- Gore a world-class snake-oil salesman
- Warming a real threat
- Denver, mayor reward incompetence
- What a sorry bunch of politicians
- Dems should take new look at fiscal votes
- Unworthy comment
- Al Gore & Nobel Peace Prize
- More recreation research needed by writer
- Al Gore & Nobel Peace Prize
- Just lower the tax rates
Global warming
This is in response to Mike Durcan on Global Warming.
Mr. Durcan I don’t see anything that says you are a scientist, so do you know this is a farce? How long have you lived in Colorado Mr. Durcan? Do you remember the summer’s in which it rained every afternoon? When the temperature barely reached 90 degrees? So Newsweek is a silly gossip magazine because they disagree with you? I recently, took a trip through 6 States in the Northwest and the temperature was 95 degrees to a 105 degrees everywhere, Oregon and Washington etc. Now, that kind of weather in those particular places is peculiar to say the least.
Yes, it may be a natural occurrence but, there are a lot of things we can do to slow it down, we can drive more efficient cars with alternative fuels. Not only will this help with global warming, but it will help with Denver’s other major problem, pollution.
So instead of just writing everything off as a liberal paranoia, open your eyes for once.
This letter has not been edited.
So, do you have a complete knowledge of the weather/climate patterns of the six states you visited that you said were warm? If not, then you're as guilty as Mr. Duncan. Also, if it is a natural phenomenon just how do you know that there's something that we can do to "slow it down?" Can you slow down a hurricane by flapping your gums?
Posted by Neal5x5 on October 17, 2007 02:57 PMOne of the weakest of arguments used against anyone who disagrees with the theory that man contributes to global warming is that they may not be a scientist.
I wonder if Michael Franzen of Aurora keeps his opinions about the war in Iraq to himself if he isn’t in the military. I wonder if he never utters his point of view about health care if he isn’t a doctor. I wonder if he doesn’t comment upon our public school system if he isn’t a teacher.
Mr. Franzen, I am not a scientist, but I am able to read and comprehend the words of scientists. Not all of them believe the way you do.
I second the point made by Neal5x5: How can we do things to slow down global warming if it’s a natural occurrence?
To suggest that there isn't a scientific consensus on this issue is ridiculous at best.
Posted by jay on October 17, 2007 04:20 PMTo suggest that a "scientific concensus" is the same as scientific proof, or evidence that our current climate change is caused by man is even more ridiculous.
Posted by KW on October 17, 2007 05:54 PMconsensus is nothing more than algore and bubba having a beer together.
this is all bs so algore could act impotent since everyone knows he is an idiot. I did forget he did create the internet and global warming both about 30 years ago.
"I second the point made by Neal5x5: How can we do things to slow down global warming if it’s a natural occurrence?"
No one denies that nature puts CO2 in the atmosphere. Nor does anyone deny that man puts CO2 in the atmosphere. The question is, does man put enough CO2 in the atmosphere to be significant?
Posted by Truth on October 17, 2007 07:48 PM"To suggest that a "scientific concensus" is the same as scientific proof, or evidence that our current climate change is caused by man is even more ridiculous."
And there it is....you can choose not to believe nearly every single, peer-reviewed, field-appropriate scientist on the planet on this issue...but that doesn't do your credibility any favors...does it KW.
Posted by jay on October 17, 2007 08:27 PMTruth, you've nailed question on the head. Does humanity emit enough carbon dioxide and other chemicals into the atmosphere to alter the environment from what would otherwise be a natural progression? I'm skeptical that humanity does do this on the grounds humanity generates only 3.4% of the CO2 emited (now making up only 0.038% of the atmosphere). Also, water vapor, which makes up as much as 95% the tropospheric greenhouse effect, is rarely mentioned as a key element in global warming. Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).
Posted by Neal5x5 on October 17, 2007 09:21 PMThe only link of CO2 to global warming that I know of is that CO2 has several absorption bands in the classic greenhouse region. Thus the theory goes it must have some effect. So what? That does not prove significant global warming is due to increases in man made CO2. There are several other possible explanations.
And yes, I am a scientist.
GG
Posted by GG on October 18, 2007 08:18 AMWARM THIS, GLOBALLY:
Portuguese neurologist Egas Moniz received the 1949 Nobel Prize in medicine for "his discovery of the therapeutic value of [prefrontal lobotomy] in certain psychoses," including depression and schizophrenia. The prefrontal lobotomy operation, in which the nerve fibers connecting the frontal lobe with other parts of the brain were cut, and which often made patients zombie-like, would be repudiated by the medical community within a decade.
Al Gore, the latest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, is a similarly poor choice, one likely not to stand the test of time.
Posted by Hank on October 18, 2007 09:14 AMHEY MIKE,
Climate change -- warming, cooling, warming, cooling--has been going on relentlessly for 4.6 billion years on the Earth and its also going on right now on Mars and Venus. And now YOU want to screw with this normal process? You want new laws for the universe--your laws? Are you totally NUTS? How the hell do you know what the best temperature is for the Earth? Who told you? How do you know?
Remember when the consensus said that the Earth was flat, the Sun revolved around the Earth and that we are about to embark on the next Ice Age and that eating eggs can kill you? Consensus, my ass!
Who the hell appointed YOU God?
Posted by Hank on October 18, 2007 09:26 AMThe Antarctic study group took ice cores that reveal the last 650,000 years of climate in that region.
They find that the CO2 levels cycle between 180ppm and 300ppm, with a very high correlation to climate and temperature conditions. Whenever ambient CO2 was down towards 180ppm, there was an ice age, whenever it lofted towards the 300ppm mark there was reversal and high temperatures.
At present the ambient CO2 levels in Antarctic stands at 380ppm.
This level is inexplicable in terms of natural processes, but is very explicable in terms of human activities.
Even if science is sometimes or even often wrong about something, it is the most reliable method and system of inquiry known to man, and the science of the day is saying that we are experiencing an unprecedented warming event (not cycle), that is significantly driven by human activities over the last several centuries.
I challenge anybody to come up with a better alternative or system of inquiry to explain the vast and wide ranging evidence available.
There are several reliable scientific sources for information, such as:
National Academy presentation to Congress
www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Climate_Change_Science_and_Economics.asp
The full NAS report
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676#toc
Here is the Joint Sciences Academies Statement
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
You can also go to the climate science and press releases from the AAAS
www.aaas.org
Or go to the Royal Society at www.royalsoc.ac.uk/landing.asp?id=1278
Posted by Bango Skank on October 18, 2007 09:52 AMJay you are arguing science with people who think the jury is out on Evolution. Waste of time, these people look to the Bible for all answers. KW could get run over by a Mack Truck and still not believe you could get run over by a truck.
Posted by just sayin' on October 18, 2007 10:17 AMHeal5x5 said ” Does humanity emit enough carbon dioxide and other chemicals into the atmosphere to alter the environment from what would otherwise be a natural progression?”
Pretty much every bit of science done says yes.
Read through the journals and out of all the hundreds of papers on climate change, spot how many papers cast doubt that 1. this is a warming event, or 2. that human activity is significantly driving that event.
Go ahead and see how much the papers cluster around doubt or confirmation.
” I'm skeptical that humanity does do this on the grounds humanity generates only 3.4% of the CO2 emited (now making up only 0.038% of the atmosphere). Also, water vapor, which makes up as much as 95% the tropospheric greenhouse effect, is rarely mentioned as a key element in global warming.”
Seems rather a frivolous reason to be skeptical, why would the additional amount that disturbs equilibrium need to be large? I would like to see your source on that 3.4% figure and whether it is expressing cumulative proportion or current contribution rate.
Secondly, your statement on water vapour, while true, is irrelevant.
We are releasing tons of additional CO2 every minute that were previously sequestered in fossil deposits, whereas the only increase in humidity is due to temperature rise, and the additional water vapour humans release through cooling towers, dams, irrigation, etc.
Increases in ambient water vapour is indeed a problem, but it is both secondary to CO2, and it is also again due to human activity.
GG said ” There are several other possible explanations. And yes, I am a scientist”
No doubt there are, but since you are a scientist, you should be familiar with how this process works. We have had contending theoretical explanations, made predictions both forward and rearward, checked those, and seen which theories were embarrassed, and which survived.
There is only one theory that has survived and continues to match predictions to findings and continues to have a high degree of coherence with other mature theories.
So knowing this, how is it that you are looking elsewhere?
Are you a primary researcher with an alternative and better hypothesis?
If so, you could make your name and fortune by blowing a big hole in the other theory/ies.
But you know that, right?
Posted by Bango Skank on October 18, 2007 10:27 AMYa gotta love the right, they do not believe in global warming despite all the science, yet they believe in a man building a big boat and gathering two animals of every species 2000+ years ago!!
Posted by TJ on October 18, 2007 10:39 AMI hear you sayin....
Lots of great posts debunking a lot of Denier Myths here.
Posted by jay on October 18, 2007 10:46 AMIf we just buy carbon credits from Al Gore then this problem will be solved. There! Now doesn't everyone feel better knowing the world will be safe thanks to AL Gore?
Posted by jgd777j on October 18, 2007 11:04 AMNeal5x5:
Truth, you've nailed question on the head. Does humanity emit enough carbon dioxide and other chemicals into the atmosphere to alter the environment from what would otherwise be a natural progression? I'm skeptical that humanity does do this on the grounds humanity generates only 3.4% of the CO2 emited (now making up only 0.038% of the atmosphere). Also, water vapor, which makes up as much as 95% the tropospheric greenhouse effect, is rarely mentioned as a key element in global warming. Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).
With a residence time of about 100 years, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time so a small percentage increase in total emissions over time is enough for the atmospheric levels to increase. Also, it can be shown that the CO2 increase is due to the burning of fossil fuels by the ratio of carbon isotopes C12 & C13. Fossil fuels have low C13/C12 ratios and it has been determined that the ratio of C13/C12 in the atmosphere has decreased (see http://www.biology.duke.edu/bio265/sga/atmosphere.html for details). So there's man's fingerprint on the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Water vapor is rarely mentioned by whom? Sure water vapor has a greater "greenhouse effect" than CO2, but water vapor emmissions don't stay in the atmosphere very long - only about 10 days compared to about 100 years for CO2. So water vapor doesn't have near the tendency to accumulate that CO2 has. That additional 3.4% tends to be like compound interest over time.
Posted by CL on October 18, 2007 11:08 AM"...and the science of the day is saying that we are experiencing an unprecedented warming event (not cycle), that is significantly driven by human activities over the last several centuries."
SEVERAL CENTURIES????????
That would date it pre-Industrial Age, pre-powerboat, pre-railroad, pre-steel plant, pre-internal combustion engine, pre-factory, pre-plant, pre-foundry, pre-power plant and pre-massiive use of either oil and coaL, pre-tire, pre- plastic, etc, etc, etc, etc.
It might date it back to the Agricultural Age or even before that. Jurassic Park? And by the way, since Mars and Venus are also experiencing climate change similiar to the Earth, would it be all those automobiles, highways and coal fired power plants out there?
But your time-line might not exclude pre-cow flatulence. So maybe that latter condition--cow pies--puts a well deserved exclaimation point on your very shaky "feel-good" case.
Get help.
You still denying Hank?
Posted by jay on October 18, 2007 11:59 AMHank:
SEVERAL CENTURIES????????That would date it pre-Industrial Age, pre-powerboat, pre-railroad, pre-steel plant, pre-internal combustion engine, pre-factory, pre-plant, pre-foundry, pre-power plant and pre-massiive use of either oil and coaL, pre-tire, pre- plastic, etc, etc, etc, etc.
It might date it back to the Agricultural Age or even before that. Jurassic Park?
Pollution from copper smelting from as far back as 2,500 years ago (that's 25 centuries BTW) has been detected in Greenland ice.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/272/5259/246
So, believe it or not, there was human activity before the industrial age...
Oh, and the Jurassic would have been about 145,000 centuries ago - quite a bit more than "several"
Posted by CL on October 18, 2007 12:17 PMOther than volcanic out gassing, where does natural CO2 come from, besides animals I mean. I know that some is released from forest fires, but I can`t think of any other source. Does anyone have a link? Thanks.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 18, 2007 01:17 PMCL don't you know the Earth is only 6 thousand years old? You need to bone up on your Bible studies. Hank, do you believe in Evolution?
Posted by Curious on October 18, 2007 01:28 PMSharon B. - google "carbon cycle" and you'll get a bunch of links. The wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
is a pretty good and you can dig in deeper from there if you want.
Posted by CL on October 18, 2007 01:43 PMCurious - don't get me started on that....
Posted by CL on October 18, 2007 01:49 PMHank asked ” And by the way, since Mars and Venus are also experiencing climate change similiar to the Earth, would it be all those automobiles, highways and coal fired power plants out there?”
Similar climate change?
Care to offer a citation for that claim? – I think you pulled that one out of your nose, but happy to look at your reference.
” … your very shaky "feel-good" case”
I don’t do “feel good”, I leave that to people in the “belief-based” community.
Neither do I base my scientific views on political ideology or personal preference. The scientific news is what it is, regardless of what one might prefer.
” Get help.”
Happy to!
I need more research money, equipment, and staff.
Send a check to AAAS and let them know it is to fund my neuropsychology research into information ergonomics. Ideally I need an fMRI, a 12-probe ECG, a 72 -channel BioSemi Active 2 data acquisition system with caps and electrode bundles.
Of course I also need beds, gurneys, and some surgical and vitals monitoring equipment.
A 24-trace oscilloscope with memory and microprobes would be nice too.
A few servers and PC’s and MATLAB and a few other stats and analytics packages would be good.
Another thought, you could volunteer.
I need some Conservative subjects in order to work on the effects of ideology on brain function. I have an hypothesis that in Conservatives of a certain kind, there is significant shutdown of the right cerebral cortex and some underlying structures.
You, KW, and Mr.American would be good subjects.
CL and Sharon B.
I wouldn’t put much stock in what you find on Wikipedia. Anybody can go into it to add and delete whatever they want. It’s not reliable.
Bango,
Ah, yes. If all else fails, you can always sarcastically impugn the intelligence of those with whom you disagree. That’s usually your ace card.
Mr.Cat said " wouldn’t put much stock in what you find on Wikipedia. Anybody can go into it to add and delete whatever they want. It’s not reliable."
Were you under the impression that they didn't know that?
Should I be under the impression that you don't know that on average, wikipedia is a good place to start, and that vandalism is swiftly reversed?
Just curious about what you think other people think, and what you think they think that you think.
Posted by Bango Skank on October 19, 2007 07:04 AMMr.Cat whined ” Ah, yes. If all else fails, you can always sarcastically impugn the intelligence of those with whom you disagree. That’s usually your ace card.”
No, nothing failed, the sarcasm and derision was all pleasure. My little payback for processing his ignorant and juvenile rant.
Fact is he is a bit dim, and certainly ill informed, as a Conservative you should be happy that the class structure works that way.
He tried to play the argument that assumed me to be how he imagines all liberals, soft and wooly and engrossed in feelings, with no science or analytical capacity. Tough luck for him then.
As I said, I don’t do “feel good”, and I leave that sort of muddle-headed whiney stuff to both ends of the “belief-based community”.
So no ducky, it isn’t an argumentative “ace”, it’s my nasty and abrasive nature, but the argument stands – what he said was garbage, and his attack was misplaced and poorly constructed.
You are welcome to take a shot if you like.
I love a good exchange of high quality insults.
Why are Conservatives so afraid, and of so many things?
CL and Sharon B.I wouldn’t put much stock in what you find on Wikipedia. Anybody can go into it to add and delete whatever they want. It’s not reliable.
Regardless, the Wikipedia article on the Carbon Cycle is very good. If you know of specific flaws in the article, then by all means post them.
Sharon B. asked for links on natural sources for CO2 and I suggested the Wikipedia article as a starting point as well as googling "carbon cycle". Put another way, I was suggesting she research the carbon cycle. Do you have a better response to her request or just this non sequitur?
Posted by CL on October 19, 2007 08:25 AMThere aint no gloabl warming, aint no gravity or nuclear physics reither cuz i cant unnerstand it so dont exist. I aint real shore the earth revolves around the sun either, if it did we'd all fall off woodnt we?
Posted by Bush's brain on October 19, 2007 08:36 AM