Man Based Global Warming....

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by dbermanmd, Dec 22, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. icarus

    icarus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    4,884
    969
    0
    Location:
    earth
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Just saying no, don't make it so!

    If wishes were horses, then paupers would ride!

    Merry Christmas to all,

    Icarus
     
  2. donee

    donee New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    2,956
    194
    0
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    III
    Hi Tim Bikes,,

    In the 1910's to 1940's was the golden age of the steam train and steam ship. Steam trains in particular are less than 10 % efficient versus about 40% for a Diesel-electric locomotive. Similarly, trucks switched over to turbo-diesels in this time frame. Also, there was WW I and WW II during the 1910's and late 30's and first half of the 40's. Both wars unleashed massive amounts of CO2.

    On the 1940s to 80s you had lack of polution controls on land vehicles and power plants. The result was allot of particulate polution. Do a google of Nova and Global Dimming. Watch the show.
     
  3. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Although your argument may seem logical on the surface, I have heard it before and have never seen any peer reviewed studies that confirm it. The basic problem is there is not any established scientific record for atmospheric particulate (aerosols) over the 20th century. And though one could argue that pollution controls in the US (and Europe) had the effect of reducing particulate during the post 1970 period (thus presumably decreasing global dimming), it ignores the fact that many other rising economies of the period likely took up the "particulate slack". Think Taiwan, Korea, Mexico, the East Block, India, China, etc.

    That is not to say particulate matter would not have an effect on climate. It most probably does and global dimming is most probably taking place. But your argument that particulate increases drove the temperature dips of the 20th century and particulate decreases enabled the temperature increases is highly speculative at best, given the lack of scientific measurements for atmospheric particulate for the 20th Century and the very likely scenario that 3rd world countries offset whatever particulate reductions the US and Europe achieved during this period.

    Lastly, if as you suggest both wars (including WWII) unleashed massive amounts of CO2, why did temperatures plunge immediately after WWII instead of rising?
     
  4. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Note how contrarians use either very small or very large scales to argue that climate change is not real. Use the appropriate scale. The temperature trend for the past few thousands of years.

    Also, to say that "BUT I (along with thousands of other credible scientists, climatologists, and weather experts) don't believe in AGW...." would be contrary to reality. You can choose to not believe in climate change but it would be contrary to the scientific consensus. Consider this:

    There has not been a single paper published in a peer-reviewed journal of quality that argues that either that a) climate change is not real, or b) it is not caused by human activity.

    BTW,

    Inhofe's list doesn't count.
    McIntyre's corrections even if correct are minimal and only pertain to one set of data.
     
  5. malorn

    malorn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    4,281
    59
    0
    Location:
    "Somewhere in Flyover Country"
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    I thought I read that McIntyre's corrections were correct and that the hockey stick was incorrect.
     
  6. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    That's misinformation working on you. The conclusion after reviewing McIntyre's argument was that even if true the correction is insubstantial. Although not a scientific term a hockey stick shape exists on all global temperature graphs covering the past few thousand years.

    Not only the one McIntyre's addresses but many others stand alone sets of data. Look at the last graph I posted which includes 16 data sets. All with hockey sticks.

    [​IMG]
     
  7. Mjolinor

    Mjolinor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    229
    4
    0
    Location:
    Greece
    Vehicle:
    2002 Prius
    Number of papers available on any subject is directly proportional to the amount of money for free, available for that subject area.

    I don't think I have ever seen any funding for research into non global warming caused by human activity, or is that global warming caused by human inactivity? :)
     
  8. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    There is nothing more rewarding to a scientist than proving others wrong. That is how science works. If any climate scientist had a solid argument against AGW you would hear it immediately.

    There is also this:

    http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

    I don't think contrarians would have a problem getting funded.
     
  9. amped

    amped Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    3,892
    694
    0
    Location:
    Columbia River Gorge, Oregon
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    "2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved"

    FTA:...2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.


    2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved - Telegraph
     
  10. darelldd

    darelldd Prius is our Gas Guzzler

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    6,057
    383
    0
    Location:
    Northern CA
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    Yay! I finally learned something in this thread!
     
  11. darelldd

    darelldd Prius is our Gas Guzzler

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    6,057
    383
    0
    Location:
    Northern CA
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    Can somebody (anybody?) tell me what the story is behind this? I hear this in just about every discussion involving GCC. Is it a religious thing that I'm not familiar with?

    What is arrogant - INCREDIBLY arrogant - about thinking that we can screw up the earth's climate? Are there people bragging about this? About how powerful we humans are to be able to achieve this feat? Is anybody proud of the fact that it may be happening? What part about this is "arrogant?" Is it arrogant to think that we humans could be responsible for the loss of an untold number of plant and animal species from the face of the earth? Completely change the flow and course of huge, raging rivers? How about making giant holes out of once giant mountains (you know - the ones with coal in them)? How could it be arrogant to think that we can screw up the earth?! We're doing it every day in proven, verifiable ways. Sure climate is bigger than the things on my list - but is it not us humans changing the natural course of things here on earth? We have almost unlimited capacity to screw things up. Look! We can even control atoms enough to make gobs of power and bombs. There we are messing with nature again. I don't hear anybody is saying they're proud of screwing up the earth. And I see no way for this to be considered arrogant.

    Ah. And Dr. Berman "agrees totally." What a shock!

    So again... can anybody explain how this can be construed as arrogant?
     
  12. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    I disagree that people can't change the climate. One has only to look at a large city to see the urban heat island effect to understand that indeed humans can change climate on local scales. Or look at the massive production of aerosols (particulate) being pumped into the sky by China that is likely altering the regional climate of North America / the Arctic.

    As for CO2, it most likely is altering the global climate (causing a small degree of warming). However, I find no convincing empirical evidence that the increase is likely to exceed more than a fraction of a degree C per century, despite what the IPCC's dubious climate models propose.

    Certainly, it is highly unlikely that human produced CO2 is the primary climate driver as some of the more shrill voices would suggest. If you believe otherwise, you would have to have an awfully compelling explanation for the climate cooling from 1940-1980 during a period of massive increases in CO2 or the current period of flat to cooling temperatures - again - during a period of continued increases in CO2. Clearly, something else we have not yet identified is driving our climate. CO2 is playing a minor background role - a role insignificant enough that it cannot overcome these other, more important climate drivers.
     
  13. JSH

    JSH Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2007
    2,604
    136
    0
    Location:
    PDX
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Religious thing? no, I would say if anything it would be anti-religious. It is extremely arrogant to think that the human race matters. We are but one species among millions on earth. Earth is but one tiny mass in an universe so large we don't even know the limits. If we screw up the earth enough to kill off the human species life will still go on. The earth will still be here and continue to thrive. Dominate species come and go just like dominate empires have come and gone during the human species reign on earth.

    That Berman agrees with me is shocking. I think this is the only thing that he has ever agreed with me on. I don't agree with him that we should triple our energy consumption in the next 50 years. I think that we need to stabilize energy consumption and our number one effort should be in conservation. This is the easiest and least expensive way to meet our energy needs.

    I think that global warming is an end-around to get public support for things that aren't popular. With the threat that the world will end, some people will get on board for the serious changes required in our society. Caps on CO2 are really just caps on conventional energy. California is not trying to set caps on CO2 to prevent climate change but instead set fuel economy standards. However, the public doesn't want to hear that we should triple our fuel economy because we simply don't have enough oil. Similarly, no one wants to hear that the increase in severe forest fires is due to 100 years of fire suppression and humans moving into ecosystems that burn on a routine basis. Who wants to hear that the solution is to let their house burn down every couple of decades?
     
  14. hill

    hill High Fiber Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    17,122
    6,547
    54
    Location:
    South OC So Cal & Nashville, TN
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    IV
    Simple ... watch: Take the ever growing ocean dead zones, or the garbage vortex, the size of Texas, floating like an island between the U.S. & Hawaii for example:

    Great Pacific Garbage Patch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    [​IMG]

    Now, I know that some people will say eventually, the plankton will die, then bigger & bigger fish will die, and that it's a worldwide problem.


    "Isn't that arrogant, thinking we can effect the world that way?"

    See how easy?
     
  15. Mjolinor

    Mjolinor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    229
    4
    0
    Location:
    Greece
    Vehicle:
    2002 Prius
    Sadly probably not what you thought. Given the bear thing, you have to wonder how the Greeks knew about the bears. Further digging fails to reveal whether the with / without thing refers to the presence or lack of polar bears or to the ability to see / not see the great bear constellation.

    So go solve that one and educate me :)
     
  16. Mjolinor

    Mjolinor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    229
    4
    0
    Location:
    Greece
    Vehicle:
    2002 Prius
    Are you inferring here that humans are not natural? The way I see it humans cannot affect nature at all, everything we do is natural, we are part of it. How can we mess with nature, we are natural, everything we do is natural. You may as well say that a volcano erupting is messing with nature as it cools the planet, sets things on fire and kills animals.

    There is no denying this by using arguments like "sentient" and "civilised" as these words are defined by us anyway so can have no real meaning.
     
  17. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Let me see.

    1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is a demonstrated physical property.

    2. It's concentration is rising in the atmosphere like it hasn't in a very, very long time. Since much before humans existed.

    3. Temperature increases accordingly.

    If you have anything published that disputes this it would help. An argument from incredulity is not constructive.
     
  18. FL_Prius_Driver

    FL_Prius_Driver Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    4,319
    1,526
    0
    Location:
    Tampa Bay
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    I
    That view changes once you become a parent.
     
  19. Mjolinor

    Mjolinor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    229
    4
    0
    Location:
    Greece
    Vehicle:
    2002 Prius
    Maybe for you it did. :) Not I, in fact I can't begin to conceive why that should be the case. 5 billion supposedly sentient bipeds on one mudball amongst countless number, how could we ever be relevant and what would we be relevant to apart from ourselves which doesn't really count.
     
  20. icarus

    icarus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    4,884
    969
    0
    Location:
    earth
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    MOST animals won't S#@T in their nests. We will and do, and wonder why it stinks!

    Icarus
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.