Global Warming - is it real? Is it man?
 

Man - caused Global warming is not science.

To be science, it must follow the scientific meathod
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
in essence,
to observe a condition
develop a hypothesis
to prove the hypothesis

Global warming caused by man is nothing more then 100-150 years of circumstantial evidence without a provable link... anywhere.

Myth- Global warming is caused by pumping of additional CO2 into the atmosphere that was not previously there; as created to a vast amount since the industrial revolution.

Fact - C02 is a large part of the earth's, and Martian atmosphere (95% Mars)
Mars itself has had a sustainable and repeatable value of C02 in its atmosphere wholey and completley absent of the controls of Man, minus a rover, or two, and a few Viking landers. Yet, Mars is experiencing it's own global warming!
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ge_031208.html
Which I find interesting in that We have no relation whatsoever in what happens there! I find myself wondering what both Earth, and Mars have in common? What could be causing these temperature increases on our planet, and our celestial neighbor?

http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/wi...unclimate.html
The sun in fact does affect the Earth directly... as do the Sun's conditions and patterns... which can clearlly be seen as an increasing ferocity of Solar activity here
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/wi...icle3-fig1.gif


http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/im...redict_med.jpg
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/im...ing/eit304.gif
we also find perhaps the reason for our recently frigid temperatures? We are dipping into a Solar low period after a traditionally very intense Solar Max! Maybe this is why so few Hurricanes hit this year? Maybe this is why Glaciers in the southern poles are expanding, while sea levels are falling?
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO.../V9/N45/C2.jsp
and yes, the seas' are falling, not rising!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5076322.stm
[quote]Arctic sea level has been falling by a little over 2mm a year - a movement that sets the region against the global trend of rising waters.

A Dutch-UK team made the discovery after analysing radar altimetry data gathered by Europe's ERS-2 satellite.

It is well known that the world's oceans do not share a uniform height; but even so, the scientists are somewhat puzzled by their results.

Global sea level is expected to keep on climbing as the Earth's climate warms.[/qoute]
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/sea_level.html
further information on global sea levels rising
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...evelglobal.jsp

http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...55658425108013
As we see, when the Global Warming supporters put a date on anything where we can actually see feel, and notice results, they will fail each time... so now they have extruded something that may be beyond our lifetimes!

So, let us now delv into the history books, and look at the events that allowed the Vikings to inhabit Greenland, and the English to grow vinyards for wine; and the later stunt in growth, drop in world population, and storied winters...
Global Warming: CA 950-1100 AD, and the mini-ice-age 1300-1900 AD
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...1-weather.html
If anything, we may be aiding in the slow-down of Global warming via the particulates released...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

In conclusion.... might we find it ironic that there is so much hype when so much data shows us that we are in continual flux, and that we have little to no affect on the weather, and we are in fact quite insignificant?

I am not sure anybody could believe in Global warming after all this... but thatts just my opinion. Sorry for the OT :)

"Global warming- warmer world temperatures, increase of habitable land area due to moderating climate, increases in organic production (food), animal populations (including humans) and diversity of species.

Global cooling- cooler world temperatures, decrease of habitable land area due to increase in glacier formation, decreases in organic production (food), animal populations (including humans) and diversity of species. Mass extinctions. During the ice age previous to the last one, the human population (found through DNA testing) declined to only about 1000 people. (Al will make sure he survives, but will you)

Given the choice, I like Global Warming.

The previous warming and cooling spells were prior to the 1900's where human intervention was not suspected, do we now feel the warming period we may be experiencing today is the result of human intervention or is it just weather.

Were the terrible hurricanes in 2005 Geroge Bush's fault and because Al Gore made a movie about global warming, he saved us from hurricanes in 2006?

In 1989, it was extremely and unusually cold in Houston. Was that due to global warming, or has global warming only occured since then? Or was it all just the weather and really what this is all about is trying to get me to ride the bus to work and not drive my Porsche? They can't stop me from driving my Porsche, but Al and his friends certainly can make it more expensive by raising taxes.

I really think Global Warming is all about raising taxes."

This was my previous post about the subject. Nothing has changed except it has gotten really cold in Chicago, New York and Minneapolis in the last few days. Global cooling? Global Warming? No its just the weather.

Its Germany vs France and Italy.

"Porsche Rails at Emissions Caps That Favor Ghosn's Smaller Cars

By Alan Katz and Jeremy van Loon

Feb. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Porsche AG is under threat from the drive to combat global warming, Chief Executive Officer Wendelin Wiedeking says.

Wiedeking has joined with other German luxury-car makers to protest a mandatory European Union cap on carbon-dioxide emissions that he says favors companies such as Renault SA and Fiat SpA that produce smaller vehicles.

``This is a business war in Europe,'' Wiedeking, 54, told shareholders at Stuttgart's Porsche Arena on Jan. 26. ``It's the French and Italians up against the Germans.''

The European Commission is proposing binding limits because carmakers risk missing voluntary targets. The commission plans to outline a preliminary proposal tomorrow in Brussels. Carlos Ghosn of France's Renault says it's time the industry did more to protect the environment. Renault, PSA Peugeot Citroen and Turin, Italy-based Fiat each have several models with limited emissions.

Cars account for more than a 10th of the EU's emissions of CO2, the main gas blamed for global warming.

``Jobs are not lost when you proactively embrace change, but if you reactively resist it,'' said Johannes Laitenberger, the spokesman for Commission President Jose Barroso. The goal is to limit climate change while preserving competitiveness, he said.

``The key to meeting both objectives is to be ahead of the game, not sticking our heads in the sand, not standing still,'' Laitenberger told reporters in Brussels on Jan. 29.

120 Grams

Passenger cars in the EU emit an average 161 grams of CO2 a kilometer (9.14 ounces a mile), according to the EU.

The European industry's non-binding goal is to reduce emissions to 140 grams in 2008. EU regulators have discussed a mandatory cap of 120 grams a kilometer in 2012, said Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas. Porsche's least-emitting vehicles are versions of the Boxster and Cayman sports cars, which each produce 222 grams of CO2 per kilometer.

It will cost carmakers an average 2,532 euros ($3,297) a vehicle to meet both targets, according to an October 2006 report for the commission. The cost to Porsche may average 4,650 euros a car, said Ferdinand Dudenhoeffer, head of the Center for Automotive Research at the University of Gelsenkirchen near Dusseldorf in Germany. He was once an executive at the company.

Paris-based Peugeot may say Feb. 7 that second-half net income fell 23 percent to 269 million euros as demand for its vehicles declined in Western Europe, according to the median estimate of 11 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg News.

Renault, which reports earnings on Feb. 8, will probably say profit dropped 13 percent to 1.04 billion euros, according to a survey of 10 analysts. Renault is also being hurt by shrinking earnings at Nissan Motor Co. Renault owns 44.3 percent of Japan's third-biggest carmaker.

Tug of War

Tomorrow's proposal will start a tug of war among companies, countries and the commission, the EU's regulatory arm, to determine how to attain the target and how to penalize carmakers for failing to work toward the industry average. A draft law is expected later this year. It will need the backing of national governments and the European Parliament to take effect.

``How would they make binding targets?'' Ivan Hodac, secretary general of the European Automobile Manufacturers Association in Brussels, said. ``We don't know. No one knows.''

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has vowed to protect her country's carmakers, saying on Jan. 30 in Berlin that the government of Europe's largest economy will block any attempt to introduce a blanket emissions reduction for all cars and will instead push for limits to be set by type of vehicle.

Changing Habits

The cap may change the landscape of the European car market, pushing people to buy smaller cars with smaller profit margins, said Tadashi Arashima, head of Toyota Motor Corp.'s European unit, which is based in Brussels.

``We need to figure out how to grow sales and profitability anyway,'' he said.

Toyota's Aygo subcompact and Prius hybrid cars already emit less than 120 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer. Other models below that level include versions of Stuttgart-based DaimlerChrysler AG's Smart ForTwo, Peugeot's 107 and 207, as well as Fiat's Panda and Grande Punto hatchbacks.

Renault has some Megane compact hatchbacks that fall in that category.

``There is a point in time when society has to set what it wants,'' Renault's Ghosn, 52, said in a Jan. 25 interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. ``I consider that it's the time. We're just going to have to deliver the best, and we have the technology to do it.''

German carmakers don't want Europe's efforts to come at their expense.

`Jobs Will Migrate'

Wiedeking, DaimlerChrysler's Dieter Zetsche and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG CEO Norbert Reithofer, along with the heads of the local units of General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co., signed a Jan. 26 letter to the commission saying the new rules would be ``technically infeasible.''

``Auto exports will suffer, imports will increase, the sale of upper- and mid-range vehicles will fall dramatically and jobs will migrate from the EU,'' they wrote, citing the commission's own study of the regulation.

About 15 million cars are sold annually in the EU, where about 2 million people are employed making vehicles and their parts. That represents 7 percent of all EU manufacturing jobs.

Porsche boasts the car industry's highest profit margin, with operating profit representing 29 percent of sales in fiscal 2006. That compares with 4 percent at Fiat and Renault's estimate of 2.5 percent.

Cayenne SUV

``If legislation makes it very expensive for German cars to reach emissions limits, it could make them less attractive compared with smaller French and Italian cars,'' said Peter Braendle, a fund manager at Swisscanto Asset Management in Zurich, which manages $44 billion including DaimlerChrysler and Peugeot shares. ``That could shift investment decisions.''

Porsche shares rose 59 percent last year to 964.06 euros, compared with a 32 percent gain for Renault, 9 percent for DaimlerChrysler, 8 percent for BMW and 3 percent for PSA Peugeot Citroen.

Wiedeking told Porsche shareholders that sports cars and sport utility vehicles such as Porsche's should be exempt from any new rules or subject to different regulations based on horsepower or fuel efficiency.

Porsche's most powerful vehicle, the Cayenne Turbo S SUV, seats five and generates 520 horsepower, more than twice as much as some 18-ton delivery trucks. With a price tag that starts at $111,600, it also produces 378 grams of CO2 a kilometer.

``Why does an SUV need 500 horsepower?'' Wiedeking said, reading a question from a shareholder. ``Because it's a blast.''

The University of Gelsenkirchen's Dudenhoeffer said customers for bigger, more expensive models wouldn't balk at paying a bit extra to gun their engines.

``For the premium car manufacturers, they will simply pass the extra costs on to their customers, who are not especially price sensitive,'' he said. ``This shouldn't hurt their profit.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Alan Katz in Paris at [email protected] and Jeremy van Loon in Berlin at [email protected]

Last Updated: February 5, 2007 21:04 EST"

Go ahead EU strangle the most profitable car company in the world, just to make Al Gore happy.

Good post, nthfinity, and I agree. In fact, I'm familiar with pretty much all those arguments and examples. Unfortunately, not many people seem to see it the same way as us, i.e., that global warming cannot be conclusively proven to be caused by human activity, and riding on waves of populism, politicians are forced to use climate control platforms to get elected.

Good research. I had to do a bunch too to look at some of your points.

I am going to take a stab at it. Agreed that this is more or less a relative new field of research so that much more research and discovery will have to be done before anything conclusive is out.

I am going to go down the list you have made and offer counter points.

Maybe planetologist or astronomer could offer some points here, but I think comparing Earth's climate and CO2 concentrations to Mars isn't very conclusive. Much like I will point out later, and what you would called circumstantial evidence. Two planets that are completely different from the meteorology and developmental stand point. As you pointed out, Mars has 95% Carbon Dixiode and Earth only has 0.0383% (383ppmv), that single variable alone would make comparison point less. Also to note that Mars' orbit sits on a off set circle around the Sun, which makes its termperature variance greatly depending on which point in the year (orbit) it is. Mars' perihelic distance is 204 million kilometers and aphelic distance is 247 million kilometer. Unlike Earth that sits on a relatively consistent orbit about 150 million kilometer from the Sun. (Note, Mars is also like Earth where the planet is tilted at around 25 degrees, so Mars experience seasons as well.)

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/lin...ars_orbit.html
http://cmex.ihmc.us/SiteCat/sitecat2/mars.htm

You are completely correct that the Sun has cycles of 11 years. Some scientist argue that it might be 22 year cycles. Again, since we have only recently begun monitoring the Sun with Satellites it is hard to have any conclusive evidence except that we know it is cyclical. So with only a few decades of data from Satellites we can not be sure what and how it attributes to Global Warming.

Although Stanford's researchers with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration agreed that even with the the account of the Sun Cycles, it still does not account for the average 0.6 C Degree raise in temperature in the past 100 years and 0.4 C in the past 25 years.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun...glob-warm.html
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies even went as far as saying that Sun cycles can not be responsible and these increases in temperature must be attributed to greenhouse gases.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/

And in regards to the Sea levels, the article you quoted states that Sea Levels Arctic Sea levels dropped by 2mms but Globally they have risen.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5076322.stm

And . . .

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...arming.html#Q9

These figures are clear, there is no ambiguity about that:

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i48/8348notw1.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4803460.stm

Now, I agree with you that the data definitely shows that Earth's eco-system is very dynamic. We definitely do not know what all this data sums up too. As with most of these articles indicted from "experts" and scientist, all are in agreement that more research is necessary.

Maybe Earth's ecosystem could handle up to 1 Trillion tons of CO2 and other gases before it become irreversible. Maybe it could only handle 500 million tons. I don't know, we don't know.

But I believe that the jury is still out, are we "in fact quite insignificant"? As you asked? I believe in that this isn't a free ticket ride. Better to be guarded than "1 buck short and 2 days late".

Thus in this case, personally I choose to follow the Precautionary principle.

^I also believe in precautions, but if we're talking about emissions, why is there less fuss about CO, sulphur and other more harmful toxins? And even when we're talking about carbon dioxide, it is inequivocal that carbon dioxide is necessary for the survival of the planet.

Quite interesting Nth!

Ill give it a thorough look when Im back! :wink:

"most c02 in 650,000 years" which indicates there has been more, and would coinsicide with the last eruption of Yellowstone... yet the earth manipulated itself back to normal.

"Although Stanford's researchers with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration agreed that even with the the account of the Sun Cycles, it still does not account for the average 0.6 C Degree raise in temperature in the past 100 years and 0.4 C in the past 25 years. "

might it be possible it has anything to do with the presicion, and accuracy of the tools used to measure temperature?

I am very sceptical as well, all it takes is a quick deduction of the scales involved here and to me, mans effects cannot be considered significant enough that we can somehow control the climate of our planet through manipulation of our own personal emissions. To me that seems ridiculous anyway.
As for the arguments, i am with the 'see what happens and adapt (as we have done for many many years!) to suit' train of thought. But you will always have the 'what iff's' of the global warming fanatics so they'll never stop arguing.
Maybee the money being piled into this reseach would be better spend saving the lives of those currently inhabiting the planet, ie aids, cancer cures etc. Its quite some debate! Interesting nontheless. :)

Maybe the greenies should focus solely on emissions which actually cause immediate harm, if they want to focus on emissions at all.

right - and maybe this is the boost thats needed
it seems that burocracy needs this kind of thing to get anything done ... and for gods sake whats wrong with a cleaner environment? i mean really :?

Nothing, except the "western" world will be the only countries sacrificing to meet the clean requirments, while the rest fot he world will continue entering their "industrial age" and simply continue to pollute and exploit and trash the planet with impunity and embolden themselves to the point of superiority.

Meanwhile the "clean air" west will weaken themselves into PC green-ness and wither up and die ;)

some good points were made in this thread. the temp. diagrams are surely interesting, i am pretty sure that the human being is contributing to a higher CO2 level than normal, but the car being solely responsible for this? oh please we have far bigger industrial machines that produce more CO2 overall than all the cars could do.

you know that the earth has been around for billions of years. who is to say that this just isn't a normal phase of the earth? now i know we are having an effect but come on how can you even begin to understand the "life" cycle of some thing that is billions of years old.

As you pointed out Earth's ecosystem is cyclical. Unfortunately, they do not have ice core samples any older than that so it would be extremely hard to extrapolate any additional data without some other advances else where.

As far as the measurements are concerned, I have seen a few website with independent measurements. Some have it as high as 1.0 C degrees, and others have it as low as 0.5 C degrees, within this century. I believe Stanford and NOAA just took the average. There is no doubt that Earth has been warming from 1900-2000. Again, is it because it coincided with the Industrial Revolution? More research is needed.

In the US and most of the other western countries, we have already have toxic dumping laws which restrict where and how you treat immediate toxins. And California would be the first state to introduce legislation that will curb Green house gases by 25% by 2020.

No one is saying it is only from Cars, I am saying that it coincides with the entire Industrial Revolution during the mid-19th century.

Of course we know that Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years old, again as I pointed out before, it might be the normal phase, it might be not. How do we know where the tolerance and the breaking point is? We do not, like I pointed out earlier, it might be 10 trillion tons of CO or it might be only 500 million tons. And what about other gases as Mattk pointed out? What about a combination of gases? Should we worry about? We are not so either way, in which I believe we should take the Precautionary Principle stance.

That is the greatest problem right now. Because if we are to take measures to curb this, we do need global effort. China and India are two of the countries right now producing the heaviest damage to the enivornment in general. And I believe that you could solve this problem via Economics.

There are a couple of factors in this. One, United States' economy (I do not know much about Western Europe), now is based on a service economy. We have shifted from an agriculture to a manufacturing and finally to service. Which means that in general legislation will be affecting fewer firms and the economy should be able to withstand the additional burden. No doubt that it would hurt our manufacturing base.

Secondly, we have already started a scheme of Environmental credits. Firms are offered credits in which they have an allowance to release gases. Firms that are more efficient could sell or trade their credits to other manufacturers that are not as efficient. This type of market would encourage more development to be cleaner in the long run.

Hum... have to read this with more time. But is interesting... let's see...

What exactly are they basing that .6C rais in temp. as impossibly being attributed to the sun? I'm curious as to how they ruled that out; as based on the Solar cycle, it seems to create the trend of increased temperatures since 1900... which is also similar to the CO2 emmission diagram, no? why is C02 favored more highly over solar activity? Does the Sun not warm the earth anyway? Surely it has a tarrific effect on creating and sustaining life here... logically, how can solar activity be so easily downplayed in favor of CO2?
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/head...t12mar98_1.htm
Ice cores 400,000 years old... and not looking at yearly temp. variants
200,000 years seems far more an important picture then that of 100 years, does it not? Why is so much money being dumped into junk science (as in it is so far away from following any sort of true scientific meathod) When ice cores aren't enough for the consensus community [/quote]
http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/GISP2/Mo...ores_Past.html
This site also contains information on how Ice climatology works...
http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/est/99/apr/learn.html

If you want a higher resolution image of what happens year to year, and aren't dating so far back, you can also observe Tree Cores; which often date back 300-500 years, and well.... old trees are all over the planet! ... and the research supports the findings in the ice cores DIRECTLY! (some trees have accurate records dating 4,000 years)
http://wwwbrr.cr.usgs.gov/projects/S...ages/tree.jpeg
http://www.koshland-science-museum.o...storical08.jsp



What is the accuracy of the tools used to measure and average the Global temperature? is each thermostat that was used accurate to .05C to itself, and/or each other? was it .5C accurate? was it .5C presice? The tools used prior to 1979 are entirely of a different calibre; and while useful, are much less accurate/presice to measure average warming over decades and decades time... see what I'm saying? now... if they said "the earth is warming .2-.6C +-.05 C, then that is science, is it not?

That is why such industry wont even exist in California... "leading the way" isn't really a good thing, particularly when it's primarily politicians who are the people heading up the ass end of junk science for political gain... i mean... would you vote for a legislator/governor/pres. who said that Global warming is a farce at best ? You have been suckered into belief far worse then people of any religion, as you are actively trying to get people to change your country/world/economics/politics for your beliefs in an absolutely destructive mannor... its not exactly like peaceful proseltysm... and perhaps more attune to a jehad agaisnt the ideas of "big oil, big coorperations" and the like who have provided our country with success like no other place in the world... of course, that is just my view ;)

Since you are so adimant on keeping that thought, I suggest you add in this:
"I am saying that it coincides witth the entire industrial revolution, solar activity, and 100,000's years of cyclic climactic activity " then you may actually be discussing GW with something slightly less then bias ;)

Let us focus on curbing particulates which have proven dangerous and immediate effects on human life... there truly is nothing but utter waste discussing, and spending money to prove GW... when normal science is finding out that GW is part of much greater cycles, often discovered accidentally and not to prove or disprove GW... that is where true science lies... in a sphere of no bias. There is no bias that Sulfer is dangerous, and should be stemmed with a sence of urgency.

Im curious as to your sources as to the shift in our current time % wise of service vs. Mfr.

have you no knowledge of the credit exchange? Many companies which have never needed to stem thier own credits have created a new market for selling credits to the "polluters" who do need them... this is a billliion$ a year trade that didn't previously exist... tell me that has no effect on the economy, and has any effect on polluting.

I think i take care of that breaking point with some do dilligence... C02 is water saluable, so the quantity makes no difference. Second, as the quantity of foscil fuels run out, so does our abilitty to have such carbon emissions... which at current estimates put that somewhere around 100-150 years; which is totally insignificant on the global timescale... referencing the earth's ability to move on after massive catastrophe time and time again (asteroid/comet collisions, super volcanic eruptions, changes in the earth's axis and magnetic field etc. etc.) This is assuming that the additional C02 produced is causing the earth to warm, there is a limit that is definable by the source... of course, i'm sure you're familiar with the chemistry of balancing chemical equasions ;)

what good are invironmental credits if perhaps CO2 is perhaps not a Global warming contributor?
http://www.icr.org/article/348/


BTW, you still haven't refuted that today's GW is any different, or more extreme then that seen 1000 years ago, or the effects of the mini ice age there after... which is today attributed to many volcanoes erupting across the ring of fire, and elsewhere; causing solar heat to be reflected back into space by the more massive number of particulates in the atmosphere.... and the earth is only now pulling out of that mini-ice age...

honestly, how can you still be so sure that GW is real, and human caused; the science just isn't on your side mate.

Also.... regarding sea level, 2.5mm-3.2 mm rise since the 50's... not too bad considering so many predictions had so much coastline removed by now since we would've seen 10-20ft. sea level increases... nice that earth counteracts polar melt with southern polar outgrowth :)

The issue is political not scientific.

These political scientists have already agreed that even if we stop all CO2 emmissions right now, it will only make a difference in 100 years.

Remember global warming is good, global cooling is bad.

As we've pointed out before, the problem is this push is being used to push co2 reductions at the expense, and actual increase, of other pollutants.

They are no where near as strict as the push on co2.. something you exhale when you breathe.

We don't even know that the increase in co2 is human related. We lessen alot of co2 emissions too (forest fires and such). It is well know, and very scientifically proveable, that increased temperatures increase the amount of co2 in the atmosphere. Thus an increase in co2 coupled with an increase in temperature does not mean co2 caused it. Especially since historically co2 has followed (and continues to follow) the rise, not lead. Correlation not causation.


Furthermore, analysis of temperature changes depend on the source used. Ground based have shown an increase. Satalites on the other hand have barely showed any at all. Now obviously theres bias in ground based on locale. And obviously satalites have issues with temperatures in the troposphere.
Also your assuming that .6 of a degree is somehow by some miracle within the degree of certainty.. Notice no one ever lists the potential error deviation of these analysis, yet statistics always has some degree of certainty. Why dont they? Well for one Id be willing to bet its a bit more then .6 degrees. Think about it. Temperature is continually variable. Where I live we have temperature swings of 40 degrees fahrenheit a day quite often. Now realize the span of the globe. Now sit there and tell us how even with todays tools you could be .6 degrees accuracy of the entire world. Then try to apply that to 60 years ago.
Furthermore we have had other warming periods similar to this in prior centuries. The middle age warming period being just one example.

Not to mention we just completed 'saving the ozone' layer. Has it occured to anyone that this layer may effect temperature? Oh wait it has.. And as pointed out previously no one knows its effect.

Well he is right that a credit trading system is the best way to manage polution, but he is wrong that it does have a cost. It costs money to improve things. You never get something for nothing. Moreover other programs like the creation of life saving medicines, feeding the poor, etc suffer.

Finaly, you do realize the most efficient heat capture is water vapor. That is the clouds, the rain. It is 1000x more capable of causing global warming then co2 is.

CO2 is now being used with the word pollution all the time. Two years ago this was not the case. Calling CO2 a pollutant is like saying Oxygen is a pollutant or pure clean water is a pollutant.

Al Gore has a bigger carbon foot print than I do, so does Prince Charles. But trust me they will not suffer one bit if these new restrictive laws are passed. It will be you and I who will have to change the way we live and work.

This whole argument is about Communism vs Capitalism. Its about control. It is about stopping consumerism, the ability of people to have a high standard of living.

Communisum cannot compete with consumerism it has failed. So now the Communists are trying to come in the back way by ending consumerism, so they can once again compete on a more level playing field.

The Communists (the worst polluters in the history of man) have aligned with the Green party to end Consumerism, they both see it as a threat.

Trees breath CO2 just like we breath Oxygen. Neither are pollution.

Stop the madness.

Global warming good. Global cooling bad.

Okay, let me provide those links again:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/

So basically even though it does cycle through 11 years, the total energy only changes around a factor of a tenth of 1 percent. And they concluded that is not enough to account for the oberved surface temperature.

I don't quite understand why you posted the link for 400,000 years. I posted the link for 650,000 years from the ice core and it showed that this is the highest level of CO2 every recorded.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i48/8348notw1.html

Since we should look at the "grand" scheme of things, let's look at temperature records of the past 1000 years (and 1850-2000):

http://img15.imagevenue.com/loc177/t..._122_177lo.jpg
http://img137.imagevenue.com/loc124/..._122_124lo.jpg

As you could see, significant increases relative to the past 800 years or so. Information complied by Robert A. Rohde and Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office.

Do we need to talk about that volcanoe theory again ;)? I thought we already discussed that in the other thread?


Continuing on :) , I totally agree that other particulate needs to be curbed as well. You have no arguement from me there, and since I am not a scientist, I couldn't tell you which should have priority. Like you pointed out Sulfer Dioxide is terrible, and yes we should limited that as well. We are only talking about CO2 since it was brought up in the original question.

As far as the sources of our economy, I learned that from school. 1700s-1800s of the United States were usually considered argiculture economy, from the late 1800s through out the 1900s were usually considered the manufacturing and industrial economy, and finally late 20th century and on is considered Service economy. Especially in fact of continuing exports of manufacturing jobs to nations with cheaper labor. If you like I could send you some sources for this information.

As far as environmental credits, did I say or implied that there are no damages or associated cost? I am sorry I did not make myself clear. What I was saying is that it is one of the best ways to curtail pollution of any public good, e.g. Water, Air, Land (although land could be divided). Of course it has impacts of the economy. But never the less, the Credit System currently employed encourages continual efforts to curb pollution. Yes it places extra burden on companies that are "dirty", but nevertheless, it offers them a way to continue with business.

Hey Graywolf, glad you could join us. :) Thought you would miss out on all the fun.

I do not know what the restrictions are to each and every substance. Must research that some more.

True, correlation definitely does not equal causation. Which is why we must continue our efforts to see what the causation is. I have shown in the other thread the amount of CO2 that is directly related to human activities. I have to pull out hte number again.

Yes, we need to know the statistical variation of measurements. I believe what you are referring to is Urban Heat.

Philip - Definitely that it was not really front and center 2 years ago. It is good that we are discussing matters like this now. I do not believe that this is a conspriacy from the Communist. In fact, I am one of the biggest proponents of Market theories - capitalism, so I do not quite follow your point there.

One problem with using that source. Its dated from 1999.. Since then several well known studies have stated that the sun is causing warming:
2004 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

http://www.space.com/images/suncycle_temps_0108_02.gif


In fact the study you provided yourself is ongoing and added this caveat a few years later:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...rradiance.html




As I discussed previously this shows you nothing. CO2 increases as a result of higher temperatures. Also we do know that at points in the past co2 was higher. Namely about a million years ago.

about 2 percent as previously pointed out.

And here comes the common misconception ladies and gentleman.. That is that the burden is placed and borne by the dirty companies. I know its pushed to view corporations as us versus them, but the reality is they are us. They pay taxes, they provide jobs, they invest, they provide money to their stockholders that invest elsewhere... Applying this doesnt just hurt a few 'dirty' companies. It hurts us all.

Please note the IPC also openly admited they are editing their report to say what their summary that was released says.. Their goal is to be a panel on climate change and to produce a plan for policy makers.. And.. to make matters worse, they were edited by politicians. They created a self fulfilling prophecy.

That being said.. we've now dropped the temperature change down to potentially as low as .4. At what point does the above article on sun spots with its caveat come in? And thats if you believe that accuracy which I dont. I do believe things have warmed, but even you have to admit your getting into the realm of sketchy. Close me in a room and the temperature off my body could probably heat the room up .4 degrees.

One also has to ask about Rhodes graph you provided earlier... Did he use correct statistical method? Mann's work was ripped to shreds as horrible statistics in numerous studies.

keep in mind the level of energy we are talking about.... and conversely, what kind of temperature increase would be delt to earth over time based off of a 1% increace? I honestly cannot believe that .2-3% over 100 + years... may that be enough to effect earth .4- 1.5F after that amount of time?

there is logic here; and yes.... the volcanoes report is flawed w/out any major eruptions in a given year ;) its not like they all work on a equally timed cycle you konw ;)

still yet to hear the refutes on climate change 1000 years ago being far mroe drastic, and quick then what we see today ;)

still awaiting proof that C02 is a stronger cause of GH then percipitable water, and water vapor... which the more PW in the air, the less C02...

the connections just keep getting stronger and stronger towared the sun... and the refutation on Mars' own global warming is not a refutation at all... yes, it has a different orbit, it has a different atmospherre, and different surface pressure, depending on the temperatures on the surface... but yet, NASA is convinced the planet is heating up... what causes that besides the sun?

Communism was not good at providing goods and services to its populations. Capitalism is very good at providing goods and services to its populations. To reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the production of goods and services (consumerism) must be drastically curtailed.

Thus the advantages of Capitalism are constrained, making Communism more attractive.

Those in charge, the Prince Philip's and the Al Gore's will still live in luxury, like the leaders of the Communist party did during their rule, while ordinary people are worse off.

However, the ordinary people in exchange for giving up their lifestyles they have grown to enjoy will be able now to live free from fear of the world being 1 degree warmer 100 years from now.

The new Democratic leader of the US House of Representatives, while attempting to scheule hearings on global warming is petitioning Bush to give her free access to her own private military aircraft.

And so it continues.

actually, its worse then that, she is demanding a near carbon copy of AF1; and the Pentagon is scared that she and her cronie, Murtha are going to defund the military; so the Pentagon has brought out it's legal team and consultants to determin if there is president that the Speaker be supplied with whatever he/she wants.

the fact is, Denny Hastor had an aircraft at his disposal after the Sep. 11 bombings for chain-of-command stratigic deviation; but Polozi wants an aircraft for her, her staffers, her constituancies, press, local supporters in local gov. (in SF) ..... all in all, 42 business class seats, 16 staff, and pilot/co etc. etc. on assignment at all times. The cost per hour is 16,000$..... the cost to fly from DC to SF and back would be 300,000$ per hit; all the while, she is reducing gov. pork? yeah right.

How bout that carbon foot print.

Sure makes the Prince's trip to the US for 20 of his closest friends on a scheduled airline to receive his environmental award seem almost a pittance. Is Gore in Spain now?

Ah to travel the world in syle, while trying to look like an environmentalist.

Sorry, yes I simplied it directly to the companies. But yes correctly interpreted would be that everyone would be involved in one way or another.

Umm, I think you confusing economics with types of government. Let's put it this way, our economy is not a true capitalistic economy. It has social aspects built into it. Such as role of a Federal government. As citizens we expect the Federal government to provide certain needs and provide certain assistance. Providing emergency relief, national defense, and protection of public goods are roles of Government.

Classical economics states that Public Goods such as Air, needs to be regulated by the government. What if X Company makes a Widget, in the process of making that Widget it damages all the water sources down the river. According to you, that would be okay because they are providing a Good that the market wants.

Yes, the Government has to stop such activities even if it is a Good that we want. Because in the end it is damaging a much more important Public Good such as Air and Water. - Sorry for the typos writing from a Treo right now.

wrong, neither of both are good or bad. it's the balance you want to achieve that hot and cold are equally 'strong'.

but imo i would like to have an ice age :twisted: more snowboarding for me! :P

Sorry something wierd happened to the post.

Theres only one problem with that arguement... What is balance? What is average?

That gets to the vary essence of the issues with gw.. We don't know.

In case you missed this because your local paper is censoring this sort of information on climate change.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1363818.ece

More on the Earth is not warming. In case your interested.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-atd021207.php

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...500.xml&coll=7

Man this global warming is BULLSHIT... and if Porsche start making GREEN cars.. then i'm gonna stock up on the OLD 1970's Porsche with no catalytic converters and drive around all the hippie villages and run over there cows :/

Pok

Talk about brain washing.. man.