My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Biochemist]

It’s important when doing statistics of this sort not to select only sample points that support a pre-determined conclusion, but rather to sample randomly.

Thanks for the work on this CD.

 

Could someone respond to the assertion (made by Lindzen and others) that a doubling of our CO2 from 300 to 600 PPM will only raise temperature by 0.5 degrees? He is arguing that CO2 forcing is not linear, and ergo may not be a cause for significant concern.

[Zythryn]

My comment would be that Lidzen's contention that the temp increase with a doubling of CO2 would be .5 degrees is no more valid than the contention held by others that it would be 3.7 degrees.

Here is one such description, with sources of the effects of a quadrupling of CO2. It also discusses a doubling. Climate Impact of Quadrupling CO2

I do not know off-hand if Lidzen's model predicting a .5 degree rise is 'solid' or not. I will see if I can find it and see what it has to show.

[Zythryn]

Could someone respond to the assertion (made by Lindzen and others) that a doubling of our CO2 from 300 to 600 PPM will only raise temperature by 0.5 degrees? He is arguing that CO2 forcing is not linear, and ergo may not be a cause for significant concern.

 

So far, what I have found:

Lindzen seems to found this idea on using satelite data of the upper troposphere's temperatures, which he mentions is at odds with what many of the climate models predicted.

Unfortunately, it turns out that the satelite data was found to be incorrect and the models were actually correct.

 

So with a premise which was faulty, I am not sure how much reliance I would have in Lindzen's conclusions.

 

BTW I am working from a number of articles I found on Lindzen. If you have a particular link I would be happy to review it in more detail.

[modest]

BTW I am working from a number of articles I found on Lindzen. If you have a particular link I would be happy to review it in more detail.

 

Can you link what you found, please?

 

-modest

[Zythryn]

Happily:

Dr. R.S. Lindzen MIT-- Statement Concerning Global Warming

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus

 

And Biochemist, you kindly acknowledged CraigD's great detail of work. But gave no reaction to it. May I ask what thoughts you have after reviewing his rebuttal?

[Biochemist]

And Biochemist, you kindly acknowledged CraigD's great detail of work. But gave no reaction to it.

I think CD's rebuttal is fundamentally valid, in that the evidence in the link that I posted used convenience data, not representative averages.

 

I remain suspicious of the risk of impending calamity. I am looking into the various projections for future CO2 forcing.

[Moontanman]

I have three words for you.

 

 

Check... Your... Facts.

 

 

:eek_big:

 

 

 

The natural cycles argument doesn't hold water on this one.

 

Global Warming Myths and Facts - Global Warming - Environmental Defense

 

 

 

Additional points:

 

The concern is not based off of Al Gore's movie. It's based off of thousands of studies by thousands of researchers.

 

Meteorology and Climatology are not the same field.

 

Appeals to some grant money (or other) conspiracy does NOTHING to refute the data.

 

Lying about the issue helps no one.

 

If global warming is a man made effect how do you explain that the Earth has been much warmer that it is now over a much longer period of time than the last half million years? During the time of the dinosaurs there were no ice caps at all maybe for 150 million years. Why is it suddenly a bad thing for the Earth to be warmer? I think we have to ask bad for who, just because a warmer Earth will cause things to change? The Earth has been changing it's whole life. Just because the change might not be good for humans doesn't mean it's a bad thing for the rest of the earth. A warmer Earth will have more shallow seas just it was during the time of the dinosaurs. Shallow seas are more productive for life on earth. Maybe the earth is just going back to where it is supposed to be. How can we say what the Earths set point really is? Maybe humans came to be at time when the Earth was going through an unusually cold spell and our actions have just speeded up the recovery. Or maybe our actions have been inconsequential?

[InfiniteNow]

If global warming is a man made effect how do you explain that the Earth has been much warmer that it is now over a much longer period of time than the last half million years? During the time of the dinosaurs there were no ice caps at all maybe for 150 million years. Why is it suddenly a bad thing for the Earth to be warmer? I think we have to ask bad for who, just because a warmer Earth will cause things to change? The Earth has been changing it's whole life. Just because the change might not be good for humans doesn't mean it's a bad thing for the rest of the earth. A warmer Earth will have more shallow seas just it was during the time of the dinosaurs. Shallow seas are more productive for life on earth. Maybe the earth is just going back to where it is supposed to be. How can we say what the Earths set point really is? Maybe humans came to be at time when the Earth was going through an unusually cold spell and our actions have just speeded up the recovery. Or maybe our actions have been inconsequential?

<sigh>

 

Moontanman,

 

You quoted something I said back on page one of this 33 page thread. Please do read the thread, and the links contained within. I've actually grown somewhat tired of answering the same damned questions over an over again, as it shows how truly lazy people are when they ignore the information already at their finger tips.

 

Time for another beer. I'm feeling grumpy. :eek_big:

[Zythryn]

Infi, let me give it a shot.

 

M, no one said that GW is solely a man made effect. What is being studied and what the evidence is showing is that THIS time around mankind is accelerating the effect.

 

As for the potential damage, you again mis-state the argument. I don't think anyone that knows what they are talking about would claim that GW would be bad for the earth, it would be bad for us.

 

Adding more energy to the system, at its most basic, means more energetic weather. Which, is typically bad for us people.

Most models also agree that we will have more severe, and longer droughts, more rainfall in shorter periods of times, and all sorts of other fun things.

 

Now, you can also see these same arguments raised earlier in this thread and in others.

 

Sorry I lacked the patience to search for and find those posts, I hope my brief answer will help you?

[Moontanman]

Infi, let me give it a shot.

 

M, no one said that GW is solely a man made effect. What is being studied and what the evidence is showing is that THIS time around mankind is accelerating the effect.

 

As for the potential damage, you again mis-state the argument. I don't think anyone that knows what they are talking about would claim that GW would be bad for the earth, it would be bad for us.

 

Adding more energy to the system, at its most basic, means more energetic weather. Which, is typically bad for us people.

Most models also agree that we will have more severe, and longer droughts, more rainfall in shorter periods of times, and all sorts of other fun things.

 

Now, you can also see these same arguments raised earlier in this thread and in others.

 

Sorry I lacked the patience to search for and find those posts, I hope my brief answer will help you?

 

I am sorry I posted here, obviously you don't need my two cents worth.

[InfiniteNow]

I am sorry I posted here, obviously you don't need my two cents worth.

 

Now that's a pretty extreme over reaction. While I was frustrated last night, your answers are in this thread, and others. My frustration is with the fact that you ask these questions, about which you seem genuinely curious, and the answers you seek are already right before you. Zythryn even responded very kindly, with a summary of this data, as he's clearly a much more patient man than I am, and you still give the response you did above? ("Fine then! I'm taking my basketball and going home!" :hihi:)

 

 

How about you source you're questions? You've put in no effort. Do you really know that there were no ice caps when dinosaurs were around, or are you just repeating something you've heard from a denialist?

 

Tell you what. I'll give you a hand. A decent night's sleep can do wonders for one's perspective.

 

 

If global warming is a man made effect how do you explain that the Earth has been much warmer that it is now over a much longer period of time than the last half million years?

 

Can you source why you feel temperatures were much higher 500,000 years ago? Also, how much do you consider "much higher?" Is that on the metric system or IU? :hyper:

 

Look here for more on paleoclimatology: NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data

 

The point being that those stimuli which contributed to past warming have been completely over shadowed when we view the source of today's warming. We know, without a shadow of a doubt, that human activity is the primary climate driver since roughly the industrial revolution. There are countless sources in this thread supported this comment, and I encourage you to actually read them.

 

 

During the time of the dinosaurs there were no ice caps at all maybe for 150 million years.

I presume you are referring to the Eemian interglacial warm 'optimum,' which was closely related to changes in the Gulf Stream. However, while temperate forest growth did occur much farther north than at present, there WERE ice caps, so I'd appreciate a source of your contention here to make sure I'm not missing some key data.

 

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercEUROPE.html

 

 

 

Why is it suddenly a bad thing for the Earth to be warmer?

The importance of this is rather subjective, but a few key components are a) it is human activity causing it, B) drought and flood, and all manner of other extreme climatic events will become more common and people will die and wars will be fought over the lack of water, c) other animals and organisms closer to the base of the foodchain are much more sensitive to slight temperature variations and will not survive, and this will have trickle effects to the rest of the animal kingdom as sources of food become limited, d) coastal shore lines will move inland due to increased water in the oceans from polar ice melt, and population densities will increase at an even greater rate than they are when simply viewing the lopsided birth rate to death rate ratio....

 

 

The list goes on. That was four I could think of quickly, but frankly, there are many issues with this warming, a warming being caused by our actions, and a warming we can stop by adjusting the way we do things. Either way, it's subjective, and the above are a few that I personally find compelling.

 

 

I think we have to ask bad for who, just because a warmer Earth will cause things to change?

It would be one thing if these changes were natural, but they are not. We are doing it, we know there will be consequences, and we have the ability to stop it. I think a bigger question is a moral one. Since we know we can make things better, why wouldn't we?

 

 

The Earth has been changing it's whole life. Just because the change might not be good for humans doesn't mean it's a bad thing for the rest of the earth.

Again, this is not a naturally caused phenomenon. We KNOW it's due to human activity, and we KNOW that the Earth's otherwise sensitive equilibrium has been thrown completely off. The Earth and it's mechanisms simply cannot keep up with the rate at which we are digging carbon deposits from the ground, burning them, and releasing them into the atmosphere.

 

 

A warmer Earth will have more shallow seas just it was during the time of the dinosaurs. Shallow seas are more productive for life on earth.

While some areas of water will evaporate, and drought be more common, the oceans will increase in sea level due to melting of glacial ice. It's really not as cut and dry as you're trying to make it, but I appreciate your comment since it's clear you've thought about this in more than the common way. The difficulty, however, is that you are forming conclusions based on false premises.

 

 

Maybe the earth is just going back to where it is supposed to be.

I don't know if I've made this clear yet, but this is NOT A NATURAL cycle, and the changes we are experiencing right now are DIRECTLY related to human activity. There are scores of research presented in this thread which bear out my point.

 

 

Or maybe our actions have been inconsequential?

 

Yeah, and monkeys might fly out my butt, too. I suppose we'll have to wait and see. :doh:

[Moontanman]

Now that's a pretty extreme over reaction. While I was frustrated last night, your answers are in this thread, and others. My frustration is with the fact that you ask these questions, about which you seem genuinely curious, and the answers you seek are already right before you. Zythryn even responded very kindly, with a summary of this data, as he's clearly a much more patient man than I am, and you still give the response you did above? ("Fine then! I'm taking my basketball and going home!" :bwa:)

 

 

How about you source you're questions? You've put in no effort. Do you really know that there were no ice caps when dinosaurs were around, or are you just repeating something you've heard from a denialist?

 

Tell you what. I'll give you a hand. A decent night's sleep can do wonders for one's perspective.

 

 

 

 

Can you source why you feel temperatures were much higher 500,000 years ago? Also, how much do you consider "much higher?" Is that on the metric system or IU? B)

 

Look here for more on paleoclimatology: NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data

 

The point being that those stimuli which contributed to past warming have been completely over shadowed when we view the source of today's warming. We know, without a shadow of a doubt, that human activity is the primary climate driver since roughly the industrial revolution. There are countless sources in this thread supported this comment, and I encourage you to actually read them.

 

 

 

I presume you are referring to the Eemian interglacial warm 'optimum,' which was closely related to changes in the Gulf Stream. However, while temperate forest growth did occur much farther north than at present, there WERE ice caps, so I'd appreciate a source of your contention here to make sure I'm not missing some key data.

 

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercEUROPE.html

 

 

 

 

The importance of this is rather subjective, but a few key components are a) it is human activity causing it, B) drought and flood, and all manner of other extreme climatic events will become more common and people will die and wars will be fought over the lack of water, c) other animals and organisms closer to the base of the foodchain are much more sensitive to slight temperature variations and will not survive, and this will have trickle effects to the rest of the animal kingdom as sources of food become limited, d) coastal shore lines will move inland due to increased water in the oceans from polar ice melt, and population densities will increase at an even greater rate than they are when simply viewing the lopsided birth rate to death rate ratio....

 

 

The list goes on. That was four I could think of quickly, but frankly, there are many issues with this warming, a warming being caused by our actions, and a warming we can stop by adjusting the way we do things. Either way, it's subjective, and the above are a few that I personally find compelling.

 

 

 

It would be one thing if these changes were natural, but they are not. We are doing it, we know there will be consequences, and we have the ability to stop it. I think a bigger question is a moral one. Since we know we can make things better, why wouldn't we?

 

 

 

Again, this is not a naturally caused phenomenon. We KNOW it's due to human activity, and we KNOW that the Earth's otherwise sensitive equilibrium has been thrown completely off. The Earth and it's mechanisms simply cannot keep up with the rate at which we are digging carbon deposits from the ground, burning them, and releasing them into the atmosphere.

 

 

 

While some areas of water will evaporate, and drought be more common, the oceans will increase in sea level due to melting of glacial ice. It's really not as cut and dry as you're trying to make it, but I appreciate your comment since it's clear you've thought about this in more than the common way. The difficulty, however, is that you are forming conclusions based on false premises.

 

 

 

I don't know if I've made this clear yet, but this is NOT A NATURAL cycle, and the changes we are experiencing right now are DIRECTLY related to human activity. There are scores of research presented in this thread which bear out my point.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, and monkeys might fly out my butt, too. I suppose we'll have to wait and see. :cup:

 

Believe it or not this is something I have been researching for a long time and I did read all the posts before I posted. I didn't see anyone talking about data from more than 500,000 years or so. A brief mention of 20 million years with no information about what they meant. I noticed about 20 years ago that many of the rocks along the shore here were not being revealed at the seasons lowest tides. I wondered why, so I did some research and the rising sea level was mentioned as a possible cause. I didn't think the sea level could have risen that much that fast. So I looked into why the sea level might be rising and found lots of info on global warming . At that time I my two young sons were being born and growing up and of course like most children they were interested in dinosaurs. I bought them as many of the most recent books and theories I could find about dinosaurs. One of the main themes besides the way out theory (at that time) of endothermy, was that dinosaurs lived right up to and over the arctic circle. This was due to the idea that there were no permanent polar caps and that larger dinosaurs probably migrated and others might have hibernated for short periods. I also found the disappearance of the rock along the shore was no due to rising sea levels but to subsidence, man made changes to the shore line and dredging the nearby river that caused the water to pile up inshore for longer times. But one thing I remember from these dinosaur books was that the earth was as much as 10 degrees warmer then than now for a very long period of time. The asteroid strike 65 million years ago changed everything. I am of the opinion that the earth is returning very slowly to the point is was before the asteroid strike. Man made CO2 is a factor but the over all trend is for a warmer planet. The next idea I was going to propose was the possibility that man made CO2 might be keeping the Earth from going into another ice age, we really don't know where the tripping point is and if we actually manage to cut back CO2 to pre industrial levels we could be looking at the start of another ice age. If indeed the warmer planet doesn't start another ice sheet because of too much snowfall. There are lots of possibilities and we really don't know which ones are the most possible or even least possible. I don't take my ball and go home but I don't post where I cannot say what I think either. My post was just an opening for me to say these things, not an idiot child's questions about things that had already been hashed out.

[InfiniteNow]

Man made CO2 is a factor but the over all trend is for a warmer planet.

I think this statement is pretty much aligned with everything I've been saying (unless I'm severely misinterpreting you).

 

 

The next idea I was going to propose was the possibility that man made CO2 might be keeping the Earth from going into another ice age, we really don't know where the tripping point is and if we actually manage to cut back CO2 to pre industrial levels we could be looking at the start of another ice age.

That is an interesting thought, and while my tone may not imply this, I'd be very curious to discuss this further if there were data supporting such a position.

 

 

My post was just an opening for me to say these things, not an idiot child's questions about things that had already been hashed out.

 

Well, then that is my fault. I can be an *******, and I can be very abrasive. I suppose I may have been too quick throw you into the idiot bucket. It is SO common in these discussions to have people who don't know anything at all about the topic to come into the discussion and repeat issues which have already been addressed. They then often don't listen when the answers are repeated. I get frustrated because so many people choose to listen to the AM radio talk show hosts instead of the climatologists.

 

No offense. When I get tired and frustrated, it shows, as you can see from my response last night. When I read your post, I thought, "Oh, come on! We've covered this repeatedly." If you have specific questions, please ask them. I can't guarentee that I will be cordial in all of my replies, but I can guarentee that I will try to be. B)

[Essay]

"It is SO common in these discussions to have people who don't know anything at all about the topic to come into the discussion and repeat issues which have already been addressed. They then often don't listen when the answers are repeated. I get frustrated because so many people choose to listen to the AM radio talk show hosts instead of the climatologists." -Inow

 

This is very true. I have to admit I was quite surprised to see your question, MTM. From your aquarium (& TP) posts I thought you had this all figured out and were working on solutions.

 

Your story sounds familiar. Working and raising a family doesn't leave much time for in-depth study.

I thought I was keeping up with things, but it wasn't until my crushed vertebrae that I could take 6 months and really figure this stuff out for myself.

 

I am of the opinion that the earth is returning very slowly to the point is was before the asteroid strike. Man made CO2 is a factor but the over all trend is for a warmer planet. The next idea I was going to propose was the possibility that man made CO2 might be keeping the Earth from going into another ice age, we really don't know where the tripping point is and if we actually manage to cut back CO2 to pre industrial levels we could be looking at the start of another ice age. If indeed the warmer planet doesn't start another ice sheet because of too much snowfall. There are lots of possibilities and we really don't know which ones are the most possible or even least possible.

All very true, except for the first sentence. Climate adjusts much more rapidly, and some "one-off" like the asteroid just becomes part of the "set point."

But there is no real "set point;" it adjusts depending on Milankovich cycle, atmospheric composition, etc.

 

The real point is that throughout our history, climate has been problematic; and this has been during one of Earth's "quiet & stable" periods.

 

As long as it is sustainable, we should strive to maintain a climate favorable to our continuation (along with the rich biodiversity that is currently rapidly disappearing).

 

http://massextinction.tribe.net/thread/452fae79-1d93-43ce-a8a1-e838cddab934

Scientists estimate that, if habitat-conversion and other destructive human activities continue at their present rates, half the species of plants and animals on earth could be either gone or at least fated for early extinction by the end of the century. The ongoing extinction rate is calculated in the most conservative estimates to be about 100 times above that prevailing before humans appeared on earth, and it is expected to rise to at least 1,000 times greater (or more) in the next few decades. If this rise continues unabated, the cost to humanity--in wealth, environmental security, and quality of life--will be catastrophic.

 

If we are to continue, we must strive to control the planetary forces critical for our survival.

According to Michio Kaku, we are only 1 or 2 hundred years away from becoming a Type-1 civilization.

This will not happen unless we start now; otherwise we will go the way of all species that lose their niche.

Michio Kaku: Theoretical Physicist, Bestselling Author, Popularizer of Science

 

Physics of Type I, II, and III Civilizations

Specifically, we can rank civilizations by their energy consumption, using the following principles:

 

1) The laws of thermodynamics. Even an advanced civilization is bound by the laws of thermodynamics, especially the Second Law, and can hence be ranked by the energy at their disposal.

2) The laws of stable matter. Baryonic matter (e.g. based on protons and neutrons) tends to clump into three large groupings: planets, stars and galaxies. (This is a well-defined by product of stellar and galactic evolution, thermonuclear fusion, etc.) Thus, their energy will also be based on three distinct types, and this places upper limits on their rate of energy consumption.

3) The laws of planetary evolution. Any advanced civilization must grow in energy consumption faster than the frequency of life-threatening catastrophes (e.g. meteor impacts, ice ages, supernovas, etc.). If they grow any slower, they are doomed to extinction. This places mathematical lower limits on the rate of growth of these civilizations.

UFO.Whipnet.org | Scientist Michio Kaku Believes in Extraterrestrials

 

Kaku defines:

A Type 1 civilization as one that is truly a planetary society, who has mastered all forms of terrestrial energy. Their energy output is much greater than ours. It would take at least 3,200 years to reach Type 2.

 

A Type 2 civilization is a civilization who have an energy output of a small star. They would be so advanced that they could build a sphere around their planet to maximize their energy output.

 

A Type 3 civilization is so advanced that they have begun colonizing other star systems. Their energy output is massive compared to ours. A civilization this advanced would be able to bend space and time at will. They would probably be capable of interdimensional travel and even time travel.

 

So where are we here on planet Earth? Well, we are Type 0. We still get our energy from dead plants. Pretty pathetic, if you ask me. I could only imagine what an advanced alien civilizations thinks of us. With our racism, wars, and class struggles we will be luck if we ever get to a Type 1. At the current rate, in my opinion the human race is headed toward extinction.

...and to repeat....

 

So where are we here on planet Earth? Well, we are Type 0. We still get our energy from dead plants. Pretty pathetic, if you ask me. I could only imagine what an advanced alien civilizations thinks of us. With our racism, wars, and class struggles we will be luck if we ever get to a Type 1. At the current rate, in my opinion the human race is headed toward extinction. -M. Kaku:bwa:

B)

[Moontanman]

"It is SO common in these discussions to have people who don't know anything at all about the topic to come into the discussion and repeat issues which have already been addressed. They then often don't listen when the answers are repeated. I get frustrated because so many people choose to listen to the AM radio talk show hosts instead of the climatologists." -Inow

 

This is very true. I have to admit I was quite surprised to see your question, MTM. From your aquarium (& TP) posts I thought you had this all figured out and were working on solutions.

 

Your story sounds familiar. Working and raising a family doesn't leave much time for in-depth study.

I thought I was keeping up with things, but it wasn't until my crushed vertebrae that I could take 6 months and really figure this stuff out for myself.

 

 

All very true, except for the first sentence. Climate adjusts much more rapidly, and some "one-off" like the asteroid just becomes part of the "set point."

But there is no real "set point;" it adjusts depending on Milankovich cycle, atmospheric composition, etc.

 

The real point is that throughout our history, climate has been problematic; and this has been during one of Earth's "quiet & stable" periods.

 

As long as it is sustainable, we should strive to maintain a climate favorable to our continuation (along with the rich biodiversity that is currently rapidly disappearing).

 

 

 

If we are to continue, we must strive to control the planetary forces critical for our survival.

According to Michio Kaku, we are only 1 or 2 hundred years away from becoming a Type-1 civilization.

This will not happen unless we start now; otherwise we will go the way of all species that lose their niche.

Michio Kaku: Theoretical Physicist, Bestselling Author, Popularizer of Science

 

 

...and to repeat....

 

So where are we here on planet Earth? Well, we are Type 0. We still get our energy from dead plants. Pretty pathetic, if you ask me. I could only imagine what an advanced alien civilizations thinks of us. With our racism, wars, and class struggles we will be luck if we ever get to a Type 1. At the current rate, in my opinion the human race is headed toward extinction. -M. Kaku:bwa:

B)

 

 

Ok, while I'm not as much of a dissenter when it comes to global warming as you might think (I do think that global warming has been speeded up by human activities) and please don't insult me be insinuating I am a am a AM radio nut. I have spent my entire adult life pursuing knowledge and that doesn't include listening the prattle of people who have an axe to grind.

 

I still think the Earth would still be a warmer place if not for the asteroid impact that killed the dinosaurs. I can't prove this but I do see a connection. I don't think we know enough about the feed back mechanisms and how quickly they react to say there is no connection.

 

However I do not think that restricting our technological progress to "save the planet" is a good thing for humanity as a whole. We cannot save the planet and continue to be a technological civilization. The only way we could save the planet would be to leave the planet completely or go back to subsistence farming and cut the population of the earth by about 99%. Humans are very hard on the environment, we do things on a large scale that simply do not allow for health of the planet.

 

As for the warming trend I will just have to take that one as my own idea because I can't find where I first saw it. One thing is for sure the Earth was much warmer than it is now for much of the history of land based life. A tropical climate tends to have a greater diversity than a temperate climate.

 

As for a set point the asteroid strike changed the Earth's atmosphere tremendously. At about the same time vulcanism dropped off as well. Was there a connection? I would have a hard time believing that but if the data pointed that way I wouldn't be surprised.

 

One thing is sure, CO2 levels are part of the cycle that controls the planets temperature. Erosion, vulcanism, mountain building, plate tectonics, all these things are connected in some way to each other. If the planet gets too cold erosion slows down allowing the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere which raises the temperature. Vulcanism drives plate tectonics which drives mountain building and volcanoes. Volcanoes release more CO2 and mountain building brings more rock to interact with the atmosphere. New rock exposed to erosion allows CO2 to be chemically sequestered. Higher temps bring more erosion which drops the CO2 level Lower temps cause less erosion which allows CO2 to build up. If vulcanism stopped the Earth would freeze over and never thaw out, at least from our point of view. These processes work over millions of years not hundreds of thousands of years.

 

I will admit the possibility that the Earth's vulcanism is slowing down over time and if this is true then it becomes more likely that human activity has put off another ice age but this cannot be proven because we have so little data about where the cut off point is for CO2 that brings about an ice age.

 

My main concern with the greenhouse effect is that methane hydrates will be released all at once if the oceans warm up too fast and this would mean a huge increase of temps, far greater than any CO2 build up would cause. I guess I can sum up my stance by saying that if we "save the planet" we will doom ourselves. What we need to do is move off planet but that is another discussion completely.

 

So are we contributing to global warming, Yes no doubt, are we the only cause, probably not. Should we try to restrict our activities to save the planet. No, to do so would doom us to extinction. The ability for us to reach "type one status" for our civilization is directly tied to out ability to grow. Stop that growth or even slow it down significantly and we become part of history not part of the future.

[Moontanman]

I think this statement is pretty much aligned with everything I've been saying (unless I'm severely misinterpreting you).

 

 

 

That is an interesting thought, and while my tone may not imply this, I'd be very curious to discuss this further if there were data supporting such a position.

 

 

 

 

Well, then that is my fault. I can be an *******, and I can be very abrasive. I suppose I may have been too quick throw you into the idiot bucket. It is SO common in these discussions to have people who don't know anything at all about the topic to come into the discussion and repeat issues which have already been addressed. They then often don't listen when the answers are repeated. I get frustrated because so many people choose to listen to the AM radio talk show hosts instead of the climatologists.

 

No offense. When I get tired and frustrated, it shows, as you can see from my response last night. When I read your post, I thought, "Oh, come on! We've covered this repeatedly." If you have specific questions, please ask them. I can't guarentee that I will be cordial in all of my replies, but I can guarentee that I will try to be. B)

 

I have no problem with you being an ******* from time to time, I can be a very big ******* if pushed to far but then again assholes are like opinions, everyone has one:hihi:

 

I am still looking for the info on that preventing an ice age I am almost sure I heard it on a science channel show that was talking about the feed back mechanisms that caused the little ice a couple of hundred years ago but I'll have to search some more.

 

I do listen to the climatologist's, the problem is I listen to all of them and there are some dissenting voices that have very good points. Another problem I have is that really getting a handle on the CO2 problem will cause a technological slow down that will lead to our demise or at least the demise of our civilization and that of course would eventually lead to our demise anyway. But that really isn't where this thread started. The man wanted to be able to explain global warming to his daughter. It has been explained several times so far but I wonder if we made it so complex and confusing we lost his desire to explain it to his daughter?

[InfiniteNow]

However I do not think that restricting our technological progress to "save the planet" is a good thing for humanity as a whole. We cannot save the planet and continue to be a technological civilization.

 

Another problem I have is that really getting a handle on the CO2 problem will cause a technological slow down that will lead to our demise or at least the demise of our civilization and that of course would eventually lead to our demise anyway.

I couldn't disagree more with the points you've raised above that if we address anthropogenic climate change that we will be "restricting technological progress."

 

This is a MAJOR opportunity for new economic growth into markets previously dormant. I actually earn my paycheck right now from a company who is profitting heavily from the recent demand in solar photovoltaics, so I just don't buy the "If we fix it, we will ruin the economy" line. It's not founded. The economy will change and new jobs will be created. It won't collapse, it will evolve, especially if we the people demand it.

 

 

But that really isn't where this thread started. The man wanted to be able to explain global warming to his daughter. It has been explained several times so far but I wonder if we made it so complex and confusing we lost his desire to explain it to his daughter?

 

Would you have rather we left the lies and half-truths being shared by the denialists remain without comment? That's just it. This really is simple, but we spend so much time debunking nonsensical claims that we can't help but get detailed.