The Global Warming Thread

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Colin Grabow, Aug 27, 2002.

  1. Colin Grabow

    Colin Grabow New Member

    Jul 22, 1999
    Washington, DC
    Cossack, you asked for it.

    Now I repeat, if humans are to blame for global warming, why did the earth experience temperature fluctuations long (thousands of years) before industrialization?
     
  2. Garcia

    Garcia Member

    Dec 14, 1999
    Castro Castro
    This thread is heating up already.
     
  3. CrewDust

    CrewDust Member

    May 6, 1999
    Columbus, Ohio
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Cow farts. Or just blame the Americans.
     
  4. chaski

    chaski Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 20, 2000
    Itchycoo Park
    Club:
    Lisburn Distillery FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Guam
  5. MLSNHTOWN

    MLSNHTOWN Member+

    Oct 27, 1999
    Houston, TX
    I am by no means a global warming nut or anything, but just because there have been large unpredictable, unexplained temperature fluctuations in the past......

    does not mean that we, as a large group of humans are not causing one now

    Am I missing something?

    I honestly don't think it is industrialization per se, but more the result of an exponentially growing population and technology. I think it is electricty. Thinking thermodynamically, I think humans in general with all their light bulbs, engines, motors, cow farts, etc., add so much more heat to the atmosphere then cold via air conditioning, ice etc. I know this sounds like a real assinine explanation.

    I really don't buy the "greenhouse" effect.
     
  6. Ian McCracken

    Ian McCracken Member

    May 28, 1999
    USA
    Club:
    SS Lazio Roma
    Nat'l Team:
    Italy
    [CAPITALISMMAGAZINE.COM] Last month, the Bush White House, citing a “new” study, revisited its position on global warming. The media went into a feeding frenzy and, like an e-mail scam that won’t die, the global warming debate has again been resuscitated. Unfortunately, the “new” study is based on the same old studies – chief among them the 1996 IPCC ‘s “Summary for Policy Makers” -- whose conclusions rest on three fallacious claims:

    1) Based on historical weather data, average global temperatures have risen dramatically in the latter half of the 20th Century.

    2) Scientific research indicates that the cause of such rising temperatures is man made.

    3) There is a consensus among scientists supporting both claims.

    The first claim – that global temperatures have risen dramatically since 1940 – finds its source in the approximately 100 year-old temperature record of the National Weather Service. According to the NASA report, Global Climate Monitoring: The Accuracy of Satellite Data, though, the NWS record is based strictly on surface temperature readings. When weather balloon and satellite records are examined one finds temperatures either stayed the same or actually declined by as much as 1 degree F during that period.

    What if we step outside the NWS box?

    Data extrapolated from tree ring, ice core and lake sediment indicate that in the 18th Century the average world sea and surface temperatures were 71 degrees F. Climatologists refer to this period as “The Little Ice Age.” Such data also show that in 1000 BCE the average global temperature was over 25 degrees Celsius or 77 degrees F. By comparison, the average global temperature in 1999 was 73.5 degrees F. The conclusion to reach about the claim of dramatically rising global
    temperatures in the latter half of the 20th Century is clear. First, it depends on where you stick your thermometer, on the surface, (whose reading will be highly inaccurate due to urban hot spots) or in the atmosphere (the most accurate readings). Second, the significance of the data depend upon the historical climate record of the planet. Here, as with any kind of scientific data, context and perspective is everything.

    Of the second claim, that the cause of global warming is man-made, environmental activists point to the correlation between recent global industrialization and the sweltering summers of 1998 and 1999. A correlation, though, is not proof of cause. If global industrialization were the cause of planetary warming, the satellite and balloon temperature record from 1940 to 1980 – a period of far greater worldwide

    industrialization – would show a marked increase in average global temperatures, which it does not. Indeed, such data show temperatures declining.

    A cause and effect relationship, though, has been discovered between solar activity and global temperatures. Danish climatologists Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen (in the 1991 issue of Science) and Douglas V. Hoyt and Dr. Kenneth H. Schatten (in their book, The Role of the Sun in Climate Change) found that “global temperature variations during the past century are virtually all due to the variations in solar activity.”

    What about carbon dioxide levels? Scientists have found that past carbon dioxide levels, based, again, on historical and pre-historical tree ring, ice core and lake sediment samples, have changed significantly without human influence. Note, too, that between 1940 and 1980, when man-made levels of CO2 swelled rapidly, there was a decline in temperatures.

    If scientific temperature records belie global warming; if scientists conclude that global temperatures are minimally affected by man; where, then, is scientific consensus – the third claim supporting the notion of global warming? The answer is: there isn’t any.

    In 1996 the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the IPCC -- released a document titled, “Summary for Policy Makers,” which supported the notion of global warming. Environmentalists crowed that 15,000 scientists had signed the document.

    However, the report was doctored without the knowledge of most of those 15,000 scientists, whose protests became so vocal that the lead authors backed off their conclusions, disavowing the document as “a political tract, not a scientific report.”

    In 1998, 17,000 scientists, six of whom are Nobel Laureates, signed the Oregon Petition, which declares, in part: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. ”

    In 1999 over ten thousand of the world’s most renowned climatologists, astrophysicists, meteorologists, etc., signed an open letter by Frederick Seitz, NAS Past President, that states, in part: the Kyoto Accord is “based upon flawed ideas.”

    Finally, in a paper in June of 2001, aptly titled, GLOBAL WARMING: The Press Gets It Wrong – our report doesn't support the Kyoto treaty, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens.”

    In light of these facts, if the continual resurrection of the issue of global warming in the media is not a consummate example of the Big Lie, I’d be hard pressed to find a better one.

    --Steven Brockerman is an assistant editor for Capitalism Magazine, www.capitalismmagazine.com
     
  7. GringoTex

    GringoTex Member

    Aug 22, 2001
    1301 miles de Texas
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Bolivia
    What did the other 150+ living Nobel Laureates say?
     
  8. Ian McCracken

    Ian McCracken Member

    May 28, 1999
    USA
    Club:
    SS Lazio Roma
    Nat'l Team:
    Italy
    I don't know. Why don't you find quotes from them and let us know.
     
  9. Rhinocuse

    Rhinocuse Member

    Aug 3, 2001
    Southbridge, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  10. Smiley321

    Smiley321 Member

    Apr 21, 2002
    Concord, Ca
    Here's a few factoids for you people actually worrying about this:
    http://researchmag.asu.edu/stories/carboncycle.html

    CO2 in the air - 750 gigatons
    CO2 in the surface layer of oceans - 800 gigatons
    total manmade CO2 yearly - 5.4 gigatons

    so, let's say that the US portion is 25%, 1.5 gigatons and we generously agree to reduce by 10%. That's a 0.15 gigatons per year reduction.

    The carbon-counters can't account for 1-2 gigatons per year, it's probably moving between ocean and air. Even getting as precise as 1-2 gigatons is probably optimistic for a system with 1,500 gigatons inventory.

    Anyone losing sleep over this 0.15 gigatons is crazy. We could eliminate the 1.5 produced by the US and still it's noise level globally. This is just an issue for the green euro socialists to use in berating the evil US.

    By the way, there is a long history of nobel prize winners opining outside of their area of expertise. I am skeptical of any pronouncement which needs the signatures of celebrity scientists. Even more skeptical of computer models predicting the behavior of the atmosphere.
     
  11. angus_hooligan

    angus_hooligan New Member

    May 15, 2001
    Chicago
    I agree to a point. Although I do not know which point. I think that the Earth is getting closer to the Sun (When is the last time NASA measured the distence?). Or maybe the Sun is getting bigger and producing more heat. However, I also do believe that we create a lot more heat than what we did 50 years ago with a larger population (body heat), more cars (engine heat) almost everything that we use or do creates heat. There are so many causes natural and un-natural. We can't put the finger on just one cause.

    Anyway, the fix for all this is to pull the Earth a few more miles away from the Sun.
     
  12. Fah Que

    Fah Que Member

    Sep 29, 2000
    LA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes

Share This Page