Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

  • Thread starter ZAGGIN
  • 3,644 comments
  • 221,500 views

Which of the following statements best reflects your views on Global Warming?


  • Total voters
    497
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49329

A prominent Canadian scientist has defied the conventional wisdom on global warming by proposing stars, not greenhouse gases, as the primary catalyst for climate change.

University of Ottawa science professor Jan Veizer says high-energy cosmic rays, originating from stars across the expanse of space, are hitting Earth's atmosphere in ways that cause the planet to cycle through warm and cold periods.

Veizer's politically loaded theory appeared in "Geoscience Canada" last year and is generating debate on the causes of climate change within the scientific community.

That cosmic rays strike Earth has long been known – NASA spends considerable effort shielding astronauts in space from them. What's different now is that more researchers are looking at their effect on the atmosphere and asking how they might be influencing the weather.

In 2004, the British science journal "Proceedings of the Royal Society" published a new theory claiming cosmic rays "unambiguously" affect Earth's climate, in particular, by forming clouds. Current research at Florida Tech and the University of Florida is aimed at determining whether cosmic rays trigger the release of lightning from charged thunderclouds. In 2003, NASA and University of Kansas researchers claimed to have traced the effect of cosmic radiation on climate and organisms across millions of years of fossil history.

In explaining the mechanism for a "celestial climate driver," the professor says cosmic rays hit gas molecules in the atmosphere, forming the nucleus of what becomes water vapor. The resulting clouds reflect more of the sun's energy back into space and leave Earth the cooler for it.

During times when more cosmic rays are striking the atmosphere, Earth is cooler. A dearth of rays results in climatic warming.

Veizer argues that Earth has cycled between warm and cold periods many times as our solar system has traveled through different parts of the galaxy. Younger stars give off most of the rays striking Earth's atmosphere.

He notes the plausibility of the sun's increased intensity, rather than an increase in carbon dioxide, being the primary cause for Earth's warming by one degree over the past century.

"Empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as the principal driver of climate," Veizer wrote in his paper, "with greenhouse gases acting only as potential amplifiers."


OH NO! Somehow, using gasoline on earth has angered the cosmos!

Another block buster movie plot?
 
:lol:

Well who knows that might be the reason for the warming.

I did know that earth went through warm and cold cycles every once in a while though.
 
Hey, speaking of this "death of the sun" making an awesome movie, the National Geographic Channel is going to have a special on about a hypothecical situation of this happening. I forget when it is, I think it'll air in early April. I just thought it was ironic how I was just theorizing about it, then National Geographic comes along to answer my questions, or give me more to ponder. That always seemed to happen back in my history classes, too, with the History Channel. Isn't that weird? I can't wait to watch it, but I'll probably forget.
 
Well, it's either cosmic rays or a variable sun that caused the ice ages... or algal bloom... or... damn... I'm running out of oars. :lol:

It's an interesting theory, though.
 
keef
Hey, speaking of this "death of the sun" making an awesome movie, the National Geographic Channel is going to have a special on about a hypothecical situation of this happening. I forget when it is, I think it'll air in early April. I just thought it was ironic how I was just theorizing about it, then National Geographic comes along to answer my questions, or give me more to ponder. That always seemed to happen back in my history classes, too, with the History Channel. Isn't that weird? I can't wait to watch it, but I'll probably forget.

Im sure that movie of National Geographic is going to give viewers more questions than answers, like other movies trying to explain scientific stuff :lol:
 
Can someone explain why Kentucky is getting temperatures 20-30 degrees below normal this spring?

Wait, we don't freak out when the temperature is abnormally cold for long periods at a time.

I forgot, sorry.
 
FoolKiller
Can someone explain why Kentucky is getting temperatures 20-30 degrees below normal this spring?

Okay: Because unusual weather patterns conform perfectly to the global warming climate models.
 
Zardoz
Okay: Because unusual weather patterns conform perfectly to the global warming climate models.
How do global warming models explain me cleaning snow off my car this morning when average highs are 69 degrees?
 
Zardoz
Come again? Your snow doesn't melt? What are you talking about?
You posted an article about Inuits being concerned about an unusually warm year. They are blaming global warming.


I am currently experiencing an unusually cold March. In fact I had an incredibly mild summer last year. What should I blame for this?


See, I am contrasting your Inuit situation with my own. Much in teh same way that I did back in teh fall when they protested during record cold temperatures in Texas, where I even linked photos of a girl cleaning seven inches of snow off of her car.


Maybe the poles are switching or something really weird.
 
FoolKiller
...I am currently experiencing an unusually cold March...

How quickly we forget:

NOAA REPORTS RECORD WARM JANUARY ACROSS THE U.S.


FoolKiller
Maybe the poles are switching or something really weird.

Maybe we 6,500,000,000 foresight-challenged hairless chimps are not going to get away with overpopulating this planet and pouring 120 million years worth of carbon accumulation back into the atmosphere in less than 100 years.
 
The poles to switch, actually, it's a natural process but I don't remember how long it is between cycles. Wierd stuff happens during this period.
Sure, the winter did suck this year in Ohio, not much snow at all. But it's anow March, and it's still snowing. Spring break is going to be pretty cold. I always thought it was in the 60s during spring break at the begining of April? I think it's more like "Global Averaging" than global warming. It's warm at the poles, but it's staying cold here.
 
FoolKiller
How do global warming models explain me cleaning snow off my car this morning when average highs are 69 degrees?

How about El Nino? Ring a bell? La Nina?

Abnormal weather patterns are all caused by global warming. It does not have to be record-hot to be abnormal. Why is El Nino increasing in strength every time it appears? Why was it raining like mad in Europe for the past few summers?

In Vancouver, we have been getting record rainfall this year. Especially January. Many think its the climate change is the culprit. We have unusually warm winter, also. It only snowed twice this winter, and both for only 5-10cm, while in some parts of Canada they report record snowfall and chilly temperatures. Global warming's effect.

So its not limited to just warming up a few degrees.
 
Everyone has kind of hit on the point I was trying to make. Part of it is that weather does weird stuff. Go back through old news stories for more than 100 years and you will find out of the ordinary weather all over the place. It happens. Why? We don't really know, we try to blame global warming and prove it with climate models, despite the fact that any climate specialist with an ounce of honesty in him will tell you that we have created a computer powerful enough to model global climate.

Maybe it is a simple case of chaose theory. Some guy in Argentina (why not?) had a sneezing fit and threw everything off for a year.

My point is you cannot take individual warming scenarios and say it is due to global warming, especially when other areas are experiencing the opposite at the same time. I remember while I was having near record (didn't break any here) temperatures in January I saw pictures of other areas with snow piled higher than the people. Some places had record highs while others had record lows.

Is every major weather event now an effect of global warming or is the climate doing what it always has, being unpredictable? You can make as many assumptions as you want, but you cannot prove global warming is causing every out of the ordinary weather event.

And then you cannot assume global warming is an effect of man. We don't have weather data that goes far enough back to show anything long term. You would say that we should be safe in the hopes of creating a better life for future generation, yet to meet the proposed plans would cripple entire economies. What if you are wrong? "Here you go son. You have a hot planet and no affordable technology to make it comfortable to live in. We did it all for you."

Say we followed Kyoto, or stricter, protocols and it didn't have a climatic effect but our economies began to suffer. Zardoz, you have another thread about an oil shortage. What if you are right about that and wrong about this? We cripple our economies, find out it doesn't work, and then have no cheap, readily available source of energy to help us rebuild.

That, my friends, is a doomsday scenario just as horrible as the ones every environmental alarmist brings up.
 
FoolKiller
Zardoz, you have another thread about an oil shortage. What if you are right about that and wrong about this? We cripple our economies, find out it doesn't work, and then have no cheap, readily available source of energy to help us rebuild.


You lost me completely here. I don't get what you're saying. Please clarify.
 
Zardoz
You lost me completely here. I don't get what you're saying. Please clarify.
You have another thread devoted to the possibility of us running out of oil. Correct?
In this thread you support the idea of humans causing global warming.

What I am saying is that if you are wrong about global warming (aka it isn't caused by human action) but you are right about the oil supply and we follow a process to "stop" the theorized manmade global warming we will be screwed.

Let me explain:

Following the Kyoto protocol, or something strict enough to actually affect change, would cripple economies. The cost to western economies would be tremendous and set us back decades. By the time we realize that global warming isn't man-made we will be out of oil, based on your posts in your other thread.

Economies would be crippled to a degree that technological advances toward a new fuel source would be very slow developing and without oil there is no readily available and cheap source of fuel to spur economic growth back. In fact, the lack of oil will only cripple economies more.

Did I lay it out better?
 
FoolKiller
...Economies would be crippled to a degree that technological advances toward a new fuel source would be very slow developing and without oil there is no readily available and cheap source of fuel to spur economic growth back. In fact, the lack of oil will only cripple economies more.

Did I lay it out better?

Yes. Thank you.

You're assuming, then, that taking steps significant enough to stop, and then reverse, the effects on the biosphere that we monkey-men are inducing would essentially bring economic activity on this planet pretty much to its knees?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I've ever said anything to the contrary. I agree with that, and with those who say Kyoto is actually a charade because full compliance by all nations would barely have an effect. We would have to go way, way beyond Kyoto to actually do anything good.

Don't bother digging through my posts. I can tell you with virtual 100% certainty that I've only harped on the point that we so-called "intelligent" hominids are soiling our nest big-time and causing damage to the atmosphere that is already having significant effects, all of which seem to be getting more serious at a rate of increase that few anticipated.

I really don't think I've ever said that there is actually anything we can do about it now. I've pretty much joined the ever-growing ranks of those who have come to the conclusion that we are way past the point of being able to turn things around. There is simply no chance that we can get six-and-a-half billion knuckle-dragging TV game show fans to change their ways. Behavior modification on that scale? Not the slightest ghost of a chance!

The only point I'm making is that those who keep insisting that this is some sort of natural, cyclical process are in deep denial of our collective complicity in what could easily turn out to be our own destruction.

Have I ever said that there's actually something we can do about it? I don't recall ever trying to advance that point. I'm so discouraged by the fact that the population of this little marble is continuing its insane, unabated rapid growth that I don't see how we can get out of this. There will be NINE BILLION of us by 2045! That just won't fly, folks. That is not going to work.

I keep bringing him up, but that's what Mister Negative, The Master of Disaster, The DoomMeister-In-Chief, Dr. James E. Lovelock concluded last year and wrote about in January. By his calculations, there's no realistic chance that we're going to be able to stop the processes we've put in place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock

This old boy is no lightweight. He's a major figure in science, so his opinions are not so easy to dismiss with a wisecrack and a wave of the hand. Scroll down to the paragraph on "Mass Human Extinction". I've read that he didn't make these statements as some sort of desperate attempt to get people's attention about how dire things "might" get. He's convinced that this is where we're going.

Once again, it's all about the "tipping points" and "positive feedback" mechanisms that enhance the ill effects of environmental factors. We're starting to understand them better now, and their effects may be far greater than the conventional wisdom made them out to be in the past. It appears that Lovelock has re-calculated, using the new knowledge of them, and has revised his conclusion to "Game Over".

(BTW, here's more of an explanation of his earth-as-superorganism theory, which a writer friend of his suggested that he name "Gaia" after the Earth Goddess of ancient Greece: http://www.kheper.net/topics/Gaia/Gaia_Hypothesis.htm )

The idea has been advanced that our running short of oil will actually be a good thing, because the reduced hydrocarbon burning will help turn around the climate change problem. Not so. We all know what we're going to be burning and gasifying and liquefying instead, don't we? That's right: Coal. Dirty, filthy, coal. It will only exacerbate the problem that much more.

In the "Universe Train" thread we talked a bit about the late Carl Sagan and his opinion that there is little chance that we'll actually make contact with any other intelligent life form. One of the main reasons for his pessimism was that he felt it is likely that life forms that develop enough intelligence to create technological civilizations do not survive for very long after they achieve it. Using us as an example, he concluded that it's quite possible that most species wipe themselves out shortly after they gain enough knowledge to do it! Keep in mind that we Crowns Of Creation at one time had a stockpile of over 55,000 thermonuclear devices piled up and ready to use on ourselves, so its easy to see how Sagan came to that conclusion.

Will Lovelock and Sagan be proved correct? I won't live long enough to find out, but there are quite a few of you lurking around this forum who will. You'll be around when everybody will be getting a pretty fair indication of whether or not they were right. I'd say we'll know for sure in about fifty years. I sure hope those of you who are still kicking will look back and say "Ha, those old geeks Sagan and Lovelock were full of crap! It's all good!"

I sure hope so.
 
Zardoz
Yes. Thank you.

You're assuming, then, that taking steps significant enough to stop, and then reverse, the effects on the biosphere that we monkey-men are inducing would essentially bring economic activity on this planet pretty much to its knees?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I've ever said anything to the contrary. I agree with that, and with those who say Kyoto is actually a charade because full compliance by all nations would barely have an effect. We would have to go way, way beyond Kyoto to actually do anything good.

Don't bother digging through my posts. I can tell you with virtual 100% percent certainty that I've only harped on the point that we so-called "intelligent" hominids are soiling our nest big-time and causing damage to the atmosphere that is already having significant effects, all of which seem to be getting more serious at a rate of increase that few anticipated.

I really don't think I've ever said that there is actually anything we can do about it now. I've pretty much joined the ever-growing ranks of those who have come to the conclusion that we are way past the point of being able to turn things around. There is simply no chance that we can get six-and-a-half billion knuckle-dragging TV game show fans to change their ways. Behavior modification on that scale? Not the slightest ghost of a chance!
I think that I just assumed you thought we could affect change by the fact that you went on about global warming. You sound so much like my brother on this subject that I think you two are just alike. I mean, he is the guy who bought a Prius because he is "helping the environment" and thinks that if we all switched it would be enough to create change.


Knowing where you stand on this now I must ask; What use is all the alarmism? You have just said that even if we all accepted or believed we were responsible for global warming that we couldn't change it now, so why bother?

The true paradox is that if you could create behavior modification on a worldwide scale by the time it would be effective we would be in such a dark age that we woudl have forgotten why we were living like we were and would return to the old ways. The only hope is an alternative fuel source that allows us to continue living the way we are. Truly concerned environmentalists should work to stop NIMBYism and encourage scientific advancement as quickly as possible. That is something that I would support (and probably Danoff as well). I could care less about the environmental improvements as long as we are improving our lives in general and allowing ourselves to move forward in a growing economy.
 
FoolKiller
I think that I just assumed you thought we could affect change by the fact that you went on about global warming...Knowing where you stand on this now I must ask; What use is all the alarmism? You have just said that even if we all accepted or believed we were responsible for global warming that we couldn't change it now, so why bother?

Yeah, that's true I guess. My annoyance with those who deny what is happening has been a motivation, but I think that's fading as the enormity of the problem becomes more apparent and resignation sets in.

The scope of it all defies solutions. Any improvements we try to make in emissions will be pretty much negated by the exploding population and the resultant general overall increase. All the big issues we'll be facing soon have arisen because of the population increase. That's the root cause of them all, of course.

FoolKiller
The only hope is an alternative fuel source that allows us to continue living the way we are.

We see it every day, up there in the sky, shining brightly. They say we're going to see some mind-boggling advances in solar in the near future, mostly due to nanotechnology. They can't get here too soon, can they?

EDIT:

But they can certainly get here too late. This is why I'm getting resigned to it. We're starting to see stories like this damned near every day. Things are moving so fast now it genuinely looks like there won't be anything we can do about it:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/03/polar_melting_m.html#more
 
Zardoz
But they can certainly get here too late. This is why I'm getting resigned to it. We're starting to see stories like this damned near every day. Things are moving so fast now it genuinely looks like there won't be anything we can do about it:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/03/polar_melting_m.html#more
Just because I love to debate a point.

What I have taken from that article is: It has happened before. Wait... 💡 There it is.

They are showing things from 130,000 years ago to say what could happen in the future. The only difference is that they are saying we did it this time. Many creatures that we know today survived then. Our own ape ancestors (if you believe in evolution) survived it.

Then, the two studies use historical data only (or they left stuff out of the report) and then went on to talk about how the studies show greenhouse gas increases are warming the arctic. Based on historical 100,000+ year old data they can tell that? Is that because they saw the same thing happen then, before men even knew what fire was, or existed for that matter? Because if they showed low greenhouse gases in their historical data then the correlation doesn't work.

So, what made greenhouse gases go up then?


Of course, your article also had a link to this article:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/03/21/solar-warming/
It discusses solar radiation having a large role in global warming.
We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming.
 
FoolKiller
...So, what made greenhouse gases go up then?...

They didn't.

"The difference 130,000 years ago is that there was an increase in solar radiation over the Arctic, caused by slight changes in the Earth-Sun orbit, which is a normal cycle that occur over tens of thousands of years. This time around the warming is man-made, caused by carbon dioxide emissions, but the effects on Arctic sea ice, permafrost, and icefields are forecast to be similar."

All they're saying is that this sort of temp rise will melt both the Arctic and Antarctic, and produce the big sea level rise.

Here's another take on it:

Little time to avoid big thaw, scientists warn

Yet another surprised enviro-scientist:

Ice on Greenland and Antarctica is already thinning faster than it's being replaced - and faster than scientists thought it would, notes Richard Alley, a paleoclimatologist at Penn State University and member of one of the research teams. Only five years ago, he notes, climate scientists expected the ice sheets to gain mass through 2100, then begin to melt. "We're now 100 years ahead of schedule," he says.

Pardon the cliche, but "the future" is now.

Almost nobody expected all this to be going on so soon, but like I mentioned before, there has apparently been a tiny minority of climate researchers who have been very nervous that all the models were way optimistic. They haven't made a lot of noise for fear of being written off as extremists. They don't have to worry about that any more.

(Meanwhile, I mentioned coal in a previous post. This what I'm talking about:

Carbon cloud over a green fuel

Give us a break... )
 
Zardoz
They didn't.

"The difference 130,000 years ago is that there was an increase in solar radiation over the Arctic, caused by slight changes in the Earth-Sun orbit, which is a normal cycle that occur over tens of thousands of years. This time around the warming is man-made, caused by carbon dioxide emissions, but the effects on Arctic sea ice, permafrost, and icefields are forecast to be similar."

No, no, no, no, no, no, NO. There is absolutely no evidence to support this position, and the fact that mankind's carbon dioxide emissions number in the low single-digits of percentage of the world's total also escapes them.

I also find it amusing that they refer to the "normal cycle" of changes in the "Earth-Sun orbit" which occur over "tens of thousands of years", yet don't think that we're in a hot phase right now. Perhaps 130,000 years isn't "tens of thousand of years" enough for them.
 
Famine
No, no, no, no, no, no, NO. There is absolutely no evidence to support this position...

Whatever you say, but why do so many very intelligent, very-highly-educated, well-trained, greatly-experienced, dedicated professional scientists completely disagree with you?

You know how much of a minority you're in. How can all those who are convinced otherwise be so wrong? You know how many really smart pros we're talking about. What's their problem?

You also know how rapidly the climate is changing, and it has never changed with anything remotely approaching this speed before. Do you really think that the fact that it's happening just after we've dumped hundreds of millions of years' worth of carbon formation into the air in a few decades is just a coincidence?
 
Maybe we should build solar power stations using only solar and nuclear power and in the consruction process, then we could erect these solar plants with solar-powered electric tools that were built using only renewable sources for energy. We could then use the power from these solar stations that were created using only solar power to build and run machines that are created using solar power that somehow extract all the carbon dioxide from the air, seperate the carbon, then we could start building cars from carbon fiber because we'd have tons of laying around. But we'd have to use energy only from solar stations to make the carbon fiber that we'd use to make cars and even more solar stations. Onse we get enough of these solar stations we could start disassembling all the coal stations and use their brinks for something else. Then once we have all solar stations and have sucked all the carbon out of the air, but not too much so plants don't die, we could be like "WTF we gonna do wit all dis carbon?" So then when we have all this carbon laying around and we build cars that don't don't have any emission and we get rid of all the things that do, we wouldn't have any corbon dioxide left and all the plants would die, but that would give us more carbon once they decompose and we'd be swimming in carbon and the world would suck. SO we'd have to start dumping it in the oceans and killing fish and we might have to start burning all the carbon to get rid of it but then we'd hav more carbon dioxide and we'd be right back where we were and the world would suck even more because we had all this technology and it didn't do us no good.

EDIT: Sorry, looks like my idiot friend got online and started messing with your heads. He's not too good at writing an easily understood sentence and he tends to drag then on without the proper punctuation. But I do think capturing carbon back from the air is a good idea, though I have no idea how to do it but what he said^. So do you guys think he's as dumb as I think he is? Or is he on to something?
 
Zardoz
You also know how rapidly the climate is changing, and it has never changed with anything remotely approaching this speed before.
I assume you are not talking about polar shifts, giant meteor collisions, and super volcano eruptions. Most of those change the climate over night.

Do you really think that the fact that it's happening just after we've dumped hundreds of millions of years' worth of carbon formation into the air in a few decades is just a coincidence?
Last estimate I heard had humans at 2% of natural CO2 production. If that is correct then it would take us roughly 5 billion years, at the current rate, to produce hundreds of millions of years worth.
 
FoolKiller
Last estimate I heard had humans at 2% of natural CO2 production. If that is correct then it would take us roughly 5 billion years, at the current rate, to produce hundreds of millions of years worth.

We've burned over a trillion barrels of crude oil in about 80 years or so. How long do you think it took for that oil to be created?

I don't even know how to quantify the natural gas we've burned. I'll try to find out how many quadzillion cubic meters we've gone through so far.

Meanwhile, here's some more data from the U.S. Department of Energy that you can disregard:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

Levels of several important greenhouse gases have increased by about 25 percent since large-scale industrialization began around 150 years ago (Figure 1). During the past 20 years, about three-quarters of human-made carbon dioxide emissions were from burning fossil fuels.

That first chart on CO2 is from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, so of course you can dismiss it out of hand. Certainly you guys are a lot smarter than those folks.

Good night...
 
We seriously have to do something....

Its obvious that the warming is partially caused by us burning so many million barrels of oil every day.
 
Zardoz
Whatever you say, but why do so many very intelligent, very-highly-educated, well-trained, greatly-experienced, dedicated professional scientists completely disagree with you?

I don't know. Ask them.

While you're at it, ask the ones who disagree with me on cold fusion and MMR causing autism why they do.


Zardoz
You know how much of a minority you're in.

No, I'm not. The minority of the scientific community is the "Humans cause global warming" collective.

There is NO evidence that supports the position that humans cause global warming. That said, there's not an awful lot of ANY evidence which says what does cause it - and our contributions to the gases thought to be responsible are so staggeringly minute to be not statistically significant.


Zardoz
You also know how rapidly the climate is changing

Not really, no.

Zardoz
and it has never changed with anything remotely approaching this speed before.

You mean it's fast or slow?

Because the Devonian Extinction was a pretty fast climate change, and the last 100,000 years has been pretty slow.


Zardoz
Do you really think that the fact that it's happening just after we've dumped hundreds of millions of years' worth of carbon formation into the air in a few decades is just a coincidence?

And that hundreds of millions of years' worth of carbon formation added 2.5% to the global carbon load.

Woo. The Amazon rainforest adds twice that on its own.
 
Back