational viewpoint that we shouldn't dedicate the effort because we could be wrong about the cause, when more research is exactly what we need to determine that as well, and strictures are exactly what we need to keep things from getting out of hand in the meantime, especially considering that the fact that so much evidence points to the IPCC's conclusion. Why are people so passionately determined to believe that it's a myth?

@Brita - two long term possibilities for Canada that I can think of off the top of my head are a huge population increase and food shortages.

[Weird Harold]

And it's not fear-mongering, no sky falling...more like, "You know Sini...your ass is leaking. You should plug it up."

Terez, the title of this thread -- and any studies that might support the title of this thread -- is fear-mongering, pure and simple.

It is either an admission that we should all pucker up and put our heads between our legs, or an attempt to panic people into rash decisions -- like subsidizing Ethanol-From-Corn.

Anthropgenic CO2 increases are the result of several centuries of deforestation and fossil fuel combustion; it will take several centuries to remediate the problem. If it has to be done in one year, then you might as well pucker up because it simply cannot be done inthat time frame.

[Anaiya Sedai]

*dives behind the ESC couch and hides*

[GonzoTheGreat]

What's baffling is this mind-numbingly irrational viewpoint that we shouldn't dedicate the effort because we could be wrong about the cause, when more research is exactly what we need to determine that as well, and strictures are exactly what we need to keep things from getting out of hand in the meantime, especially considering that the fact that so much evidence points to the IPCC's conclusion. Why are people so passionately determined to believe that it's a myth?Wizard's First Rule:
People are stupid. They can believe almost anything, either because they hope it is true, or because they fear it is true.

[Terez]

Ah, nice double-edged point there. I'm fond of using that one myself. :D

[Terez]

Terez, the title of this thread -- and any studies that might support the title of this thread -- is fear-mongering, pure and simple.
I'm sorry that you feel that way, WH, but it just isn't true. No one that I know that follows climate change is after stirring up a running, screaming mob. Quite the opposite, really. :)

[irerancincpkc]

Terez, the title of this thread -- and any studies that might support the title of this thread -- is fear-mongering, pure and simple.

Fear-mongering, when facts back it up?

[Gilshalos Sedai]

IN ONE YEAR WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Which is what you intended to say with your post heading.

[Davian93]

From what I understand, from having watched The Day After Tomorrow with Dennis Quaid...

...interesting side note on Dennis, his career was maliciously destroyed for like 15 years while he was a stay at home dad for him and Meg Ryan, then she goes and cheats on him with Russell Crowe and Dennis' career takes off as her career goes in the toilet. I wonder how many people remember his early work like Inner Space?

...as I was saying, from my understanding, we could all be in trouble shortly from huge land hurricanes and snow and stuff (despite it being global warming which is odd). Interesting, wot?

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Don't get me started on that crappy-assed movie, Dav.

[Davian93]

Don't get me started on that crappy-assed movie, Dav.

But it was just SO good, Gil. Especially monkey boy Jake Gyllenhaal.

[irerancincpkc]

IN ONE YEAR WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Which is what you intended to say with your post heading.
Nope.

I've always liked Dennis Quaid, Davian. The Rookie was a good baseball movie... not as good as the Day After Tomorrow though, and Vantage Point was okay as well.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Jake Gyllenhall was the only thing that didn't make me take the DVD out of the player. The science in that movie was such a load of shit.


Nope.

Really, Spammer? Cause it certainly sounds like you were handing out deadlines.

[Davian93]

Nope.

I've always liked Dennis Quaid, Davian. The Rookie was a good baseball movie... not as good as the Day After Tomorrow though, and Vantage Point was okay as well.

I thought the Rookie was better than Day After...Vantage Point was very good the first 3 times they did the flashback...after that the gimmick got stale and it felt like a 24 Ripoff (which of course it was).

[irerancincpkc]

I had a bit of a problem with Gyllenhall; he looked too old to be in high school, but oh well.

And yes Gil, I was saying we need to act quickly, but never did I say we would all die in one year.

The Rookie lost a bit of it's steam in the middle, which is why I like The Day After better, but I enjoyed the beginning and the end of the Rookie. And my little sister makes me sit through Parent Trap all the time...

[Davian93]

I had a bit of a problem with Gyllenhall; he looked too old to be in high school, but oh well.

Monkeys age differently than actual humans...I believe he was of HS age for a chimp.

The Rookie lost a bit of it's steam in the middle, which is why I like The Day After better, but I enjoyed the beginning and the end of the Rookie. And my little sister makes me sit through Parent Trap all the time...

Yeah...it lost a bit but it was a baseball movie so that gives it an edge for me. As for the Parent Trap...the original (minus Quaid) is far better than the Lohan one (the fact that it's Lohan is quite disturbing...though not as disturbing as her wretched "British" accent in it. The original Parent Trap has Ms. Bliss from the old Saved By The Bell (just dated myself there) as the young twins as opposed to a crack addict.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Haley Mills, Dav, you child.

[Davian93]

Haley Mills, Dav, you child.

I know her name Gil...I just prefer to think of her in her finest role of Ms. Bliss.

[Terez]

Dav - the increased snow is because warmer temperatures cause more precipitation. ;)

[Gilshalos Sedai]

*sigh*

Child.

[Davian93]

Dav - the increased snow is because warmer temperatures cause more precipitation. ;)

Dav's above post was tongue-in-cheek...;)



Note: Apparently now Dav refers to himself in the 3rd person...

[irerancincpkc]

*sigh*

Child.
So you argue with science?

[Sei'taer]

In Honor of the man who knew it all. He wrote about several of you. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljNDbKpusT0)

[Gilshalos Sedai]

So you argue with science?


What does science have to do with Haley Mill's Greatest Role? Which is what you quoted was actually talking about.


I argue with that movie's "science," actually.


I <3 George Carlin. ;)

[Sei'taer]

Not going to argue this anymore, because it doesn't matter what I say, that person has probably been paid off by the oil companies, or he's a conservative hack or he's not really a scientist or all three. All of you know how I feel I about it and even though I can give you links to a ton of items that say exactly the opposite of what you linked to, it's pointless because of the non debate that will occur afterwards. Anyway, have fun.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

I'm not arguing, Sei, I'm making fun. ;)

[Sinistrum]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you substitute the words "global warming" and any related references with the word "Jesus" and the appropriate religious references that should put this entire discussion into context. Of course it is kind of hard to prosletyze when no one is listening, but have attempting to do it none the less.

[Weird Harold]

I'm sorry that you feel that way, WH, but it just isn't true. No one that I know that follows climate change is after stirring up a running, screaming mob. Quite the opposite, really. :)

Threads like this, with the oh so innocent denials of Doomsaying are counter-productive if the enviro-vangelists wish to convert anyone to their Global Warming religion.

And yes Gil, I was saying we need to act quickly, but never did I say we would all die in one year.

Of course you didn't say that, you just said we have to drop everything else, practically shut down society, and "do something right now" or global warming will escalate catestrophically.

Fear-mongering, when facts back it up?

Fear-mongering interpretations of facts, yes. Whether you intended it or not, the whol eimpression of your intitial post is that unless everything that stop or reverse golbalwarming is done by the next summer solstice, there is nothing that can be done, ever.

That kind of "we've got to do something now" attitude is what lead to the Ethanol-From-Corn boondoggle that is (in part) driving up world-wide food prices.

The only possible action mankind could take in the next year that would have a noticeable effect on Global Warming is to shut down every fossil fueled power-pant and ban internal combustion engines completely.

I'll leave the consequences of that course of action to your imagination.

I heard the same kind of chicken little predictions in the 70's during the oil embargo, and I"ve heard it every year since then.

Incremental progress isn't good enough for the GW Doomsday faction of eviro-vangelists. Bankrupting the entire western civilization is the only solution the GW Luddites will settle for and the human cost is irrelevant if Global warming can be staved off for a decade or so -- assuming they don't manage to bankrupt emerging technological societies like China and India, too.

[Terez]

Religion? Are you serious? Explain how that analogy has any merit.

[Brita]

@Brita - two long term possibilities for Canada that I can think of off the top of my head are a huge population increase and food shortages.

re: Population Increase: Excellent- that means real-estate in Northwestern Ontario will sky rocket and I'll make a cool million off my house- perhaps I should invest in some real estate right now. Dav- since you want to move to Canada, now might be the time before it turns tropical and becomes a real estate gold mine.

re: Food shortages: I could lose a few pounds.

Really it's a win-win situation.

[Brita]

Serious response now-

To ignore this issue under the guise of "I am far too wise to be sucked into the hysteria" is short sighted and dangerous.

As mentioned before- no one is running in the streets screaming. If it causes us all to pause and reflect on our impact on the environment, it can only be good for our race as humans. Recycle, compost, turn off lights, car pool, liv ein smaller houses, control climate efficiently, build new houses to harness natures energy, reduce waste, reduce gluttunous consumption...these are all good things. And very likely necessary changes.

Even ignoring the global warming threat- we know we are destroying our home with pollution, waste and over-development. It's just prudent to look at these things sqaure on and take responsibility for your own actions.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Which is what I keep saying, reduce-reuse-recycle has been something I've been trying to do since I was 12 -- Houston just makes it difficult to keep up.

I just don't believe we're 100% to blame, that other factors are being ignored. Also, the earth is not going to die.... Climate change may kill us, and we'll take a few other species with us. The earth will keep going and give rise to another dominant species.

Frankly, I think that we've reached a period of world wide climate change and we're just guessing at the causes. We don't know everything that's going on. We can't. We're not that smart.

Alarmist speech is only going to cause riots and panic and shortages when people start stockpiling. We do need to work on alternative fuels because oil and gas won't last forever and they certainly can't take us into space on a long term basis. We should be recycling everything we can for practical reasons, as well as environmental ones. But I don't see the environmentalists' doom saying changing that, do y'all?

Of course, if y'all believe that strongly, when you going to join The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (http://www.vhemt.org/)?

[Terez]

I just don't believe we're 100% to blame, that other factors are being ignored.
You'd be surprised how many factors are included in the IPCC models.

Also, the earth is not going to die.... Climate change may kill us, and we'll take a few other species with us. The earth will keep going and give rise to another dominant species.
I don't think anyone here would claim that the earth itself is in danger of being destroyed by climate change.

Frankly, I think that we've reached a period of world wide climate change and we're just guessing at the causes. We don't know everything that's going on. We can't. We're not that smart.
I don't think anyone would claim that we know everything, either. But guessing at the causes? Are you serious?

[Gilshalos Sedai]

You'd be surprised how many factors are included in the IPCC models.

Nope. I actually HAVE looked at the data, Terez.

I don't think anyone here would claim that the earth itself is in danger of being destroyed by climate change.

On TL, no. Outside this board, yes.

I don't think anyone would claim that we know everything, either. But guessing at the causes? Are you serious?

Absolutely. It's a THEORY (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory), which I apparently understand better than most -- in this case, it's got less behind it than the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Gravity. It's not one that I believe works because a) The Peer Review process is a fucking joke, b) they've ignored Solar weather, c) they've ignored water vapor.

[Terez]

lol...you obviously don't understand "theory", because "theory" in science in no way means "guessing". Solar activity is included in the IPCC models, and water vapor as well (that's the reason for the increased percipitation).

I've never seen anyone claim that the planet is going to be destroyed by climate change. Made uninhabitable, yes, but not destroyed.

[Sinistrum]

Um lets see, proponents fo both have same blind faith reliance on disputed, unreliable, or non-existant evidence. Proponents of both have the same resulting arrogant self-assurance of infallibility deriving from that faith. Proponents of both use appeals to higher authority to justify that arrogance ("The Bible is the word of God, so who in their right mind can argue with that" = "global warming is the word of scientists, so who in their right mind can argue with that"). Both concepts are centered around attempts to get people to make massive changes in their life styles and give up freedoms. Proponents of both benefit greatly in terms of increased personal power and wealth when people submit to those changes. Proponents of both use threats of dire consequences if people resist giving up those freedoms ("You're going to hell!"= "You're killing the planet!"). Proponents of both blithely ignore or rationalize away any fact or evidence that happens to contradict their views. Proponents of both demonize anyone who opposes their viewpoint, provides fact contradictory to it, or argues against it in a logical fashion, regardless of their merit (reference Sei's observation about scientist opposing anthropological global warming as being "bought off by the oil companies" = being called an apostate, heathen, infidel, heretic, blasphemer or other religiously derogatory name).

[Gilshalos Sedai]

lol...you obviously don't understand "theory", because "theory" in science in no way means "guessing". Solar activity is included in the IPCC models, and water vapor as well (that's the reason for the increased percipitation).

I understand it perfectly well, Terez. A theory is the BEST EXPLANATION AT THAT TIME FOR THE DATA AT HAND. It is NOT a LAW. It is an educated guess because it cannot be proven.

If it were global warming, why was Zae still getting snowed on in April? Why was this the coldest winter in Houston (in # of cold days) in decades?


I've never seen anyone claim that the planet is going to be destroyed by climate change. Made uninhabitable, yes, but not destroyed.

Really? I hear it all the time.


Proponents of both demonize anyone who opposes their viewpoint, provides fact contradictory to it, or argues against it in a logical fashion, regardless of their merit (reference Sei's observation about scientist opposing anthropological global warming as being "bought off by the oil companies" = being called an apostate, heathen, infidel, heretic, blasphemer or other religiously derogatory name).

This is why I hate Peer Review.

[Terez]

Um lets see, proponents fo both have same blind faith reliance on disputed, unreliable, or non-existant evidence. Source this. Comparing the evidence for the existence of god to the evidence for the climate change phenomenon is beyond ridiculous.

Proponents of both have the same resulting arrogant self-assurance of infallibility deriving from that faith. What faith? I see no faith...

Proponents of both use appeals to higher authority to justify that arrogance ("The Bible is the word of God, so who in their right mind can argue with that" = "global warming is the word of scientists, so who in their right mind can argue with that"). hmm...the word of god is just a bunch of yammerings from thousands of years ago about not much. The evidence behind this theory is quite another story.

Both concepts are centered around attempts to get people to make massive changes in their life styles and give up freedoms. This is starting to remind me of those "what do ____ and ____ have in common" jokes...

Proponents of both benefit greatly in terms of increased personal power and wealth when people submit to those changes. This is a dumb point, because there is profit on both sides of the climate change, and more on the "it's a myth" side...

Proponents of both use threats of dire consequences if people resist giving up those freedoms ("You're going to hell!"= "You're killing the planet!"). Well, let's see...one claim is based on those useless yammerings from thousands of years ago, the other on actual evidence, and the latter not really into threats like you claim. The "it's a myth" faction is conspiracy theory fear-mongering anyway...

Proponents of both blithely ignore or rationalize away any fact or evidence that happens to contradict their views. Not so - any evidence that seems to contradict the views is taken into account for further research. I've seen evidence of that several times over...

Proponents of both demonize anyone who opposes their viewpoint, provides fact contradictory to it, or argues against it in a logical fashion, regardless of their merit (reference Sei's observation about scientist opposing anthropological global warming as being "bought off by the oil companies" = being called an apostate, heathen, infidel, heretic, blasphemer or other religiously derogatory name). Well, it's true that most "scientists" quoted in the "it's a myth" arguments are on Exxon's salary. That much is pretty well known.

Yup, the "it's a myth" faction is much more similar to religion than the concerned faction...seeing as how there's about 100x more evidence that climate change is caused primarily by our actions than there is evidence it's caused primarily by something else. Who's ignoring facts?

[Terez]

I understand it perfectly well, Terez. A theory is the BEST EXPLANATION AT THAT TIME FOR THE DATA AT HAND. It is NOT a LAW.
Did I say anything about laws?

It is an educated guess because it cannot be proven.
Oh, now you're saying "educated" guess. That's a little bit better...

If it were global warming, why was Zae still getting snowed on in April? Why was this the coldest winter in Houston (in # of cold days) in decades?
If you had actually looked at the IPCC report as you claim you did, then you would not be asking this question.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Did I say anything about laws?

No, you've said Global Warming is a fact, which is the same thing.

Oh, now you're saying "educated" guess. That's a little bit better...

It's still a guess.

If you had actually looked at the IPCC report as you claim you did, then you would not be asking this question.

Since I talked about last winter, AFTER the report was released, why don't YOU tell me why it's relevant.

[Terez]

No, you've said Global Warming is a fact, which is the same thing.
No, I said that about ozone depletion being man-caused. :D

It's still a guess.
No it isn't.

Since I talked about last winter, AFTER the report was released, why don't YOU tell me why it's relevant.
Because the same thing was going on before the report was released, and because it was discussed in Zae's "so it's snowing in El Paso" thread, and because you should know the answer to that question if you've read the report. I'm sure someone else will come along and tell you, though...

[Gilshalos Sedai]

A guess is a guess is a guess is a guess, no matter how educated it is.

Because the same thing was going on before the report was released, and because it was discussed in Zae's "so it's snowing in El Paso" thread, and because you should know the answer to that question if you've read the report. I'm sure someone else will come along and tell you, though...

Don't remember reading too much of the El Paso thread. All I remember of the report is they claimed there would be 'some small variations' in future warming trends. Which is also the same thing claimed by the Global Climate Change people.

Look, I've said this repeatedly. The ONLY thing I don't buy is that we're 100% responsible. Is the climate changing? Yes. Which way is it going? Dunno yet, I'm not sure we've gotten enough data on a 4 billion year old planet to determine that the last 100-200 years of weather is enough to establish a definite trend one way or another.

[Terez]

I don't think anyone here would say that we're 100% responsible either, Gil. There are a lot of factors involved, and our CO2 emissions are a big factor, but not by far the only factor. Also, the evidence is only partly in the observed trend - another part of the evidence is what we've observed about levels of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere and what we know about greenhouse effect.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

And the levels of man-made CO2 are still not that high. It's enough to harm US, but the plants are loving it. Those we allow to live, that is.

[Terez]

And the levels of man-made CO2 are still not that high.
Based on what evidence?

[Sinistrum]

Heh T, you're response to me makes a prima facie case for why my comparison between religious nuts and anthropological global warming advocates is 100% accurate. You weren't even able to entertain the possibility of those of us on the otherside being correct. You just labeled your arguments "conclusive," labeled opposing arguments as "beyond ridiculous," harped on the "lack of evidence" and then pre-emptively dismissed any attempt to satisfy that demand by stating that any evidence presented to you was just the product of people being bought of by oil companies. Where is the room for argument with someone taking that attitude? The answer is that there is none. You're not interested in discussing this issue or even acknowledging anything outside of your own very narrow view point on it. You're just interested in preaching on it and frankly, I'm not interested in listening to it anymore.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Based on what evidence?

Um, fossil evidence that indicates it's been MUCH higher and still sustained life, ie, no greenhouse effect. Of course the dragon flies were the size of B-52 bombers back then....

[irerancincpkc]

I'd just like to meekly add that I can't see any type of comparasion between religion and global warming. It was quite entertaining though, made me laugh. :D

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Zealots often can't see their own actions, so it doesn't surprise me.

[Terez]

Where is the room for argument with someone taking that attitude? lol...with your attitude? None at all...

[Terez]

Um, fossil evidence that indicates it's been MUCH higher and still sustained life, ie, no greenhouse effect. Of course the dragon flies were the size of B-52 bombers back then....
No greenhouse effect? You sure about that? I'd like to see the studies you're referring to.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Actually, Sinistrum would argue with a fence post about who had the right of way just because he was bored. But the fence post would actually have to argue back instead of repeating the same phrases over and over.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Allow me to rephrase. Earth ALWAYS has a greenhouse effect since that's what keeps it warm enough to support life. I should have said RUNAWAY greenhouse effect. I meant to edit that in, but it was too late.

[irerancincpkc]

Zealots...
I'll take that as a compliment. :D

[Terez]

Actually, Sinistrum would argue with a fence post about who had the right of way just because he was bored.
He does keep coming back to these threads despite having nothing intelligent to say.

But the fence post would actually have to argue back instead of repeating the same phrases over and over.
Reminds me of Sini's repeating over and over about his experience with political models even after Marie showed him repeatedly that they weren't at all comparable to climate models...

[Terez]

Allow me to rephrase. Earth ALWAYS has a greenhouse effect since that's what keeps it warm enough to support life. I should have said RUNAWAY greenhouse effect. I meant to edit that in, but it was too late.
I'd still like to see the studies that you're referring to...

[Sinistrum]

I'd still like to see the studies that you're referring to...

Why should she bother when all you're going to do is flippantly dismiss them as the result of bias or interest without even taking the time to read them?

He does keep coming back to these threads despite having nothing intelligent to say.

You mean as opposed to calling anyone who disagrees with you biased, bigoted, or a tool huh? :rolleyes:

[Bryan Blaire]

I'd still like to see the studies that you're referring to...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1861531/posts

http://www.unc.edu/~sstaff/images/craytemp.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg/800px-Co2-temperature-plot.svg.png

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/vostok-ice-core.jpg
^That one is from the Sierra Club of Canada... I like the Sierra Club

So, we can see that the amount of atmospheric CO2 was definitely higher in the past, and considering that the levels have dropped cyclically in between, we don't currently have any data that would indicate we are now in some kind of "runaway greenhouse effect".

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/CO2History.html

From CalSpace:
Carbon Cycle and Computer Models:
So many processes have to be considered in the carbon cycle that it is extremely difficult to keep them in mind, and impossible to calculate without building a computer model to simulate them. Scientists interested in the carbon cycle have built a number of such models over the years. Such models can have between 50 and 100 interacting equations describing all the different processes of the carbon cycle that are relevant to the problem of how carbon dioxide changes through geologic time.

To what extent should the answers generated from such models be trusted? Consider this: if there are a dozen processes which we need to understand [and there are between 50 and 100], and we only grasp each process within an error of 20 percent, the sum-total of the error adds to more than 200 percent! That is, if we now state that the content of carbon dioxide in the air so many million years ago had to be X, the true answer could be anywhere between 3 times X (200% more than stated) and X divided by 3 (200% less). Even if we make the reasonable assumption that half of the errors will cancel, we still get roughly a factor of two error on either side of the uncertainty statement. Thus, at the present state of knowledge, computing the answers will get us ballpark estimates and overall trends but not much more.

Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4-5 times during the Jurassic period and then maintained a slow decline until the industrial revolution, with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago.
-Works cited: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml, GEOCARB III: A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME - by Berner

So, since we have a good model (or at least we think we do) of what a "runaway" greenhouse effect looks like, namely in the planet Venus, we can take a look at how close we are to that currently, granted the "runaway" effect likely started LONG before the levels that Venus is currently at. Venus has 96.5% atmospheric CO2. Based on our best figures, we have something on the maximum order of about 0.06% atmospheric CO2 here on Earth right now. If we take the 20 times greater figure and multiply it by the current value, we get 1.2% atmospheric CO2. So, unless we are willing to say that previously we have come very close to a "runaway" greenhouse effect several times in prehistory, even at our current levels, we likely aren't looking at a "runaway" effect, and based on the cycles, could just be looking at a natural (or possibly unnaturally jumpstarted) phenomenon.

Also, it has been hypothesized and theorized (Oh noes! More educated guesses in science! Bad bad! No guesses happen in science at all, right!? Wait, that's part of the process... nevermind.) that the very high prehistoric levels of CO2 were likely a large factor in the protocyanobacteria evolving to utilize CO2 as their atmospheric molecule of choice for photosynthesis, driving the evolution of the entire plant branch of life we have today.

If we stop what may be a new cycle of climate change, we could be robbing an entire branch of life of its ability to evolve. Ethically, do we, as humans, have the right to do that, whether we actually caused a problem or not? Isn't it rather selfish to be solely concerned with the current life on the planet and not all the potentially evolved species that may come into our "global community" as the climate changes? It sure seems like it to me. If we do this for our own survival's sake, we aren't thinking of the good of the "global community" and all the millions of potentially evolving species, and that's pretty cut-throat. It seems to me that if we were really good socialist environmentalists that cared about the "global community", we'd be leaving all of this alone, taking our lumps and preparing ourselves to potentially perish so that other life-forms have the chance to evolve along their own branches of life. Or we could leave the planet. I prefer option 2, ‘cause it lets us survive and allows other forms of life to evolve.

Also, from data on CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center), the primary climate-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy, emissions data:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.html

And analyzing the data for the annual change (something that should be familiar to AGW readers):
http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Pictures/annual_change_in_fossil_fuel_emissions_2004.jpg

[Sei'taer]

Damn BB, that was great stuff. Someday I'll have to show you some GIS models we use in figuring drainage calcs and flood ratio's. It's interesting stuff. Unfortunately it crashes my computer at work, so I'll have to steal the GIS engineers password and use her computer to post it.


BTW, freerepublic, USC, CDIAC and the sierra club are all given donations by the oil companies (exxon in particular) and have been known to stick their heads up many republican butts, so therefore all your data is corrupted.

(saved everyone the trouble)

[Terez]

Why should she bother when all you're going to do is flippantly dismiss them as the result of bias or interest without even taking the time to read them?
For the same reason that I bother when you guys do the same?

[Bryan Blaire]

Man, Spammer, Terez, why are you guys so conservative! It makes me :( to see people who are so against change! :( :( :(

I hate it! Spammer doesn't support Obama, because he's against change! :( :( :( Brings a tear to my eye, it really does. :(


-marked by moderation or caution
-the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

[Crispin's Crispian]

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/vostok-ice-core.jpg
^That one is from the Sierra Club of Canada... I like the Sierra Club

So, we can see that the amount of atmospheric CO2 was definitely higher in the past, and considering that the levels have dropped cyclically in between, we don't currently have any data that would indicate we are now in some kind of "runaway greenhouse effect".


Just to clarify the Sierra Club graph, it's comparing CO2 and temperature to 1950 levels. See the superscripted text to the right (2002 = ~370 ppm C02) which says that 2002 levels were far higher than at any time in the past 400K years. The one above the Sierra Club one says the same thing.

I'm still reading through the rest of the post.

[Bryan Blaire]

Just to clarify the Sierra Club graph, it's comparing CO2 and temperature to 1950 levels. See the superscripted text to the right (2002 = ~370 ppm C02) which says that 2002 levels were far higher than at any time in the past 400K years. The one above the Sierra Club one says the same thing.

I'm still reading through the rest of the post.

True, but by the same token, that was added to the graph by "who knows". Also, if you read the CalSpace site, it does show that the ratio of prehistoric CO2 to current CO2 gets higher in the past (meaning more prehistoric CO2 atmospheric mass than we have now):

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/CO2History.html

Sorry, intended to include the above in the original post, but since I had to rewrite it do to losing it twice, I forgot to put it in.

Basically, we've been up, we've been down, we've been all over the place without man's interfering with the CO2 cycle. Mother Earth will likely handle it on her own regardless of what we do. It is our adaptation that we should worry about, and we may actually have triggered our own evolutionary pressures, we can only wait for our progeny to be able to look back and tell us that or not.

Now, if everyone had been trying to conserve WAY BACK WHEN, it is possible that we may not have gotten to this point where there is even a question. If we hadn't lost focus on developing technologies free of fossil fuel use, and had done more recycling of plastics, etc, it may not have even been a question at all. We didn't, and now we deal, however you choose to deal.

However, I will say this: All this worry about "clean energy", etc, is rather silly at this point, because regardless of what we are doing, China and India are going to be pumping out "dirty energy" for a while, as they have no intent of slowing their own industrialization. I say we increase ours as well, build ourselves some ships, and say "So long... have fun trying to breath in 50 years." Maybe we'll even get a new Homo species out of the deal.

[Crispin's Crispian]

True, but by the same token, that was added to the graph by "who knows".
Well the graph was made by "who knows," so I guess we should throw it out altogether.


Also, if you read the CalSpace site, it does show that the ratio of prehistoric CO2 to current CO2 gets higher in the past (meaning more prehistoric CO2 atmospheric mass than we have now):

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/CO2History.html

Sorry, intended to include the above in the original post, but since I had to rewrite it do to losing it twice, I forgot to put it in.

Basically, we've been up, we've been down, we've been all over the place without man's interfering with the CO2 cycle. Mother Earth will likely handle it on her own regardless of what we do. It is our adaptation that we should worry about, and we may actually have triggered our own evolutionary pressures, we can only wait for our progeny to be able to look back and tell us that or not.

Now, if everyone had been trying to conserve WAY BACK WHEN, it is possible that we may not have gotten to this point where there is even a question. If we hadn't lost focus on developing technologies free of fossil fuel use, and had done more recycling of plastics, etc, it may not have even been a question at all. We didn't, and now we deal, however you choose to deal.

However, I will say this: All this worry about "clean energy", etc, is rather silly at this point, because regardless of what we are doing, China and India are going to be pumping out "dirty energy" for a while, as they have no intent of slowing their own industrialization. I say we increase ours as well, build ourselves some ships, and say "So long... have fun trying to breath in 50 years." Maybe we'll even get a new Homo species out of the deal.
I completely agree that we are not at an all-time high for CO2, at least according ot my understanding. We might be at a historical high, though, depending on what you call history. Are concentrations so high that they will cause the temperature to rise thereby bringing about negative effects to our way of life? It would seem so. If that's true, I don't see why it's relevant that CO2 levels were even higher 400,000 years ago.

But I see where you're going. It's sort of the corollary to "chicken little"--you seem to agree that the sky is falling, but where Chicken Little wanted help to fix the problem, you're resigned to the fact and just want to leave the situation.

I don't see that happening any time soon, so if there's even a small chance that we can make Earth livable a little longer, shouldn't we take it? It's not like we're going to have a colony on Mars in our lifetimes.

[Weird Harold]

Are concentrations so high that they will cause the temperature to rise thereby bringing about negative effects to our way of life? It would seem so. If that's true, I don't see why it's relevant that CO2 levels were even higher 400,000 years ago.

It's relevant that CO2 levels were higher 300,000 years or so before mankind came along to the assertion that current CO2 levels are "anthropogenic."

In one sense, the data does lead to the conclusion that we should all pucker up and put our heads between our legs. If mankind is the sole cause of the current levels of CO2, then it took us three or four centuries to get where we are now and presumably will take nearly that long to "undo the damage" -- but Global Warming enviro-vangelists don't want us to do something about the CO2 that's already in the atmosphere, they just want us to shut down all CO2 Emissions immediately regardless of economic consequences.

Where is all the clamor for more trees and more growing things to absorb CO2? Where is the clamor for technologies that remove CO2 from the atmosphere and lock it into a form that won't deteriorate into Methane?

Yes, I know that car dealerships are promoting a tree planted for every car sold to absorb the CO2 the car will emit over its service life.

Oil companies are pumping CO2 into old oil fields to "sequester" it -- actually to force more oil out of those old fields, but it's more PC to point to the CO2 that they're burying.

I don't mind paying attention to my environmental impact, but I seriously object to people who are trying to scare the populace into not looking too closely at the panceas being touted by enviro-vangelists and their pet congres-critters.

That's what has brought us corn-for-ethanol subsidies and low-sulphur diesel fuel requirements that have combined according to th elaw of unintended consequences to provide us with nearly $5.00/gal diesel and $4.00/gal milk; among other rising food and fuel prices.

[Bryan Blaire]

Well the graph was made by "who knows," so I guess we should throw it out altogether.

Nah, we know who the graph was made by. ;) I'm not saying that the data point for 2002 isn't relevant, it's just not part of the analysis on that graph.

* * *
As far as Chicken Little, no, I don't actually think that the sky is falling at all. :eek: I'm in a "do what I've always done, which is more than Al Gore does" mode and waiting to see more scientific analysis of the situation. When I see a more convincing trend, then I may say we need to take more drastic actions. I do feel that WH's position is likely a lot better at this time though.

If flying around in a personal jet that puts out as much CO2 in one flight as I do in 4 months or so of driving in my truck and running up a bill that amounts to over 200K KWh (from the State of Tennessee's records) in electrical usage on his house is good enough for the environmental savior of the world, then my modest recycling, trying not to drive much, and conserving power through an Energy Star home with Energy Star appliances is good enough for me right now. Oh, and I've helped plant trees around Texas and a couple in California, along with my own yard, plus I work for the only Agency in the government that is actually actively trying to encourage people to bring in plants and trees to plant here. I work for the GREEN agency in our government. We save the forests from forest fires (well, we try really hard), we try to keep things planted, and we try to save the things that are planted from both domestic and foreign threats via defense against biological entities (bugs, diseases, foreign plants), and work against agricultural terrorism (which is actually a greater threat that one might think). I feel pretty safe in my current position and actions.

When people finally get around to telling the Savior Al Gore and his people to walk or take a F%*&ing boat, or hell, a horse, and to turn HIS thermostat up and HIS lights off, quit running his pool cleaner, etc, THEN I might start wondering whether I'm not doing enough.

[irerancincpkc]

When people finally get around to telling the Savior Al Gore and his people to walk or take a F%*&ing boat, or hell, a horse, and to turn HIS thermostat up and HIS lights off, quit running his pool cleaner, etc, THEN I might start wondering whether I'm not doing enough.
So you are going to use someone else as an excuse not to 'do enough', as you put it?

Look, even if you don't believe in all this, why wouldn't people want to treat the earth better?

[Sinistrum]

So you are going to use someone else as an excuse not to 'do enough', as you put it?

Whether the advocates of an argument buy into their own propaganda and adjust their lifestyles accordingly is an important point in considering whether the argument itself is meritorious, or being made for some other reason.

[Weird Harold]

So you are going to use someone else as an excuse not to 'do enough', as you put it?

Look, even if you don't believe in all this, why wouldn't people want to treat the earth better?
There's adifference between caring for the environment and being willing to go into bankruptcy to "protect" it for my great-great-great grandchildren.

[Crispin's Crispian]

So you are going to use someone else as an excuse not to 'do enough', as you put it?

Look, even if you don't believe in all this, why wouldn't people want to treat the earth better?
As I read what Bryan wrote, this is not what he's saying at all. He's simply saying that he doesn't want to be chided for not doing his part, when he is doing what he can, and when Al Gore may not walk his own talk.

[Bryan Blaire]

Spammer, you missed the point.

I have been doing my part for as long, if not longer than, you've even been alive, as has my family. My grandfather at one point worked as a petroleum engineer out in West Texas for a company that was looking at multi-direction horizontal/cross/slant drilling from a single site to multiple oil fields rather than take the time, money and "footprint" space to put in multiple well sites. Now, you can say "Well, they just wanted the money," and that would be true, but there was already an element of conservation in there, simply to allow the actual land owners more use of their land to do what they wanted to with it, whether that be ranch or plant trees.

Al Gore and his backers walk tall, but act extremely small with respect to the views they espouse.

People talk about living/building smaller houses. I say, if that's what you want, do it. Al Gore certainly hasn't (he's actually expanded his mansion, if the State of Tennessee's records are to be believed), and if I'm not mistaken, he's probably like most other folks in that $5 million+ in the bank region and has multiple homes. The man certainly hasn't given up his house to move into something smaller.

Gil and I raise trees every year from the Arbor Day Foundation's saplings we get and pass them out to our friends. It's got nothing to do with global warming, but everything to do with trying to replace some of what Earth has already given us.

I'll believe in the "news spreaders" more when I actually see them out doing something about what they profess to believe in, plant some trees with your own hands, guys, rather than just saying that others should, etc. Why is Gore making money via "emissions credits trading", rather than personally putting his own money into a company researching methods of getting the CO2 out of the air? Does he really not believe enough, or has he just found a great scheme to make money?

There's still a long way to go in the science, and the actual responses currently underway, and the ones at the top making the most noise about it are the ones that are doing the least in response, other than flying around and getting in the news to tell people that THEY should be the ones going out and doing things. I'm await some more facts to emerge, personally. Leaders should never ask or order others to do things that they wouldn't do themselves, in my opinion.

Presidents and Congress"people"/Senators shouldn't ask their citizens to send their children to war without their own children actually being at risk (as in, sign your own kids up), and they shouldn't ask their citizens to give up more money out of their pockets unless they do so first. Though that's a completely different issue.

So, Spammer, there's a reason I don't take people like you, that want to predict doom and gloom and make "calls to action" for everyone, seriously. I've never needed "global warming" to cause me to act on what I see needs to be done for our planet, I've known that climates change since I was about 6 or 7 and could understand Earth History and the changes that have already happened in the past on Earth. However, apparently Al Gore and your favorite Presidential candidate don't like the Earth very much, because they keep legislation in place that makes it almost impossible to build nuclear plants and block legislation that would change that, when it is known that production kilowatt hour for kilowatt hour, nuclear power is one of the cleaner options we currently have available to us. Are there waste issues? Sure, but then, there are waste and environmental issues with ALL forms of electrical generation, even "renewable" type power sources. People always say "Well, fine, but no one wants it in their backyard." Screw that, I do! I already live only a few miles from a landfill site, why not a nuke plant? Doesn't bother me much, and I'm not worried that my kids would grow up cancerous or deformed. I'd love to see another one go in here, especially if it would lower my energy costs. Even if there is a meltdown like Chernobyl, well, the Chernobyl area is one of the ecologically dense regions in Russia now, and the animals that live there are thriving with no apparent detrimental effects. Three Mile Island basically did nothing at all to the people and the environment of the area it was located in. Did they both kill workers? Yes, but then, all types of power plants that have issues with their operations have killed workers, some on a greater scale than the nuclear facilities (well, not Chernobyl) that have had issues. France has some of the cleanest air and water, and cheapest electricity, in the world, and gets something like 3/4ths of all its electricity from nuclear power, and there hasn't been a meltdown there that has killed people in my lifetime.

Here, just read up more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

Again, advocates and leaders should be willing to do what they say needs to be done FIRST, before telling us all that we should "do better."

[Sinistrum]

Again, advocates and leaders should be willing to do what they say needs to be done FIRST, before telling us all that we should "do better."

It's called leading by example. If the global warming proslethyzers want us all to change the way we live, no matter the personal and economic impact, then they should be the ones first in line to make those changes. The fact that they aren't says to me that their arguments are nothing more than cynical attempts to grab more power and wealth for themselves at the expense of the ordinary joe. The minute people like Al Gore gives up their private jets and starts taking a bike everywhere is the minute I start taking their arguments seriously.

[Davian93]

Are we FORGETTING the powerpoint presentation he made? Jeesh guys...give him some credit. This is the man that invented the internet afterall...

[John Snow]

I remember Quaid's early work;
in fact I watched some last week - Breaking Away.