Global Cooling

[quote]Phil_the_legend wrote:
The largest greenhouse gas is water vapour. So that push for Hydrogen cars is ludicrous for two reasons. One, the exhaust is water vapour (yeah let’s put more of that up there to reduce global warming, duh). The second is that Hydrogen has to be extracted from water, and that process requires more energy than the hydrogen provides, so more coal power plants are fired up to make less energy (pretty stupid eh).
[/quote]

You are right water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas and I also agree hydrogen cars would be pointless from an environmental standpoint as well as a means of an efficient energy source.

[quote]Phil_the_legend wrote:
CO2 is actually still being absorbed by the Ocean (yes it does this, something no one seems to mention) and trees (more CO2 = larger trees) and there are more trees today than 50 years ago ’
[/quote]

I am also aware that oceans are absorbing CO2 but find it laughable perhaps that you think oceans absorbing CO2 is a good thing.

(And all the trees in the world won’t help if you’re putting out more CO2 than the trees can absorb. Show me the link on the tree stats though. I have a hard time believing that one with all of the deforestation the last 100 years.)

“Ocean Blues” by Sandra Hines

“Since the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s oceans have swallowed nearly half of all fossil-fuel carbon emissions. Damage could be reaching the tipping point, threatening the entire marine food web.”

http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/june07/content/view/12/1/

Ocean acidification

“Unlike climate change-which can reveal itself in varied ways, including making some places colder-ocean acidification is a straight forward response of seawater to excess carbon dioxide, says Oceanography professor James Murray, the founding director of the University’s Program on Climate Change.”

“While the debate continues over how much global warming is human-caused, there is no quarrel over changing the ocean chemistry. Oceanographers agree that ocean acidification is the result of carbon dioxide generated since the Industrial Revolution.”

“In the past 200 years, the oceans have absorbed about 525 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, nearly half of all fossil-fuel emissions.”

"If you can estimate how much excess carbon dioxide humans will put into the atmosphere in coming years, then scientists can tell you how much ocean acidification to expect. The predictions point to a dire state of affairs, Murray says. “The whole marine food web could be affected.”

“At present, the chemistry of the oceans is changing at least 100 times more rapidly than it has during the 650,000 years preceding our industrial era.”

“Haven’t heard of ocean acidification? You’re not alone.”

“Considering how vast the oceans are, just how is it that humans have managed to change their chemistry?”

People have no idea how much carbon dioxide we generate, says Chris Sabine, a NOAA oceanographer and affiliate assistant professor at the UW."

“Sabine says the typical American is adding, on average, 118 pounds of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every day. Thats not all coming from the tailpipe of your car; much of it also represents the fossil fuels that are burned to produce things we use every day and, in places where hydroelectricity isnt available, the fuel burned every time we turn on a light switch or use hot water for a shower.”

“Around the world humans are releasing about 7 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year. Sabine says a metric ton of carbon weighs about as much as a Volkswagen bug. Now, Sabine says, imagine putting 7 billion VW bugs into the air every year.”

"If ocean acidification appears unstoppable, what is the appropriate emission target?

Zero, according to Ken Caldeira, who was one of the two climate scientists who coined the phrase ‘ocean acidification’ in 2003."

I strongly suggest you read the article, it’s short. But if you think the oceans absorbing excess C02 (tons of billions a yr)is a good thing, than maybe it will give you a different point a view.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Back in the 70s, before fretting about “global warming” became all the rage, the Chicken Littles were predicting the imminent Ice Age. Just goes to show that environmentalist hand-wringing agendas, like climate changes themselves, are cyclical.

Personally, I welcome the next Ice Age. If it means a drop in sea levels, an increase in continental grassland, and the return of superfauna like the mammoth and the aurochs to hunt, I’m all for it.

This has been debunked already.

The vast majority of scientists were not worried about imminent global cooling/ice age. Therefore the rest of your premise is crap. Oh well.

It has not been debunked at allbut I have read the studies claiming it has. Some thought there would be a new ice age. Some did not. Most did not realize the cash cow “climate change” would be and didn’t bother.

The vast majority did not and in “peer reviewed” science articles there is certainly no consensus belief in an “imminent” ice age.

It would be more accurate to say, the same chicken littles who did not believe in an imminent ice age now believe in GW.

It would be more accurate to say no one gave a shit in the 70’s and now people see a way to make money off the hysteria.

No, that would be stupider, not more accurate.
[/quote]

Are you implying all these scientists are working for free?

[quote]greekdawg wrote:

"If ocean acidification appears unstoppable, what is the appropriate emission target?

Zero, according to Ken Caldeira, who was one of the two climate scientists who coined the phrase ‘ocean acidification’ in 2003."

[/quote]

ZERO CO2 emissions are appropriate. What a joke.

[quote]kroby wrote:

Is it any wonder there is so much misunderstanding?[/quote]

Misunderstanding? Hardly, perhaps we are still in the “ridicule” phase.

“All truth goes through three phases. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident.”

How about you start with reading the article I linked up in my previous post.

But hey, what do scientists that have studied the ocean their entire lives 24-7 for a living know anyways?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
greekdawg wrote:

"If ocean acidification appears unstoppable, what is the appropriate emission target?

Zero, according to Ken Caldeira, who was one of the two climate scientists who coined the phrase ‘ocean acidification’ in 2003."

ZERO CO2 emissions are appropriate. What a joke.[/quote]

I’m trying to understand your side, so instead of just posting nonsense, how about you explain your position “why you think it’s a joke” (if you actually have a position) to move the discussion forward.

Did you even read the article?

If you would have read it, the very next sentence reads:

"Caldeira told the New Yorker, If youre talking about mugging little old ladies, you dont say, Whats our target for the rate of mugging little old ladies? You say, Mugging little old ladies is bad, and were going to try to eliminate it. You recognize you might not be a hundred percent successful, but your goal is to eliminate the mugging of little old ladies. And I think we need to eventually come around to looking at carbon dioxide emissions the same way.

But by all means, cherry pick away…

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Back in the 70s, before fretting about “global warming” became all the rage, the Chicken Littles were predicting the imminent Ice Age. Just goes to show that environmentalist hand-wringing agendas, like climate changes themselves, are cyclical.

Personally, I welcome the next Ice Age. If it means a drop in sea levels, an increase in continental grassland, and the return of superfauna like the mammoth and the aurochs to hunt, I’m all for it.

This has been debunked already.

The vast majority of scientists were not worried about imminent global cooling/ice age. Therefore the rest of your premise is crap. Oh well.

It has not been debunked at allbut I have read the studies claiming it has. Some thought there would be a new ice age. Some did not. Most did not realize the cash cow “climate change” would be and didn’t bother.

The vast majority did not and in “peer reviewed” science articles there is certainly no consensus belief in an “imminent” ice age.

It would be more accurate to say, the same chicken littles who did not believe in an imminent ice age now believe in GW.

It would be more accurate to say no one gave a shit in the 70’s and now people see a way to make money off the hysteria.

No, that would be stupider, not more accurate.

Are you implying all these scientists are working for free?[/quote]

I think you were the one making ridiculous implications. I don’t see scientists as a group being cold-hearted greedy bastards.

[quote]greekdawg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
greekdawg wrote:

"If ocean acidification appears unstoppable, what is the appropriate emission target?

Zero, according to Ken Caldeira, who was one of the two climate scientists who coined the phrase ‘ocean acidification’ in 2003."

ZERO CO2 emissions are appropriate. What a joke.

I’m trying to understand your side, so instead of just posting nonsense, how about you explain your position “why you think it’s a joke” (if you actually have a position) to move the discussion forward.

Did you even read the article?

If you would have read it, the very next sentence reads:

"Caldeira told the New Yorker, If youre talking about mugging little old ladies, you dont say, Whats our target for the rate of mugging little old ladies? You say, Mugging little old ladies is bad, and were going to try to eliminate it. You recognize you might not be a hundred percent successful, but your goal is to eliminate the mugging of little old ladies. And I think we need to eventually come around to looking at carbon dioxide emissions the same way.

But by all means, cherry pick away…[/quote]

The analogy of producing CO2 to mugging old ladies was also particularly dreadful. Of course asking for honesty from “the founding director of the University’s Program on Climate Change” is a joke. The man has a huge vested interest in scaring us.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Back in the 70s, before fretting about “global warming” became all the rage, the Chicken Littles were predicting the imminent Ice Age. Just goes to show that environmentalist hand-wringing agendas, like climate changes themselves, are cyclical.

Personally, I welcome the next Ice Age. If it means a drop in sea levels, an increase in continental grassland, and the return of superfauna like the mammoth and the aurochs to hunt, I’m all for it.

This has been debunked already.

The vast majority of scientists were not worried about imminent global cooling/ice age. Therefore the rest of your premise is crap. Oh well.

It has not been debunked at allbut I have read the studies claiming it has. Some thought there would be a new ice age. Some did not. Most did not realize the cash cow “climate change” would be and didn’t bother.

The vast majority did not and in “peer reviewed” science articles there is certainly no consensus belief in an “imminent” ice age.

It would be more accurate to say, the same chicken littles who did not believe in an imminent ice age now believe in GW.

It would be more accurate to say no one gave a shit in the 70’s and now people see a way to make money off the hysteria.

No, that would be stupider, not more accurate.

Are you implying all these scientists are working for free?

I think you were the one making ridiculous implications. I don’t see scientists as a group being cold-hearted greedy bastards.
[/quote]

I see you are not familiar with how grants are written.

[quote]greekdawg wrote:
kroby wrote:

Is it any wonder there is so much misunderstanding?

Misunderstanding? Hardly, perhaps we are still in the “ridicule” phase.

“All truth goes through three phases. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident.”

How about you start with reading the article I linked up in my previous post.

But hey, what do scientists that have studied the ocean their entire lives 24-7 for a living know anyways?

[/quote]

You really need to be able to put things into perspective.

First, before I go further, I must say I’ve been a consistent voice in the “there’s too much pollution” debate.

Back on topic.

When it comes to biodiversity, there is an obvious trend that patterns after climate. Each Ice Age (described as a geological event that spans thousands of years by heavy glaciation) effects a grand extinction amongst well over 50% of total speciation.

What is oceanic acidization when compared to that? I’ll tell you.

Business as usual!

The Earth goes on it’s merry way. It’s seen kajillions of species come and go.

In fact, humans are most certainly a part of the natural pattern of geologic time.

More perspective: fossil fuel will run out far before “irreparable harm” could be done to this celestial body.

And if humanity does kick the bucket, the earth will… yes, still rotate around the sun and offer opportunity to still surviving species.

I’m all for responsible stewardship of resources necessary to continue the species. But for any scientist to presume “the end of the world” is a straight up crack pot. No real scientist would come out with anything other than a hypothesis and ask for peer review.

The conclusions made by the GW faction are not science, but an attempt at manipulating others’ lives. In other words: power.

If a single one of these scientists owns a car, then they are hypocrites. And their words are a veil.

Science is not a tool to affect change. Science is a tool to explain the natural world. Science does not create policy, nor do scientists have any business dictating policy.

And politicians don’t have the intellectual capacity to understand science. They lick their fingers, see which way the wind is blowing, and knee-jerk policy.

The self-loathing that is omnipresent in our society today is pathetic. For humans to think that we can affect such a change that the world will “end” is absurd. There is no proof anywhere that we can definitively quantify or qualify that what we do today will result in the end of “things.”

Everything else is a game of “what if.” And that, motherfuckers, IS NOT SCIENCE

[quote]kroby wrote:
greekdawg wrote:
kroby wrote:

Is it any wonder there is so much misunderstanding?

Misunderstanding? Hardly, perhaps we are still in the “ridicule” phase.

“All truth goes through three phases. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident.”

How about you start with reading the article I linked up in my previous post.

But hey, what do scientists that have studied the ocean their entire lives 24-7 for a living know anyways?

You really need to be able to put things into perspective.

First, before I go further, I must say I’ve been a consistent voice in the “there’s too much pollution” debate.

Back on topic.

When it comes to biodiversity, there is an obvious trend that patterns after climate. Each Ice Age (described as a geological event that spans thousands of years by heavy glaciation) effects a grand extinction amongst well over 50% of total speciation.

What is oceanic acidization when compared to that? I’ll tell you.

Business as usual!

The Earth goes on it’s merry way. It’s seen kajillions of species come and go.

In fact, humans are most certainly a part of the natural pattern of geologic time.

More perspective: fossil fuel will run out far before “irreparable harm” could be done to this celestial body.

And if humanity does kick the bucket, the earth will… yes, still rotate around the sun and offer opportunity to still surviving species.

I’m all for responsible stewardship of resources necessary to continue the species. But for any scientist to presume “the end of the world” is a straight up crack pot. No real scientist would come out with anything other than a hypothesis and ask for peer review.

The conclusions made by the GW faction are not science, but an attempt at manipulating others’ lives. In other words: power.

If a single one of these scientists owns a car, then they are hypocrites. And their words are a veil.

Science is not a tool to affect change. Science is a tool to explain the natural world. Science does not create policy, nor do scientists have any business dictating policy.

And politicians don’t have the intellectual capacity to understand science. They lick their fingers, see which way the wind is blowing, and knee-jerk policy.

The self-loathing that is omnipresent in our society today is pathetic. For humans to think that we can affect such a change that the world will “end” is absurd. There is no proof anywhere that we can definitively quantify or qualify that what we do today will result in the end of “things.”

Everything else is a game of “what if.” And that, motherfuckers, IS NOT SCIENCE [/quote]

Well said.

Amen, Kroby.

Actually, what you said is, speaking politely, absolutely irrelevant or misleading, to a point where this could be straight from a south park episode, minus the funny voice of course.

[quote]kroby wrote:
When it comes to biodiversity, there is an obvious trend that patterns after climate. Each Ice Age (described as a geological event that spans thousands of years by heavy glaciation) effects a grand extinction amongst well over 50% of total speciation.

What is oceanic acidization when compared to that? I’ll tell you.

Business as usual!
[/quote]

Ice Age is meaningless in a GW debate. Anyone who’d actually read the thread would know that this theory (new Ice Age) was never supported by a majority of scientists and that the newest reincarnation is an outright lie.

So for you, a possible extinction of our species is irrelevant, as long as the earth keeps spinning?
You know that homo sapiens is a very fragile creature and probably not on the list of those who’d survive a new mass extinction?

Who told you that? Show some numbers, statistics anything to support your wild claim.

Nobody said end of the world- must you guys always paint everything black & white?
Consequences will show up, the question is how severe they’ll be. No majority talks about an imminent end of the world.

I get it; if they start to move out of their condos into bamboo huts, you’ll be so kind as to consider “their” ideas for real.
This is childish.

Bullshit. If they come up with something important, you’ll have to help fortify the dyke or install a lightning rod etc.

In a good democracy, this is not a bad thing, because bad decisions (like ignoring GW) will lead to problems and loss of votes.
And they have their advisors for explaining the complicated issues. Their voice kinda speaks here in unison.

It’s absurd to think we blow so much stuff into the atmosphere without any effect.

Great that you know exactly your “science”.
You fell into your own trap of pathetic self loathing. It’s OK to accept once in a while that you cannot understand everything and therefore listen to experts and not some weirdo bloggers and internet toughmen.

[quote]kroby wrote:
greekdawg wrote:
kroby wrote:

Is it any wonder there is so much misunderstanding?

Misunderstanding? Hardly, perhaps we are still in the “ridicule” phase.

“All truth goes through three phases. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident.”

How about you start with reading the article I linked up in my previous post.

But hey, what do scientists that have studied the ocean their entire lives 24-7 for a living know anyways?

You really need to be able to put things into perspective.

First, before I go further, I must say I’ve been a consistent voice in the “there’s too much pollution” debate.

Back on topic.

When it comes to biodiversity, there is an obvious trend that patterns after climate. Each Ice Age (described as a geological event that spans thousands of years by heavy glaciation) effects a grand extinction amongst well over 50% of total speciation.

What is oceanic acidization when compared to that? I’ll tell you.

Business as usual!

The Earth goes on it’s merry way. It’s seen kajillions of species come and go.

In fact, humans are most certainly a part of the natural pattern of geologic time.

More perspective: fossil fuel will run out far before “irreparable harm” could be done to this celestial body.

And if humanity does kick the bucket, the earth will… yes, still rotate around the sun and offer opportunity to still surviving species.

I’m all for responsible stewardship of resources necessary to continue the species. But for any scientist to presume “the end of the world” is a straight up crack pot. No real scientist would come out with anything other than a hypothesis and ask for peer review.

The conclusions made by the GW faction are not science, but an attempt at manipulating others’ lives. In other words: power.

If a single one of these scientists owns a car, then they are hypocrites. And their words are a veil.

Science is not a tool to affect change. Science is a tool to explain the natural world. Science does not create policy, nor do scientists have any business dictating policy.

And politicians don’t have the intellectual capacity to understand science. They lick their fingers, see which way the wind is blowing, and knee-jerk policy.

The self-loathing that is omnipresent in our society today is pathetic. For humans to think that we can affect such a change that the world will “end” is absurd. There is no proof anywhere that we can definitively quantify or qualify that what we do today will result in the end of “things.”

Everything else is a game of “what if.” And that, motherfuckers, IS NOT SCIENCE [/quote]

the stupid hurts.

there is no real science anymore, only money and politically driven agendas…this fact is about the only thing this thread proves.

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
there is no real science anymore, only money and politically driven agendas…this fact is about the only thing this thread proves.
[/quote]

Actually there is still real science.

The problem is sometimes science is to “sciencey” for folks like Zap. Sometimes it’s easier for the primitive man to believe simpler things, like it’s cold outside so there’s no global warming or it’s dark outside, the sun must have died. It’s also easier for them to be told what to believe, so unsciencey people like Rush can fill Zap’s cartoon head with a bunch of crap.

[quote]100meters wrote:
heavythrower wrote:
there is no real science anymore, only money and politically driven agendas…this fact is about the only thing this thread proves.

Actually there is still real science.

The problem is sometimes science is to “sciencey” for folks like Zap. Sometimes it’s easier for the primitive man to believe simpler things, like it’s cold outside so there’s no global warming or it’s dark outside, the sun must have died. It’s also easier for them to be told what to believe, so unsciencey people like Rush can fill Zap’s cartoon head with a bunch of crap.[/quote]

Kind of funny you say that, me being an engineer and all and working in the environmental field for ~ 15 years.

But you read the Daily Kos so you know all the talking points!

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
heavythrower wrote:
there is no real science anymore, only money and politically driven agendas…this fact is about the only thing this thread proves.

Actually there is still real science.

The problem is sometimes science is to “sciencey” for folks like Zap. Sometimes it’s easier for the primitive man to believe simpler things, like it’s cold outside so there’s no global warming or it’s dark outside, the sun must have died. It’s also easier for them to be told what to believe, so unsciencey people like Rush can fill Zap’s cartoon head with a bunch of crap.

Kind of funny you say that, me being an engineer and all and working in the environmental field for ~ 15 years.

But you read the Daily Kos so you know all the talking points![/quote]

Yes, it usually starts off funny, but then it just kind of gets sad after awhile.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Actually, what you said is, speaking politely, absolutely irrelevant or misleading, to a point where this could be straight from a south park episode, minus the funny voice of course.[/quote]

Ah, starting with character assassination already?

So, you’re telling me this earth has never gone through one or more ice ages, and that it never will?

Again, I say look with perspective.

[quote]So for you, a possible extinction of our species is irrelevant, as long as the earth keeps spinning?
You know that homo sapiens is a very fragile creature and probably not on the list of those who’d survive a new mass extinction? [/quote]

Without getting all worked up, yes. Our species is irrelevant when speaking in geological epoc terms. Again, think perspective.

[quote] kroby wrote:
More perspective: fossil fuel will run out far before “irreparable harm” could be done to this celestial body.

Who told you that? Show some numbers, statistics anything to support your wild claim. [/quote]

I am merely drawing a conclusion based on the fact that there is a finite amount of fossil fuel. It may be a false assumption that the earth will be present far beyond this finite abundance, but I’ll take that bet.

[quote]kroby wrote:
I’m all for responsible stewardship of resources necessary to continue the species. But for any scientist to presume “the end of the world” is a straight up crack pot. No real scientist would come out with anything other than a hypothesis and ask for peer review.

Nobody said end of the world- must you guys always paint everything black & white?
Consequences will show up, the question is how severe they’ll be. No majority talks about an imminent end of the world.[/quote]

Severe? In relation to what? When the globe was full of volcanos? When it was covered in Ice or water? You’re losing perspective again. And who’s “you guys?” I’ve worked and made my living as an environmental scientist for… 18 years and counting. I’ve been directly involved in clean up of hazardous materials the same number. I think I know what the fuck I’m talking about. I’m in it all day. You’re doing nothing more than acting the demagogue.

[quote]kroby wrote:
The conclusions made by the GW faction are not science, but an attempt at manipulating others’ lives. In other words: power.
If a single one of these scientists owns a car, then they are hypocrites. And their words are a veil.

I get it; if they start to move out of their condos into bamboo huts, you’ll be so kind as to consider “their” ideas for real.
This is childish. [/quote]

Scientists with a cause are not scientists and are treated thusly. Scientists are necessarily unimpassioned so as to represent a level head.

[quote]kroby wrote:
Science is not a tool to affect change. Science is a tool to explain the natural world. Science does not create policy, nor do scientists have any business dictating policy.

Bullshit. If they come up with something important, you’ll have to help fortify the dyke or install a lightning rod etc. [/quote]

ah, so now we’re getting somewhere. You know nothing of science.

[quote]kroby wrote:
And politicians don’t have the intellectual capacity to understand science. They lick their fingers, see which way the wind is blowing, and knee-jerk policy.

In a good democracy, this is not a bad thing, because bad decisions (like ignoring GW) will lead to problems and loss of votes.
And they have their advisors for explaining the complicated issues. Their voice kinda speaks here in unison.

[/quote]

Wow. Just wow.

[quote]
It’s absurd to think we blow so much stuff into the atmosphere without any effect. [/quote]

Um, I’ve already predicated my statement with the belief that we are polluting way too much. You’re losing credibility.

And now you’ve lost all credibility. Self loathing? far from it. I’m not wringing my hands wondering “what if.” I’m not worried one bit. Humanity is too insidious to get taken down by it’s own filth. The species will continue. How we live and in what health… that, again, is not up to science. I’ll say this again for you slowly. Science does not make policy. Science merely qualifies and quantifies the natural and observable world. Hypotheses are tested time and again in order to become “proven.” GW is not proven.

[quote]100meters wrote:
the stupid hurts.[/quote]

That’s all you got? Pathetic.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The big thing is that in one year the suns reduced output has had a huge effect compared to the very slow warming trend.[/quote]

Hmmm… that theory is not doing too well when put to the test.