Global Warming: True or a Hoax?

[sjh]

I have a degree in physics, i think i can handle the math and the logic, although perhaps not in spanish. but perhaps it would be easier if i just wrote the darn thing myself instead. BTW it is still referred to as the THEORY of relativity. along with all the other concepts in science. Infact, i just checked my college text, which i use as a table for my mouse pad......

points 1,2,3 have zero relevance to the conversation. your statement is that humans are not causing climate change because we cant stop doing what we are doing is laughable and completely unrelated.

point 4 is an excellent point and is well known as a cause of GW and other problems. Take some measurement, do a global sat survey, measure the amount of heat absorbed vs heat radiated over all types of land and make some predictions and test them. Prove it or disprove it.

my point is that CO2 levels are off the charts. do we REALLY think this is a good thing? Do you really think humans are not able to cause signifigant damage to the enviornment?

Singular events over history have shown that drastic climate changes have occurred? search on google for "year with no summer". A single volcanic eruption changed the climate so much that we skipped an entire growing season..

To deny that mankind and polution cannot effect the planet is nuts. take a look at past problems like acid rain, smog, nitrogen and phosphate river contamination, heat contamination of rivers. Take a look at the ecological disasters created by daming of rivers, deforestation, swamp drainage, etc...

Existing science is not yet able to accurately predict the results of our atmospheric changes, but until we can, we ought to be pretty damn careful about what we mess up.

[sjh]

cobraboy:
I havent studied the sun cycles and it sure sounds interesting. Even then, your (and mine) C02 belching engines are providing an ever thickening layer of insulation that lets light in and keeps us from reradiating it out.

Again as before: Make your hypothesis, make your predictions, take your measurements, do a historical comparison of past and current data and make your explaination about what is going on. Present it for scientific peer review and either be shown to be a fool or a genius.

In otherwords, either shoot down the theory as incorrect because of EVIDENCE or provide a better theory that surplants it. Then you need to get some sort of concensis from your peers that you are correct. That general agreement of all your scientific peers is the closest thing to fact that science allows.

[Rafael Rothschild]

SJH
You claim that the CO2 levels are off the charts.
Which charts? compared to what? How does your understanding about the levels of
CO2, contradict in any way the proven history of the ice ages?

We have such a limited knowledge of the history of the earth, that we get constantly impressed by the statistics of the last 100 years. How can you state that the current global warming is produced by human activity?
Is it possible that we are influencing it? YES
Up to what deegre? WE HAVE NO IDEA
It's my position to defend proven facts, rather that uknown ones. This is specially true, due to my lack of trust in human kind and its track record.
However, If you feel you are going to save the children of the world from programmed world sequences, good luck!
I choose to be a reluctant observer, who whises no political intervention, with new laws, based on unproven facts. I had enough, and continue to have more than I desire.
So, please, please, think hard, because if you were in a position of passing laws based in the current knowledge, I will not hesitate to call you irresponsible and fanatic, for your decisions.

[cobraboy]

Global Warming as a Religion

[cobraboy]

Originally Posted by sjh

cobraboy:
I havent studied the sun cycles and it sure sounds interesting. Even then, your (and mine) C02 belching engines are providing an ever thickening layer of insulation that lets light in and keeps us from reradiating it out.

If you truly believe in science and not religion, if you truly are a seeker of truth and fact, if you truly have intellectual curiosity, I would suggest you watch that television documentary.

Of course, you can dismiss it without looking at it, too. Often folks do not want their beliefs challenged. I would understand.

It is difficult for me to understand how someone would research "Global Warming" without including the SOURCE of the warming. Could it be some do not want facts to interfere with their opinion? I'm just a simple-minded country boy, marginally edumacated, certainly no physicist, but I DO want my opinions to be firmly based on as many available facts as my small brain can contain.

And one question: what is the most prominent and abundant "greenhouse gas", and what is IT'S role in GW?

[sjh]

Quote from Scientic American
Ice Core Extends Climate Record Back 650,000 Years: Scientific American
CO2 levels are 27 percent higher than the highest levels found in the last 650,000 years.

New Antarctic Ice Core Data
there is a decent chart on the bottom of the page. the record dates back to 420,000 years in that data sample. also note the C02 spike in the last 100 years.

search on "co2 ice record" lots and lots more.

Are there serious questions about the theory? YES, of course there are. It is a new theory and it is the RESPONSIBILITY of scientist to question, test and revise it.

Some issues are:

because of degree of error in the measurements it makes it difficult to know if co2 leads or trails temperature.

there is a phase lag in the cycle (time delay in simple terms) that is not well understood.

Methane levels and interaction in the system.

additionally: the current C02 level is so high we dont have any climatic model to compare it against.

REMEMBER what passes for FACT in scientific community is what the peer community accepts as fact. Questions, revisions and changes are part of the scientific process and are REQUIRED. Until you show me that scientists as a group are changing their tune, it is YOU who is contrary to what is perceived as fact.

[Rafael Rothschild]

Great article Cobraboy

But, we are in the minority, not by knowledge but by vote. So go figure.

Obviously, most human beings adopt or accept things according to their own experience. Sometimes, these experiences have nothing to do with the truth...but, go and tell a child who's used to eat at McDonals, that an Italian restaurant, using olive oil is better for his/her health.

The main problem, for me, accepting the unproven theory of global warming being created by human activity; is that, based on human history, we are impressed by anything but the truth.

I, for one, have decided to designate the universe, as a much better teacher than any
university professor (honest or dishonest) and accept that, besides the insignificant fact that we may be participating to this "global warming" in our humble and ignorant ways; this magnificent universe, will know (without our expert help) how to deal with whatever we decide to throw at it. It will shake it, like we shake dust off our shirts after a baseball match, and continue to do what is supposed to.
Do I care about future generations? Oh, for sure, about as much as past generations have cared for me.
It may sound (correction, it is) cruel, but wars are a necessity to control human population, greed, ignorance and stupidity, and when we dare to talk about major leagues, I can;'t help it, but I get just a little upset.
Let's talk about something we can really control, OK?

[sjh]

cobraboy, without looking it up, i believe the answer is methane which my dairy cows produce lots of on a daily basis. however, noone seems to be talking about the huge change in the methane content of the atmosphere.

maybe because the change hasn't been signifigant, maybe because while the effect of methane is greater per unit, the quantity and change of CO2 in so much greater that the effect of methane is irrelevant. Again i am talking out of my azz here cause this is just a hypothesis, and i havent spent the time to look it up the correlations and i cant remember the relative percentages of C02 and methane in normal atmosphere. if i remember right co2 is around 300ppm and methane about 1ppm?

why dont you look it up and do the calc?

multiply the 27% over high change in the co2 level by the effect of co2 on global insulation and compare the change in the methane levels by the same calc and let us know the result?

In the meantime, your continuine comments on the increased solar radiation incurred are interesting. post some links showing the increase. post some articles showing studies that indicate that this is a signifigant cause of GW.

In the meantime this whole argument is BS. the high co2 levels are scary, not because we are sure it is going to cause GW but because we really have no idea what it will do. the melt could cause a salinity change in the ocean causing a change in the gulf stream ocean current, causeing an overnight change in northern europe climate, causeing a massive snowfall over europe, causing a huge increase in reflected sunlight, causeing a drop in temperature. there are countless other theories, excuse me hypothesis, out there some way wilder than that one.

We are in uncharted territory. 650,000 of history tell us we have NO IDEA what co2 levels are going to do. sitting around on our fingers and watching from the sidelines is not an effective response

[NALs]

So far this thread has remained rather interesting.

I think at this moment a quote from Walter Cronkite would be appropriate:

"The problem with most people is that they think with their hopes or fears or wishes rather than their minds."

For better or worse, that is one fact that is undeniable.

Ok, go on...

-NALs

[cobraboy]

Originally Posted by sjh

cobraboy, without looking it up, i believe the answer is methane which my dairy cows produce lots of on a daily basis. however, noone seems to be talking about the huge change in the methane content of the atmosphere.

Nope.

Water vapor.

It hold more heat than any other "greehhouse gas" does.

And it has nothing to do with CO2 levels.

I'm out of this thread. I don't like arguing religion. It leads nowhere.