Environmental issues

5. If you think that global warming is just cyclical (like the Sahara desert) then explain;
a) what is driving this natural cycle, b) how dumping huge amounts of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere will have NO effect on climate.
6. The 1883 Krakatoa eruption caused the temperature to drop up to 1.3*C. While Krakatoa released lots of sulfur and ash, the amount of the greenhouse gas CO2 was much smaller than that released my humans. If Krakatoa hadn't erupted, temps might be even warmer today. Originally Posted by Longermonger

5a) According to the show, it was an altering in the tilt of the Earth's axis that causes the change in the Sahara's climate. The cylical cause of warming and cooling of the Earth's temperature is caused by a number of natural causes - solar eruptions (or lack thereof), volcanic eruptions, orbit of the Earth in relationship to the Sun, jet stream winds.
5b) It might make plants grow faster, as the increase in CO2 levels would promote plant life, which in turn will generate more oxygen in the atmosphere, promoting animal life.
6) I said nothing about the volcanic eruption affecting the global temperature of the earth - I did say it polluted the atmosphere significantly, which it did. So what you're saying is that pollution will defeat global warming. I'm in favor of that.

FYI:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7009081.ece

There is additional information in the "Comments" section regarding a difference of opinion between NOAA and NASA as to how global temperatures are determined which lead to a discrepancy in NOAA declaring June 2008 as the 8th warmest in the last 129 years and NASA declaring it the 9th coldest in the last 30 years.

The more this topic is written about the more strident Longermonger sounds...

Okay, climate change is real and NATURAL! We can look at the public science (you know that stuff that is designed to make us all scared of our shadows) and you can see it is inconsistent. The same people looking at the same data decided that we had to watch out for the new ice age (40 years ago) and now it is the new global warming. Look at a few TV shows from 20 years ago and you find them chalk full of references to goblal cooling.
The real science does not indicate any man made cause of global warming. The "hockey stick" was a fake, the "tree rings" also a fake, the "world wide temperatures" are corrupted with bad locations (like a thermometer next to an air conditioning plant). Now we find out that the people in charge of collecting and analyzing this data are corrupt.
I did a paper a few years ago with only light research (it was for a business report) and I did find a correllation between volcanic activity and increased global temperatures. Causation? I didn't go far enough into to determine that but I found it interesting that there was also historical data to support the theory. Like the great cataclysm of 1300-1200 B.C.E. when many of the great civilizations of the Meditterrean went bust simualtaneously.
The geologists told us that when Mt. Pinatubo blew in 1991 that in a single day enough chemical crap was dispersed into the air to equal what man did in a 150 years!!! This also affects the so-called "Ozone hole" in the Antartic. There is a very active volcano beneath that hole and it is spewing any number of chemicals into the air. The hole was only discovered in 1947 and it has grown and shrank with the tempo of the volcano. How some responsible people can claim the hole only appeared when they first found it is ridiculous.
I invite Longermonger and his ilk to run about and claim that I must work for Big Oil or something idiotic. I just looks at the information presented and do some digging for some more information. Then I engage my brain and common sense.

The geologists told us that when Mt. Pinatubo blew in 1991 that in a single day enough chemical crap was dispersed into the air to equal what man did in a 150 years!!! Originally Posted by john_galt

Just out of curiousity JG, why do you believe the geologist? What area of geology did this geologist specialize? I am not very well versed in global warming, but I do know an overwhelming percentage of climatologists believe global warming is a man made issue. I did find this article which showed that petroleum geologists felt the opposite as climatologists, but not as strongly as the climatologists did about man being a factor.

Surveyed Scientists Agree Global Warming is Real

Now, just saying one believes it doesn't mean they know it is fact. However, I am 100% positive about one thing. They know a hell of a lot more about climate change than I could pretend to know.

Are these the same "climatologists" who provide information to our local weather forecasters?

You could find a lot of "scientists" in Columbus' day who would assure you that the world is flat.

The jury is still out on global warming. Regardless of what Al Gore ("Inventor of the Internet") thinks.

"but I do know an overwhelming percentage of climatologists believe global warming is a man made issue. I did find this article which showed that petroleum geologists felt the opposite as climatologists, but not as strongly as the climatologists did about man being a factor."

They may believe it but can they prove it, before I will accept spending billions of dollars I want to see some proof.

Who pays them, who sponsers the studies, I mean 40 years ago there were studies which found that cigerettes were not as dangerous as we know today, of course these studies were sponsered by RJ Reynolds. I don't take Al Gore seriously mainly because he is a shareholder in many of the "green" companies which will benefit from a "green agenda".

According to the story from CNN (a not exactly fair source)(I couldn't resist a liberal trick lol) it is based on the thoughts of 3,300 "scientists". What kind of scientist? A person with a BA in political SCIENCE could rightfully call themselves a scientist. Also there are over 100,000 people in this country who make their living by being "scientists". So we have 3.3 % speaking for the rest. Sorry that is not proof. The very nature of science makes real theory hard to refute or challenge. A hypothesis is tested and if the RESULTs support the hypothesis then it is tested again by other people. If those results support the hypothesis then it is tested again critically by those looking for faults. If a hypothesis passes all this testing then it could rightfully be called a theory. Even a theory is tested from time to time for validity. The entire global warming hypothesis has never been tested in this manner. Real scientists (not that sorry lot from CNN) would know this. After all this is what is taught in Biology 101.

FYI it wasn't one geologist. It was pretty much the geologist community. Research Pinatubo, Etna, Vesuvius, Krakatoa, Fuji, St. Helens and see the same.

Are these the same "climatologists" who provide information to our local weather forecasters?

You could find a lot of "scientists" in Columbus' day who would assure you that the world is flat.

The jury is still out on global warming. Regardless of what Al Gore ("Inventor of the Internet") thinks. Originally Posted by BiggestBest

"The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments." So it looks like it was geologists that were surveyed. As far as meteorology. The article states that the climatologists and meteorologists are far removed. Meteorology, according to the article, is more about short-term weather patterns and predictions, which makes sense. Climatologists are relative to the study of the long-term history of climate.

Okay, I'll ask the big question that cannot be answered; what is a normal temperature? How can you talk about warming or cooling if you don't know what normal is? 1200 years ago Greenland was not covered by ice. Was that normal? Then we are in a cooling cycle? What if an ice free Greenland was too warm? Then we are in a...what? We don't know because we have no reference point. Take the sine wave. If you point of view is a tiny spot on that wave then you believe that warming or cooling is taking place relative to that tiny little point. We don't know if we are on the upside of a wave or the downside. The global warming mongers have decided for no real reason that we are at the bottom of the wave and up is the only way to go. Think of that mathematically. Out of an entire sine wave that seems to span hundreds if not thousands of years we just happen to end up at the very bottom. Mathematically improbable, possible but improbable. Forget climatologist (and next week's weather forecast) and get in touch with archeologists and anthropologists. They can help you find out where we stand.

They may believe it but can they prove it, before I will accept spending billions of dollars I want to see some proof. Originally Posted by dirty dog

That's why I said believe and fact are completely different. My question is how they could prove it? I have not the foggiest, or smoggiest, idea. I know that there are historical temperature readings that are used in the data. However, how long has that data been collected? Is 100 or 200 years suitable for the data? I don't know. What is average temperature? The sum of all the temperatures at KCI at 3:00 PM for a year divided by 365? How many measurements are made worldwide? I cannot think the pollution released by hundreds of millions of cars (quick Google check estimated 600 million), coal burning power plants, etc. are good for our environment or have no effect. It just seems logical that it would tip the balance of nature, but just because it seems logical doesn't mean it is.

According to the story from CNN (a not exactly fair source)(I couldn't resist a liberal trick lol) it is based on the thoughts of 3,300 "scientists". What kind of scientist? A person with a BA in political SCIENCE could rightfully call themselves a scientist. Also there are over 100,000 people in this country who make their living by being "scientists". So we have 3.3 % speaking for the rest. Sorry that is not proof. The very nature of science makes real theory hard to refute or challenge. A hypothesis is tested and if the RESULTs support the hypothesis then it is tested again by other people. If those results support the hypothesis then it is tested again critically by those looking for faults. If a hypothesis passes all this testing then it could rightfully be called a theory. Even a theory is tested from time to time for validity. The entire global warming hypothesis has never been tested in this manner. Real scientists (not that sorry lot from CNN) would know this. After all this is what is taught in Biology 101. Originally Posted by john_galt

JG, I posted above to DD who they surveyed. CNN just reported on an ACADEMIC survey conducted at the University of Illinois. As far a the ratio of "scientists" to Americans, first off your numbers are off, they represent only .033% of the population. 3.3% would be 10 million. Secondly, they are the experts in their field, so I don't understand your rational. I don't think that lawyers know nothing about the law just because they represent .383% of Americans. Would someone not take a neurosurgeons medical advice because he is only a small fraction of the American population? I would trust the doctor.

Okay, I'll ask the big question that cannot be answered; what is a normal temperature? How can you talk about warming or cooling if you don't know what normal is? 1200 years ago Greenland was not covered by ice. Was that normal? Then we are in a cooling cycle? What if an ice free Greenland was too warm? Then we are in a...what? We don't know because we have no reference point. Take the sine wave. If you point of view is a tiny spot on that wave then you believe that warming or cooling is taking place relative to that tiny little point. We don't know if we are on the upside of a wave or the downside. The global warming mongers have decided for no real reason that we are at the bottom of the wave and up is the only way to go. Think of that mathematically. Out of an entire sine wave that seems to span hundreds if not thousands of years we just happen to end up at the very bottom. Mathematically improbable, possible but improbable. Forget climatologist (and next week's weather forecast) and get in touch with archeologists and anthropologists. They can help you find out where we stand. Originally Posted by john_galt

That's sort of what I was getting at with one of my posts. What is the benchmark? 100 years of data? 200? 1,000? We didn't have accurate data measurements a 1,000 years ago though. So the measuring stick only represents a short snapshot of time.

KCBP, they use about a dozen different proxies. Some are rocks. Some are ice. Some are tree rings. Some are weather records. The naysayers cast doubt on a few but leave the rest of them alone and hope that you won't notice.

Nobody seemed to have read my 1-5 post. Galt obviously didn't read #5 because he brought up Greenland.

He also brought up cycles. Here's the problem. There are cycles...LOTS of them. This is a complex system. But most of the cycles exist because of all of the natural buffers built into the Earth's self-regulating temperature system. Don't forget that there are catalysts as well as buffers. And there is a limit to how elastic the system is. If you inject greenhouse gasses into the system faster than it can take them out then you can go beyond the recovery point. Oops.

The danger isn't whether the Earth will be destroyed. It won't. It'll still be around. Humans will, too. Sort of. Humans can adapt to almost any kind of condition. But there are millions of plant and animal species in complex ecosystems that are so specialized that they can't possibly adapt to large changes the way that humans can. Those will all go extinct.

Monger, you buy your hyrid yet? Got your house converted to solar or wind. I know your a super eco nut, so you have got to have this done by now. I remember when you were telling me that anyone who owns a big truck or suv should pay a special tax and have to show proof that they needed a vehicle that size or the government should tax them out of excistance.

Like I said I am open minded, I want clean air, clean water, all the littlebugs and creatures of the world around. But I also want proof that there is a problem before we impliment a policy which by the president own words will cause electric bills to skyrocket. If it cost more to use then you will use less of it. Are we looking at electric rationing in the future. A policy which will require most people to spend thousands of dollars to upgrade their house if they decide to sell it (See Federal Eviromental inspectors in Climate change bill). Do you really believe that Wind, Solar and geothermal methods can supply this country with all the electricity it needs. Forget clean cole, forget nuclear he does not want those although our navel fleet has been running on nuclear for over 30 years.

As Papa said 200 years is not a lot of time to judge enviromental changes which can run in cycles of thousands of years.