Global Warming

[Great Idea]

Some of us appreciate your attempt to point to scientific data and write clear, concise posts. Your efforts to present science and sites that support the data with actual research rather than "opinion sites" and so called conservative rants by so called experts who work for the big oil/coal companies will hopefully aid in educating those who are open to study and learning. Don't waste your time however attempting to debate the issue here. The responses are always predictable and lacking any real effort or research into the issue at hand. The sea level could be rising , tornadoes ripping thru the state and temps could be up 10-15 degrees and these posters would still be saying it wasn't real and we had nothing to do with it. 2005 was THE warmest overall average global temperature in 10,000 years.....most of us would like to know why and if there were things that man could do to slow this trend. Your/our "opponents" here attack rather than spend the hours it would take to really absorb the data that exists and THEN form an opinion . They had their opinion perhaps since birth and will continue to look at only the "data" that comforts and protects there self serving lifestyle.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Great Idea

Some of us appreciate your attempt to point to scientific data and write clear, concise posts. Your efforts to present science and sites that support the data with actual research rather than "opinion sites" and so called conservative rants by so called experts who work for the big oil/coal companies will hopefully aid in educating those who are open to study and learning. Don't waste your time however attempting to debate the issue here. The responses are always predictable and lacking any real effort or research into the issue at hand. The sea level could be rising , tornadoes ripping thru the state and temps could be up 10-15 degrees and these posters would still be saying it wasn't real and we had nothing to do with it. 2005 was THE warmest overall average global temperature in 10,000 years.....most of us would like to know why and if there were things that man could do to slow this trend. Your/our "opponents" here attack rather than spend the hours it would take to really absorb the data that exists and THEN form an opinion . They had their opinion perhaps since birth and will continue to look at only the "data" that comforts and protects there self serving lifestyle.

You people are priceless!!!!!! Here is another example of your "open minded", "non-inflammatory", "obviously scientific", "debate" tactics.

Sorry Varney Point, I really wanted to let you have the last word here, but then the above appeared I just couldn't resist.

[Great Idea]

ITD,

Until you do your homework and study the subject and present some info that isn't from tainted sources then the joke is on you and everything I said above is supported by your own responses and resistance to do some reading. Varney Point has and I have only asked you to study the research and you haven't done it. We told you why we held the opinion we do and Varney point provided you with links that demonstrate actual scientific studies. You won't read or consider them so unfortunely that appears to be closed minded on your part. Truth hurts. Further you provided some data and we unlike yourself looked at it and considered it. There was no scientific verification of the data and further it was pointed out by Winnigirl the source is a paid lobbyist from the oil/coal industry. We looked at your evidence , researched it and responded. That is fairly open minded? Yes? We keep posting our arquements supported by real science and actual statistics that can be verified if you read the studies. You counter telling us that its bull and liberal noise/hysteria yet you won't do the work to study it? Thats not priceless or funny..... just kind of sad. Keep laughing ...... hopefully some of us will pick up the slack for you and do something constructive to educate others and actually improve the situation for the future generations.

[MAXUM]

Everyone.... global warming is a THEROY not proven scientific FACT.

Let me put this in perspective... E=MC2 is fact. There is not enough evidence to suggest global warming is either fact or fiction at this time, or any time in the next few million years period.

The true facts are as follows:

Scientists on both sides of the arguement produce all kinds of evidence to support thier points, however how OBJECTIVE are thier studies??? Some may be based on fact but there is simply not enough data to extactly know what temperature trends were say 1000 or 10,000 years ago. Oh one can speculate or interpret evidence to estimate trends, but estimates are not hard numbers. This is why global warming will remain a THEORY from probably the next 100,000 years or so. Even at 100K years, a mere moment in time considering the age of the earth. What is fact is that evidence from the past show we've had wild global temperature changes long before the internal combustion engine was invented. Hmm.... explain that!

Politicians cherry pick the scientists that find in thier favor to bolster thier ideas of regulation and legislation. If they can't find them they will "fund" a study with OUR money to find evidence to support thier position.

I resort back to my original point, I could care less if global warming is fact or fiction, however we all have a responsibility to do what we REASONABLY can do to take care of the world we live in since it is the only one we got. If that means investing in alternative resources fine, lets spend the money creating something useful, not more studies that are tainted at best and prove nothing. Think of the billions of dollars that could have gone to real research in developing alternative power instead of some long forgotten "study". Lets all move on from senseless debate and invest in a %^&$ solution!

Enough said.......

[ApS]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

"...Everyone.... global warming is a THEORY not proven scientific FACT..."

In 1998, Popular Science stated that Global Warming is a FACT. Last year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger did likewise. This year, the President's own Council on such things said the same.

Want a neutral report? Take Swiss scientists:

"...In order to be able to deal with the negative effects of climate change in the short term and avoid them in the long term, Swiss Re proposes two strategies: the first is climate protection, which is necessary to prevent global warming from accelerating to such a degree that humans are no longer able to adjust. This approach includes reducing the degree of human intervention in the natural climatic system. Secondly, society as a whole must learn to anticipate changeable climates..." http://www.swissre.com/INTERNET/pwsw...l?OpenDocument

The two schools:

1) 100% of the scientists on this forum agree that Global Warming is a FACT.

2) In opposition is the school of thought personified by the "Most Popular Radio Talk-Show Program in the World", whose host "is correct 98.5% of the time".

While I defer to Limbaugh's acumen in politics, I strongly disagree with his broadcasting of misleading environmental news: Once, I attempted to "call him on it". (Literally).

At the time, he was discussing "Ozone-depletion", a problem that didn't appear until Andes Mountain tourists were getting sunburned in just fifteen minutes! Scientists rapidly determined the fact of Ozone depletion and Congress dragged itself into outlawing the worst of the Chloro-Flouro-Carbons. (Abbreviated "CFCs" — found in air conditioning systems.)

As to Global Warming, Senators defeated the Kyoto Treaty 99-0. There's little question that Congress did the right thing for Western economies: China (not affected by Kyoto) is discussing oil drilling in the Gulf -- off Cuba! On the other hand, Iran (with huge oil reserves) could be hit with UN sanctions. (So don't go looking for fuel prices heading downwards).

There are too many "moneyed interests" to reduce Humanity's effects on Global Warming; but take a look at this lake as a microcosm of this planet.

Would those who deny the warming of the planet also deny that Humanity's use of fossil fuel has not affected Lake Winnipesaukee?

[jeffk]

Climate fluctuations, warming and cooling, are normal and have been occurring before man became a significant player in the world.

The methodology of global temperature measurement has only become precise in the last few decades. Measurements prior to that become more questionable the further back you go. Even current measurements may be influenced by the local "heat island effects. The amount of warming (.6 C, 1.1 F over the last century) is in the "noise" of our ability to measure temperature accurately.

Computer models suffer greatly from GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). There is still no model that is able to accurately project climate changes.

CO2 is not the most important contributor to "greenhouse" effects; water vapor and oxygen are more significant. The amount of CO2 that is contributed by human activities is disputable and is probably less than that contributed via "natural" causes. More CO2 may be a positive contribution to the biosphere.

Overall, climate is extremely complex and we do not know how all the components work and interact.

Here is a link to a discussion of some of the issues of interest:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

This is a summary of the points in the discussion:

• The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
• The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at less than 1 °C.
• The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).
• The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
• There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
• The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)
• Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
• Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
• Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
• There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.
• Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
• Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems

I don't deny that some warming may be going on. However, the amount of warming, the cause of it, whether it is a problem, and how much we can control it are very unsettled issues. The current proposed costs for "fixing" it are enormous and very real with very uncertain benefit. We need significantly better information before committing enormous resources to this questionable effort.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

{snipped} Would those who deny the warming of the planet also deny that Humanity's use of fossil fuel has not affected Lake Winnipesaukee?

Here we go again, are you going to show us that petroleum ring around the lake picture again? Still waiting for the answer from the last time you pulled out that picture.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) 100% of the scientists on this forum agree that Global Warming is a FACT.

2) In opposition is the school of thought personified by the "Most Popular Radio Talk-Show Program in the World", whose host "is correct 98.5% of the time".
....

1) Wrong. What's your definition of a scientist, a person who agrees with global warming?
2) Like Al Gore, Rush has no scientific training so he is only parroting someone else's research. Let's judge the science not the politician or entertainer who point to it.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Would those who deny the warming of the planet also deny that Humanity's use of fossil fuel has not affected Lake Winnipesaukee?
....

The biggest effect fossil fuel has had on Lake Winnipesaukee is MTBE getting into the drinking water. Since MTBE is soon to be banned that problem should be gone. Other problems from gas and oil entering the water should be helped by the changeover to fuel injection and the change away from two-stroke engines. A true lake lover would work hard to speed this up. See this article:

http://www.news10.net/storyfull1.asp?id=8057

The important sentence:
...In the five years since the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency prohibited most two-stroke engines, those residual gas products have declined between 80 and 90 percent...

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

In 1998, Popular Science stated that Global Warming is a FACT. Last year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger did likewise. This year, the President's own Council on such things said the same.

Want a neutral report? Take Swiss scientists:



The two schools:

1) 100% of the scientists on this forum agree that Global Warming is a FACT.

2) In opposition is the school of thought personified by the "Most Popular Radio Talk-Show Program in the World", whose host "is correct 98.5% of the time".

While I defer to Limbaugh's acumen in politics, I strongly disagree with his broadcasting of misleading environmental news: Once, I attempted to "call him on it". (Literally).

At the time, he was discussing "Ozone-depletion", a problem that didn't appear until Andes Mountain tourists were getting sunburned in just fifteen minutes! Scientists rapidly determined the fact of Ozone depletion and Congress dragged itself into outlawing the worst of the Chloro-Flouro-Carbons. (Abbreviated "CFCs" — found in air conditioning systems.)

As to Global Warming, Senators defeated the Kyoto Treaty 99-0. There's little question that Congress did the right thing for Western economies: China (not affected by Kyoto) is discussing oil drilling in the Gulf -- off Cuba! On the other hand, Iran (with huge oil reserves) could be hit with UN sanctions. (So don't go looking for fuel prices heading downwards).

There are too many "moneyed interests" to reduce Humanity's effects on Global Warming; but take a look at this lake as a microcosm of this planet.

Would those who deny the warming of the planet also deny that Humanity's use of fossil fuel has not affected Lake Winnipesaukee?

Wow - very interesting indeed.

So Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is a real expert on the subject....

Popular Science may very well have published supporting information for the THEORY of global warming, that does not make it scientific fact.

The President's council may have supported the THEORY of global warming, but that does not make it fact.

As I have said before you can find as many people supporting the idea that global warming is a fact as you can that say it's not. Fact is the earth has experienced climatic changes naturally a LONG time before humans were around driving internal combustion engines. Matter of fact it has been estimated that the eruption of Mt. St. Helens threw more greenhouse gasses in the air than all the emmissions combined of internal combustion engines since they were first invented. Hmm.... better put a catelytic converter on every volcano across the planet then huh?

Ah yes Ozone depleation, I was watching NOVA a couple months back where they have discovered through ice core samples that there has been historically a fluctuating hole in the OZONE for thousands of years.

Personally I could care less what gas prices do, if they remain high then just maybe that will finally get people thinking about conservation and new replacement technologies. Again I say invest the money in inovation not more studies that are just nothing but theory and estimations. Fact is there is no way to know for sure how much man has effected the climate. What is going on now may very well be a normal warming cycle and has nothing what so ever to do with fossil fuels. There is simply not enough data to know for sure.

Finally, the only thing that is wrecking Lake Winnipesaukee is milfoil, out of date septic systems, construction that is effecting run off and fertilizer used on the sprawling lawns infront of all the mc-mansions. None of these things has anything to do with internal combustion engines!

[JPC]

Did anyone watch NOVA this past Sunday? Interesting subjet on the dimming sun and how it applies to global warming.

[Orion]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Finally, the only thing that is wrecking Lake Winnipesaukee is milfoil, out of date septic systems, construction that is effecting run off and fertilizer used on the sprawling lawns infront of all the mc-mansions. None of these things has anything to do with internal combustion engines!

I think MAXUM has correctly established our immediate Lake concerns. But I'd like to also add it's not just the lawns at the McMansions, but all lawns where owners are fertilizing. hundreds of small lawn owners believe their use of fertilizers (even these so-called "natural" fertilizers) are not really impacting the lake. Here's the bottom line.....what's good for grass is good for algae and undesirable underwater plants.

[Bear Islander]

I was at the North Pole last week and I ran into some scientists that were part of the Polar Buoy project. They claim that the data they are getting from the buoys show alarming temp increases in the arctic. However there are theories that can explain this other than global warming.

Their pet theory was about disruptions in the polar stream that circles under the ice pack.

[skisox24]

I will concede to having maintained a healthy scepticism of the global warming hysteria. Yet my ego is humble enough to recognize its possibility.

I highly recommend a 2004 fast-paced adventure novel entitled State of Fear by Michael Chrichton. Its a great read, and its central theme pulsates with the very same issues that have been the essense of this thread. Yes, the novel is fiction, but throughout the story the author references factual footnotes that support the contentions made within the story's plot.

At the end of the book the author includes a section with his personal conclusions which he arrived at following his three year period of dedicated research that stands behind his intricate story.

Its a great beach book for the summer, and it might even provoke some enlightented thought on this controversial issue!

[MAXUM]

Here is the bottom line. Is the globe any warmer now than it was say 50 years ago. Maybe, maybe not. For this conversation lets say it is. So what exactly does that prove. IMHO nothing!

Lets say the globe is warmer now than it was say 10 years ago what does that prove? Again nothing!

Fact - scientists have been able to determine that the earth has undergone global temperature changes in it's past, at times being much colder than it is now, other times much warmer than it is now. All these thing happened without man being a factor. What is in question now is what we see going on around us a natural cycle or something that is man made. With only a couple hundred years of hard factual historical data, a mere blink in the history of the earth I find it very irresponsible for any scientist to either confirm or deny the idea of global warming. No matter there isn't a thing we can do to stop it, leading me to believe there is little doubt we are doing much to cause it in the first place. However doing our best to conserve and respect the earth we live on (with in reason, not hugging trees or spotted owls) is in the best interest of mankind as a whole.

The more studies that come out either somehow proving or disproving global warming the less credibility they have and so does the theory. There is simply not even 1000 years of hard data to come to that kind of conclusion.

[Pine Island Guy]

Saw Steven Wright at Hampton Beach Casino last Saturday and his perspective is...

"I believe Global Warming started when the Cold War ended"

[KonaChick]

There was an informative documentary on HBO last night about Global Warming "Too Hot Not To Handle". It presented some pretty interesting arguments that indeed Global Warming is real and we are headed for some big problems in the future. All I can say after watching the docementary and absorbing all the information is that a picture is worth a thousand words. If you have HBO and get a chance it's a good watch!

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Great Idea

ITD,

Until you do your homework and study the subject and present some info that isn't from tainted sources then the joke is on you and everything I said above is supported by your own responses and resistance to do some reading. Varney Point has and I have only asked you to study the research and you haven't done it. We told you why we held the opinion we do and Varney point provided you with links that demonstrate actual scientific studies. You won't read or consider them so unfortunely that appears to be closed minded on your part. Truth hurts. Further you provided some data and we unlike yourself looked at it and considered it. There was no scientific verification of the data and further it was pointed out by Winnigirl the source is a paid lobbyist from the oil/coal industry. We looked at your evidence , researched it and responded. That is fairly open minded? Yes? We keep posting our arquements supported by real science and actual statistics that can be verified if you read the studies. You counter telling us that its bull and liberal noise/hysteria yet you won't do the work to study it? Thats not priceless or funny..... just kind of sad. Keep laughing ...... hopefully some of us will pick up the slack for you and do something constructive to educate others and actually improve the situation for the future generations.

Oh no, no, no, you're not drawing me down this road again. Don't tell me what I have and haven't studied. Look up McIntyre and McKitrick. I've called no one any names, unlike you. Fact vs. theory, look it up in the dictionary. I don't buy your premises. When you educate others please teach the whole truth, not just your slant. And like it or not, you're priceless.

Well said Maxum, all except the e=mc^2 part...........nevermind, I still like the way you think.