Another blow to human caused GW.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Mar 7 2007, 08:53 AM) [snapback]401709[/snapback]</div>

You amuse me. You completely missed my point. You and a few others in here REGULARLY provide little in the way of positive information and rely mostly on critisism. I am oberserving trends here, not commenting in any way that your views on global warming make you a good or bad person or that being a critic makes you a bad person. Simply an observation and most advice I've seen regarding leadership is you should not waste too much energy on these types of people. You should not ignore them either.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 7 2007, 04:55 AM) [snapback]401531[/snapback]</div>

I find it particularly interesting that humanity is pouring carbon that took millions of years to sequester from the environment back into the environment in about 0.00025 percent of the time and few, if any, seem concerned about that and the effect that it has. Finger pointing is an easy means to avoid the truth.

 

From the first link Wildkow posted, the skeptic refutes his own theory. He claims that the normal fluctuations in the the sun contribute to our current GW event. But then goes on to say that "The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

If the latter part of his theory is correct, in that levels of irradiance began to drop in the 90's, why is it that it was subsequent the 90's that we recorded the hottest temperatures ever on planet earth?

Can anyone explain this contradiction?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Mar 7 2007, 09:04 AM) [snapback]401718[/snapback]</div>

We are all doomed!
The supposed holy grail of energy use – Fuel Cells – apparently emits a major greenhouse gas? :huh:

Oh great and wise one - darelldd - show us how to do better!
http://priuschat.com/index.php?s=&show...st&p=341087

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Mar 7 2007, 09:04 AM) [snapback]401718[/snapback]</div>

Mirza,
Get with the program . . . you need to mend your ways.
You are giving someone the green light to continue spouting hot greenhouse gases. :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Mar 7 2007, 11:03 AM) [snapback]401813[/snapback]</div>

Be careful with that part. From a scientific standpoint that would be incorrect and if we are to play this game with these guys we must not stoop to overgeneralizations and stick with scientific "facts" and not hyperbole.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Mar 7 2007, 10:14 AM) [snapback]401771[/snapback]</div>

This is sheer prejudice (as is any belief (including mine)).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Mar 7 2007, 10:14 AM) [snapback]401771[/snapback]</div>

Skepticism is rule #1 of good science; this is a great start. Rule #2 of good science is trying to disprove the hypothesis. Your hypothesis is that man's environmental impacts cannot affect someting so vast as climate cycles. Look for things that disprove that hypothesis. Rule #3 is to try to avoid letting prejudice interfere with how honestly you fulfill rule #2. Since you cited your prejudice FIRST in your itemization of how you regard the global warming issue, it may have excessive influence on how rigorously you're applying rule #2.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Mar 7 2007, 10:14 AM) [snapback]401771[/snapback]</div>

This somewhat undercuts your hypothesis that man's environmental impacts have limited effect; you grant that some environmental impacts caused by man ARE detrimental. Where do you think the scope of such effects become so large they are beyond man's ability? A city can be ozone saturated by industrial emissions but a country can't be? A sea can be overfished but an ocean can't? Your denial that man's effects are global implies a line in the sand somewhere man is incapable of crossing. Where have you drawn that line?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Mar 7 2007, 10:14 AM) [snapback]401771[/snapback]</div>

This is just propaganistic rubbish. I respect your 2nd and 3rd positions: they are intellectually defensible. Throwing in your 4th here only injures your position. It contributes nothing to your argument; all it does is raise the rancor temperature. And the world's hot enough already!

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Mar 7 2007, 11:56 AM) [snapback]401841[/snapback]</div>

I hate it when you post something I wish I had posted!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 7 2007, 04:55 AM) [snapback]401531[/snapback]</div>

ooooh, a whole ONE scientist?

damn, yep you win.

oh wait, how about this.

me, i'm ONE scientist too. is my singular opinion valid for the complete debunking of a well-backed scientific theory as well? oh, the self-empowerment! maybe i'll take on gravity... that theory has bothered me for years...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Mar 7 2007, 07:22 AM) [snapback]401633[/snapback]</div>

This is a really interesting piece to the story. During the rise of the industrial revolution, pollution in the form of dirty particles getting spewed out all over the place was unregulated. These dirty particles attract moisture and form clouds, which eventually create rain. The rain, then, contains the pollution particles that seeded the clouds in the first place. This is called "acid rain" due to the acidic content of the pollution particles. In the 70s there was a big push to regulate pollution because of the environmental damage the acid rain was doing (killing fish and such) and all the smog it was creating. So they did things like adding filters to the industrial smokestacks to keep those particles from getting released, which is great and the fish are happy and we can finally see the mountains again around Los Angeles.

So what does all this have to do with global warming?

A side-effect of all those dirty particles in the atmosphere is that they helped block the incoming solar radiation, which then helped to cool the planet ("global dimming"). So we've had a steady rise in greenhouse gases - a warming effect - that was offset in the middle of the 20th century by unregulated particulate pollution - a cooling effect - which essentially balanced each other out. Then we greatly reduced the cooling effect in the 70s, without reducing the warming effect, and bingo! We see the temperature rising again.

 

Edited for brevity.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Mar 7 2007, 11:14 AM) [snapback]401771[/snapback]</div>

And for you to avoid your own hypocrisy, perhaps you'd be willing to reject, along with anthropogenic global warming, all the other results of the scientific method: Microwave ovens, eye glasses, teflon coated pans, home insulation, computers, modern medicine... Without science, we'd still think the sun orbited the earth.

Will everyone who "doesn't believe" in man-made global warming please, for the sake of their own consistency, reject all other science?

It's simultaneously amusing and disturbing to see people embrace the polio vaccine, then reject man-made global warming. Accept jet travel, but reject evolution. Science doesn't accept or reject conclusions based on how people feel, and for a very good reason. It took decades for the scientific community to come to a consensus on global warming, but the fact that it has should be as acceptable to the public as any other scientific conclusion.

 

Wildkow,

You really need to take a look at your own links... your reading comprehension is showing.

And no one (specifically denialists) bothered to take a look at the realclimate link that discussed the Mars topic. Let me clue some in one who we are talking about:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10

Also, one of their previous authors held a position on NASA studying no other than the climate systems of other planets.

Furthermore, I posted an article about greenhouse gases... but since denialists are far more interested in being contrarians, this seems to be way over their heads.