ArmchairGeneral

Which is why I haven't decided which side to believe. I have no problem going against the flow of scientific opinion, if the evidence doesn't convince me, but it has to be pretty good evidence to go against the majority of climate scientists.

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

gunnut

So far, the global warming evidences have not convinced me one bit for the simple reason that the time span was extremely narrow and focused primarily in the very present.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

canoe

So your saying there is no way possible to convince you in your lifetime.

While there is no long term study of human effects of global warming there is long term (thousands of years) of historical records of natural global warming occuring and its effects.

gunnut

I don't deny that. However, humans weren't around to cause those. Humans weren't responsible for global cooling either. We simply do not have enough data to jump the gun. We may have something to do with global warming, but nothing to the extent of the Gorian theory.

canoe

I think the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature is pretty solid. If the pattern holds and mean average temperature continues to go up over the next 10 years it should be sufficent to prove were holding to historic trends.

We know were contributing significantly to rapidly increasing CO2 levels we can calculate our own CO2 output.

Personally I don't care what the enviro nuts have to say half of them don't have a clue what their talking about and do it as a lifestyle statement. But I am interested in the hard data the scientists and researchers put out. I'd rather know whats coming now then 10 years later when I'm knee deep in it trying to figure out what the hell just happened.

dalem

You've mentioned a relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. What is this relationship?

-dale

Fortudinae

If we were in a POW camp and you said to me "Doc I haven't been able to crap since I was captured - I'm hurtin" I'd tell you to be pleased and not worry about it. You might be uncomfortable, but the alternative would probably put you in the pow cemetary.
Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind - kapisch?

ArmchairGeneral

Fortudinae

exactly

brokensickle

You talk about the ice core CO2 levels. The interpretation can be looked at one of two ways.

1. The increased levels of CO2 came before and the global warming followed as a result. Then CO2 content in the atmosphere settled onto the ice during that period as indicated in the strata of the ice cores.

OR

2. The global warming started and because of increased temperatures the normally stable elements tended to vaporize causing these gases we call green house gases to move through the atmosphere then settled onto the ice during that period as indicated in the strata of the ice cores.

In the case of Venus, which is heated to such a great extent, and having the elements necessary to gas off to create such a voluminous amount of what is believed to be green house gases, it could be reasoned that the process taking place was heat generated. And I can say with a great deal of confidence, but allowing a little room for doubt, that cars and industry are not the cause.
Which came first, The roasted chicken or the hard boiled egg?

~~~~Ivan~~~><//>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

__________________
"Evil opposes freedom and uses those who pervert it as pawns to destroy it."

gunnut

I have 2 problems with this theory.

1. How do we know the average global temperature in the distant past? I understand we can find evidences showing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from ice core samples, but where did these people come up with the temperature?

2. You're using the "next 10 years" as a measuring tool. My beef has always been that a decade or 2 decades is just not enough to determine the earth's trend. How accurate are the variations in global temperatures you mentioned in your post? I don't mean how accurate temperature wise, I mean accurate in time scale. Can you tell me the average temperature change between 332,450 years ago and 332,460 year ago from this data?

Also, have you noticed that a rise in temperature precedes CO2 build up, according to this graph?

Attached Images

IceCores1.gif (15.0 KB, 36 views)

brokensickle

I am in agreement as I read both sides of the issue. And lean toward both sides but in key points. While I believe we are going into a period of global warming, I don't necessarilly agree that we are the reason for it. Reading the
data is a start, interpreting the data is a process in futility at times and drawing a conclusion should be done with the utmost understanding of all conditions as we are dealing with unknowns, that our direction we take because we hold to one side might cause more of a disastrous event that we can truly call man made.


Ivan

Fortudinae

Most of those lovely clouds you see on Venus are gaseous sulphuric acid. The surface is so hot that it just barely glows red.
Using Venus as a model for Global Warming is like comparing a VW to a banana.

CO2 is heavier than air and tends to crawl over the ground - in polar regions it would be even heavier and more concentrated on the surface - you need a pretty big swag factor to translate those figures to general atmospheric.

I think that's where the funny business comes in.

PubFather

At the risk of establishing some form of consensus (and without reading the rest of the thread, lol) I would also say that we are in a period of global warming. From what I have read, we are at the end of an ice-age, and therefore warming would make sense (remember the world is far cooler than it was during the dinosaur period, for e.g). I suspect we are artificially hastening the warming, but I also suspect that all the predictions are likely to be as accurate as your average weather prediction... not very.

There simply isnt enough data, nor has it been going on for long enough, to accurately predict the effects. We cannot use even a decade of weather patterns as proof positive.

However, reducing CO2 (along with the other pollutants) makes sense on other environmental levels; on economic ones (i.e, fossil fuels are going to run out) and on geopolitical ones.

__________________
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit - Scottish Motto

"They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that dislike it, heresy; and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion” Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan

Fortudinae

Why not simply call a pig in a poke what it is.

The Liberale elite are worried about their Malibu beach homes going under water, so you can milk them for any bogusity by playing to that fear. Other players are in it for different reasons, but it's still;

Buy this here Pig (holds out sack).