Who Believes in Global Warming?

[rattus58]

Originally posted by Lilred
I think that what we're doin caint be all that good. It just caint.
The human race as a general rule is just like any other...they consume themselves by the desruction of the environment or the destruction of each other. That is the way of life.
Then again, I dont think the scientists can accurately predict the who what where ands ifs or buts about global warming.

Can we control what the world will do? I just caint see the human race alterin the world's cycles. To a certain degree anyway...but I can honestly say that I do believe we aint helpin matters none.
Or, ya'll can look at it this way....them dinosuars aint have no cars, cell phones, nuclear bombs er nothin else...but they still went kapoof! we will too....wether it's by the environment or ourselves....natural selection will overcome all.

Depending how you want to look at it, everything in this life uses something. Carrying capacity in nature is a self righting thing. Some years there is abundance, and animal growth explodes, only one or two years later to wind up starving, dying from the elements, etc till they can fit back into their habitat... if they haven't ruint it for ever by overgrazing.

Man can do no more either... only on a grander scale maybe... but consider this... everything we build comes from the earth, so what are we really doing.. I mean we are recycling everything.. from dirt to adobe, from sand to glass, from rock to steel.. its all there... and remember... you cannot leave anything for long before nature wants it back... in fact takes it back... look downtown at any vacant lot... even a paved empty vacant lot.... mother takes it home... yup..

Aloha..

[PJgunner]

Someone asked about temperatures in the upper atmosphere, and if there had been any real change? I can only speak for the time I was in Nevada and Arizona, and I've been retired for close to eight years now and the memory ain't quite as good as it used to be. First off, it's a bit nippy way up yonder. Between 30 and 40 thousand feet temperature range from minus30 degrees Celcious to minus 50 degrees Celcious, depending on the time of year. As I recall, the colder tempertures up there occur in the summer and the warmer in the winter. it's not all that surprising when you take account that in the winter there is a lot of cloud cover a good part of the time and heat from the sun is reflected back into space off that cloud cover. Say you get a big snow storm and it's relatively warm for the time of year. Then a strong high pressure area moves in pushing the clouds out and that open sky lets what heat there is escape, reflecting off that snow. I personally have seen a temperature at midnight go from +32 degrees F. to -36 degrees F. in just a little over seven hours after the coud cover moved out. The heat will rapidly rise warming the upper atmosphere, maybe raising it about 5 degrees C. over a period of time. You won't get that effect in the summer. But then again, in the summer you won't have the cloud cover to give you a modicum of "shade".
Another big source of global warming are cities. As we become more urbaized, citied grow larger. When I move to Arizon, Tucson and Pima county had maybe 500,000 people, give or take. Now the population is over 1,000,000 and growing like a weed. All the nearby areas I used to hike and hunt a few rabbits is now wall to wall houses. Tucson and it's close neighbors have created a monstrous heat island. Look al L.A. and it's eviorons. hell, look at the growth around any big city and it's suburbs. More massive heat islands. I'd venture to guess a goodly part if the problem comes from the fact that we're blacktopping the planet to death, world wide.
At one time, it was said that a squirrel could start at the Atlantic Ocean and travel all the way to the Missippii River and NEVER touch the ground. Now he's have to take the Interstate. Where are all those trees today? Even the rain forest of the Amazon are disappearing rapidlt to the tune of something like, IIRC, 20,000 Hectares daily.
Just how much of the problem is man made I can't say. Man sure ain't helping. Still, this old ball in space has been around for quite a while, and I think it'll be here in some form long after we're gone. I am more inclined to going along with the bigger part of the problem is the sun going through a warming cycle. It's happened before in the past where daytime gtemps ran around 130 degrees, so who's to say it's not happening again. It may take us a while for it to reach that point in which case we humans had best learn to adapt to the changing conditions.
Paul B.

[L. Cooper]

Have a look.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...587268,00.html

[Skyline]

The solution to all this is for all countries to establish reduced population targets. Encourage couples to have only one child and help reduce the population.

Instead of governments bending over backwards to try and create more daycare facilities and increasing the childcare benefits to parents for all of the rugrats they produce......only give benefits for the first child and after that you are on your own. You decide to have more than one....you pay for it and don't expect the rest of us to help.

That would encourage people to focus on a smaller family unit. Less people means less greenhouse gasses, the energy reserves would last longer, etc.

[skeet]

The only thing that article really said is that they wanted to blame the US and other 1st world countries for global warming...and that countries like China want a free ride. Well, yeah the world is in a period of warming..and yeah we probably have something to do with it...but there it is again. The UN wants to jam it up our backsides on another matter other than guns and being a global policeman.

Again I think we(the population for the planet) have something to do with global warming but are we the only reason?? Heck no! That article was just politics as usual for the UN and the countries that want to belittle the US. Time to quit the UN and policing the world. Even if we do things right we'll be wrong

[rattus58]

Originally posted by L. Cooper
Have a look.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...587268,00.html

Oh for cryin out loud... what a phony bunch of crap....

If you believe in global warming and feel that now for sure we're gonna die:

have another mushroom, take another toke...
become completely paranoid, sniff a line of coke
The world will right herself, there's ballast in her keel
I say pedal to the metal, lets mine up some more steel

This world is such a fancy place, all colors hues, and sheens
It'l grow about just anything, cucumbers, fruits and beans
Some say there's global warming, they belong all in a cage
Have you noticed their behavior, they're almost in a rage

Forget it please my son, the world will be alright
Its Iran, Iraq, Korea, that should give us pause for fright
The Warmingers are terrorists, another fundamental faction
Tell them go to hell, now that's where they'll see action

[scalerman]

The UN has been since its' inception been trying to present a case for itself as the one world government. None of the research that has come from the UN has had any credibility. This is just another nail in the coffin of the UN. It is an organization that has no use in the real world. It has created a bureaucracy that is so expensive and self serving that it is shameful. The UN is irrelevant.

[L. Cooper]

OK, so Time magazine is a puppet of the United Nations.

How about the more than 400 articles on climate change in Scientific American at:

http://www.sciam.com/search/index.cf...ming&x=16&y=14

[scalerman]

I don't know if you've noticed but the scientific community is a very closed community. If you do not come up with research that supports the agenda of those who ard supporting your research your endowments get cut off. When I was in school you formulated a hypothesis, tested it and reported your findings. Now you start with the findings and search out ways to support it then you formulate your hypothesis. The scientific community has been invaded by the almighty dollar. I don't trust scientists either, not without finding out where their funding is coming from. One has to do his own research into the research being brought forward in order to find out what political camp the scientist is in. It is the same with the newspaper "just the facts Ma'am" does not exist anymore. Every newspaper and reporter has a political agenda. Sorry not buying any of the articles in Scientific American. Sorry it will take more than that to convince me.

[Rocky Raab]

This is long, but I suppose I'm forced to do it. Spend an hour on Google, and here's what you can dig up...

Global warming is mostly due to natural processes

Scientists in this section conclude that natural causes are likely more to blame than
human activities for the observed rising temperatures.

Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of
Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the
International Space Station: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases
into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost
throughout the last century - growth in its intensity." (Russian News & Information Agency,
Jan. 15, 2007 [11]) (See also [12], [13], [14])

Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in
the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases
in the air." [15] In 2003 Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for
increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air’s
increased greenhouse gas content." [16]

Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in
Australia: "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in
predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some
of the causes of which remain unknown." (Telegraph, April 9, 2006 [17])

George V. Chilingar, professor of civil and petroleum engineering at the University of Southern
California, and Leonid F. Khilyuk: "The authors identify and describe the following global
forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major
supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial
activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their
corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes
are negligible." (Environmental Geology, vol. 50 no. 6, August 2006 [18])

William M. Gray, professor of atmospheric science and meteorologist, Colorado State
University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean
currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet
little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes.
We are not that influential." (BBC News, 16 Nov 2000 [19]) "I am of the opinion that [global
warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." (Washington
Post, May 28, 2006 [20])

"So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and
research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."
(Discover, vol. 26 no. 9, September 2005 [21])

Zbigniew Jaworowski, chair of the Scientific Council at the Central Laboratory for Radiological
Protection in Warsaw: "The atmospheric temperature variations do not follow the changes in the
concentrations of CO2 ... climate change fluctuations comes ... from cosmic radiation
(21st Century Science & Technology, Winter 2003-2004, p. 52-65 [22])

David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research,
University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to
the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."
(May 15, 2006 [23])

Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes,
then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale,
... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in
particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors
are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of
their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the
anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned."
(M. Leroux, Global Warming - Myth or Reality?, 2005, p. 120 [24])

Tim Patterson [25], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada:
"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this
[geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now,
about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the
last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the
recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's
modest warming?" [26]

Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy
of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes
observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon
dioxide produced in human activities.", Environment News, 2001 [27]

Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably
somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being
more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more
dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming
[over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to
anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few
centuries. [28]

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia:
"The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult
to detect." (Christian Science Monitor, April 22, 2005) [29]

"The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that
human activities have little to do with it.", NCPA Study No. 279, Sep. 2005 [30].

“It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and
so do many economists.” (CBC's Denial machine @ 19:23 - Google Video Link)

Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong
evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the
United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation
of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven
true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming.
In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."
(Harvard University Gazette, 24 April 2003 [31])

Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively
few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make
low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th
Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed
the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a
reduction in low cloud cover." [32]

Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this
stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard
IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the
principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools
of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory.
If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important
driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."
(In J. Veizer, "Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon
cycle", Geoscience Canada, March, 2005. [33], [34])

[Riposte1]

I am no scientist but I have a theory on global warming: I speculate that on most days (not all) that part of the globe warms in direct correlation to the a broad spectrum of visible and invisible light from sun rise to sun set.

Think I might be able to get some grant money?

Seriously, I have avoided looking deeply into the scientific evidence but I dont think there is any universal agreement on this...not even a consensus. There seems to be two camps with firm opinion and highly credentialed folks in each.

What I do think is that the knee jerk reaction to the fear of global warming will end up costing us far more then the actual and natural results of the phenomenon itself...if indeed it exists.

One sure way to reduce global warming would be for all the pundits to just shut up...that would reduce the amount of "hot air" strirring around

Best regards,
Riposte

[L. Cooper]

If people think the cost of reducing the human contribution to climate change will be high, just watch what the cost of climate change will become.

"Seriously, I have avoided looking deeply into the scientific evidence....."

Then there is no point to this discussion at all.

[Skyline]

Well this discussion is interesting. I think it is safe to say that just about everyone agrees there is global warming taking place. The bone of contention is whether it is man caused or a natural phenomenon taking place with perhaps a bit of a hand from man.

There are definitely two main camps...........both with the posters and the scientists...........those who think it is mostly just a natural planetary occurence and those that think mankind is systematically killing the planet. I do not think that anyone on here is going to convince the campers one way or another.

Not too long ago there was a group of scientists that proclaimed the beef industry was responsible for a significant portion of the methane gas emissions on the planet. My god, there were millions of cattle in North America that were burping and farting methane into the atmosphere at an alarming rate. I never saw it in print, but I often wondered how they decided that the methane produced by the domestic bovines was somehow more destructive than the methane produced over the millenia by the 60 million bison that previously roamed the continent.

I think that as the decades go by, we will find that the current 'truths' held close to the heart by both camps in the greenhouse gas debate, will in fact prove to be partial truths........with reality somewhere in the middle.

[Riposte1]

Originally posted by L. Cooper
If people think the cost of reducing the human contribution to climate change will be high, just watch what the cost of climate change will become.

"Seriously, I have avoided looking deeply into the scientific evidence....."

Then there is no point to this discussion at all.

Oh I think there is a point to the discussion. There is probably no point to discussing whether there is in fact global warming due to things we can change - because all of our arguments will most like fall into the "appeal to authority" type and, since there are equal numbers and degrees of authority, then that is a wash.

The discusion worth having is, are we going to destroy civilization as we know it in the present to prevent something we do not know will happen in the future?

For a minor matter, things sweetened with corn syrup will now cost more than double...and to what gain? Most of us will never see "alternative fuels at the pump".

Riposte

[L. Cooper]

"The discusion worth having is, are we going to destroy civilization as we know it in the present to prevent something we do not know will happen in the future? "

Like stopping someone from using his weapons of mass destruction? Like driving on the right even when we can't see someone coming? The future is always uncertain, but we act in the present on the best evidence we have about what the future will be like. That's life.

And lowering our pollution levels will hardly "destroy civilization as we know it."

"and, since there are equal numbers and degrees of authority, then that is a wash."

That is the very illusion I am trying to dispell.