2 of 6
2
Poll
GW: Fact or Fiction
Fact 18
Fiction 2
I don’t know 1
Total Votes: 21
You must be a logged-in member to vote
global warming: fact or fiction
Posted: 29 August 2007 07:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Or our home will lose us.

Global warming from increased CO2, methane and halogenated hydrocarbons in the atmosphere is pretty well established as fact.  Whether it is entirely or even significantly human caused depends on your political orientation.  However, as a species we do generate a great deal of CO2, and essentially all of the halogenated hydrocarbons.  Whether reducing our contribution will be effective may be a matter for discussion, but it seems reasonable to at least try to slow down what appears to be an ecological catastrophe in the making. 

Beesting - 29 August 2007 02:33 AM

I enjoy the blamers. It’s GWs’ fault, and if you will elect a democrat as president of the United States, “global-warming” will be addressed, and quite possibly stopped altogether. I love that stuff.

While there are extremists on both sides, it does seem that this administration has missed a number of opportunities that may have reduced emissions of greenhouse gasses.  It also seems reasonable to assume that it’s more likely that another administration of the same party will continue the present policies, and that a shift in parties may result in policies that do reduce emissions.

This earth has been sloughing critters off its back for billions of years. It is what it does. It gets a fever, it does what it has to do in order to survive. That is that. Simple.
Politics do not figure into the global equation. People do not figure into the earth’s little quirkinesses. People have become so incredibly pompous, arrogant, and egomaniacal, that they actually think that they have an effect on this ride? Huh-Uh!
When the earth decides to dump us, it’s going to dump us. Like fleas. Talk about hell-fire and brimstone. Yep! Doesn’t matter your religious beliefs, your moral standards, your ethics, charity, nor having a smoke in the Wal-Mart of your choice.
We’re goners. PERIOD! Maybe not today, but sometime. It’s been happening for millenia, and we are not the first. I know it in my very shorts because I posess the ability to reason, and to think for myself.

Sorry, but that’s an anthropomorphic view.  The earth doesn’t have any motivations.  Changes in the environment come about from prior causes.  Some of them are natural (geological, meteorological, astronomical, etc.) but some are based on living beings, plants or animals.  We are following Malthus’ curve, and running out of food supply, disease, or increased predators aren’t the only stresses that can decimate a species. 

This idiocy of blaming anyone EVER for the things that occur in this universe is only a “hate-creator” and a human being with as much knowledge as a peanut. Less. A peanut knows it’s gonna go into the Skippy factory, and its gonna be smooth and creamy….or maybe even chunky. But its a goner for sure.
The inability to accept the demise of “OUR” great civilization, is an arrogance that far exceeds my conception. How is it that so many millions can be so stupid? Well….stupidity is what kills people. Not a hole in the ozone. The hole is inevitable. Assholes can be prevented.

Acceptance of this fatalistic view would be a self-fulfilling prophecy.  While we may be unable to prevent or reduce the effects of global warming, it seems irrational to merely throw up our hands without at least trying.  I agree that many humans are self-aggrandizing and think we are all-powerful, but I believe it is just as irrational to believe that we are completly impotent and can have no effect on our environment.

I sure hope we get Hillary in office. Then we can all have insurance, health care, low fuel prices, a chicken in every pot, pot for every chicken, a fair wage, lower taxes, and a rainbow will be visible every day, with little fairy-munchkins frollicking all about, making us sandwiches, and tickling our dopamine glands. WEEEEEE!!!

As I recall, you started your post with “I enjoy the blamers. It’s GWs’ fault. . .”  Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle. . . ? LOL

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2007 08:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2007-05-20

I don’t see the relevance in asking for the specific temperatures that make Earth habitable by humans.  For one thing, there are other side effects of global warming that will affect the ecosystem much quicker than non-habitable temperatures.  For instance, the carbon dioxide being absorbed by the oceans is recreating the content of our oceans; algea and lifeforms that eat it (such as jellyfish) are quickly overtaking and choking out other sea life.  Polar ice is melting at an exponential rate, and will create a real problems in our coastal cities.  Cities like Las Vegas are losing their water source because the glaciers that quench their thirst are nearly all melted.  These sound like melodramatic absurdities until you do some research and see for yourself that, yes, these things are happening, and yes, there are consequences.  You might find it absurd to hear about your own death, but that doesn’t mean that it won’t happen in exactly the same way that the doctor tells you.

If you want an answer to the question, this is the best that I could come up with.  In order for a planet to be habitable the temperature must be within the spectrum of -3° C to 40° C- anything outside of that would make liquid water impossible.  But I think that is beside the point because we know from our own experiences in extreme cold and extreme heat that the human body is fragile and the natural ecosystem is even more fragile.  Human life would continue, no doubt, until it were impossible.  We are extremely resilient.  But the environment would be so punishing to crops and animals and habitats that the vast majority of humans would perish for a variety of reasons.

I understand that doomsday claims are hard to swallow, but just because they seem impossible or unlikely doesn’t mean that they won’t happen or even that they are improbable.  What shocks me is that I have heard several scientists on NPR’s Talk of the Nation Science Friday discussing these doomsday scenarios as likely, but they are so calm about it.  Like a doctor who finds out about his own brain tumor, or something.  The whole debate means nothing.  It’s not worth quibbling over the details of habitable temperatures.  I’m more worried about my children and the world that is being handed down to them.  That reminds me to tack on rising asthma rates to the list of problems caused by global warming.  The list is endless, I’m sure.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2007 09:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  41
Joined  2007-06-08

WARMING/COOLING has nothing to do with TEMPERATURES. Yeah, okay. That’s the ENTIRE EMPHASIS of global warming - a few degree increase in global temperature is a formula for doomsday. What is the baseline temperature where these doomsday scenarios will not occur? Since 1900 seems to be the standard used by Al Gore (as is plainly evident, this is not a discussion of science, but of politics, I will use him for the AGW standard bearer), what makes him certain THAT’S the right temperature? How can I make it any clearer that his “crisis” is not very well defined? I know that I’m not asking stupid people about this as this forum shows that the majority of folks here are very well educated so it amazes me that I can’t get a straight answer about this.

I hate to do this, but as an example - we know that a healthy human body functions at 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit (98-100 would be an accepted range). This is known due to observation and overwhelming amounts of collected data to substantiate it. A few degrees deviation to either side is cause for concern and something must be done to bring the body back to the proper temperature, much like what the GW advocates are saying in regard to climate. A 10+ degree deviation to either side would be nearly fatal in most circumstances, akin again to what is being said on the GW front. The major hole here is that there is NO KNOWN “healthy” temperature for the Earth. To claim that these catastrophic scenarios will occur due to slight temperature swings WITHOUT the baseline being known is simply conjecture.

In case I am coming off as a “denier,” I cannot claim that the Earth is NOT warming, mankind contributing or otherwise. I am just not convinced of the validity of the predictions being made due to small increases/decreases in global temperature. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Considering that the mainly left-wing political establishment is using the GW “crisis” in order to guilt people (much the same as religion does) into higher taxes, less liberty, less freedom, and larger government, I don’t need yet another reason for government to be interfering in my personal life…as if government does things well to begin with, but then that’s another topic entirely!

And before I forget… good political/emotional play by bringing up “but it’s for the good of the children,” as if anyone is going to say they want what is WORST for children.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2007 09:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4094
Joined  2006-11-28

Well, while you may not be a “denier,” as you call it, you are clearly bothered by the contentions more for political than scientific reasons. I would suggest it sounds like your political perspective makes you disinclined to accept the idea of GW regardless of the science. Disputing the evidence is fair enough, but I wonder about your agenda.

Anyway, while I can’t answer the specifics of your claim, since I don’t know enough about climatology, I suspect there is a false analogy wheh it comes to human and global temperature. A human body is a system with many sophisticated eveolved mechanisms for maintaining a specific temperature range that is optimal for enzyme function, among other things. The concept of “normal” temperature, homeostasis, and the idea that there is a normal baseline we should establish in order to validate the idea that certgain climate efvfects will follow from increases above this is mistaken. The earth is not a body “designed” by evolution to maintain a temperate optimum. It doesn’t care if the temperature is healthy for humans or not, and it’s unlikely to have well-developed mechanisms for maintaining one that is. It then follows that one can say X rise in temp will have Y effects (and be bad for us) without necessarily saying X is a change from any optimal value. So I think while you may be right that the forcasts of danger are incorrect (I don’t honestly know), I think your analogy is misleading.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2007 10:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

I recognized the same fallacy in that analogy, too, Brennen.  However, I figured you could explain it far more precisely and in more depth than I could.  And you did.  I’m glad I didn’t try.  LOL

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2007 10:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  41
Joined  2007-06-08

Yes, I understand what you are saying about the analogy, which is why I hated to use it. Still, it doesn’t seem to be sinking in and I’ve run out of ways to ask it. I just do not understand how claims can be made that are nearly universally and overwhelmingly negative (as has been done for at least the past 100 years when it comes to warming or cooling) without some baseline by which to state these scenarios WILL NOT occur.

Funny that you think that *I* have some sort of political agenda! The fact is that’s what GW has become - it is no longer science but is being bought and paid for by political parties on BOTH sides of the aisle. It is no longer science, it’s politics. The only political issue I have is just what I stated in my previous post - that science is now being used politically the same way religion has been in order to guilt people out of their money and freedom.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2007 10:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2007-05-20

The fact that GW is being used as leverage by politicians doesn’t change the fact that it is occuring, that scientists who have studied the subject have probably already answered your irrelevant question anyway, or that there are severe consequences for a rise in global temperature that affect the entire world.  I challenge you to back up your claims that democrats or any party have put forward or suggested any laws that will raise your taxes and deny you freedoms.  What freedoms could they possibly take that will end global warming?  Don’t you think you are exxagerating the actual political reality to make democrats seem threatening and something to fear?  What issue would you propose that politicians talk about instead?  Can you prove that they are ignoring those other issues in favor of global warming?  Can you really?  Politicians talk about issues that are important to the people of this country, and it’s about time that the status of the earth’s atmosphere was high on the list.  Al Gore virtually ignored the topic of GW when he was vice president, and yet you want to vilify his party as wanting to overtax you and take away your non-specific freedoms.  Come on!  This is your problem- you are thinking selfishly.  You don’t want to argue the point of leaving a cleaner Earth for our children because you don’t want to think about it.  You don’t want to admit that the U.S. is responsible for most of the pollutants because you are too selfish to think about every other innocent country on this planet that is trying hard to balance out our bad habits.  And you are too selfish with your wallet to realize that sometimes lowering taxes is a BAD THING, especially when we are in a war that is putting us further into debt.  Surely you are responsible with your own credit debt!  Or do you just let it collect interest and put you into bankruptcy?  That is the selfish part I’m talking about.  You selfishly want lower taxes and think that conservatives are doing us a favor, but you aren’t responsible enough to look down the road a few years and see the burden this will put on our economy.  But don’t worry.  You won’t be around for that… just my children.  Or oops, I can’t bring that up.  It’ll ruin your selfish view of the world again.

Instead of whining about your imaginary loss of freedoms, why don’t you think a bit outside of the box.  How can we possibly reduce greenhouse gasses without it being a burden to you.  Here are a few possible ideas- you get a very nice tax credit for buying a hybrid, alternative fuels become cheaper alternatives to gas, the electric company pays you for the energy saved by putting in solar panels.  These are all concepts that other countries are already doing.  And guess what?  You don’t see anybody in Europe or Japan whining about their loss of freedoms.

You obviously do have a political agenda because you can’t think logically about the problem, and you can’t get past your misconceptions about the major parties.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2007 11:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  573
Joined  2007-08-21
majestyx - 29 August 2007 07:38 PM

Since no one seemed to have the answer in the previous thread, I’ll pose the question again. What is the CORRECT temperature and atmospheric make-up of the Earth in order for life to survive?

Oh, which species of life are you refering to? It’s my understanding that different species live and survive at different temperatures and climates. A temperature change that may effect one species may not immediately effect another. However, the exictintion of any particular species could easlily effect other species that once depended on the species that just went extinct.

Or are you only talking about Human life?

 Signature 

Vi veri veniversum vivus vici

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2007 12:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  41
Joined  2007-06-08
ticktock - 29 August 2007 10:58 PM

The fact that GW is being used as leverage by politicians doesn’t change the fact that it is occuring, that scientists who have studied the subject have probably already answered your irrelevant question anyway, or that there are severe consequences for a rise in global temperature that affect the entire world.

As usual, no answer, just more “your question is irrelevant” speak, much the same as a bible-thumper will say to take it up with God and read the Bible. Thanks!

Come on!  This is your problem- you are thinking selfishly.

And another emotional attack. Thanks again!

You don’t want to argue the point of leaving a cleaner Earth for our children because you don’t want to think about it.  You don’t want to admit that the U.S. is responsible for most of the pollutants because you are too selfish to think about every other innocent country on this planet that is trying hard to balance out our bad habits.

We are also the MOST PRODUCTIVE country on this planet, particularly per capita. And more attempts on your part at guilt trips.

And you are too selfish with your wallet to realize that sometimes lowering taxes is a BAD THING,

HAHAHA! As if government cannot be downsized! If government was run as a business, it would be bankrupt long ago. But when you have a bottomless coffer known as taxes, not to mention the printing press, as Fed chairman Ben Bernanke has stated in order to just print more money and issue more debt to the world, who needs to follow the rules of business? You want to talk about leaving a problem for the children - how about the monster of US DEBT?

especially when we are in a war that is putting us further into debt.

Can’t disagree with you there.

Surely you are responsible with your own credit debt!  Or do you just let it collect interest and put you into bankruptcy?

Please don’t assume. I am happy to say that I and my wife are debt free - no credit card debt, we own our house (no mortgage) and vehicles (no car payments), have a decent sized IRA for our age, and live within our means. It’s not what you make, it’s what you save. So no, that doesn’t apply to me and has nothing to do with this discussion anyway.

You selfishly want lower taxes and think that conservatives are doing us a favor, but you aren’t responsible enough to look down the road a few years and see the burden this will put on our economy.

Once again, as if there aren’t things government is spending money on that it shouldn’t be.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2007 12:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  27
Joined  2007-08-14

In the last decade, climatologists have reached a consensus that a doubling of CO2 would warm the Earth 1.5-4.5°C (3-8°F), which could leave our planet warmer than it has ever been during the last two million years (National Academy of Sciences, 1979). Moreover, humanity is increasing the concentrations of other gases whose combined greenhouse effect could be as great as that due to CO2 alone, including methane, chlorofluorocarbons, nitrous oxide, and sulfur dioxide (Ramanathan et al., 1985). Even with the recent agreement to curtail the use of CFCs, global temperatures could rise as much as 5°C (9°F) in the next century (Smith and Tirpak, 1988). Global warming would alter precipitation patterns, change the frequency of droughts and severe storms, and raise the level of the oceans.

quoted from

Climate Change - Health and Environmental Effects on the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website

 Signature 

If the ignorance of nature gave birth to such a variety of gods, the knowledge of this nature is calculated to destroy them. La Système de la Nature, Baron d’Holbach (1723–1789)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2007 12:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  41
Joined  2007-06-08
morgantj - 29 August 2007 11:24 PM
majestyx - 29 August 2007 07:38 PM

Since no one seemed to have the answer in the previous thread, I’ll pose the question again. What is the CORRECT temperature and atmospheric make-up of the Earth in order for life to survive?

Oh, which species of life are you refering to? It’s my understanding that different species live and survive at different temperatures and climates. A temperature change that may effect one species may not immediately effect another. However, the exictintion of any particular species could easlily effect other species that once depended on the species that just went extinct.

Or are you only talking about Human life?

We are supposedly heading for disaster and will be taking a lot else with us… and it’s all our fault. So what temperature does the Earth need to be for this not to happen?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2007 01:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  41
Joined  2007-06-08

See if you can guess what this is from:

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
——

The USSR probably gave it away, but now read the next paragraph from April 25, 1975’s Newsweek article:

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

So excuse me if I find the current GW hysteria much like The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

For the full article and another link to a (dare I mention it here) business oriented website detailing the 4 warming/cooling hysterias since 1895, you can go here:

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2007 02:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  27
Joined  2007-08-14

More info here then:

The average surface temperature of the Earth is likely to increase by 2 to 11.5°F (1.1-6.4°C) by the end of the 21st century, relative to 1980-1990, with a best estimate of 3.2 to 7.2°F (1.8-4.0°C) (see Figure 1). The average rate of warming over each inhabited continent is very likely to be at least twice as large as that experienced during the 20th century.

from:

Future Temperature Changes @ EPA website

 Signature 

If the ignorance of nature gave birth to such a variety of gods, the knowledge of this nature is calculated to destroy them. La Système de la Nature, Baron d’Holbach (1723–1789)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2007 02:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  27
Joined  2007-08-14

For the full article and another link to a (dare I mention it here) business oriented website detailing the 4 warming/cooling hysterias since 1895, you can go here: http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm


majestyx,

The link you supplied points to this one: Fire and Ice, written by R. Warren Anderson, who is a research analyst for the Business Media Institute, founded in 1992 by a group called Media Research Center Inc.

Media Research Center Inc. is a conservative media watchdog group run by president and founder Brent Bozell. The Center has a $6 million annual budget and 60 staff members and is funded by larger right-wing foundations like The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc., Sarah Scaife Foundation, Castle Rock Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, Inc., The Carthage Foundation and JM Foundation. (sourcewatch)

 

The business oriented website (you dared to mention here) is nothing but a right wing propaganda website.

[ Edited: 30 August 2007 02:45 AM by ZeiS ]
 Signature 

If the ignorance of nature gave birth to such a variety of gods, the knowledge of this nature is calculated to destroy them. La Système de la Nature, Baron d’Holbach (1723–1789)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2007 02:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  41
Joined  2007-06-08

So of course, it’s to be rejected outright.

If someone would just give the answer, it would be appreciated. I won’t bother to ask again.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 6
2
 
‹‹ Hook, Line, & Sinker      deleted ››