Are you following this climatologist email scandal?

[defiance]

2) if GW theories are right, and we ignore them, the whole sea rising/cities falling/etc. thing happens.  Since that's a component of those theories, it's kinda by definition true if the theories are right.

If one of those conditional statements is false, please let me know which, and why.

Take a clear glass and fill it 1/2 or 2/3 the way up with ice. Add water to it until all the ice starts to float and then make a mark on the glass to show the level of the water. Let the ice melt and see how much the water raises (or lowers) from your previous mark. There is your answer to the sea rising theory.

If that's correct, then refer back to section 1 of the two-section piece you partially quoted.

Having said that, your example is known incorrect.  We *know* how much ice is in the polar caps, it's been empirically measured, and is NOT in dispute by the scientific disbelievers in GW.  The debate is around 3 points - Is GW happening?  Is it happening to the extent that is projected?  and is it manmade?  If it is happening, and it is happening to the extent projected, the change in sea level is not disputable.  It would be like arguing that if we eremoved oxygen from the air we'd start having breathing trouble - no, we've never managed that before, but we can still be pretty sure what would happen.

As for the idea that humans are completely incapable of significantly altering the climate, that's a dangerous and incorrect viewpoint borne of the desire to abdicate responsibility.  You're talking about a race with hundreds of nuclear warheads in storage - enough to eradicate all surface and air life larger than bunnies and leave a blanket of radioactivity that would cover it for decades, possibly centuries.  More to the point, look specifically at the atmosphere -- The earth's atmosphere is 5x10^18 kilograms of air.  Of that, the generally accepted figure is that .0387% is CO2, so 1,935 trillion kilograms.

IN 2006, the world produced 28.5 trillion kilograms of co2.

At the current rate, human contribution adds the total current volume of co2 in 68 years.


There's a LOT more to global warming than that, and once you get past this point it gets MUCH more complex, but this portion of it is FACT - you can feel free to independently confirm any of the numbers or figures above.  We most assuredly do have the capacity to alter the chemical mix of our atmosphere, and are happily doing so.  The only part left to question is, what will be the impacts?  And I'll certainly agree with you that we need more research there.

[RD]

those that believe in global warming always cite the influx of carbon into the air never taking into consideration the huge influx of things that thrive off of carbon in the air to help balance everything.  refer to my earlier post where trees are growing in larger quantities and how much carbon they soak up to survive.

i still think we should focus on pollution that is killing our wildlife and forests right now.  I am sure once those are addressed, you will be amazed at how the GW proponents will fade away.

[defiance]

Looking at measured co2 concentrations in the air, they are rising dramatically.  Direct measurements at hawaii's mauna loa observatory have shown concentrations go from 315 ppm in 1959 to 385 in 2008.  Note that while historical (several hundred thousand years) movements of CO2 have never been anywhere close to this rate of change.  In fact, until last century, it peaked well under 300 ppm at any time in measured history.  Again, this is not debatable, it's measured and proven over and over - we ARE dramatically increasing co2 content of our atmosphere, regardless of what any trees might be doing.

Any reasoned debate can only focus around the impacts of the change, not the fact of the change - to do otherwise would be to ignore simple measured fact.

Having said all that, again, I agree that plenty more research needs to be done around impacts.

[Ghoste]

Of course, the idea that co2 is a cause of any theoretical "greenhouse gas" is still a theory in itself.
Do volcanos emit carbon dioxide?

[dodgecharger-fan]

Are there any volcanoes in or near Hawaii?

[Ghoste]

The measured change does not prove it's man made.

[defiance]

Agreed on almost all points.  However, our production figures coupled with the tracked changes coupled with hundreds of thosands of years with change occuring orders of magnitude more slowly does demonstrate with a reasonable degree of accuracy that the co2 changes are man made.  But you're right that the fact and extent of impact co2 has on global greenhouse effect is not demonstrated here.  That's where I believe we need to focus our research.

[mauve66]

Of course, the idea that co2 is a cause of any theoretical "greenhouse gas" is still a theory in itself.
Do volcanos emit carbon dioxide?

absolutely, one of MANY hazardous fumes emitted by them, who would of thought the earth could contaminate itself, huh??

Are there any volcanoes in or near Hawaii?

absolutely, the island was made by volcanoes that continually erupt

[Tilar]

2) if GW theories are right, and we ignore them, the whole sea rising/cities falling/etc. thing happens.  Since that's a component of those theories, it's kinda by definition true if the theories are right.

If one of those conditional statements is false, please let me know which, and why.

Take a clear glass and fill it 1/2 or 2/3 the way up with ice. Add water to it until all the ice starts to float and then make a mark on the glass to show the level of the water. Let the ice melt and see how much the water raises (or lowers) from your previous mark. There is your answer to the sea rising theory.

If that's correct, then refer back to section 1 of the two-section piece you partially quoted.

I think you might have hit it with the section 1 where you said "1) if the GW theories are wrong and we try to fix it anyway, we waste billions of dollars."  This tends to be the direction that we go in anytime the government is involved with anything. Social security, Medicare, Healthcare are all good examples.

Having said that, your example is known incorrect.  We *know* how much ice is in the polar caps, it's been empirically measured, and is NOT in dispute by the scientific disbelievers in GW.  The debate is around 3 points - Is GW happening?  Is it happening to the extent that is projected?  and is it manmade?  If it is happening, and it is happening to the extent projected, the change in sea level is not disputable.  It would be like arguing that if we eremoved oxygen from the air we'd start having breathing trouble - no, we've never managed that before, but we can still be pretty sure what would happen.

What do you mean my example is known incorrect? While people might feel they "know" how much ice there is, they do NOT know how much water that ice is displacing unless they have gone down to see what is below the ice. All ice that is not actually resting on land and is floating will have absolutely zero affect whatsoever on water levels. The only ice that might have any affect at all on current sea levels will be what is on mountains or on land that is higher than sea level.

I'll agree that climate "change" has been going on, but it's been happening since the beginning of time. Personally I think global warming like what al gore has been trying to shove down the worlds throat has been nothing more than an attempt to raise his net worth tenfold at the taxpayers expense. At any rate it all still boils down to what I said before, All these measurements you quoted are with man made variables which at best is fallible. When you create the method to measure something you have a direct affect on the outcome. Carbon dating where they try to guess how old the earth is, is a prime example of that.

All that said, I'm no scientist I'm just a mechanic that likes a good debate. I know that if you can change the air/fuel ratio on an engine from 14-1 to 20-1, your fuel mileage will drastically increase. Same thing applies here. Change the variables and the outcome changes.

[mauve66]

All that said, I'm no scientist I'm just a mechanic that likes a good debate. I know that if you can change the air/fuel ratio on an engine from 14-1 to 20-1, your fuel mileage will drastically increase. Same thing applies here. Change the variables and the outcome changes.

very true, and of course what your trying to do has be physically possible also

[defiance]

What do you mean my example is known incorrect? While people might feel they "know" how much ice there is, they do NOT know how much water that ice is displacing unless they have gone down to see what is below the ice. All ice that is not actually resting on land and is floating will have absolutely zero affect whatsoever on water levels. The only ice that might have any affect at all on current sea levels will be what is on mountains or on land that is higher than sea level.

Actually, all you need to know to figure out water displacement is to know how much ice it is.  That's it.  And that's easy to calculate without even looking below the surface just based on the volume of ice above the surface, and the density of ice vs. the density of sea water.  Having said that, even if it wasn't an issue, we have plenty of tech that allows us to measure densities and such well below the surface.

As for the volcano thing, it doesn't work - A 50-year-long trend of steady, smooth increase of around 1 ppm per year would require volcanic production of co2 to be a perfect, steady increase, with almost no variation in rate increase, preceeded by a period of extremely reduced output - which is completely out of character with the known history of volcanic activity in the area.  Volcanoes do certainly produce co2, so it would be valid to argue that the co2 levels overall may be inflated (not the rate of change for reasons stated above, but the overall numbers) at the hawaii observatory, but that's easy to check - Nasa and matsueda measurements, while they cover a much more limited time period, match nearly perfectly to the hawaiian measurements.  So, while volcanic co2 production is definitely a valid concern, independent validations pretty plainly show they are not impacting the numbers.



The more time people spend wasting time arguing about the things that are plainly valid, the more you detract from the portion of this that does need to be debated.

[bull]

Are there any volcanoes in or near Hawaii?

Just that one that blows every two years or so.

[Ghoste]

The more time people spend wasting time arguing about the things that are plainly valid, the more you detract from the portion of this that does need to be debated.

That's a very interesting statement.  So then, just EXACTLY what do you consider to be the part that merits worthy debate?

[RECHRGD]

Of course, the idea that co2 is a cause of any theoretical "greenhouse gas" is still a theory in itself.
Do volcano's emit carbon dioxide?

absolutely, one of MANY hazardous fumes emitted by them, who would of thought the earth could contaminate itself, huh??

Are there any volcanoes in or near Hawaii?

absolutely, the island was made by volcanoes that continually erupt

I read something about a year ago regarding a very large volcano or volcano's under the Arctic Ocean that were very active.  I haven't heard anything since, so I have no idea if it's true or not.  Has anybody else heard or know anything about that?  If it's true, I would think that could certainly be melting some major ice.   Bob

[Tilar]

What do you mean my example is known incorrect? While people might feel they "know" how much ice there is, they do NOT know how much water that ice is displacing unless they have gone down to see what is below the ice. All ice that is not actually resting on land and is floating will have absolutely zero affect whatsoever on water levels. The only ice that might have any affect at all on current sea levels will be what is on mountains or on land that is higher than sea level.

Actually, all you need to know to figure out water displacement is to know how much ice it is.  That's it.  And that's easy to calculate without even looking below the surface just based on the volume of ice above the surface, and the density of ice vs. the density of sea water.  Having said that, even if it wasn't an issue, we have plenty of tech that allows us to measure densities and such well below the surface.

The fact still remains that if the ice is not on solid ground similar to an iceberg, it will have zero affect on the oceans levels, so it is not as much of an issue as the "greenies" so to speak are trying to portray. It's nothing more than a fear tactic used as a way to gain money or power.

[RD]

What do you mean my example is known incorrect? While people might feel they "know" how much ice there is, they do NOT know how much water that ice is displacing unless they have gone down to see what is below the ice. All ice that is not actually resting on land and is floating will have absolutely zero affect whatsoever on water levels. The only ice that might have any affect at all on current sea levels will be what is on mountains or on land that is higher than sea level.

Actually, all you need to know to figure out water displacement is to know how much ice it is.  That's it.  And that's easy to calculate without even looking below the surface just based on the volume of ice above the surface, and the density of ice vs. the density of sea water.  Having said that, even if it wasn't an issue, we have plenty of tech that allows us to measure densities and such well below the surface.

As for the volcano thing, it doesn't work - A 50-year-long trend of steady, smooth increase of around 1 ppm per year would require volcanic production of co2 to be a perfect, steady increase, with almost no variation in rate increase, preceeded by a period of extremely reduced output - which is completely out of character with the known history of volcanic activity in the area.  Volcanoes do certainly produce co2, so it would be valid to argue that the co2 levels overall may be inflated (not the rate of change for reasons stated above, but the overall numbers) at the hawaii observatory, but that's easy to check - Nasa and matsueda measurements, while they cover a much more limited time period, match nearly perfectly to the hawaiian measurements.  So, while volcanic co2 production is definitely a valid concern, independent validations pretty plainly show they are not impacting the numbers.



The more time people spend wasting time arguing about the things that are plainly valid, the more you detract from the portion of this that does need to be debated.

welp.. i guess ALL volcanoes, when erupting, produce the SAME amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.  Because what you are saying is that based on your data that you are citing, all volcanoes are equal in regards to production of gases, especially CO2.  Since this is true, I guess we can eliminate them from the whole GW equation, because heaven forbid the law of physics and nature do anything that is different from the norm.  

Using this philosophy, I guess all earthquakes are the same intensity on the richter scale too?

Sarcastic? Yes. But done so to prove a point.  If we (people) assume that everything is so uniform within our universe, and do not consider the flexibility of nature, then we should all just end up like those people from pompeii (Mt. Vesuvius).

I have been in southern california (used to live there as a kid) and I know what the smog looks like, and as I dont necessarily agree with it.. it is california's problem.  My issue is this, when you get on the hot seat about GW warming and cite cases of climatic change and CO2 levels and ice melting, NO ONE CAN PROVE IT IS FROM MAN'S CONTRIBUTION?  We can state that pollution levels in large cities has caused many health related concerns in short and long term cases, but we CAN NOT say it is causing global warming. 

There is no proof. It is a totally baseless assumption based upon theoretical guesses by those in the learned community, who have just shown themselves to produce falsified data to make them look right in the eyes of whomever they needed to to keep their jobs, make some money, or look smart.

UNTIL SOMEONE CAN PROVIDE ME WITH TRUTHFUL EVIDENCE TO THIS ISSUE OF CLIMATIC CHANGE, THAN I WONT BELIEVE IT.  THERE IS NOT ENOUGH DATA IN THE WORLD RIGHT NOW TO PRODUCE ANY CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT MAN HAS AFFECTED THIS PHENOMENA, BUT BOY THAT DOESNT LEAD PEOPLE TO THE SUGGESTION OR BELIEF THAT IT IS.

Why do they believe man is doing it? Because they do not know why these GW/Climatic Change issues are happening, and its easier to point a finger at something tangible that does produce CO2 gases, rather than thinking it could be a natural re-occuring event.

Personally, I think all that believe this is true have horse-blinders on and do not want to admit that it could be something else that is causing it. That would mean they don't know the answer to something and boy that would be a jab at their pride.

[John_Kunkel]

Six pages of commentary based on one internet mass e-mail. Perfect example of the dumbing down of humanity.

I think I'll start a mass e-mail claiming there is proof that Al Gore was the gunman on the grassy knoll. 

[Ghoste]

Given the amount of money at stake over the contents in that mass e-mail I'd say 6 pages of commentary is hardly enough.

[RD]

Six pages of commentary based on one internet mass e-mail. Perfect example of the dumbing down of humanity.

I think I'll start a mass e-mail claiming there is proof that Al Gore was the gunman on the grassy knoll. 

good point, but i would rather take one email that has validity then trying to get the same information from a pony express rider... we would be driving electric cars before he even arrived (in his prius).

[bull]

Six pages of commentary based on one internet mass e-mail. Perfect example of the dumbing down of humanity.

I think I'll start a mass e-mail claiming there is proof that Al Gore was the gunman on the grassy knoll. 

That one would go nowhere. No one would believe he's smart enough to pull it off.

Strange that you think of this as dumbing down though. We're actually talking about a serious subject where people are offering intelligent arguments, many of them with info to back them up. So you'd rather we stay on track with more intelligent topics like HDTVs, Taylor Swift or Marge Simpson doing Playboy?

[Steve P.]

I just read somewhere that it was really MARGE SIMPSON on the GRASSY KNOLL...   No wait, I might be confusing a few things...  Maybe it was OJ SIMPSON.. 

I like this debate. Right or wrong or even partial, it is a good debate and much has been scratched up. I just want to know why we can't plug our cars into our trees??

Ok, just relieving some pressure..   

[defiance]

yeah, good point guys.  That'll teach me to try to bring any of that derned reason or logic crap to a good ol' fashioned witch hunt.  Nevermind, go ahead and get back to your regularly scheduled burning at stake!  

[RD]

yeah, good point guys.  That'll teach me to try to bring any of that derned reason or logic crap to a good ol' fashioned witch hunt.  Nevermind, go ahead and get back to your regularly scheduled burning at stake!  

we are not saying that we dont listen to logic or reason, it is just that your logic and reason has not done anything to convince us that our logic and reason is false.  that's all.

not a witch hunt, if you had 5 guys on  your side against me, would you consider yourself being a witchhunter?

[defiance]

I'm just saying, I'm done - There's no point arguing with a brick wall, even when all I'm saying is to continue research and keep an open mind.  You guys are here arguing against facts proven beyond reasonable doubt - and yes, current CO2 concentrations qualify as a fact proven well beyond reasonable doubt, having been empirically measured at 3 different facilities using 3 different methodologies (that I've found, there are probably plenty more), all of which agree. The only reason I can concieve of anyone could possibly want to argue against a fact that plain is a disregard for logic, reason, and fact.  The truth is clearly of no interest.

Oh, but thanks for providing some insanely clear-cut examples of one of my primary points: that most people are so utterly convinced of their own side's absolute truth they'd be unwilling to accept anything from the alternative viewpoint, regardless of how simply and utterly inarguable the case was.


In the end your rejection of simple reason does a disservice to the truth on many levels. In addition to the overt rejection of facts on your part, you perpetuate the image that questioning global warming is a 'lunatic fringe' activity.  It has the effect of making those like myself, who believe more research needs to be done, loathe to be associated with your viewpoint.

[Tilar]

yeah, good point guys.  That'll teach me to try to bring any of that derned reason or logic crap to a good ol' fashioned witch hunt.  Nevermind, go ahead and get back to your regularly scheduled burning at stake!  

You shouldn't feel like it's any witch hunt unless you are the witch. From my perspective they are trying to convince everyone that this climate change is man made. Some people seem to be convinced but I need a lot more proof than just someone from the government saying "believe me it's our fault."  These people seem to think that we can tax ourselves to death and solve it. That's not going to happen. Climate change has happened since the beginning of recorded history way before Coal powered power plants and SUV's.

I'm just saying, I'm done - There's no point arguing with a brick wall, even when all I'm saying is to continue research and keep an open mind. You guys are here arguing against facts proven beyond reasonable doubt....

This is the point that we... Or at least I've been trying to make. These "facts" are not beyond reasonable doubt. Not by a long shot. They should be questioned and then when everyone thinks they may be on the same track, question it again. Current CO2 concentrations may be high, So what. Until we see what the actual cause and effect of this is, I'm going to call it the natural order of things. To me it's just like the endangered mouse that pelosi spent a few hundred million to save. You know, It might be it's time to go extinct. My solution to her million dollar mouse is a 28 cent spring trap. Dinosaurs died for a reason.

I'm all for research as long as it's unbiased. There is serious money involved here from both angles. From the taxpayer to the recipient of the tax money. From my angle, cap and trade even jeopardizes my family farm, So yes I am going to question it until I'm blue in the face, and everyone else should too.