LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteI think, we, the United States, should take sole credit for keeping the earth warm and averting another ice age by introducing the SUV.
Environmentalist's Wild Predictions
Environmentalists' Wild Predictions
Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.
At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."
Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."
It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.
Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?
Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
I think, we, the United States, should take sole credit for keeping the earth warm and averting another ice age by introducing the SUV.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
This is an article from an economist lol, please and nowhere does it mention that carbon has an insignificant effect on the atmosphere. You have used this article to try and make an argument that water vapour is a more serious green house gas than carbon, thus in doing so trying to make a point that carbon is "ïnsignificant" because its introduction into the atmosphere is far less than water vapour.Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.
Are you f****** serious, this is a statement by an economist and he does not provide any source for this...."fact". This is a perfect example of utilizing statistics to fit your own argument, he does not state whether 95% of human introduced water vapour/anthropogenic or if this is the natural green house effect. I assume he is talking about the natural effect judging by that percentage, which is therefore irrelevant because human induced global warming is the alteration of the chemical composition of the atm...ere through introduction of more or less of green house gases.Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere.
If he means that the organic water vapour, then I agree that this can be true (95% I think not but I would believe a figure over 50%) but it is irrelevent because we know that the naturally occuring green house gases are what has created the oxic and temperate climate necessary for life so the effect of this non-human introduced vapour is essential for maintaining the current natural climate.
Heres good ol' Wallys credentials
Not really qualified to be used to support that carbon is insignificant as a gree house gas, especially when he doesn't even mention carbon.Walter E. Williams
Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Dr. Walter E. Williams holds a B.A. in economics from California State University, Los Angeles, and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in economics from UCLA. He also holds a Doctor of Humane Letters from Virginia Union University and Grove City College, Doctor of Laws from Washington and Jefferson College and Doctor Honoris Causa en Ciencias Sociales from Universidad Francisco Marroquin, in Guatemala, where he is also Professor Honorario.
Dr. Williams has served on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics, since 1980; from 1995 to 2001, he served as department chairman. He has also served on the faculties of Los Angeles City College, California State University Los Angeles, and Temple University in Philadelphia, and Grove City College, Grove City, Pa.
Again irrelevant, the green house gases emitted by wetlands are what maintains the natural levels of chemical composition of the atm...ere to create the required oxic and temperature conditions necessary for life. Again what matter is what chemicals/molecules r added/introduced unnaturally by humans that alter the chemical composition thus the oxic and temperature of at...ere.On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.
You have yet to provide evidence that CO2 emissions and its effects are irrelevant.
More importantly, no one, including you, has provided evidence that CO2 emissions are relevant.Originally Posted by Helium
Your theory, Bright Eyes, you do the leg work.
-dale
By far, the biggest and most important contributer to the green house effect IS water vapor. This is not disputed by anyone other than you. In fact, even the exxagerated effect attributed to Co2 relies on it's speculated effect on water vapor. Co2 by itself is in fact rather insignificant... both by volume and effect. It's well known that C02 by itself cannot produce a sginificant change.
Your statement that "...judging by that percentage, which is therefore irrelevant because human induced global warming is the alteration of the chemical composition of the atm...ere through introduction of more or less of green house gases."... is both incomplete and over simplified.
The hypothesis relies on radiative forcing, which can only be shown in models. What should be happening if this hypothesis is correct is increased warming in the troposphere. That is the key signal. All models used to point the finger to Co2 necessarily rely on this hypothesis (refer to IPCC TAR and every single GCM, or even realclimate if you prefer).
As you can see, it's not happening. All observations show that the troposphere is not, and has not, warmed as the models (thus the hypothesis) say it should be. So if you're going to make the argument that Co2 is drving temp and changing climate you're going to need to explain how the hypothesis can be wrong and still be right. Good luck.
Speaking of crazy environmentalist predictions, someone asserted to me the other week that the Arctic sea ice and Antarctic Ice Shelves melting will cause sea level to rise. The poor fool didn't seem to understand that the sea level at current already accounts for any ice on it (and when that ice melts, the level will be the same as it is now).
Which brings me to my point: a lot of the environmentalist jargon on global warming is pure conjecture and media hype. Climatology and the associated global warming is an immensely complex field of science - a field that we are still struggling to understand fully, let alone predict accurately (the math simply just doesn't exist to provide a usefully accurate longterm model). The complex science behind global warming, which itself is representative of only a fraction of the actual process, has been oversimplified and spit out at the public in a way that is alarmist.
This oversimplification is potentially dangerous at the worst. At best, it yields comments such as "carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming." That tagline has become common place and, I'm sure, to a point carbon dioxide is a contributing factor to global warming. Is it the quintessential reason why there is global warming? Probably not, but of the greenhouse gases that we can control our emission of, (water vapour aside for the moment) CO2 is the one that is rising exponentially in an alarming fashion (to invoke the hockey-stick graph ... which itself is open to debate). And bear in mind that as the oceans warm up, they release more CO2 (as they're CO2 sinks); so there comes a point when you have to explore the chicken-and-egg aspect of the man-made global warming assertions.
As Wooglin noted, water vapour is the most significant factor in the greenhouse effect. Recall the hockey stick graph: around the 1970s, the amount of CO2 spiked. Now, consider this hypothesis that has been getting more attention lately as we struggle to truly understand global warming. It is merely a hypothesis and I haven't looked into it in any real detail, but just to throw it out for discussion. It is a very interesting theory, I think.
In the 1970s, the airline industry expanded explosively (due to the introduction of the DC-10, 747, and many other factors) and, as such, there was a significant increase in the amount of jet aircraft in the skies. The vast majority of aircraft on long-haul flights tend to leave a contrail behind them. What is a contrail? Water vapour of course. Humanity, through flight technology, has been adding more water vapour to the atmosphere each year for the last forty years. With water vapour being the most significant greenhouse gas, the increased amount of it being generated by jet aircraft is contributing substantially to man-made global warming. Because it has warmed the globe, the oceans have heated up. As the oceans heat up, they lose their ability to retain CO2 (known fact; not hypothesis), resulting in a significant rise in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as a side-effect of water vapour induced man-made global warming. Essentially, we're fixated on CO2 being the cause of global warming, and have ignored the water vapour being contributed by the use of jet engines in the massive airline industry.
Whether the hypothesis holds any basis is something that requires further investigation by the necessary experts (it is certianly very plausible sounding at face value). That said, there is one very true thing contained within the hypothesis: we're ignoring the most significant GHG in the mainstream global warming theory.
Last edited by Scott; 02 Jun 08, at 00:48.
Scott,
Whether co2 or water vapor, the key signature still is, quite necessarily, the increased warming of the troposphere. It should be warming faster than surface temps. As shown above, and in other studies, it has not. So while it's an interesting alternate theory, the key signature to support such a theory is still missing.
) i said the same thing to a guy who told me why i should be religious.
cheers
i bow to the greatness of the v-8I think, we, the United States, should take sole credit for keeping the earth warm and averting another ice age by introducing the SUV.
[QUOTE=Helium;494480]
Heres good ol' Wallys credentials
His credentials sound pretty good to me.
I will bet we would be better off following "good ol' Wally's" credentials than yours though huh? What do you know? What are your credentials?
Wally is allowed to interpret data, is he not? And I would bet he's a better speller than you.
Why do you call your self helium...Hmmm...Helium is put in balloons to make them float...Hmmm...Hot air is also put in balloons to make them float.
Could there be a correlation here?
Sincerely, Wally
The much bigger picture is that when solar activity increases water heats up, when water heats up airborne humidity/water vapor enters the atmosphere.
The carbon spike can be accounted for as you mentioned when the ocean heats up, it releases more C02, but also the flora of earth grows more and sheds biodegradable matter that then heats up and in the process of biodegrading produces methane and releases C02.
When the flora increases in abundance so goes the fauna. When animals eat the new flora they convert it to a heap of steaming biomass and their flatulence produces methane and C02. A healthy world produces lots of C02 and methane whether we are here or not.
One period of earths history, (the cretaceous period) was punctuated by abundant flora and fauna caused by global warming via the sun. Most of the earths land surface was teaming with plants and animals along with high amounts of methane and C02 produce. Huge quantities of natural biomass caused by a warm wet earth in turn fertilized the plant life and as a result. C is also a fertilizer for plant life to thrive. The sun is a catalyst of natural C production and not the other way around. The average temperature was eight degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it is now and the earth was teaming with life.
The windfall of a warm globe was dashed by global cooling/ice age and the result was a catastrophe of a world wide scale.
Wally
Anyone noticed that no one is talking about saving the planet and reduce "carbon footprint" now there's an economic downturn?
Global demand for fossil fuel is probably down, hence the huge drop in oil price. OPEC is talking about reducing production to keep the price up.
I think, we, the United States, should take sole credit for saving the planet once again by reducing the entire planet's "carbon footprint."
First we rescue the planet from a possible onset of the next ice age. Now we stop global warming dead in its tracks.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Two things: Firstly, what was supposed to be a meeting on global warming in Brussels (the meeting that is) instead is a meeting about the 'impending global economic meltdown'.
Secondly, how has that wee chappie who was going to paddle his canoe all the way to the north pole got on? Is he there yet?
Two things: Firstly, what was supposed to be a meeting on global warming in Brussels (the meeting that is) instead is a meeting about the 'impending global economic meltdown'.
Secondly, how has that wee chappie who was going to paddle his canoe all the way to the north pole got on? Is he there yet?
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories." Thomas Jefferson
Allow myself to quote...myself...I think, we, the United States, should take sole credit for keeping the earth warm and averting another ice age by introducing the SUV.
We, the United States, should take sole credit for rescuing the planet once again.
This time, we used our vast clout in global financial market to throttle down the global economy. Slower economic activity means less energy demand. Less energy demand means lower fossil fuel consumption. Lower fossil fuel consumption means smaller "carbon footprint."
The world owes us. We beat the Nazis. We beat the Soviets. We beat the Ice Age. And we will beat "global warming."
As usual, we get blamed for saving the planet. But I guess that's the cross we have to bear for the sins of the planet.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: