Sure, we're proven that natural CO2 increases climate temperature,

but you see, man-made CO2 is special.

3/5/2007 8:33:28 PM

haha yes, that special CO2 emitted by the burning of fossil fuels defies the laws of science and does not have the same effect as regular CO2.

actually, I think its 190% carbon

3/5/2007 8:41:15 PM

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

Another prominent scientist raises his doubts about global warming.

Quote :

"Calling the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers," Dr. Allegre especially despairs at "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." The world would be better off, Dr. Allegre believes, if these "denouncers" became less political and more practical, by proposing practical solutions to head off the dangers they see, such as developing technologies to sequester C02. His dream, he says, is to see "ecology become the engine of economic development and not an artificial obstacle that creates fear.""

3/5/2007 8:48:03 PM

What's with you guys and obscure Canadian e-papers?

[Edited on March 5, 2007 at 8:51 PM. Reason : .]

3/5/2007 8:50:22 PM

I don't see anything in there thats particularly a silver bullet. He suggests that the earth is warming and he is not 100% sure why. He also criticizes people for making it a political issue, which it should be if it is to get on the policy agenda. I could have told you that.

3/5/2007 8:55:52 PM

^^ Blogs are a wonderful thing.

^ I don't particularly buy the defeatist line that man is pure evil and is destroying the environment, I think there's a ton of research that needs to be done to understand exactly what is going on, but I do agree with the good doctor that singularly blaming mankind is simplistic and destructive.

Furthermore, I think that it's healthy to see all sides of the debate and not so closeminded to other viewpoints. I linked another article that clearly states that the scientific community is divided over the issue, which I think shows a lack of concensus to back up the global warming alarmists. They may be right, who am I to say, but what is needed is open dialogue and a willingness to be flexible to other viewpoints.

3/5/2007 9:06:12 PM

To say the scientific community is divided is not representative. Divided indicates a substantial split, possibly 50/50. Of all the tens of thousands of articles in peer reviewed scientific journals, there are only a handful that adequately address a dissenting argument to global warming. That would statistically probably amount to 99.8% to 0.2% which doesn't imply division. Statistically speaking, thats a very powerful argument on validity.

3/5/2007 9:14:20 PM

I'd much rather we be sure that it's necessary before we go off doing some crazy shit like pouring soot over the polar ice caps (proposed during the global cooling scare). as much as we may be screwing up stuff right now, I'd hate to think we could fuck it up even more by trying to solve a problem which doesn't exist

3/5/2007 9:14:54 PM

Quote :

"man is pure evil and is destroying the environment"

-- Al Gore, 2006




And yes, that blog you quoted totally destroys the fact that every major scientific organization accepts anthropogenic climate change.

3/5/2007 9:15:45 PM

^^ Well if anything, we are simply speeding away from our dependence on oil towards sustainable energy, which we will have to do anyway since oil is a finite resource. I don't particularly want to wait until its crisis stage again and we are paying $100+ a barrel. As long as we have a Texas oilman in office, I don't think we can honestly say he is doing anything to reduce our consumption.








Actually, I think its 190% carbon.

3/5/2007 9:24:25 PM

The scientist whose article I linked used to believe in anthropogenic global warming and now he sees it as being something a lot more complex. This is clearly more of a political issue/let's fearmonger up some votes for some and far less of a practical one.

As for 99.8 percent of the scientific community being in lock step with the global warming theory, there was a time where 99.8 percent of the scientific community thought that the earth was flat and the center of the universe and that the continents didn't shift.

3/5/2007 9:41:06 PM

but we've come so FAR, man. so FAR!!!

3/5/2007 9:42:37 PM

^^^ You do realize that over half the corn grown in this country this year will be used for the production of ethanol, right? Why would a Texas oil man allow that to happen?

3/5/2007 9:48:12 PM

Quote :

"the primary problem with your thinking there is that you are stating it is a fact that increased C02 causes an increased temperature in the atmosphere. There is no proof to back that up."

I am going to let this slide because I don't want to make you cry. As for:

Quote :

"how about "the addition of manmade CO2 to the atmosphere." B/c you can't find anything conclusive there."

Why wouldn't any responsible company know how much byproduct of CO2 or pollutant they are producing and releasing into the atmosphere? As much as I hate the EPA under this administration there was a point in time where they kept tabs on this. But just in case in magical head-in-sandland they don't know how much junk they are wrecklessly tossing into the air then the responsible course of action would be a call for accountability by the government on any level you'd like.

Quote :

"I don't particularly buy the defeatist line that man is pure evil and is destroying the environment,"

There is nothing "defeatist" about recognizing pure capitalism.

3/5/2007 10:43:20 PM

Because communists like the Chinese or the former USSR or all of the world's socialist 3rd world nations would never pollute, right?

3/5/2007 10:50:24 PM

You tell me. Either they pollute or they don't. Pollution is bad and destroys the environment. So if you don't believe that man is destroying the environment then to you they must not pollute.

3/5/2007 10:54:49 PM

Yes, the Chinese, for instance, have damaged their environment, but I fail to see how that proves anthropogenic global warming.

3/5/2007 11:03:41 PM

quit changing the subject

3/5/2007 11:06:21 PM

^^^Once again, CO2 is not a pollutant. It's a completely non-toxic, harmless trace gas which is used by plants for food.

If you want to talk about pollution, fine. But don't use CO2 in that discussion.

3/6/2007 12:18:22 AM

you could probably say H2O is polluting the air and some bandwagoners would hop right on

3/6/2007 12:20:39 AM

Well, water vapor IS the most forceful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, accounting for approximately 70% of the greenhouse warming of the planet

3/6/2007 12:23:38 AM

Water isn't a pollutant, but you can poison yourself by drinking too much.

As for the cleanliness of vehicle exhaust emissions, I hope you don't lock yourself in a garage with the car running.

3/6/2007 12:27:21 AM

3/6/2007 12:54:32 AM

3/6/2007 1:06:02 AM

So they can't accurately predict the weather more than a week or two in advance...yet they can predict the climate for decades in advance...hmmmm

3/6/2007 2:11:31 AM

your attempt at trolling isn't going to work. good night

3/6/2007 2:15:49 AM

i just dont know how any rational person can know what they do about the inaccuracy and unreliable nature of something as small scale as meteorological forecasts, also based on a shitload of data, yet isnt the least bit skeptical that scientists supposedly have the entire earth's climate system figured out as far as global warming

but if you want to call that trolling instead of addressing the sense that it makes, suit yourself

3/6/2007 2:19:50 AM

Quote :

"^^people who dont know the difference in denying something and not being convinced in something are fucking adorable...these are the same jackasses who think agnostics are atheists...if they only pay attention to the information they choose, its easy to convince themselves of something even with insufficient evidence...after all, its better to be certain and possibly wrong than to be skeptical and undecided!"

So.... you're not convinced Elvis is dead?

3/6/2007 2:43:02 AM

^^Dude, the same thing was said about CFCs and the ozone layer.

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 2:45 AM. Reason : .]

3/6/2007 2:44:03 AM

changing the subject to Elvis is easier than facing the common sense of what I said, I suppose

if you would care to give some type of explanation as to why scientists have trouble predicting local weather in the near future yet they somehow have accurately predicted the global climate into the more distant future, please be my guest

3/6/2007 2:51:40 AM

Quote :

"^^^Once again, CO2 is not a pollutant. It's a completely non-toxic, harmless trace gas which is used by plants for food. If you want to talk about pollution, fine. But don't use CO2 in that discussion."

I am not actually sure if you read anything I wrote here because I have very carefully made sure to differenciate between CO2 and pollution given our current set of definitions.

Quote :

"So they can't accurately predict the weather more than a week or two in advance...yet they can predict the climate for decades in advance...hmmmm"

Now now Twista, I give you enough credit to know the difference between mesoscale meteorology and climotology. They both don't gaze through the same crystal ball. :p

3/6/2007 10:58:13 AM

Quote :

"I give you enough credit to know the difference between mesoscale meteorology and climotology"

Yeah I know for one thing that regional meteorology is a lot easier to predict and understand than global climate...so I dont know what point you're trying to make

3/6/2007 11:01:50 AM

You are trying to equate micro/mesoscale meteorology with climo. They are two totally different animals and use seperate criteria for making forecast models. For example, tomorrow's forecast isn't largely dependent upon any increased volcanic activity that may occur in the pacific while a climo forcast model isn't going to care about a cold front that happen to pass through our area and make our temperature drop 30 degrees over night.

3/6/2007 11:06:53 AM

and yet fundamentally, we cant figure out the simpler of the two, yet somehow we have the more complex system figured out?

3/6/2007 11:43:42 AM

Here's the problem I have with your argument:

Quote :

"x = amount humans put into the air We can measure how much x raises the temperature."

Correlation != Causation


If it were that simple to measure CO2's influence on temperature, then climatologists would have a better record on predicting long-term warming trends. As it is, their record is spotty at best.

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 11:48 AM. Reason : 2]

3/6/2007 11:47:48 AM

also

Quote :

"x = amount humans put into the air We can't measure how much x raises the temperature."

I fixed it for you since you had it wrong

3/6/2007 11:56:04 AM

The specific heat of CO2 is not disputable. And knowing how much CO2 humans put into the atmosphere means we can measure how much heating is occuring by the CO2 itself. There is no correlation. It's math. And no one is saying that CO2 is the only gas in the atmosphere that effects global temperature nor that CO2 isn't being consumed by various other processes. Hence the difficulty.

Twista, what makes you certain that short term forecasting is any simpler than climo forecasting? And short term forecasts are actually quite accurate but they only get attention and hype when they are wrong.

3/6/2007 12:01:04 PM

^^ There is nothing wrong about knowing the specific heat of CO2 and by knowing (controlling) how much we put into the air we know how much effect that alone has on temperature. The next step is understanding the other things that subtract from CO2 amounts and things that add to temperature increase.

3/6/2007 12:04:09 PM

Well for one thing, we have more detailed data (take Raleigh for example) on weather data over the last number of decades from rainfall, temperature, humidity, etc...we also have doppler radar systems that monitor real time cloud cover, precip, etc...we also have reports and satellite imagery of other weather systems that maybe coming into our area...yet with all that said, if I asked if it was going to rain next Friday, they're basically just guessing

Quote :

"short term forecasts are actually quite accurate but they only get attention and hype when they are wrong"

Even if they are right more often than they're wrong, they're still wrong plenty...I'm not saying they can't give a good guess of the temperature tomorrow...but go more than a few days down the road and they are making predictions based on models which are not always correct...and the fact that they have been wrong plenty of times should make any rational person skeptical of the supposedly all-encompassing understanding of humans' role in climate change

^no certainly theres nothing wrong with it...and the first part is true, hence no edit...but saying we can measure how much "x" raises the temperature is preposterous...we can do experiments in a vaccuum with 1 atmosphere of pressure but those arent real world conditions

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 12:06 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2007 12:05:29 PM

The laws of thermodynamics don't get thrown out the window just because it's not in a vacuum. The Cp of CO2 is still within a narrow range given that he don't live on Mars and have a nifty thing called the atmosphere which helps to moderate global temperature.

Quote :

"I'm not saying they can't give a good guess of the temperature tomorrow...but go more than a few days down the road and they are making predictions based on models which are not always correct...and the fact that they have been wrong plenty of times should make any rational person skeptical of the supposedly all-encompassing understanding of humans' role in climate change"

The same can be said about economic forecasts yet people put their entire financial lives in the hands of those with the crystal ball.

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 12:31 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2007 12:28:45 PM

But the claim was that by knowing how much CO2 humans emit, "we can measure how much (that amount of CO2) raises the temperature" when in fact we can't

3/6/2007 12:31:20 PM

Why can't you?

3/6/2007 12:32:32 PM

Well let me clarify...we can take a known quantity of CO2 and approximately quantify how much this amount would make a temperature rise (although regionality decreases accuracy)

But this increase is not representative of the global climate as humans arent even responsible for 5% of the CO2 in the atmosphere...so we could get an idea of how much a certain amount of CO2 could affect the temperatures, but there are way too many other factors that could affect temperatures, as well as the vast majority of the planet's atmospheric CO2 which is transferred daily between ocean/atmosphere and between plants/atmosphere

3/6/2007 12:37:48 PM

Quote :

"humans arent even responsible for 5% of the CO2"

Could you toss up a link for this please? While I am not disputing it I am just curious to see where this comes from.

I think the impass here is that you aren't convinced that spending money to do something is a worthwhile venture considering your belief in our lack of understanding of meteorology as a whole. I see it as we should take what ever steps are needed to ensure that what we are putting into the atmosphere and water will not have a negative impact.

3/6/2007 12:44:22 PM

here is one of the links (http://earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm)...the consensus is that humans are responsible for about 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere...and the this link I chose was a particularly left leaning site which probably wouldnt try to decrease the 3% number

Quote :

"Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together. Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. While atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31% since pre-industrial times, methane concentrations have more than doubled. Whereas human sources of CO2 amount to just 3% of natural emissions, human sources produce one and a half times as much methane as all natural sources. In fact, the effect of our methane emissions may be compounded as methane-induced warming in turn stimulates microbial decay of organic matter in wetlands—the primary natural source of methane"

the gaps in our understanding of climate arent the only reason i'm not sold on going ahead and spending what it takes to curb emissions...its also that the majority of co2 is cycled naturally so who knows what our co2 curbing could do if anything?

I think any scientist, when first presented the idea of global warmnig being something bad that humans are causing must have some thought of "could these changes just be natural fluctuations?" but for some reason it seems that innocent curiosity is often shot down while you are labelled someone on Exxon's payroll, just for daring to question the science

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 12:56 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2007 12:55:02 PM

well when the people are on exxon's payroll. . .

3/6/2007 12:59:02 PM

great contribution as usual

way to build off the discussion me and HockeyRoman are having with something so pertinent as a blanket oil company relationship

3/6/2007 12:59:52 PM

Between you, me and the birds I hope that you are right. I hope that it is all natural and that humans have limited if not any impact on climate change. However I fear that hearing how minimal our current involvement is some will see it as a free pass to do whatever they like to the environment without fear of potential harm.

3/6/2007 1:02:33 PM

^^i've had plenty of contributions to this thread. but you have to question the motivations behind people's research. if most of the research is funded by people with motivations to discredit global warming.

are there not doubts about some of the science behind global warming? sure. does that mean that some people aren't biased in their research on those (and other) matters? of course not.

edit: and i didn't have a blanket statement. i only label people's bankroll when they are indeed bankrolled by those people.

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 1:05 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2007 1:04:26 PM

^^I don't see it as a free pass, but some certainly do

I just think if you look at numbers as simple as that 3% vs 97%...how can you not be somewhat skeptical when people like Al Gore are telling you that people (3% of co2) are destroying the planet at an alarming rate and that natural processes (97% of co2) arent a part of it

^it seems your only arguments against science are arguments for politics...turning science into a political issue is where people on Gore's side have fucked up the most in misleading the general public

Quote :

"i only label people's bankroll when they are indeed bankrolled by those people. "

or when you label my bankroll based on my skepticism when i am NOT INDEED BANKROLLED BY THOSE PEOPLE

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 1:06 PM. Reason : ]

3/6/2007 1:04:41 PM