My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Eclipse Now]

I thought the overwhelming cause of biodiversity loss was 'too many people using too many resources too quickly' (Richard Heinberg, Powerdown). That is, as the human population increases we're paving over and ploughing up more ecosystems than ever before, at a rate that is unparalleled. Also, as Tim Flannery points out, these ecosystems are now tiny islands in a sea of suburbia. The ecosystem cannot 'move' over time as the climate shifts, which is how various interdependent ecosystems and species adapted to the previous climate shifts.

 

So it would be good one day to see a list of "global warming fatalities" like the Golden Toad (Flannery documents this as the first global warming extinction) V extinctions due to habitat loss.

[DanGray]

new reports are saying we are cooling not heating,, the big guys can say what the want to get grants to feed themselves but in turn do no good at all. it's shame I think.. they should be spending good money in good paces it's needed JMHO ..

[Zythryn]

Which reports? Can you link to one?

I know for a fact that I was in a cooling trend from 6pm last night through 3am this morning, does that count?

As for where money is spent, it is obvious that more research is needed, as there are still people that don't believe danger we face.

[DanGray]

the money spent will be wasted because we contibute very little to the problem, for one see China's useage of fuels and problems, they don't seem to care much..

 

they talk about Ozone too for the money, but don't like to tell you that cars also make ozone. just a few little tid bits.. :)

[freeztar]

the money spent will be wasted because we contibute very little to the problem

 

Care to quantify that?

 

for one see China's useage of fuels and problems, they don't seem to care much..

 

Really?

 

Research and Markets: China Attempts to Increase Renewable Energy by 120000 MW's: Analysis on the Wind Power Industry in China | Business Wire | Find Articles at BNET

 

they talk about Ozone too for the money, but don't like to tell you that cars also make ozone. just a few little tid bits.. :)

 

Can you please provide a link stating that non-electric cars produce ozone?

 

I recommend you read the wiki on ozone.

[Zythryn]

Your 'tid bits' are all wrong.

You really ought to rely more on research papers rather popular culture.

If by 'we' you mean the USA, we contribute more to CO2 production than just about anyone (has China passed us yet?). Per capita we still have first place all to our own.

China shows little concern but perhaps that is because we have shown none on the federal level? Perhaps if we lead others will follow?

Scientists with concerns will investigate them. Ozone, global warming, cancer. Now, do you propose that any scientists that makes any money is insincere? Do any of them get paid a whole bunch? If you dismiss anyone that is paid to do research, you are limited to scientists that can fund their own research (a very very small number).

 

As for Ozone, yes cars (or rather the hydrocarbons they emit) form some Ozone which is part of what leads to smog. So what is your point?

[DanGray]

Zythryn all wrong? I think you said the same thing I did any way..

other than freeztar agreeing to the ozone from autos.. :)

 

coupled with catalytic converters the pollution can be down but we muddle through the laws to just get by with those..

 

it's the super heating of the spark plug ceramics in cars that counter the ozone it give out..

 

actually you guys make for some good research :)

 

I like to rabble-rouse some to get different points of view on things you might like to know I like to debate and I don't care which side to get opinions :)

OK I need to get some work done.. thanks for puting up with me..

[freeztar]

other than freeztar agreeing to the ozone from autos.. :)

 

But I don't agree! As Zythryn hinted at, cars themselves do not emit Ozone (O3). O3 is produced through a complex series of chemical reactions from the hydrocarbons emitted from the exhaust. So, in fairness, I would say that cars can *indirectly* contribute to ground-level O3 production, which causes pollution.

 

http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/ozone/cars.htm

 

it's the super heating of the spark plug ceramics in cars that counter the ozone it give out..

It's these types of statements (not common knowledge) that require outside support. Do you have a link?

 

actually you guys make for some good research :)

Good! We're all here to learn and teach. Research is essential for this.

 

I like to rabble-rouse some to get different points of view on things you might like to know I like to debate and I don't care which side to get opinions :)

OK I need to get some work done.. thanks for puting up with me..

 

It's ok to play devil's advocate and express one's opinions, but remember that these opinions need to be grounded in fact. Providing factual references that support your opinion is the required method here.

[Zythryn]

Dan, if you are simply here to debate, do you actually hold any positions yourself?

So you agree that autos don't really create ozone, but the unburned hydrocarbons do?

I think you said the same thing I did any way..

 

How is "we contribute very little to the proplem [of global warming]"

the same thing as: "we contribute more to CO2 production than just about anyone"?

[Moontanman]

This whole global warming thing is starting be as much belief orientated as a strange new religion. I think someone put it best (freezy I think) as it's not the change that is necessarily bad, it's the rate of change. There is some research that would seem to indicate that global warming might set off an ice age due to disruption of ocean currents. I think this may be where some of the ideas of cold are coming from. If you look you can find references to a warmer climate as recent as a two or three million years ago with high CO2 levels Why Is Greenland Covered In Ice? Changes In Carbon Dioxide Levels Explain Transition

 

but this is not a go ahead for saying that we are not damaging the environment by speeding up any rate of change that may or may not be occurring naturally. Climactic change needs to be slow, if it's fast you get lots of very bad things happening like huge amounts of methane being released in a short period of time that can cause an ever greater change that the CO2. So, for me at least, it's not the warmer climate that worries me it's the rate of change that is really doing the damage.

[Flying Binghi]

Climactic change needs to be slow, if it's fast you get lots of very bad things happening like huge amounts of methane being released in a short period of time that can cause an ever greater change that the CO2. So, for me at least, it's not the warmer climate that worries me it's the rate of change that is really doing the damage.

 

Maybe the climate does 'change' fast, ...naturaly -

 

Studies of Pleistocene glacial-interglacial cycles based on sediments and ice cores back to 640 000 years (640 kyr) document abrupt initiation of global warming and cooling events over short time scales of decades to a few years, implying extreme instability of the Earth’s atmosphere, with implications for 21st century climate change projections.

 

Andrew Glikson

Canberra, Australia

 

Andrew Glikson undertakes earth and paleo-climate research at the Research School of Earth Science, Australian National University.

 

Via -

 

Jennifer Marohasy: The Earth?s Climate is Tracking into Uncharted Territory: A Note from Andrew Glikson

[freeztar]

The hockey stick has been revived. A new study shows that warming has been highest during the last ten years when compared to the last 1300 years.

 

Researchers confirm that surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer over the last 10 years than any time during the last 1300 years, and, if the climate scientists include the somewhat controversial data derived from tree-ring records, the warming is anomalous for at least 1700 years.

 

"Some have argued that tree-ring data is unacceptable for this type of study," says Michael Mann, associate professor of meteorology and geosciences and director of Penn State's Earth System Science Center. "Now we can eliminate tree rings and still have enough data from other so-called 'proxies' to derive a long-term Northern Hemisphere temperature record."

 

The proxies used by the researchers included information from marine and lake sediment cores, ice cores, coral cores and tree rings.

 

Global Warming Greatest In Past Decade

[Zythryn]

Maybe the climate does 'change' fast, ...naturaly -

 

Studies of Pleistocene glacial-interglacial cycles based on sediments and ice cores back to 640 000 years (640 kyr) document abrupt initiation of global warming and cooling events over short time scales of decades to a few years, implying extreme instability of the Earth’s atmosphere, with implications for 21st century climate change projections.

 

Isn't that the die off that killed 95% of life on earth?

I don't believe the point is that climate has never changed rapidly. It is that bad things happen when it does.

[Moontanman]

Isn't that the die off that killed 95% of life on earth?

I don't believe the point is that climate has never changed rapidly. It is that bad things happen when it does.

 

No that was the Permian, 250,000,000 years ago. It was so bad then that not only did the temps go up the oxygen level of the atmosphere went down to critical levels. It resulted in the rise of the ancestors of the dinosaurs and their bird like pulmonary systems.

[Turtle]

No that was the Permian, 250,000,000 years ago. It was so bad then that not only did the temps go up the oxygen level of the atmosphere went down to critical levels. It resulted in the rise of the ancestors of the dinosaurs and their bird like pulmonary systems.

 

Just to note again, there is now good evidence the Permian die off resulted from a very large meteor strike, therefore there is no comparison to the climate situation under discussion here. (except of course to expect the unexpected. :hihi:)

[Eclipse Now]

Studies of Pleistocene glacial-interglacial cycles based on sediments and ice cores back to 640 000 years (640 kyr) document abrupt initiation of global warming and cooling events over short time scales of decades to a few years, implying extreme instability of the Earth’s atmosphere, with implications for 21st century climate change projections.

No no no! The current global warming catastrophe is very different! We have not seen warming this hot this fast for MILLIONS of years OK?

 

The climate changes referred to above were within a narrow bandwidth of temperature that lies right on the border between glacial periods (what we inaccurately call an 'ice age') and 'interglacial periods'. The experts say this was due to the 100 k year cycles, where the earth's 'wobble' is the trigger but Co2 is the gunpowder that amplifies the effect.

 

Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The earth hasn't been pushed this hot since mankind arrived on the scene. The feedback mechanisms mentioned above, such as methane trapped in permafrost and changed albedos from the melted North Pole and glaciers AND other feedbacks all have the potential to DWARF anything we've done so far. If we let this climate 'fire' spread, it could turn into a 'blaze' that burns down most of our 'village' OK?

[Flying Binghi]

Hmmm... so far in my relativly short life I've lived thru; First, in the 70's, a global cooling histeria; Second, a global warming histeria; Now, a global warming/cooling histeria - but faster......I dunno, perhaps if I buy carbon credits from Al Gore all my worrys will be solved