Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Global Warming: Why The Sun is The Cause

graylady2

May 27 2007, 05:19 PM

QUOTE(Theodore @ May 25 2007, 03:39 AM) [snapback]1693294[/snapback]

Ignoring evidence? Of what? Man-made global warming? There is no evidence of that and this very point is the theme of my thread. I mean, come on.

This is what you stated in an earlier post:

QUOTE

As for your question: That has to do with pollution. Pure and simple. Humans do pollute. Always have and always will too. But the argument for pollution is not the same as planetary climate change, global cooling and global warming. Those rights, as I continue to maintain ~ belong to the SUN and to the SUN alone.

Pollution is hastening planetary climate change - that's the point people are trying to make. To insist humanity cannot impact the climate is erroneous. We have and continue to do so...
Pollution is man-made - which translates into humanity altering "planetary climate change". That's all most are trying to say, Theodore. I do believe most recognize the Sun as being the main reason for global warming/cooling, but we're also contributing to "planetary climate" change by our sewage and spewage. How can we not be? Greenhouse gases are a reality....imo, as alway.

Theodore

May 27 2007, 06:14 PM

QUOTE(graylady2 @ May 27 2007, 10:19 AM) [snapback]1696485[/snapback]

This is what you stated in an earlier post:
Pollution is hastening planetary climate change - that's the point people are trying to make. To insist humanity cannot impact the climate is erroneous. We have and continue to do so...
Pollution is man-made - which translates into humanity altering "planetary climate change". That's all most are trying to say, Theodore. I do believe most recognize the Sun as being the main reason for global warming/cooling, but we're also contributing to "planetary climate" change by our sewage and spewage. How can we not be? Greenhouse gases are a reality....imo, as alway.

I don't think that that is the point people have been trying to make Graylady. Many people have shown that they know very little about their main star - The Sun - to be able to know what is the cause of climate change. Most prescibe to the false mantra of those blaming humanity for global warming when that is very, very far from the truth of the matter.

We've always had greenhouse gases, and always will until time comes to an end. Even we humans breath in oxygen and we exhale CO2. The trees take in CO2 and release oxygen. All things are regulated, and ordered. Carbon is natural to the Earth and the varying fluxes of carbon in the atmosphere is regulated by the Sun.

As for human pollution: We all have a duty to this planet and ourselves to not pollute. It is stupid, unwise, and threatens our environments, and the future health of this planet. This goes for everything ~ the trash we throw away, wasting energy resources, oil spills and the billions of throw-away plastic diapers into landfills worldwide. Green technologies show us the way ~ and carbon can be a part of the green way. It already is naturally on Earth.

Green is good for business. Even post-industrial corporations can see this. The time of the battles between evironmentalists (we all are environmentalists because we all live in environments) and corporations must come to an end. the wasting of resources, the greed, the fighting, the hate ~ all this must stop. That has been the old way, the battles of the 20th century, but this is a new century, and a new generation is saying enough is enough. Life is too short. Why waste precious time?

Look to space weather for the causes of Earth's climate change because that is where it begins. It ends up as effects down here, or, what we call "the climate" and "the weather" on Earth.

However, I do not subsribe humanity as the cause for climate change, and no, most people do not recognize the SUN has the main reason for global warming. If they did we would not have the lies of those blaming humanity for global warming, and at this point in time, that is exactly what you hear ~ and it is not true ~ whatsoever.

Once the deafening hyerpole of pseudo-climate science, politically-correct pop culture fed lies of "man-made global warming" disappears ~ then we all can get down to the true causes of climate change, and why we cannot "reverse" any of it.

Just how do you "reverse" the laws of the cosmos? How do you reverse the activities of the Sun? Only God can do that.

All we can do is to strive harder towards forecasting climate conditions astronomically, in advance, to prepare geophysically to the changes of climate and the resulting weather ~ adapting ourselves to the planetary climate changes that have always been with us since creation of the solar system and the planets, including the Earth.

Stay on top of what is happening above your heads. Know the transits. Make sure your head is no further from the heavens than your feet are from the ground.

Lt_Ripley

May 27 2007, 06:31 PM

QUOTE

Listen, quit with the "I proved you wrong many times..." quips, ok? You've done nothing of the sort, and you know it. All you've done is push the same man-made climate change mantra over and over again with nothing but faulty models produced by money-grubbing climate scientists whose pay-checks depend on tens of millions of dollars of funding to continue the myth of man-made global warming. So give that a break. Stop feeding the cheeky money-grubbers and they'll find another topic to haunt us with their "oh my god we've got to reverse climate change."

actually the propaganda pushing money grubbers are big corporations that have been busted tryint to bribe individual scientists to say global warming by man doesn't exist. why ? because it would cost them money to stop polluting.

Exxon linked to climate change pay out
Think tank offers scientists $10,000 to criticize UN study confirming global warming and placing blame on humans.
By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
February 5 2007: 2:02 PM EST

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A think tank partly funded by Exxon Mobil sent letters to scientists offering them up to $10,000 to critique findings in a major global warming study released Friday which found that global warming was real and likely caused by burning fossil fuels.

The American Enterprise Institute sent the letters to scientists offering them $10,000, plus travel and other expenses, to highlight the shortcomings in a report from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group widely considered to be the authority on climate change science.

"The purpose of this project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change," said the memo, which was sent to a professor at Texas A&M University.

"We are hoping to sponsor a paper...that thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model [forecasting] outputs as they pertain to the development of climate policy..."

The letter was obtained by CNNMoney.com through ExxposeExxon, a coalition of environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and the Union of Concerned Scientists

To me this is really amazing, you never get offered that kind of money," said Don Wuebbles, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Illinois.

Wuebbles criticized the letter for attempting to influence the outcome of its authors.

"Even if groups ask you to write things, they don't try to give you the answer before hand," he said.

But David Karl, a climate professor at the University of Hawaii, said that the amount of money was typical for authoring such a report, although he did take issue with the tone of the letter.

"It sounds like they were looking for a particular outcome," he said.

Exxon has been criticized in the past for funding groups that promote what many experts believe to be junk science.

"This has become a strategy of Exxon's over the years," said Hoover. "The number one way to fight Kyoto was to insert doubt into people's mind."

A recent report from the Union of Concerned Scientists said Exxon spent $16 million between 1998 and 2005 funding 43 "organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science."

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/compa...ience/index.htm

and that is only one company out of many who have 'bought ' science .

man has contributed to global warming. a fact most regarded reputable science agrees on. caused soley by sun spots ? that's the propaganda.

Lt_Ripley

May 27 2007, 06:38 PM

"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has

• raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence

• funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings

• attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest

• used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming

ExxonMobil-funded organizations consist of an overlapping collection of individuals serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors that publish and re-publish the works of a small group of climate change contrarians. The George C. Marshall Institute, for instance, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil, recently touted a book edited by Patrick Michaels, a long-time climate change contrarian who is affiliated with at least 11 organizations funded by ExxonMobil. Similarly, ExxonMobil funds a number of lesser-known groups such as the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy and Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Both groups promote the work of several climate change contrarians, including Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist who is affiliated with at least nine ExxonMobil-funded groups.

Baliunas is best known for a 2003 paper alleging the climate had not changed significantly in the past millennia that was rebutted by 13 scientists who stated she had misrepresented their work in her paper. This renunciation did not stop ExxonMobil-funded groups from continuing to promote the paper. Through methods such as these, ExxonMobil has been able to amplify and prop up work that has been discredited by reputable climate scientists.

"When one looks closely, ExxonMobil's underhanded strategy is as clear and indisputable as the scientific research it's meant to discredit," said Seth Shulman, an investigative journalist who wrote the UCS report. "The paper trail shows that, to serve its corporate interests, ExxonMobil has built a vast echo chamber of seemingly independent groups with the express purpose of spreading disinformation about global warming."

ExxonMobil also exerted unprecedented influence over U.S. policy on global warming, from successfully recommending the appointment of key personnel in the Bush administration to funding climate change deniers in Congress.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envron...7/0103exxon.htm

REBEL

May 28 2007, 07:34 AM

Global Warming: Point of No Return? ... Make of it what you will.

graylady2

May 28 2007, 02:19 PM

QUOTE(Theodore @ May 27 2007, 01:14 PM) [snapback]1696545[/snapback]

We've always had greenhouse gases, and always will until time comes to an end. Even we humans breath in oxygen and we exhale CO2. The trees take in CO2 and release oxygen. All things are regulated, and ordered. Carbon is natural to the Earth and the varying fluxes of carbon in the atmosphere is regulated by the Sun.

I agree - except we've upset the balance of nature. Forests, which give off oxygen and take in CO2 are disappearing. That's an upset - less CO2 can be absorbed. The ocean absorbs CO2 also. But we're producing too much CO2, because we no longer have the "scrubbers" we once relied upon to balance it out. We're decimating the natural balance with our spewage and sewage. We don't realize how much waste we get rid of in the oceans...impacting marine life. We impact *all* life on this planet in a negative way.

QUOTE

As for human pollution: We all have a duty to this planet and ourselves to not pollute. It is stupid, unwise, and threatens our environments, and the future health of this planet. This goes for everything ~ the trash we throw away, wasting energy resources, oil spills and the billions of throw-away plastic diapers into landfills worldwide. Green technologies show us the way ~ and carbon can be a part of the green way. It already is naturally on Earth.

We are carbon based entities. That's learned in high school... Yes, carbon is natural. But, we're upsetting the "natural" balance...imo.

QUOTE

Green is good for business. Even post-industrial corporations can see this. The time of the battles between evironmentalists (we all are environmentalists because we all live in environments) and corporations must come to an end. the wasting of resources, the greed, the fighting, the hate ~ all this must stop. That has been the old way, the battles of the 20th century, but this is a new century, and a new generation is saying enough is enough. Life is too short. Why waste precious time?

You're addressing the choir... Why waste precious time? Hmmm - surely you're aware that time is *money*... Obscene greed is the rule of business/corporations. Spending money to clean up our toxified environment isn't making money...

<snip>

QUOTE

However, I do not subsribe humanity as the cause for climate change, and no, most people do not recognize the SUN has the main reason for global warming. If they did we would not have the lies of those blaming humanity for global warming, and at this point in time, that is exactly what you hear ~ and it is not true ~ whatsoever.

Well, considering the waste we produce, and the gases which come from rotting waste - I believe we are elbows deep in impacting the climate on our garden planet. Our impact is such that we've causing behavioral changes - not just in humanity - in the planet also. Imo, of course.

QUOTE

Once the deafening hyerpole of pseudo-climate science, politically-correct pop culture fed lies of "man-made global warming" disappears ~ then we all can get down to the true causes of climate change, and why we cannot "reverse" any of it.

We can't reverse it, agreed. But we can slow down the production of greenhouse gases which are impacting the unbalance we've created by our greed. We no longer value our life support system...we're proving this on a daily basis.

QUOTE

Just how do you "reverse" the laws of the cosmos? How do you reverse the activities of the Sun? Only God can do that.

Well, the laws of the cosmos, like the unbalance on our planet, are man made... I put little faith in anything we do, as corrupting/disrupting is what we do best...

QUOTE

All we can do is to strive harder towards forecasting climate conditions astronomically, in advance, to prepare geophysically to the changes of climate and the resulting weather ~ adapting ourselves to the planetary climate changes that have always been with us since creation of the solar system and the planets, including the Earth.

How do we prepare for the upset we've created? You can't unring a bell. Our life support system is rife with toxins which are man made. We're hugely dependent on plastics, an oil product, which aren't easily biodegraded... If we're creating unnatural products, we're upsetting the natural balance. That's a given... Upsetting the balance impacts the planet. That's the here and now, imo.

QUOTE

Stay on top of what is happening above your heads. Know the transits. Make sure your head is no further from the heavens than your feet are from the ground.

I'm keeping my eyes on the problem as I perceive it - corporate greed/humanity's disinterest/misinformation. Until we fully see and understand the consequences of our behavior, and how it's impacting everything in our environment, we're incapable of harmonic balance, which *was* universal.
Now - we're beyond unbalanced... ; )

graylady2

May 28 2007, 02:24 PM

QUOTE(Lt_Ripley @ May 27 2007, 01:31 PM) [snapback]1696561[/snapback]

actually the propaganda pushing money grubbers are big corporations that have been busted tryint to bribe individual scientists to say global warming by man doesn't exist. why ? because it would cost them money to stop polluting.

Exactly. In the U.S. a company dumping toxic waste in local waterways is fined $25K a day. It costs less to pay the 25K per day than to clean up the toxic mess they've created. And they're getting away with it. This is plain wrong - but it's about money - not humanity's wellness.

Theodore

May 29 2007, 02:52 AM

QUOTE(graylady2 @ May 28 2007, 07:19 AM) [snapback]1697538[/snapback]

I agree - except we've upset the balance of nature. Forests, which give off oxygen and take in CO2 are disappearing. That's an upset - less CO2 can be absorbed. The ocean absorbs CO2 also. But we're producing too much CO2, because we no longer have the "scrubbers" we once relied upon to balance it out. We're decimating the natural balance with our spewage and sewage. We don't realize how much waste we get rid of in the oceans...impacting marine life. We impact *all* life on this planet in a negative way.
We are carbon based entities. That's learned in high school... Yes, carbon is natural. But, we're upsetting the "natural" balance...imo.
You're addressing the choir... Why waste precious time? Hmmm - surely you're aware that time is *money*... Obscene greed is the rule of business/corporations. Spending money to clean up our toxified environment isn't making money...

<snip>
Well, considering the waste we produce, and the gases which come from rotting waste - I believe we are elbows deep in impacting the climate on our garden planet. Our impact is such that we've causing behavioral changes - not just in humanity - in the planet also. Imo, of course.
We can't reverse it, agreed. But we can slow down the production of greenhouse gases which are impacting the unbalance we've created by our greed. We no longer value our life support system...we're proving this on a daily basis.
Well, the laws of the cosmos, like the unbalance on our planet, are man made... I put little faith in anything we do, as corrupting/disrupting is what we do best...
How do we prepare for the upset we've created? You can't unring a bell. Our life support system is rife with toxins which are man made. We're hugely dependent on plastics, an oil product, which aren't easily biodegraded... If we're creating unnatural products, we're upsetting the natural balance. That's a given... Upsetting the balance impacts the planet. That's the here and now, imo.
I'm keeping my eyes on the problem as I perceive it - corporate greed/humanity's disinterest/misinformation. Until we fully see and understand the consequences of our behavior, and how it's impacting everything in our environment, we're incapable of harmonic balance, which *was* universal.
Now - we're beyond unbalanced... ; )

The balance of the cosmos, including the Earth is regulated, even that which appears to be a natural disaster is regulated. As for your statement, "Hmmm - surely you're aware that time is *money*... " ~ I disagree. Time is NOT money. Anything lost, including money, can be recovered. Time lost cannot. It is gone forever. That is why Time is precious and much more valuable than any amount of money.

magnetar

May 29 2007, 07:38 AM

QUOTE(Theodore @ May 29 2007, 02:52 AM) [snapback]1698373[/snapback]

The balance of the cosmos, including the Earth is regulated, even that which appears to be a natural disaster is regulated. As for your statement, "Hmmm - surely you're aware that time is *money*... " ~ I disagree. Time is NOT money. Anything lost, including money, can be recovered. Time lost cannot. It is gone forever. That is why Time is precious and much more valuable than any amount of money.

First- astrology is pseudo-science. Is that where you place your trust? Good grief!!! How silly!

Secondly, balance is equilibrium. Start over- get your FACTS right!

Regulated? Yeah- try running a stop sign and tell that to the judge!

Theodore

May 29 2007, 09:10 AM

QUOTE(magnetar @ May 29 2007, 12:38 AM) [snapback]1698591[/snapback]

First- astrology is pseudo-science. Is that where you place your trust? Good grief!!! How silly!

Secondly, balance is equilibrium. Start over- get your FACTS right!

Regulated? Yeah- try running a stop sign and tell that to the judge!

First ~ you don't know what you're talking about.
Second ~ you still don't know what you're talking about.
Third ~ you really just don't know what you are talking about.

Yes, all things are regulated. Without the motion of the planets, time would not exist. Before slapping a label on things, get your own facts straight Magnetar and please, get educated.

Running a stop sign? Jeez. How about looking ahead for one on the road, and starting to apply your brakes before reaching it? That way, you wouldn't have to face a judge. How silly you sound. Be a thinker, not a stinker.

lost_shaman

May 29 2007, 09:35 AM

QUOTE(Theodore @ May 27 2007, 01:14 PM) [snapback]1696545[/snapback]

As for human pollution: We all have a duty to this planet and ourselves to not pollute. It is stupid, unwise, and threatens our environments, and the future health of this planet. This goes for everything ~ the trash we throw away, wasting energy resources, oil spills and the billions of throw-away plastic diapers into landfills worldwide. Green technologies show us the way ~ and carbon can be a part of the green way. It already is naturally on Earth.

I agree and I think its very wise to think ahead and evaluate the impacts the we might have and neutralize those impacts as best we can before we have unwanted problems rather than hope we can react fast enough when the time actually comes.

graylady2

May 29 2007, 03:06 PM

QUOTE(Theodore @ May 28 2007, 09:52 PM) [snapback]1698373[/snapback]

The balance of the cosmos, including the Earth is regulated, even that which appears to be a natural disaster is regulated. As for your statement, "Hmmm - surely you're aware that time is *money*... " ~ I disagree. Time is NOT money.

It's the mantra of the rich, a mantra I do not agree with. It translates into - will it cost us money? If so - forget it. It's the new value system...
I don't agree that the cosmos is regulated... If it was regulated - we've managed to deregulate it with our desire for money, rather than healthy existence.

QUOTE

Anything lost, including money, can be recovered. Time lost cannot. It is gone forever. That is why Time is precious and much more valuable than any amount of money.

Not all lost things can be recovered... You can't use a blanket statement like that and hope it sticks, because it won't.

Reincarnated

May 29 2007, 03:19 PM

QUOTE(magnetar @ May 29 2007, 07:38 AM) [snapback]1698591[/snapback]

First- astrology is pseudo-science. Is that where you place your trust? Good grief!!! How silly!

You are right though.

graylady2

May 29 2007, 03:29 PM

QUOTE(lost_shaman @ May 29 2007, 04:35 AM) [snapback]1698678[/snapback]

I agree and I think its very wise to think ahead and evaluate the impacts the we might have and neutralize those impacts as best we can before we have unwanted problems rather than hope we can react fast enough when the time actually comes.

We're already deep into unwanted problems... What we've been doing with body waste, for eons, is a major problem. Yet, how many people actually consider what a large city, with at least a million population, does with it's waste? Look out your window and consider how many houses there are, and how many people live in one house, and how many times the toilet is flushed in a day.
Then factor in what happens once that toilet is flushed - where does all the waste go? Here, it will go to treatment plants - how well the waste is treated is open to debate. There are manure speaders which take the "treated waste" and spray it on vegetation. It's used as fertilizer...

Then, when we're done thinking about modern cities, and conveniences, we can take on third world countries - where sewage/body waste flows in the streets...causing health issues. Or, those living on water just use the bay, ocean, river - whatever water is handy - an unload their waste in that.
Then we can factor what corporations, and military, and airlines do with their waste... It's sickening to know we think what we're doing is okay. It's not - and hasn't been for a very long time...

Theodore

May 30 2007, 02:06 AM

QUOTE(Reincarnated @ May 29 2007, 08:19 AM) [snapback]1699025[/snapback]

You are right though.

Not even close.

Theodore

May 30 2007, 02:15 AM

QUOTE(graylady2 @ May 29 2007, 08:06 AM) [snapback]1699012[/snapback]

It's the mantra of the rich, a mantra I do not agree with. It translates into - will it cost us money? If so - forget it. It's the new value system...
I don't agree that the cosmos is regulated... If it was regulated - we've managed to deregulate it with our desire for money, rather than healthy existence.
Not all lost things can be recovered... You can't use a blanket statement like that and hope it sticks, because it won't.

Sorry Graylady, but time is not money. Never was and never will be. Time is most precious, and once lost can never be recovered. That is a fact, not a "blanket statement."

As for the cosmos being regulated. You can agree or not agree, but that does not change the facts that all things are ordered. I suggest you take more time to learn about the cosmos (and the solar system) you inhabit, and pay much closer attention to nature because obviously, you haven't, or, you would already know this.

Theodore

May 30 2007, 02:24 AM

QUOTE(lost_shaman @ May 29 2007, 02:35 AM) [snapback]1698678[/snapback]

I agree and I think its very wise to think ahead and evaluate the impacts the we might have and neutralize those impacts as best we can before we have unwanted problems rather than hope we can react fast enough when the time actually comes.

The best we can do is to forecast planetary climate conditions in advance while at the same time learning to live cleaner. Most of the "unwanted problems" stem from human ignorance of their own worlds, such as the ignorance of where and how weather and climate develops in the first place. The problems often come from uneducated and pop-culture-minded people who have little time to spend studying and observing the natural world but who spend more time on silliness, and taking on the opinions of others to save themselves from actually doing some thinking for themselves.

The impacts of this are quite evident considering the lack of education these days and the political-correctness crowds who pervade society with comments that reveal more about what they don't know than what they do know. Think of all those people who lack even the most basic knowledge of the Sun, for instance, and who, for all their "man-made global warming" comments didn't even consider that that bright star in the skies could have something to do with Earth's climate.

Leonardo

May 30 2007, 07:25 AM

For those among us, including me, who are uneducated about the sun...

sun

graylady2

May 30 2007, 02:31 PM

QUOTE(Theodore @ May 29 2007, 09:15 PM) [snapback]1700068[/snapback]

Sorry Graylady, but time is not money. Never was and never will be.

??? I explained what I meant...no further explanation from you is required...thanx anyway.

QUOTE

As for the cosmos being regulated. You can agree or not agree, but that does not change the facts that all things are ordered. I suggest you take more time to learn about the cosmos (and the solar system) you inhabit, and pay much closer attention to nature because obviously, you haven't, or, you would already know this.

My concern is for this planet - and what our legacy to our future generations (if there will be any) will be... I don't give a rat's petuty about the rest of the cosmos...
Who are you to tell me I don't pay attention to nature? You haven't a clue about me - except my opinions on a forum. Your quantum leap of supposed knowledge about me doesn't make you very credible...

Theodore

May 30 2007, 10:33 PM

QUOTE(graylady2 @ May 30 2007, 07:31 AM) [snapback]1700726[/snapback]

??? I explained what I meant...no further explanation from you is required...thanx anyway.
My concern is for this planet - and what our legacy to our future generations (if there will be any) will be... I don't give a rat's petuty about the rest of the cosmos...
Who are you to tell me I don't pay attention to nature? You haven't a clue about me - except my opinions on a forum. Your quantum leap of supposed knowledge about me doesn't make you very credible...

Well, you may not give a "rat's petuty" about the rest of the cosmos, but it sure gives a "petuty" about you. All the weather you experience comes from it, and that means nature, which has a direct influence on you, me ~ all of us. The Earth exists in the cosmos, so for you to say that you don't care about it is the same as not caring about the planet you inhabit, which, of course, I'm sure you will say that you most certainly do care about. As for being "credible" ~ there is no "quantum leap of supposed knowledge" about you. I don't subsribe to your belief that "time is money" ~ and explained why time is not money. However, if you care about the planet as you say that you do, then remember where this planet exists ~ that is in the cosmos. Not outside of it.

graylady2

May 31 2007, 01:21 PM

QUOTE(Theodore @ May 30 2007, 05:33 PM) [snapback]1701504[/snapback]

Well, you may not give a "rat's petuty" about the rest of the cosmos, but it sure gives a "petuty" about you. All the weather you experience comes from it, and that means nature, which has a direct influence on you, me ~ all of us. The Earth exists in the cosmos, so for you to say that you don't care about it is the same as not caring about the planet you inhabit, which, of course, I'm sure you will say that you most certainly do care about. As for being "credible" ~ there is no "quantum leap of supposed knowledge" about you. I don't subsribe to your belief that "time is money" ~ and explained why time is not money. However, if you care about the planet as you say that you do, then remember where this planet exists ~ that is in the cosmos. Not outside of it.

You know, Theodore - your reading comprehension is sadly lacking. It might serve you well if you actually understood what you were reading. Is your reading comprehension as acurate as your weather forecasting? If so - maybe you should begin a new field of *expertise*...
I said: "I don't give a rat's petuty about the rest of the cosmos..." Clearly "the rest" shows I've included our planet in the cosmos... It seems your quantum leaps fall flat... Does it hurt when that happens? Or does your ample ego refuse to acknowledge *your* errors?

Theodore

May 31 2007, 10:03 PM

QUOTE(graylady2 @ May 31 2007, 06:21 AM) [snapback]1702317[/snapback]

You know, Theodore - your reading comprehension is sadly lacking. It might serve you well if you actually understood what you were reading. Is your reading comprehension as acurate as your weather forecasting? If so - maybe you should begin a new field of *expertise*...
I said: "I don't give a rat's petuty about the rest of the cosmos..." Clearly "the rest" shows I've included our planet in the cosmos... It seems your quantum leaps fall flat... Does it hurt when that happens? Or does your ample ego refuse to acknowledge *your* errors?

I suggest you review your own "reading comprehension" Graylady. The Earth is included in the "rest of the cosmos." You left that out, and I reminded you of this. No need for you to get defensive about it with all the "quantum leaps" and "errors" and your yada yada yada moralizing from the hip, and your "time is money" comments, etc., etc., ok? Just deal straight up with it, be honest, and leave your ego out of it.

graylady2

Jun 1 2007, 01:48 PM

QUOTE(Theodore @ May 31 2007, 05:03 PM) [snapback]1703146[/snapback]

I suggest you review your own "reading comprehension" Graylady. The Earth is included in the "rest of the cosmos." You left that out, and I reminded you of this. No need for you to get defensive about it with all the "quantum leaps" and "errors" and your yada yada yada moralizing from the hip, and your "time is money" comments, etc., etc., ok? Just deal straight up with it, be honest, and leave your ego out of it.

Oh, brother...no kidding the earth is part of the cosmos...you'd have to be an idiot to think otherwise.
What am I being dishonest about, oh, great weatherman?
At least I'm not saying ridiculous things like: "Well, you may not give a "rat's petuty" about the rest of the cosmos, but it sure gives a "petuty" about you." The cosmos doesn't care about me - how absurd can you get? All that proves is how large your ego really is. Apparently you believe the cosmos cares about you...utterly ridiculous...imo.
BTW - I'm not being defensive, and the last thing I do is moralize - I call things like I see them. Plain and simple.

Theodore

Jun 1 2007, 07:25 PM

QUOTE(graylady2 @ Jun 1 2007, 06:48 AM) [snapback]1704048[/snapback]

Oh, brother...no kidding the earth is part of the cosmos...you'd have to be an idiot to think otherwise.
What am I being dishonest about, oh, great weatherman?
At least I'm not saying ridiculous things like: "Well, you may not give a "rat's petuty" about the rest of the cosmos, but it sure gives a "petuty" about you." The cosmos doesn't care about me - how absurd can you get? All that proves is how large your ego really is. Apparently you believe the cosmos cares about you...utterly ridiculous...imo.
BTW - I'm not being defensive, and the last thing I do is moralize - I call things like I see them. Plain and simple.

What? Listen, get back on topic Graylady... you're way off base here, with all the moralizing, comments on my "ego" ~ hey, you don't know me lady, not one bit, so you cannot comment on the size of my "ego" and the personal statements. I suggest rather than moralize on the size of a person's ego whom you do not know that you get better educated about the world and the cosmos you inhabit... including the weatehr. Plain and simple. I call things like I see them too.

MID

Jun 2 2007, 12:25 AM

QUOTE(Theodore @ May 29 2007, 10:24 PM) [snapback]1700088[/snapback]

The best we can do is to forecast planetary climate conditions in advance while at the same time learning to live cleaner. Most of the "unwanted problems" stem from human ignorance of their own worlds, such as the ignorance of where and how weather and climate develops in the first place. The problems often come from uneducated and pop-culture-minded people who have little time to spend studying and observing the natural world but who spend more time on silliness, and taking on the opinions of others to save themselves from actually doing some thinking for themselves.

The impacts of this are quite evident considering the lack of education these days and the political-correctness crowds who pervade society with comments that reveal more about what they don't know than what they do know. Think of all those people who lack even the most basic knowledge of the Sun, for instance, and who, for all their "man-made global warming" comments didn't even consider that that bright star in the skies could have something to do with Earth's climate.

Agreed, Theodore.
(And weather forecasting still, despite advances, is a relatively imprecise science...ask any pilot!).

The lack of education nowadays is profoundly disturbing. It allows people like Al Gore to be accepted hands down without scrutiny.

The odds-on favorit for the very long and continuing global warming trend we've seen for the past, oh, 10,000 years or so (since the end of the prior ice age), is the Sun.

More specifically, the rather cyclical and natural perturbations that the Earth's orbit incurs in its progression around her. This is actually just basic cosmological knowledge. We get longer and hotter days between equinoxes because the Earth's orbit makes slight changes and her axial tilt varies cyclically so as to allow for this to happen. It's been observed scientifically in rather regular fashion, and data clearly shows this happening for hundred's of thousands of years.

It may well be the Earth's attitude that results in this, but ultimately, it is the vast and incomprehensibvle energy of our local star which causes it to occur.

lost_shaman

Jun 2 2007, 07:19 AM

QUOTE(MID @ Jun 1 2007, 06:25 PM) [snapback]1704945[/snapback]

The lack of education nowadays is profoundly disturbing. It allows people like Al Gore to be accepted hands down without scrutiny.

The odds-on favorit for the very long and continuing global warming trend we've seen for the past, oh, 10,000 years or so (since the end of the prior ice age), is the Sun.

More specifically, the rather cyclical and natural perturbations that the Earth's orbit incurs in its progression around her. This is actually just basic cosmological knowledge. We get longer and hotter days between equinoxes because the Earth's orbit makes slight changes and her axial tilt varies cyclically so as to allow for this to happen. It's been observed scientifically in rather regular fashion, and data clearly shows this happening for hundred's of thousands of years.

It may well be the Earth's attitude that results in this, but ultimately, it is the vast and incomprehensibvle energy of our local star which causes it to occur.

That's not the issue here. It never has been that should be clear. The issue is the way in which the Earth traps and desperses the Heat from the Sun.

Essan

Jun 2 2007, 09:16 AM

[quote name='MID' date='Jun 2 2007, 01:25 AM' post='1704945']

The odds-on favorit for the very long and continuing global warming trend we've seen for the past, oh, 10,000 years or so (since the end of the prior ice age), is the Sun.
[quote]

Actually, for much of the past 4,000 years we've been in a cooling trend

Anyway, the sun doesn't cause land change usage, mass deforestation, the creation of more high level clouds and the reduction in the duration of low level clouds. these are all down to human activities. So whether the sun or anything else is responsible for some current warming, humans are very definitely affecting climates on an increasing scale.

And besides, so what if we adopt all the strategies for combatting AGW and then find it wasn't us after all? We'd end up in the disastrous situation of having more energy efficient lifestyles, spending less money on energy, and not being reliant on Russia or the Middle East for a fuel supplies. We'll have preserved the world's remaining rain forests. And most of the world's human population will be wealthier and healthier. Question really is why are some people so set against these things?????

graylady2

Jun 2 2007, 02:27 PM

QUOTE(Theodore @ Jun 1 2007, 02:25 PM) [snapback]1704535[/snapback]

What? Listen, get back on topic Graylady... you're way off base here, with all the moralizing, comments on my "ego" ~ hey, you don't know me lady, not one bit, so you cannot comment on the size of my "ego" and the personal statements. I suggest rather than moralize on the size of a person's ego whom you do not know that you get better educated about the world and the cosmos you inhabit... including the weatehr. Plain and simple. I call things like I see them too.

You do remember a post where you stated I don't pay attention to nature, don't you? I reminded you that you can't possibly know what I pay attention to... And here you are, suggesting I "get better educated about the world and the cosmos"... iow - asserting what you think you know about me. Isn't that hypocrisy? Yes...I do believe it is.

MID

Jun 2 2007, 10:11 PM

QUOTE(lost_shaman @ Jun 2 2007, 03:19 AM) [snapback]1705275[/snapback]

That's not the issue here. It never has been that should be clear. The issue is the way in which the Earth traps and desperses the Heat from the Sun.

Really?

I thought that the mechanisms of trapping and dispersing heat from the Sun were well understood, and that the actual issue was man's alleged responsibility for the period of global warming we've been looking at for the past couple of decades (a small microscopic look at the tip of a 10,000 year occurrance), as opposed to the very reasonable idea that the Sun is the primary driving force in this patterm, which has repeated itself countless times over eons...

MID

Jun 2 2007, 11:24 PM

QUOTE(Essan @ Jun 2 2007, 05:16 AM) [snapback]1705319[/snapback]

Actually, for much of the past 4,000 years we've been in a cooling trend

I caught the (

) ....thanks for that!

QUOTE

Anyway, the sun doesn't cause land change usage, mass deforestation, the creation of more high level clouds and the reduction in the duration of low level clouds. these are all down to human activities. So whether the sun or anything else is responsible for some current warming, humans are very definitely affecting climates on an increasing scale.

These are some relatively unassociated things.
The Sun doesn't cause land use changes, and deforestation, of course. Nor does it cause the re-forestation that is taking place. You mention the creation of more high level clouds and the reduction in duration of low-level clouds in the same breath. That'll take some explaining...especially as pertains to man's effects on mechanisms for which his power cannot possibly have an effect.

QUOTE

And besides, so what if we adopt all the strategies for combatting AGW and then find it wasn't us after all? We'd end up in the disastrous situation of having more energy efficient lifestyles, spending less money on energy, and not being reliant on Russia or the Middle East for a fuel supplies. We'll have preserved the world's remaining rain forests. And most of the world's human population will be wealthier and healthier. Question really is why are some people so set against these things?????

This, however, is a very interesting statement.

The idea of being more energy efficient, spending less money on energy, and not being reliant on the Middle East for it are laudable points, and are positions that the vast majority of people opposed to this man-made global warming stuff hold to.

However, the so-called strategies for combatting man-made global warming have little to do with reducing anything but man's self-sufficiency, and increasing his expenses and reliance on the government through higher taxes and draconian programs based upon some illusory guilt about an illusion. They are based upon a no-thing.

Nonetheless, decreasing our dependency on foreign oil, increasing our self-sufficiency, and reducing our energy costs are all reasonable things to be doing, and are things we should have been doing for decades.

We do not wish to adopt strategies for combatting something that we have no proof of. At the same time, we need to be looking at producing our own energy needs, as well as developing alternative and efficient sources of energy. This is a long overdue situation, and one that far sighted leaders will encourage and enable.

But reacting to this man-made global warming mythology is not the way to go about it.

Theodore

Jun 2 2007, 11:26 PM

QUOTE(graylady2 @ Jun 2 2007, 07:27 AM) [snapback]1705579[/snapback]

You do remember a post where you stated I don't pay attention to nature, don't you? I reminded you that you can't possibly know what I pay attention to... And here you are, suggesting I "get better educated about the world and the cosmos"... iow - asserting what you think you know about me. Isn't that hypocrisy? Yes...I do believe it is.

Call it what you want. You are responsible for your own comments. From what I've seen in most of your own comments Graylady is that you seem to be very comfortable in blaming others ~ humanity for global warming, etc., ~ and then talk about the cosmos in a manner that surely proves that you've not done your homework, particularly on the Sun. If anything is hypocritical, it is that. And yes, I strongly suggest that you pay much closer to nature than you do. So please, quit with the defensiveness and do your own homework about thw world in general and the cosmos in particularly, which, if you recall, you said you couldn't give a "rat's petuty" about. Hyprocritical? Yes... I do believe it is...

Theodore

Jun 2 2007, 11:28 PM

QUOTE(MID @ Jun 2 2007, 04:24 PM) [snapback]1706153[/snapback]

I caught the (

) ....thanks for that!
These are some relatively unassociated things.
The Sun doesn't cause land use changes, and deforestation, of course. Nor does it cause the re-forestation that is taking place. You mention the creation of more high level clouds and the reduction in duration of low-level clouds in the same breath. That'll take some explaining...especially as pertains to man's effects on mechanisms for which his power cannot possibly have an effect.
This, however, is a very interesting statement.

The idea of being more energy efficient, spending less money on energy, and not being reliant on the Middle East for it are laudable points, and are positions that the vast majority of people opposed to this man-made global warming stuff hold to.

However, the so-called strategies for combatting man-made global warming have little to do with reducing anything but man's self-sufficiency, and increasing his expenses and reliance on the government through higher taxes and draconian programs based upon some illusory guilt about an illusion. They are based upon a no-thing.

Nonetheless, decreasing our dependency on foreign oil, increasing our self-sufficiency, and reducing our energy costs are all reasonable things to be doing, and are things we should have been doing for decades.

We do not wish to adopt strategies for combatting something that we have no proof of. At the same time, we need to be looking at producing our own energy needs, as well as developing alternative and efficient sources of energy. This is a long overdue situation, and one that far sighted leaders will encourage and enable.

But reacting to this man-made global warming mythology is not the way to go about it.

Excellent statement MID, and very true.

lost_shaman

Jun 2 2007, 11:51 PM

QUOTE(MID @ Jun 2 2007, 04:11 PM) [snapback]1706068[/snapback]

Really?

I thought that the mechanisms of trapping and dispersing heat from the Sun were well understood

They are fairly well understood, that is why we call CO2 a Greenhouse gas! That is why we are talking about this issue in the first place.

QUOTE(MID @ Jun 2 2007, 04:11 PM) [snapback]1706068[/snapback]

, and that the actual issue was man's alleged responsibility for the period of global warming we've been looking at for the past couple of decades (a small microscopic look at the tip of a 10,000 year occurrance), as opposed to the very reasonable idea that the Sun is the primary driving force in this patterm, which has repeated itself countless times over eons...

The issue isn't an issue surrounding a question of 'Is climate change natural or caused by man?'.

It is an issue surrounding the question 'How much will Man's activities effect the natural climate change?'.

magnetar

Jun 3 2007, 09:16 AM

I had a thread regarding a program on australian T.V. about oil and CO2. The contention was that the Earth might re-experience anoxic oceans if we continue using fossil fuels. They focused on crude oil, its history, up through today.

However, they focused on how Earth used to be- Pangea, volcanoes, no ice at the Poles... Those conditions led to acidic waters and die-off, and everything that sank turned into oil after subduction...

Ocean circulation around Pangea seemed to play a part in this. Today, we have seperated continents, ice north and south, and a different treadmill for the currents playing on warmer and cooler waters.

The concern expressed was that we would eventually put back into play, long since buried carbon, and risk a runaway greenhouse condition- taking hundreds or perhaps a thousand years to begin. It does not take too long to ultimately de-oxygenate the oceans, because the mixing would decrease when the poles melt, sufficiently. After die-off, it takes a long time to change the climate and re-bloom the oceans. And, it was said to be largely dependent on greenhouse bell curves, and CO2.

I don't advocate you watch this, since it is standard classroom science. But, I thought it was at least a "warm up" to what some of the fuss is about.

http://abc.net.au/science/crude/

Theodore

Jun 4 2007, 07:49 PM

QUOTE(lost_shaman @ Jun 2 2007, 04:51 PM) [snapback]1706192[/snapback]

They are fairly well understood, that is why we call CO2 a Greenhouse gas! That is why we are talking about this issue in the first place.
The issue isn't an issue surrounding a question of 'Is climate change natural or caused by man?'.

It is an issue surrounding the question 'How much will Man's activities effect the natural climate change?'.

The point is that it is not much when talking about planetary climate change, which is not caused by man. It never has been.

MID

Jun 4 2007, 10:11 PM

QUOTE(Theodore @ Jun 4 2007, 03:49 PM) [snapback]1708875[/snapback]

The point is that it is not much when talking about planetary climate change, which is not caused by man. It never has been.

I redundantly quote again...(it never seems to get through)

"A couple of farts in a hurricane."
That's about man's total effect.

graylady2

Jun 5 2007, 02:38 PM

QUOTE(Theodore @ Jun 2 2007, 06:26 PM) [snapback]1706157[/snapback]

Call it what you want. You are responsible for your own comments.

As are you...

QUOTE

From what I've seen in most of your own comments Graylady is that you seem to be very comfortable in blaming others ~ humanity for global warming, etc.,

Humanity has created the problems this planet has to deal with. To believe otherwise is ludicrous. We like to war, for no reason other than capital gain, or annihilating some/one/thing we want control of. We encroach on land...and that's okay, because we'll just kill the natural habitants for wandering in our neighborhoods.

QUOTE

and then talk about the cosmos in a manner that surely proves that you've not done your homework, particularly on the Sun. If anything is hypocritical, it is that.

My feet (and head) are firmly planted on this planet. Why would I look out of this world when there is absolutely nothing I can do about what happens "out there"? What's to gain having my head in the stars when there is so much I can do to try and alleviate hardships on this planet?

QUOTE

And yes, I strongly suggest that you pay much closer to nature than you do. So please, quit with the defensiveness and do your own homework about thw world in general and the cosmos in particularly, which, if you recall, you said you couldn't give a "rat's petuty" about. Hyprocritical? Yes... I do believe it is...

Suggest away - I couldn't care less. You keep your head out there - you're far too sunstruck, imo, to realize what's happening around you. Blaming others? That's a hoot! We *are* responsible for the ills of the world...something you can't seem to grasp... It's not blame - it's reality.

Leonardo

Jun 5 2007, 05:00 PM

QUOTE(MID @ Jun 4 2007, 11:11 PM) [snapback]1709043[/snapback]

I redundantly quote again...(it never seems to get through)
"A couple of farts in a hurricane."
That's about man's total effect.

MID,

While I, and all the others posting on here (with one or two possible exceptions), have never denied the CAUSE of global warming/climate change, there seems to be a division in how much humankind's activities have contributed to the current trend. The extensive deforestation and landscape usage changing, the extra discharge of greenhouse gases and other reactive chemicals which have a knock-on effect to the amount of energy this planet is able to absorb/reflect, these things are having an effect which is probably unprecedented in the previous episodes of global climate change caused by the sun's cyclical nature.

To pass off these effects as "two farts in a hurricane" would seem to me to be an attitude to those who saw Hitler as a minor political issue during the 1930's. We can't afford to look back with hindsight and say "well, we underestimated this time" because the possible effects we are having on escalating the climate change issue could be catastrophic. I agree there is a burgeoning industry being made of climate change and some people will undoubtedly profit from this, but is that necessarily a bad thing?

Making our contribution to climate change out to be 'nothing', 'inconsequential' etc, is just feeding those who wish to do nothing to clean up our act the power to keep doing nothing. We cannot prevent climate change, I think most people accept that, but we can, perhaps, stop the positive feedback our activities are having on the cycle and maybe in time for us to prevent a truly catastrophic outcome.

MID

Jun 5 2007, 10:50 PM

QUOTE(Leonardo @ Jun 5 2007, 01:00 PM) [snapback]1710136[/snapback]

MID,

While I, and all the others posting on here (with one or two possible exceptions), have never denied the CAUSE of global warming/climate change, there seems to be a division in how much humankind's activities have contributed to the current trend. The extensive deforestation and landscape usage changing, the extra discharge of greenhouse gases and other reactive chemicals which have a knock-on effect to the amount of energy this planet is able to absorb/reflect, these things are having an effect which is probably unprecedented in the previous episodes of global climate change caused by the sun's cyclical nature.

To pass off these effects as "two farts in a hurricane" would seem to me to be an attitude to those who saw Hitler as a minor political issue during the 1930's. We can't afford to look back with hindsight and say "well, we underestimated this time" because the possible effects we are having on escalating the climate change issue could be catastrophic. I agree there is a burgeoning industry being made of climate change and some people will undoubtedly profit from this, but is that necessarily a bad thing?

Making our contribution to climate change out to be 'nothing', 'inconsequential' etc, is just feeding those who wish to do nothing to clean up our act the power to keep doing nothing. We cannot prevent climate change, I think most people accept that, but we can, perhaps, stop the positive feedback our activities are having on the cycle and maybe in time for us to prevent a truly catastrophic outcome.

My quote is from one of the pre-emminent climatologists in the world today.
And it addresses man's contribution to the undeniable global warming trend that has been occurring for a very long time. I personally think it has no relation whatsoever to those who thought that Hitler was inconsequential during the 1930s (and indeed there were some who saw it just that way...like many today see people like Ahmadinejad as an inconsequential threat..a amost distressing thing indeed).

I think that major climatologists indicate that our contribution to the current trend amounts to flatulence relative to cyclonic energy is primarily due to their undeerstanding of science and its method, and the fact that we have no substantial evidence to support the current highly politicized hypothesis of man's contribution.

The "possible" effects we are having are a long way from being determined, despite the prevalent publicity attached to what is nothing more than a very weakly supported hypothesis.

That is the issue in the debate. Science v. politically motivated fear mongering. We have a very long way to go before we can say with any substantive authority that man's greenhouse gas emission have any effect on the GLOBAL environs.

Nonetheless, man does have profound effects on his local environments, and he can indeed affect them. This is where human efforts should be directed on an environmental level.

Theodore

Jun 6 2007, 12:32 AM

QUOTE(graylady2 @ Jun 5 2007, 07:38 AM) [snapback]1709954[/snapback]

As are you...
Humanity has created the problems this planet has to deal with. To believe otherwise is ludicrous. We like to war, for no reason other than capital gain, or annihilating some/one/thing we want control of. We encroach on land...and that's okay, because we'll just kill the natural habitants for wandering in our neighborhoods.
My feet (and head) are firmly planted on this planet. Why would I look out of this world when there is absolutely nothing I can do about what happens "out there"? What's to gain having my head in the stars when there is so much I can do to try and alleviate hardships on this planet?
Suggest away - I couldn't care less. You keep your head out there - you're far too sunstruck, imo, to realize what's happening around you. Blaming others? That's a hoot! We *are* responsible for the ills of the world...something you can't seem to grasp... It's not blame - it's reality.

I highly doubt that you are aware of what I can "grasp" and what I cannot "grasp? Graylady. As for your comment that "there is absolutely nothing I can do about what happens "out there"? ~ that is exactly correct when it comes to planetary climate change. All one can do is to forecast in advance, and be prepared for the climate changes.

One more thing ~ you seperate the Earth from the rest of the cosmos. I do not. The Earth is part of that same cosmos that for some strange reason, you seem to think is "out there." Remember, the Earth is a planet, and lives "out there" as you live on the Earth. I suggest you might want to get a little "sunstruck" yourself and appreciate that star in the skies that is responsible for all life on this planet and do less blaming... which you appear to want to do plenty of these days.

Theodore

Jun 6 2007, 12:33 AM

QUOTE(MID @ Jun 4 2007, 03:11 PM) [snapback]1709043[/snapback]

I redundantly quote again...(it never seems to get through)
"A couple of farts in a hurricane."
That's about man's total effect.

Here, here. I agree.

Reincarnated

Jun 6 2007, 12:47 AM

Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter

Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-a-million years. In recent centuries, however, CO2 levels have risen sharply, to at least 380 ppm.

So what's going on? It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon "sinks".

Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in February 2007 (pdf format). Disturbances to the land – through deforestation and agriculture, for instance – also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year.

About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Volcanic misunderstanding

Claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities are simply not true. In the very distant past, there have been volcanic eruptions so massive that they covered vast areas in lava more than a kilometre thick and appear to have released enough CO2 to warm the planet after the initial cooling caused by the dust (see Wipeout). But even with such gigantic eruptions, most of subsequent warming may have been due to methane released when lava heated coal deposits, rather than from CO2 from the volcanoes.

Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year – about a hundredth of human emissions (pdf document).

Source

Leonardo

Jun 6 2007, 11:02 AM

QUOTE(MID @ Jun 5 2007, 11:50 PM) [snapback]1710769[/snapback]

The "possible" effects we are having are a long way from being determined, despite the prevalent publicity attached to what is nothing more than a very weakly supported hypothesis.

That is the issue in the debate. Science v. politically motivated fear mongering. We have a very long way to go before we can say with any substantive authority that man's greenhouse gas emission have any effect on the GLOBAL environs.

Nonetheless, man does have profound effects on his local environments, and he can indeed affect them. This is where human efforts should be directed on an environmental level.

So, we have a situation unparalleled in the history of climate science - where we can observe a possible effect a species has on global climate - and the only suggestion the 'pre-emminent climatologists' can suggest is "wait and see"?

How long should we wait? Until the positive feedback we are introducing is unstoppable and the effect is undeniable? Or should we pre-empt any such scenario and recognise we may be having some effect and look to ameliorate this now? Are these climatologists so full of hubris they would rather the world sit back and watch while everyone suffers just so they can prove their theories?

This might sound like one of your typical fear-mongering pleas. Have you considered the possibility that these climatologists simply haven't got experience with a situation like that we are facing today though, so they are relying on data which has no relevance as it doesn't include our possible effect? If they [these pre-emminent climatologists] are wrong what are the consequences?

Celumnaz

Jun 6 2007, 12:49 PM

latest findings
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...en/hansenpr.jsp

QUOTE

Hansen's House Testimony Debunked

A new report published today by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change challenges NASA scientist James Hansen's claims of a dire global warming future. In the report, physicist Sherwood Idso and agronomist Craig Idso conducted a comprehensive evaluation of Hansen's April 26, 2007 testimony before the House Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming and concluded there is "very little evidence to justify [Hansen's] policy prescriptions for dealing with what he calls a 'dangerous climate change.'"

Considered by many to be perhaps the world's foremost authority on the 'greenhouse effect' of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, Hansen's statements are typically regarded as expressions of fact. "In many cases, however, they are merely his opinions," said Dr. Sherwood Idso, lead author of the report. "When Hansen's testimony is compared with what has been revealed by the scientific investigations of a diverse assemblage of highly competent researchers in a wide variety of academic disciplines, we find that he paints a very different picture of the role of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in shaping the future fortunes of man and nature alike than what is suggested by that larger body of work."

Among the inconsistencies between Hansen's House of Representatives' testimony and the scientific literature is Hansen's claim of a sea level rise this century measured in meters, due to "the likely demise of the West Antarctic ice sheet." However, the most recent and comprehensive review of potential sea level rise due to contributions from the wastage of both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets suggests a century-long rise measured in millimeters. Similarly, whereas Hansen claims the rate of sea level rise is accelerating, century-scale data indicate the mean rate-of-rise of the global ocean has either not accelerated at all or has actually slowed over the latter part of the past century.

Another Hansen claim that is at odds with reality is that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are "skyrocketing," which is not universally true. The most important contrary example is methane, which has historically provided a climate forcing equal to approximately half that provided by CO2, but whose atmospheric concentration actually stabilized several years ago and has not risen since by any appreciable amount.

Also contrary to what Hansen claims is the fact that the earth is not any warmer now - and is possibly a fair amount cooler - than it was many times in the past. These warmer-than-present periods include much of the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago, most of the Climatic Optimum that held sway during the central portion of the current interglacial, and significant portions of all four of the prior interglacials, when (in all six cases) the air's CO2 concentration was much lower than it is today. These facts are extremely important because they demonstrate that today's temperatures are not in any way unusual, unnatural or unprecedented, contrary to what Hansen claims.

Hansen also foresees a warming-induced "extermination of a large fraction of plant and animal species," with many at high latitudes and altitudes being "pushed off the planet." However, as demonstrated by the scientific studies cited in the Center's critique of Hansen's testimony, warming - especially when accompanied by an increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration - typically results in an expansion of the ranges of terrestrial plants and animals, leading to increases in biodiversity almost everywhere on the planet. Likewise, where Hansen sees nothing but "destruction of coral reefs and other ocean life" in response to a predicted CO2-induced acidification of the world's oceans, real-world observations suggest just the opposite.

Read the entire report (pdf) at: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...onyCritique.pdf

To read the report in html format, go here: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...sencritique.jsp.

Leonardo

Jun 6 2007, 03:25 PM

Celumnaz,

Over the past 100 years the sea level rise has been in the region of 10 to 25 cm. Now, I can understand the Dr's Idso reporting that the sea level rise in the next 100 years may be measured in millimetres - if you consider that 1 metre is 1000 millimetres

- however are they seriously stating that the sea level rise is actually slowing down! This is not as much of the data actually suggests as the below link will show...

Sea level rise over the last 100 years

The next two paragraphs of the report seem to be misleading, although it would be crass to suggest this is deliberate...maybe. If the greenhouse effect of methane is half that of CO2 then why focus on the fact that the level of this in the atmosphere has remained static? When combined with the second paragraph statement that the CO2 levels we see today are far in excess of he warm periods of the past it seems the conclusions reached in this report are obfuscating the truth that this period of climate change is unlike those of the past. The data recovered from ice cores regarding past warm periods is irrelevant to today's situation because the atmospheric conditions are very different.

In the final paragraph the assertion that warming and an increase in CO2 levels widens the habitats of terrestrial plants is also misleading because it does not focus on the species of plants reaping this benefit. Many plant species may perish, to be replaced by plant species from habitats presently in this 'warm belt', and the associated species of fauna and micro-fauna dependant on these [perished] plants will also perish. Global diversity will plummet (not increase as this report suggests) and we simply do not know how this will affect the global organism.

The House report (as reported in the article you posted) seems to me to be laced with inaccuracies and subterfuge. The scientists who wrote it do not take into account the specifics of effect but have generalised based on invalid data. The upshot of climate change is we do not know what effect this will have, but the worst case scenario for the course of taking positive action is at least as good as the best case scenario for the course of taking no action. It's Pascal's Wager in it's purest form and really a no-brainer for anyone who's not got an interest in making money out of doing nothing.

JC2

Jun 6 2007, 03:30 PM

Seems you can’t trust anyone these days, knew I’d seen that name somewhere, that’s one family you who have sold their souls to you know who…..

Have a look here…..http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Idsos.html

Reincarnated

Jun 6 2007, 05:24 PM

Here is a little something about Celumnaz's source:

QUOTE

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. The Center's current mission is to "disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climatic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content."

The Center means of disseminating information, their magazine and website CO2 Science, includes articles both questioning the existence of climate change as well as touting the benefits to the biosphere from carbon dioxide enrichment. All aspects of climate change and its predicted effects - from melting ice caps to species extinction, to more severe weather - are criticized by the Center and either refuted or presented as beneficial. Fred Palmer, head of Western Fuels, said about the center: "The Center's viewpoint is a needed antidote to the misleading and usually erroneous scientific claims emanating from the Federal scientific establishment and adopted by leading politicians, such as Vice President Al Gore." The Center has since tried to distance itself from the Western Fuels Association, however, the Center is run by Keith and Craig Idso, along with their father, Sherwood. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another. Keith Idso, then a doctoral candidate at the University of Arizona, was a paid expert witness for Western Fuels Association at a 1995 Minnesota Public Utilities commission hearing in St. Paul, MN, along with MIT's Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, and Robert Balling (The Heat is On). According to news from Basin Electr ic, a Western Fuels Association member, Craig Idso produced a report, "The Greening of Planet Earth." Its Progression from Hypothesis to Theory," in January 1998 for the Western Fuels Association (Basin Electric Latest News no date given).

1998
$10,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 1998 grants list

2000
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
project support
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2003
$40,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Climate Change Activities
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report

2005
$25,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)

Source

And

QUOTE

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is a non-profit organization based in Arizona. Its stated purpose is to "disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climatic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO₂ content."[1] The Center produces a weekly online science newsletter called CO₂ Science.

The center was founded and is run by Craig D Idso, along with Sherwood B Idso, his father, and Keith E Idso, his brother. They came from backgrounds in agriculture and climate, and became involved in the global warming controversy through their study of earth's temperature sensitivity to radiative perturbations and plant responses to elevated CO₂ levels and carbon sequestration. The Center is sharply critical of the position of the IPCC and believes that global warming will be beneficial to mankind.

Source

Doesn't surprise me one bit though. Pushing rediculous propaganda has always been Celumnaz's style.

greggK

Jun 6 2007, 07:03 PM

Do y'all know what Nitrogen does? Every breath you take is about 78% Nitrogen. It doesnt matter if the air is so polluted that ghosts cannot even live, on earth, it is 78% Nitrogen.
What does Nitrogen do, though?
Nothing.
What would happen if there were less Nitrogen? You would burn from the inside out.
All of this debate on what is causing the warming is getting rediculous. It is the sun that is the source of the heat, but it is the Oxygen reacting with the Carbon and the rest of the atoms in the atmosphere that is magnifying the heat. It is the 3 atom molecule of Oxygen that displaces the UV rays from the sun in our upper atmosphere, but something is driving it down and when that happens, breathing problems occur.
If this atmosphere was too much more that 21% Oxygen, we would all burn up.
Our orbit in this system is inside of the zone of the outer aura of the sun. That is why we are affected by the sunspots. The inside temperature of the sun is so hot; don't even want to go there!
The heat from one parsect of time in the reaction of the sun would boil down the oceans. But that is why it is so far away. It even takes a seraphic angel a couple of seconds to get there from here. And you know how fast they are!

MID

Jun 6 2007, 09:33 PM

QUOTE(Leonardo @ Jun 6 2007, 07:02 AM) [snapback]1711390[/snapback]

So, we have a situation unparalleled in the history of climate science - where we can observe a possible effect a species has on global climate - and the only suggestion the 'pre-emminent climatologists' can suggest is "wait and see"?

Not at all, Leonardo.
This is not unparalleled, nor is is it "wait and see".

It is actually quite normal science.
We observe phenomena, and create hypotheses about the observations.

The next step is to experiment and research to verify the hypothesis or deny it. That is what climate scientists condone. And, it is what they are doing.

What is actually unprecedented in this particular case is the fact that an hypothesis has been described as what it is, by definition, not: a fact. This has never, and indeed, cannot happen in science, and is what is truly remarkable, and also very transparent as pertains to reasons for it's creation.

Climatologists are not in any way saying, "Wait and see". They are saying, "Don't advance an hypothesis into the realm of theory and beyond until you do your homework and show that this is viable (scientific method 101)."

QUOTE

How long should we wait? Until the positive feedback we are introducing is unstoppable and the effect is undeniable? Or should we pre-empt any such scenario and recognise we may be having some effect and look to ameliorate this now?

The question is based upon the assumption that scientists condone wait and see. They do not. They condone, "Let's see."
We wait until research proves that there is in fact positive human feedback. This is no where close to being proven. We can only recognize that we may be having some effect when the data indicates that this is a possibility. As of now, it in no way does.

QUOTE

This might sound like one of your typical fear-mongering pleas. Have you considered the possibility that these climatologists simply haven't got experience with a situation like that we are facing today though, so they are relying on data which has no relevance as it doesn't include our possible effect? If they [these pre-emminent climatologists] are wrong what are the consequences?

No one has experience with a situation such as the one we're looking at today. It hasn't happened for ~100,000 years. They are in the process of collecting data, and doing experiments, geared toward determining what this unknown realm actually is that we're dealing with. That, is science. They are not, on the other hand, making any conclusions about the past 2 decades based on what they have data-wise at the moment. That, would be bad science, which is what the notion that man-made global warming is. Bad science.

I prefer to let real science execute its process.

At the same time, we do know that man can, and does have a real effect on his local environs. It is also well known that he does not do enough to address that, and, he has the capability. This is the real environmental problem that science has shown man faces.

MID

Jun 6 2007, 09:52 PM

QUOTE(greggK @ Jun 6 2007, 03:03 PM) [snapback]1712090[/snapback]

Do y'all know what Nitrogen does? Every breath you take is about 78% Nitrogen. It doesnt matter if the air is so polluted that ghosts cannot even live, on earth, it is 78% Nitrogen.
What does Nitrogen do, though?
Nothing.

Ghosts?

Actually, atmospheric nitrogen does nothing when inspired by animals. It is useless in that form. However, precipitation contains substantial nitrates, and that is consumed by plants, which we then consume. These nitrogen compounds serve as amino acid, protein and nucleic acid building blocks. Animal biology depends on nitrogen compounds...and of course rain, and plants. It's a mighty important atmopsheric constituent.

QUOTE

The heat from one parsect of time in the reaction of the sun would boil down the oceans. But that is why it is so far away. It even takes a seraphic angel a couple of seconds to get there from here. And you know how fast they are!

A "parsect" (Parsec) is a unit of distance, not time. It's 3.262 LY.
This statement is utter nonsense, especially the seraphic angel bit...

I probably should've read the final paragraph before answering!