News Is the Global Warming Hoax Really Unstoppable Every 1500 Years?

[BarackZero]

I have recently completed S. Fred Singer's marvelous book, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years

In it, Fred shatters just about every global warming myth in existence. Of course Fred is a world authority on climate physics, and as such, he thoroughly documents his findings.

About the only thing environmental extremists can say in response is that Fred is "in the pocket of oil companies."

The old ad hominem attack is a favorite of Democrats, environmentalists, and pretty much anyone who wishes to avoid debating a subject, but prefers to attack the messenger.

Incidentally, the spending on behalf of promoting the Al Gore theme is at least ten times that of the other side. This fact never seems to occur to the fear-mongers who commend everyone to stay at home and do virtually nothing, unless it be powered by solar cells.

 

[neu]

when posts=0 do we assume it's spam? if you're not spam, please shatter a few myths for us.

History seems to be repeating itself. He supported the Tobacco industry, now he's supporting the climate change denial industry:

In 1994 Singer was the Principal Reviewer of a report authored by Kent Jeffreys titled Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination which was published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI), a conservative think tank of which he was a Senior Fellow.[19] The report attacked the United States Environmental Protection Agency for their 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking and called it "junk science". Singer also appeared on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces defending the industry’s views, according to a peer-reviewed commentary by Derek Yach and Stella Aguinaga Bialous.

Yach, Derek; Bialous, Aguinaga (November 2001). "Junking Science to Promote Tobacco". Vol 91, No. 11. American Journal of Public Health. pp. 1745-1748. http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/pdf/9.6-JunkScience-Yach.pdf . Retrieved on 2008-08-16.

 

[Count Iblis]

Fred Singer is grateful to you for having bought his book.

 

[neu]

Fred Singer is grateful to you for having bought his book.

Not to mention actually reading it as well

 

[BarackZero]

Not to mention actually reading it as well

So many objections, and so very inconsequential.

1. It is inordinately difficult to be "spamming" with "zero" posts.

2. One need not BUY a book to read it. There is this marvelous location called a "library."

3. I read books of all kinds, particularly by people with whom I disagree. Evidently that is a characteristic I do not share with many readers here. For example, I have read Earth in the Balance, and found it seriously wanting, along with Pale Blue Dot, Demon Haunted World, Cosmos, Climbing Mount Improbable, and many, many others.

I don't fear books by others. I read them to learn their points of view, how they may be right were I am wrong.

Don't be afraid.

 

[neu]

1. It is inordinately difficult to be "spamming" with "zero" posts.

There are often threads by new members which turn out to be spam.

2. One need not BUY a book to read it. There is this marvelous location called a "library."

3. I read books of all kinds, particularly by people with whom I disagree. Evidently that is a characteristic I do not share with many readers here. For example, I have read Earth in the Balance, and found it seriously wanting, along with Pale Blue Dot, Demon Haunted World, Cosmos, Climbing Mount Improbable, and many, many others.

I don't fear books by others. I read them to learn their points of view, how they may be right were I am wrong.

Don't be afraid.

Now you've got that off your chest do you want to give us some examples of Fred shattering Global warming myths? I asked but you didn't notice. I shall keep an open mind

 

[BarackZero]

1. The IPCC report was based on research which was not peer reviewed. Shameful.
2. The Hockey Stick graph has been discredited.
3. Claims of increases in temperatures were found to be inaccurate when statisticians found errors by climate "researchers."
4. Research contrary to the Al Gore dogma is minimized, ignored, or otherwise treated in a most unprofessional and most unscientific manner.
5. The environment takes actions to counter increases both in carbon dioxide as well as temperature increases.
6. Global temperatures have three or four cycles, the most critical of which is 1500 years in length. It is the sunspot cycle, and it heats up earth, but not very much.
7. Slight increases in temperatures will save many more lives than they will cost, and they will greatly enhance agricultural productivity.
8. The doomsday claims are grossly exaggerated, just as they were by the discredited Club of Rome report, predicting global famine in the 1970s.

Don't be afraid of facts and truth. They're really good for you!

 

[Count Iblis]

Not to mention actually reading it as well

Indeed, and also for advertising his book on internet forums.

 

[SixNein]

I have recently completed S. Fred Singer's marvelous book, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years

In it, Fred shatters just about every global warming myth in existence. Of course Fred is a world authority on climate physics, and as such, he thoroughly documents his findings.

About the only thing environmental extremists can say in response is that Fred is "in the pocket of oil companies."

The old ad hominem attack is a favorite of Democrats, environmentalists, and pretty much anyone who wishes to avoid debating a subject, but prefers to attack the messenger.

Incidentally, the spending on behalf of promoting the Al Gore theme is at least ten times that of the other side. This fact never seems to occur to the fear-mongers who commend everyone to stay at home and do virtually nothing, unless it be powered by solar cells.

I'll make it easy for a refute:
Did he explain why Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system? Venus gets about 25% of the sun irradiation of Mercury, yet Venus is hotter then mercury. Venus has a ton of C02 in the atmosphere, and C02 prevents heat from escaping. How do you account for this? Explain to me why Venus is nothing more then a c02 powered pressure cooker, without c02.

The evidence of global warming is incontrovertible. We can speak of ice core data, ice sheets, fossils, and various other topics that all point to global warming after you have managed to create a convincing refute on Venus.

 

[neu]

You got proof of all those points from one book. That's value for money.

Don't be afraid of facts and truth. They're really good for you!

I agree, do have references for the claims you/Fred make?

 

[BarackZero]

I'll make it easy for a refute:
Did he explain why Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system? Venus gets about 25% of the sun irradiation of Mercury, yet Venus is hotter then mercury. Venus has a ton of C02 in the atmosphere, and C02 prevents heat from escaping. How do you account for this? Explain to me why Venus is nothing more then a c02 powered pressure cooker, without c02.

The evidence of global warming is incontrovertible. We can speak of ice core data, ice sheets, fossils, and various other topics that all point to global warming after you have managed to create a convincing refute on Venus.

You're right. I concede. I'm sure Fred Singer would concede as well.
All the SUVs being driven on Venus account for its being so very hot.

Don't read the book. Be afraid. Be very afraid to read books that will upset you.

 

[BarackZero]

You got proof of all those points from one book. That's value for money.



I agree, do have references for the claims you/Fred make?

My but I thought this was a forum for discussions. It seems that any thinking
outside the political left is ... well, unthinkable around here.

Now if you are so interested in what is inside the referenced book, I suggest you read it yourself.

Otherwise I continue to get grilled on what it says and get more and more demands for facts, references, and such that if provided, would only get me blackballed for copyright infringement.

It's Lose/Lose with Al Gore's crowd.

Fred makes the brilliant point that "consensus" does not good science make.

Copernicus at one time was the only person on Earth who believed the Earth revolved around the sun. But here's the crucial point: Copernicus was right.

 

[LowlyPion]

You're right. I concede. I'm sure Fred Singer would concede as well.
All the SUVs being driven on Venus account for its being so very hot.

Don't read the book. Be afraid. Be very afraid to read books that will upset you.

Aren't you the one indulging in a host of argument fallacies as you are trolling through the threads here spewing conservative rhetoric?

You're awfully short on factual refutations in support of your original premise that Global Warming is somehow a hoax.

 

[neu]

Now if you are so interested in what is inside the referenced book, I suggest you read it yourself.

Otherwise I continue to get grilled on what it says and get more and more demands for facts, references, and such that if provided, would only get me blackballed for copyright infringement.

So you can't tell us why because Singer will sue you for copyright infringment. Can you copyright facts?

I confused by your motives. WHat do you hope to achieve by making claims then refusing to validate them. It only impleis you don;t know what you're talking about

 

[LowlyPion]

Fred makes the brilliant point that "consensus" does not good science make.

You might want to make that point to Daniel Inoyue and the Senate Minority Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation website that is trying to tabulate a names list for the purpose of denying Global Warming?

 

[Unknot]

My but I thought this was a forum for discussions. It seems that any thinking
outside the political left is ... well, unthinkable around here.

Now if you are so interested in what is inside the referenced book, I suggest you read it yourself.

Otherwise I continue to get grilled on what it says and get more and more demands for facts, references, and such that if provided, would only get me blackballed for copyright infringement.

It's Lose/Lose with Al Gore's crowd.

Fred makes the brilliant point that "consensus" does not good science make.

Copernicus at one time was the only person on Earth who believed the Earth revolved around the sun. But here's the crucial point: Copernicus was right.

You talk like a 5-year old. When copernicus came up with his idea he had evidence, and that satisfied scientists who were thinking scientifically. The idea that sun was in the middle was falsified right away.

I find it ironic when people who argue against a theory where you would need 50 dump trucks to store all the hard-copy evidence say that their idea is not accepted, so it has chance of being right because everyone else is hooked up with "myth". I will tell you what, there are many many more scientists and if you get your paper on arXiv the vatican won't read it, but scientists who have facts to support their arguments. And the fact that you say you are going to get copyright infringement strengthens the idea that you have no idea how it works.

I used to read these sort of books so I can refute those people who read the book and take it as gospel. Then I realized these sort of books don't have any evidence. I would love to see an article in a peer-reviewed journal stating global warming isn't true because it does seem odd, doesn't it, that there are people who believe that it is false, there are evidence, and there is not a single credible paper about it?

 

[BarackZero]

Aren't you the one indulging in a host of argument fallacies as you are trolling through the threads here spewing conservative rhetoric?

You're awfully short on factual refutations in support of your original premise that Global Warming is somehow a hoax.

1. It's NOT my "original premise." I'm merely citing learned scholars in the field of climate physics.

2. Science, as demonstrated by men unafraid to confront Al Gore, are hardly "spewing conservative rhetoric." Al Gore and his sycophants have been politicizing science for many years now. It's time for thoughtful people to confront them and their lies.

3. I say again, there are hundreds of citations in Fred Singer's book, which you are evidently afraid to read.

Don't be afraid. Facts and science won't hurt you.

"I took the initiative in inventing the internet." Al Gore, who flunked out of Vanderbilt University divinity school

"Who are these guys." - Al Gore looking at busts of Founding Fathers at Monticello

 

[Unknot]

1. It's NOT my "original premise." I'm merely citing learned scholars in the field of climate physics.

2. Science, as demonstrated by men unafraid to confront Al Gore, are hardly "spewing conservative rhetoric." Al Gore and his sycophants have been politicizing science for many years now. It's time for thoughtful people to confront them and their lies.

3. I say again, there are hundreds of citations in Fred Singer's book, which you are evidently afraid to read.

Don't be afraid. Facts and science won't hurt you.

"I took the initiative in inventing the internet." Al Gore, who flunked out of Vanderbilt University divinity school

"Who are these guys." - Al Gore looking at busts of Founding Fathers at Monticello

Lies? Learned scholars? I know some climate physicists. They are nothing like what you think. Just writing a book and taking few chips at the theory (well, not valid ones anyways) does not invalidate the theory of global warming. You can go ahead and say evolution isn't true, or cold fusion is possible, or whatever. How would these people get around to arguing that? Just exactly the route you took.

 

[LowlyPion]

1. It's NOT my "original premise." I'm merely citing learned scholars in the field of climate physics.

No. You posted it. It's your premise now.

If you've posed it without understanding then just say so.

If you believe it, then offer your defense - just the facts - and maybe skip the ad hominems and specious distractions?

 

[neu]

3. I say again, there are hundreds of citations in Fred Singer's book, which you are evidently afraid to read.

Don't be afraid. Facts and science won't hurt you.

I'll ask again, please list at least one or two of these references. At the moment, you apear to be the only one is a afraid of science

 

[Brilliant!]

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/cycle-thumb.gif

http://www.treehugger.com/solar-cycles-wp-001.png

My biggest problem with the science of man-made global warming is that information is published like it was sensationalist propaganda. The research only addresses the "right now" while hardly ever looking at the big picture. There have always been periods of warming and periods of cooling. Always. CO2 has always been released into the atmosphere. It's true that because of the use of fossil fuels more is being released than ever has before, but that doesn't change the fact that we are in the middle of a natural period of warming. Every other day, there is another story on Sun spot cycles, and they all say the same thing: there hasn't been such high levels of Sunspots in 8,000 years. And I'm sure we all know that heightened Sunspot activity means that Earth's exposure to solar radiation increases. Suddenly, it doesn't seem so strange that we would be experiencing warming. Let's break it down:

Sunspot activity at it's highest level in 8,000 years -> More Solar radiation -> Earth's exposure to solar radiation increases -> warmer temperatures

The science is there. The question we ask ourselves now is: Is human activity increasing the intensity of this Sunspot cycle? Maybe. One thing is for sure, we are setting record temperatures everywhere in the world. But not by astronomical levels. We haven't seen a 20 degree increase (which would make true the doomsday theory that the media shoves down our throats). We've seen an increase of a few degrees over the last 10 years. Considering the fact that Sunspot activity has increased to levels that the Earth hasn't been subjected to in 8,000 years, isn't this change in climate understandable?

I don't know enough to tear down the entire theory. I'm not a meteorologist or an environmental scientist. But, there are several things I've learned as a result of being a human being: 1) We overreact, 2) The media sensationalizes everything (let us remember that the doomsday theory comes from Al Gore and the media. There have been very few, respectable scientists who have given us an apocalypse scenario. That's because it very simply isn't realistic.), 3) People like having something to rally around and fight for together.

I'd like to end this post by mentioning again the Sunspot cycle. This current cycle will end. Temperatures will decrease. There is absolutely no way to refute this bit of science. Our CO2 emissions do not effect the Sun's activity. So, the Sunspot cycle will end, and temperatures will decrease to somewhat normal levels. However, the future of automobiles is in low-emissions. Not because it's best for "Mother Nature", but because it is best for commerce. Oil is an exhaustible resource, we all know this. And for car companies, the money is in the electric/clean burning fuels market. Toyota has the Prius, Chevy has the Volt, countless other companies have hybrid-this and hybrid-that. The point I am trying to make here is that even if we have the power to kill the Earth through global warming, it just isn't going to happen. We're moving away from fossil fuels as an economic necessity. It just so happens that it's also ecologically sound. Also, it's important to understand that we can't undo what we've already done. And at present time, we haven't done enough to cause a doomsday scenario. Maybe someday, if we were to continue our current level of CO2 emissions, we would finally do ourselves in, but it's not going to happen during this Sunspot cycle.

 

[SixNein]

1. The IPCC report was based on research which was not peer reviewed. Shameful.

The IPCC is not alone on a island. Peer reviewed material has been in full agreement with IPCC findings. Everyone from the Pentagon to The American Meteorological Society has reviewed the science and agreed with the assessments.

2. The Hockey Stick graph has been discredited.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

3. Claims of increases in temperatures were found to be inaccurate when statisticians found errors by climate "researchers."

You have to give examples, there is thousands of publications from thousands of scientist on this topic. So you have to say this or that publication. Then we can discuss what region that publication was targeted and so forth.

4. Research contrary to the Al Gore dogma is minimized, ignored, or otherwise treated in a most unprofessional and most unscientific manner.

Give some examples of research being treated unprofessionally.

5. The environment takes actions to counter increases both in carbon dioxide as well as temperature increases.

The C02 absorption by the environment is taken into account by scientist. For example, the ocean is absorbing C02 and turning acidic.

6. Global temperatures have three or four cycles, the most critical of which is 1500 years in length. It is the sunspot cycle, and it heats up earth, but not very much.

Glacial and Interglacial cycle. The Ice-core data from multiple sources extend back hundreds of thousands of years. This can also be verified by other sources such as fossils.

7. Slight increases in temperatures will save many more lives than they will cost, and they will greatly enhance agricultural productivity.

The stability of humanity is closely related to stability of climate. Governments cannot take massive amounts of population move due to sea level rise and other factors. Perhaps you should investigate some of the assessments by the pentagon.

8. The doomsday claims are grossly exaggerated, just as they were by the discredited Club of Rome report, predicting global famine in the 1970s.

The PH levels of the oceans are dropping. That alone should be enough to frighten anyone without all the other additives of global warming.

Don't be afraid of facts and truth. They're really good for you!

Then you should start researching more.

 

[SixNein]

You're right. I concede. I'm sure Fred Singer would concede as well.
All the SUVs being driven on Venus account for its being so very hot.

Don't read the book. Be afraid. Be very afraid to read books that will upset you.

Venus has a think layer of C02 in its atmosphere and SUV's emit c02. In other words, it's putting up additional C02 into our atmosphere.

 

[SixNein]

1. It's NOT my "original premise." I'm merely citing learned scholars in the field of climate physics.

2. Science, as demonstrated by men unafraid to confront Al Gore, are hardly "spewing conservative rhetoric." Al Gore and his sycophants have been politicizing science for many years now. It's time for thoughtful people to confront them and their lies.

3. I say again, there are hundreds of citations in Fred Singer's book, which you are evidently afraid to read.

Don't be afraid. Facts and science won't hurt you.

"I took the initiative in inventing the internet." Al Gore, who flunked out of Vanderbilt University divinity school

"Who are these guys." - Al Gore looking at busts of Founding Fathers at Monticello

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Performance_Computing_and_Communication_Act_of_1991#Controversy
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/10/02/net_builders_kahn_cerf_recognise/

 

[SixNein]

My biggest problem with the science of man-made global warming is that information is published like it was sensationalist propaganda. The research only addresses the "right now" while hardly ever looking at the big picture. There have always been periods of warming and periods of cooling. Always. CO2 has always been released into the atmosphere. It's true that because of the use of fossil fuels more is being released than ever has before, but that doesn't change the fact that we are in the middle of a natural period of warming. Every other day, there is another story on Sun spot cycles, and they all say the same thing: there hasn't been such high levels of Sunspots in 8,000 years. And I'm sure we all know that heightened Sunspot activity means that Earth's exposure to solar radiation increases. Suddenly, it doesn't seem so strange that we would be experiencing warming. Let's break it down:

Sunspot activity at it's highest level in 8,000 years -> More Solar radiation -> Earth's exposure to solar radiation increases -> warmer temperatures

The science is there. The question we ask ourselves now is: Is human activity increasing the intensity of this Sunspot cycle? Maybe. One thing is for sure, we are setting record temperatures everywhere in the world. But not by astronomical levels. We haven't seen a 20 degree increase (which would make true the doomsday theory that the media shoves down our throats). We've seen an increase of a few degrees over the last 10 years. Considering the fact that Sunspot activity has increased to levels that the Earth hasn't been subjected to in 8,000 years, isn't this change in climate understandable?

I don't know enough to tear down the entire theory. I'm not a meteorologist or an environmental scientist. But, there are several things I've learned as a result of being a human being: 1) We overreact, 2) The media sensationalizes everything (let us remember that the doomsday theory comes from Al Gore and the media. There have been very few, respectable scientists who have given us an apocalypse scenario. That's because it very simply isn't realistic.), 3) People like having something to rally around and fight for together.

I'd like to end this post by mentioning again the Sunspot cycle. This current cycle will end. Temperatures will decrease. There is absolutely no way to refute this bit of science. Our CO2 emissions do not effect the Sun's activity. So, the Sunspot cycle will end, and temperatures will decrease to somewhat normal levels. However, the future of automobiles is in low-emissions. Not because it's best for "Mother Nature", but because it is best for commerce. Oil is an exhaustible resource, we all know this. And for car companies, the money is in the electric/clean burning fuels market. Toyota has the Prius, Chevy has the Volt, countless other companies have hybrid-this and hybrid-that. The point I am trying to make here is that even if we have the power to kill the Earth through global warming, it just isn't going to happen. We're moving away from fossil fuels as an economic necessity. It just so happens that it's also ecologically sound. Also, it's important to understand that we can't undo what we've already done. And at present time, we haven't done enough to cause a doomsday scenario. Maybe someday, if we were to continue our current level of CO2 emissions, we would finally do ourselves in, but it's not going to happen during this Sunspot cycle.

Fine sunspots, then please explain why Venus is hotter then Mercury. If it's not the C02 then what?

 

[Brilliant!]

Fine sunspots, then please explain why Venus is hotter then Mercury. If it's not the C02 then what?

It's CO2, not C02. I hate to be nitpicky, but the things are entirely different. C02 is equivalent to C2, which is Dicarbon. CO2 is Carbon Dioxide.

And you're right, CO2, a greenhouse gas, is the reason for the temperature of Venus. But looking at only one part of a whole, and drawing incredible conclusions is scientific heresy. There is no life on Venus. No water, no trees, no people. This is an incredibly huge difference, don't you think? Volcanoes spew incredible amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere. Humans exhale incredible amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The difference between the Earth and Venus is that we have an active ecological system, which involves the recycling of CO2 into oxygen by our green friends in kingdom Plantae. Even the ocean gets involved, by being the largest carbon sink on the planet.

But this is all beside the point. Bringing up Venus to argue global warming is shameful. It's only effective because it preys on people's fears.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's CO2, not C02. I hate to be nitpicky, but the things are entirely different. C02 is equivalent to C2, which is Dicarbon. CO2 is Carbon Dioxide.

You're using a typo by your opponent to make it look like he is ignorant and that you know what you're talking about. This is poor netiquette. Proper netiquette is to ignore typos and other transcription errors unless they actually obfuscate the message.

Our CO2 emissions do not effect the Sun's activity. So, the Sunspot cycle will end, and temperatures will decrease to somewhat normal levels. However, the future of automobiles is in low-emissions. Not because it's best for "Mother Nature", but because it is best for commerce. Oil is an exhaustible resource, we all know this. And for car companies, the money is in the electric/clean burning fuels market. Toyota has the Prius, Chevy has the Volt, countless other companies have hybrid-this and hybrid-that. The point I am trying to make here is that even if we have the power to kill the Earth through global warming, it just isn't going to happen. We're moving away from fossil fuels as an economic necessity. It just so happens that it's also ecologically sound. Also, it's important to understand that we can't undo what we've already done. And at present time, we haven't done enough to cause a doomsday scenario. Maybe someday, if we were to continue our current level of CO2 emissions, we would finally do ourselves in, but it's not going to happen during this Sunspot cycle.

This is not science; this is an argument; an opinion. Half the world has opinions on this matter and they've gone to the trouble to back theirs up with hard science. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you haven't really added anything here.

 

[seycyrus]

There are often threads by new members which turn out to be spam.

Yeah! In these here parts, only OLD members are allowed to put out spam! *snort*

 

[Brilliant!]

You're using a typo by your opponent to make it look like he is ignorant and that you know what you're talking about. This is poor netiquette. Proper netiquette is to ignore typos and other transcription errors unless they actually obfuscate the message.

It was not a typo. He's done it at least 4 times in this one thread, which means he thinks that's the way "CO2" is written. I wasn't trying to be a jerk or validate myself. I was simply attempting to correct some false knowledge.

This is not science; this is an argument; an opinion. Half the world has opinions on this matter and they've gone to the trouble to back theirs up with hard science. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you haven't really added anything here.

Have I not? I've taken the route of common sense. I could expand upon what I've said, but there is no need to. And that isn't for lack of evidence or knowledge, but because it simply isn't necessary. I've given facts about Sunspot variance and temperature of variance. There is causality here. There are more reasons than just Sunspots, but Sunspots can not be neglected as they are one of the major causes for temperature increases in our entire solar system. It is also a fact that the level of Sunspots is cyclical (the smallest cycle being 11 years). We also don't have the means to undo what we've done. We only have the means to improve our technology so that we may do it less and less and until we don't do it anymore.

Also, should I provide evidence that car companies see a future in low-emissions vehicles? That would be redundant, equivalent to citing Copernicus everytime I talked about planetary orbit, or Newton everytime I spoke of gravity.

The science is inherent in the topics we are discussing. And I'm here, wondering if you see the irony in reprimanding me for correcting someone's "typo", to follow it up by critiquing the manner in which I present information.

 

[SixNein]

It's CO2, not C02. I hate to be nitpicky, but the things are entirely different. C02 is equivalent to C2, which is Dicarbon. CO2 is Carbon Dioxide.

And you're right, CO2, a greenhouse gas, is the reason for the temperature of Venus. But looking at only one part of a whole, and drawing incredible conclusions is scientific heresy. There is no life on Venus. No water, no trees, no people. This is an incredibly huge difference, don't you think? Volcanoes spew incredible amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere. Humans exhale incredible amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The difference between the Earth and Venus is that we have an active ecological system, which involves the recycling of CO2 into oxygen by our green friends in kingdom Plantae. Even the ocean gets involved, by being the largest carbon sink on the planet.

But this is all beside the point. Bringing up Venus to argue global warming is shameful. It's only effective because it preys on people's fears.

Do you think the ecosystem is infinite? An equilibrium exists and we are crossing it.

People like to argue the sun as a defense. So I start out with venus to nip that entire conversation in the bud.

 

[Brilliant!]

Do you think the ecosystem is infinite? An equilibrium exists and we are crossing it.

People like to argue the sun as a defense. So I start out with venus to nip that entire conversation in the bud.

I fail to see how the Sunspot cycle shouldn't be considered, and brought up in discussion about Global warming. People can "argue the sun" as a defense because it is totally relevant.

And you think you can nip the Sunspot argument in the butt by bringing up something that isn't the Sun, Earth, or Earth's climate? That's strange.

And no, I don't think the ecosystem is "infinite". But, there isn't just one "equilibrium". There is a range in which equilibrium exists, as the planet will naturally correct for changes in variables. We may be moving out of this range, but that doesn't mean we are "destroying" the ecosystem all together.

Please, stop with the doomsday theories.

 

[seycyrus]

People like to argue the sun as a defense. So I start out with venus to nip that entire conversation in the bud.

That doesn't nip the argument in the bud. Rather it augments the hilarity of directly comparing the Earth to Venus.

 

[SixNein]

It was not a typo. He's done it at least 4 times in this one thread, which means he thinks that's the way "CO2" is written. I wasn't trying to be a jerk or validate myself. I was simply attempting to correct some false knowledge.

Have I not? I've taken the route of common sense. I could expand upon what I've said, but there is no need to. And that isn't for lack of evidence or knowledge, but because it simply isn't necessary. I've given facts about Sunspot variance and temperature of variance. There is causality here. There are more reasons than just Sunspots, but Sunspots can not be neglected as they are one of the major causes for temperature increases in our entire solar system. It is also a fact that the level of Sunspots is cyclical (the smallest cycle being 11 years). We also don't have the means to undo what we've done. We only have the means to improve our technology so that we may do it less and less and until we don't do it anymore.

Also, should I provide evidence that car companies see a future in low-emissions vehicles? That would be redundant, equivalent to citing Copernicus everytime I talked about planetary orbit, or Newton everytime I spoke of gravity.

The science is inherent in the topics we are discussing. And I'm here, wondering if you see the irony in reprimanding me for correcting someone's "typo", to follow it up by critiquing the manner in which I present information.

I may have a few comma splices, fused sentences, fragments, shifts, and some incorrect spelling as well. If you want to start using precise language, "everytime" should be written as "every time".

So let us continue about sunspots and venus. =)

 

[seycyrus]

I may have a few comma splices, fused sentences, fragments, shifts, and some incorrect spelling as well. If you want to start using precise language, "everytime" should be written as "every time".

So let us continue about sunspots and venus. =)

Please post your data about the average global temperature on the planet Venus for the past 10,000 years.

 

[Brilliant!]

I may have a few comma splices, fused sentences, fragments, shifts, and some incorrect spelling as well. If you want to start using precise language, "everytime" should be written as "every time".

So let us continue about sunspots and venus. =)

Hmmm... this is a fun game you're playing. I'd like to drop the matter of typos, as you'll easily be able to skirt the real issue there by claiming ignorance.

And as for Sunspots and Venus, I think I've come to a realization that applies to our conversation:

You do know that CO2 doesn't make a planet hotter, correct?

 

[SixNein]

I fail to see how the Sunspot cycle shouldn't be considered, and brought up in discussion about Global warming. People can "argue the sun" as a defense because it is totally relevant.

And you think you can nip the Sunspot argument in the butt by bringing up something that isn't the Sun, Earth, or Earth's climate? That's strange.

And no, I don't think the ecosystem is "infinite". But, there isn't just one "equilibrium". There is a range in which equilibrium exists, as the planet will naturally correct for changes in variables. We may be moving out of this range, but that doesn't mean we are "destroying" the ecosystem all together.

Please, stop with the doomsday theories.

All I have to do is link Venus and C02. Then I can show this:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html

 

[Brilliant!]

I've just come to the understanding that you don't understand what Global Warming is. Unfortunately, I have to go to work and can't explain it. I'll be back later tonight, hopefully.

 

[SixNein]

Please post your data about the average global temperature on the planet Venus for the past 10,000 years.

We will eventually be able to obtain ice core data from there; however, we do not currently have that. We do have ICE core data from Earth that shows a temp-c02 relation. So it's a moot point anyway.

 

[SixNein]

I've just come to the understanding that you don't understand what Global Warming is. Unfortunately, I have to go to work and can't explain it. I'll be back later tonight, hopefully.

Your argument is C02 is being completely absorbed by the environment. The data does not reflect that argument.

 

[Brilliant!]

That's quite an assumption to make. Your seeing what you want to see so that you may have ground to stand on. Read my posts again, and you will see that I made no such argument.

Off to work, I'll definitely check back.

 

[SixNein]

That's quite an assumption to make. Your seeing what you want to see so that you may have ground to stand on. Read my posts again, and you will see that I made no such argument.

Off to work, I'll definitely check back.

And you're right, CO2, a greenhouse gas, is the reason for the temperature of Venus. But looking at only one part of a whole, and drawing incredible conclusions is scientific heresy. There is no life on Venus. No water, no trees, no people. This is an incredibly huge difference, don't you think? Volcanoes spew incredible amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere. Humans exhale incredible amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The difference between the Earth and Venus is that we have an active ecological system, which involves the recycling of CO2 into oxygen by our green friends in kingdom Plantae. Even the ocean gets involved, by being the largest carbon sink on the planet.

I may have been up all night, but it seems like you use the ecosystem to refute to me.

 

[seycyrus]

We will eventually be able to obtain ice core data from there; however, we do not currently have that.

Waitasec... you brought up Venus when you don't even have a comparative data set? Do you think that Earth = Venus?

We do have ICE core data from Earth that shows a temp-c02 relation. So it's a moot point anyway.

I haven't seen any such correlation.

 

[SixNein]

Waitasec... you brought up Venus when you don't even have a comparative data set? Do you think that Earth = Venus?
I haven't seen any such correlation.

No, I'm simply providing an observation of the effects that C02 can have on a planet. If Venus can be hotter then Mercury with 75% less irradiation, it is fairly safe to argue that C02 is an important factor.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/jouz_tem.htm

Now there are other factors that occur that can effect temperature. Orbits, sunspots, volcano (Yellowstone eruption would suck), the list is endless. There is also other causes of the greenhouse effect such as methane, water vapor (also acts as a feedback), and Nitrous oxide.

 

[lubuntu]

As far as I can tell we can distill the entire argument to this:

1. The Earth's climate is not and has not always been the same.
2. Even in our species own history the climate on this planet has changed dramatically, we "came of age" during an ice age.
3. We haven't been around long enough to directly observe enough, and certainly not scientific long enough, to be able to tell what normal ebbs and flow in the climate are over long period of time.
4. Civilization started producing pollutants in large quantities with the last 100 years or so.
5. There is evidence that the planet's temperature is slightly increasing over time.

There are things to think about here and evidence to gather but from those 5 points it doesn't by any means directly follow that human civilization is the entire cause of climate change. Correlation isn't causation as we know. And if we look at other factors such as the sun cycle, we can postulate that perhaps what we see is a cumulative result of many things. There is no dichotomy between global warming being of human doing or natural, it is almost certainly both.

The Venus argument is horribly misleading and irrelevant, you can't just pull out a single gas and say that Venus is hot because of CO2, there is an entirely planetwide system you must consider and it should be entirely obvious that the Earth does not behave like Venus.

 

[DaveC426913]

Have I not? I've taken the route of common sense.

"Common sense" - the most underrated fallacy.

I could expand upon what I've said, but there is no need to. And that isn't for lack of evidence or knowledge, but because it simply isn't necessary. I've given facts about Sunspot variance and temperature of variance. There is causality here. There are more reasons than just Sunspots, but Sunspots can not be neglected as they are one of the major causes for temperature increases in our entire solar system. It is also a fact that the level of Sunspots is cyclical (the smallest cycle being 11 years). We also don't have the means to undo what we've done. We only have the means to improve our technology so that we may do it less and less and until we don't do it anymore.

Not arguing the sunspot facts, simply that you seem to feel the facts lead to incontrivertible conclusions, namely from "This current cycle will end" to "Temperatures will decrease." and that "There is absolutely no way to refute this bit of science."

Also, should I provide evidence that car companies see a future in low-emissions vehicles? That would be redundant, equivalent to citing Copernicus everytime I talked about planetary orbit, or Newton everytime I spoke of gravity.

No, simply for your conclusion that "[global warming] just isn't going to happen". And your attempt to equate your personal conjecture to laws of nature is silly.

The science is inherent in the topics we are discussing.

The rate at which low emission vehicles <i>of the future</i> will have a concrete affect global warming. This claim is 99% conjecture, 1% science.

etc. etc.

Don't misunderstand: I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm simply saying you're shooting yourself in the foot by way overstating your case.

 

[SixNein]

As far as I can tell we can distill the entire argument to this:

1. The Earth's climate is not and has not always been the same.
2. Even in our species own history the climate on this planet has changed dramatically, we "came of age" during an ice age.
3. We haven't been around long enough to directly observe enough, and certainly not scientific long enough, to be able to tell what normal ebbs and flow in the climate are over long period of time.
4. Civilization started producing pollutants in large quantities with the last 100 years or so.
5. There is evidence that the planet's temperature is slightly increasing over time.

There are things to think about here and evidence to gather but from those 5 points it doesn't by any means directly follow that human civilization is the entire cause of climate change. Correlation isn't causation as we know. And if we look at other factors such as the sun cycle, we can postulate that perhaps what we see is a cumulative result of many things. There is no dichotomy between global warming being of human doing or natural, it is almost certainly both.

The Venus argument is horribly misleading and irrelevant, you can't just pull out a single gas and say that Venus is hot because of CO2, there is an entirely planetwide system you must consider and it should be entirely obvious that the Earth does not behave like Venus.

The greenhouse effect is the cause of the high temp of venus. The greenhouse effect is also what keeps our surface temperature warm here on earth. Without it we would freeze at night.

The ICE core data obtained from multiple sources show temperature levels and greenhouse gas effects for hundreds of thousands of years. They have also been backed up with fossil evidence.

In any regard if you want to research it yourself, then I suggest you start here:

http://realclimate.org/

Anyway I'm passing out...

 

[DaveC426913]

As far as I can tell we can distill the entire argument to this:

1. The Earth's climate is not and has not always been the same.
2. Even in our species own history the climate on this planet has changed dramatically, we "came of age" during an ice age.
3. We haven't been around long enough to directly observe enough, and certainly not scientific long enough, to be able to tell what normal ebbs and flow in the climate are over long period of time.
4. Civilization started producing pollutants in large quantities with the last 100 years or so.
5. There is evidence that the planet's temperature is slightly increasing over time.

There are things to think about here and evidence to gather but from those 5 points it doesn't by any means directly follow that human civilization is the entire cause of climate change.

Yes. This is the we-can't-be-sure-so-let's-wait-and-see philosophy in a nutshell.

Now flash forward 100 years; one of two outcomes await. We were right or we were wrong.

If the global warming was a blip then fine. But what if it wasn't?

"Oops. I guess we should have done something about it before it was too late."

The kicker is that if we DO act now, we cover BOTH bases. We have both outcomes covered. If we do NOT act now, we leave our fate to the above dice roll, which may or may not fall in our favour.

 

[lubuntu]

Oh, Dave believe me I entire agree that we should do something now. As I stated in a previous thread I take more issue with the way that politicians and activist seem to think this can be solved. This is the sort of problem that can have a purely scientific and engineering solution. If we are just smarter we can not only stop doing anything that would make our climate worse, but also harness much larger sources of energy, become a proper Type I civilization, and perhaps even make the climate here on Earth better.

 

[SixNein]

Yes. This is the we-can't-be-sure-so-let's-wait-and-see philosophy in a nutshell.

Now flash forward 100 years; one of two outcomes await. We were right or we were wrong.

If the global warming was a blip then fine. But what if it wasn't?

"Oops. I guess we should have done something about it before it was too late."

The kicker is that if we DO act now, we cover BOTH bases. We have both outcomes covered. If we do NOT act now, we leave our fate to the above dice roll, which may or may not fall in our favour.

Why am I not asleep?

I worry more about the oceans then I do the effects on climate. Acidic oceans will kill us long before global warming ever has the chance. It should be the main argument for reducing C02 because it's so much easier to explain. You can do lab experiments that people can see and better understand. When you're talking about climate change, you're speaking about multiple models tied together with multiple different sources of data.

 

[Gokul43201]

Worth repeating.

This forum is only for discussion of the politics and current news about issues, not for scientific discussion. Thread locked.