*Global Warming* -- Science or Political Hype?

[harveyc]

It is clear we are undergoing global warming, just as the Earth has experienced "forever."

However, is it due to humankind?

There are 100's of opinions on both sides of this issue.

I have a dilemma, what caused this warming during the Pliocene period? It certainly wasn't due to humankind? ...

--- "But if further global warming reaches 2 or 3 degrees Celsius, we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know. The last time it was that warm was in the middle Pliocene, about three million years ago, when sea level was estimated to have been about 25 meters (80 feet) higher than today." - GISS/NOAA

[Hosnon]

1. Does it matter what is causing it? It still needs to be stopped. nt.

[harveyc]

2. If it is natural, it cannot be stopped ... n/t

[AnOhioan]

5. From my understanding....

Yes, warming trends and coolings trends are natural events....it is the increasing rate of warming that has most, including myself, believing that human activity is affecting a normal cycle...making it far worse than what nature alone would account for.

[Blue Fire]

7. But I still refuse to believe that we humans can dump tons of CO2

and other greenhouse gases into the air every day on a global scale and not have some detrimental effect on the climate.

[Hosnon]

8. That is not necessarily true. Humans are learning how to control many aspects

of the physical environment. My hometown hasn't flooded since the '20s.

It is odd that you can be so sure that something natural cannot be stopped. If not, perhaps we need to seriously get to work moving dozens of cities and millions of people.

[Blue Fire]

52. What about everybody in 'Tornado Alley'?

Or maybe along the coasts in 'Hurricane Central'?
Flooding is natures ancient way of redistributing topsoil and nutrients. You cannot devert natural flooding without disrupting natures intended benefits and results. Not that I want your hometown to flood, mind you. Just trying to make a point.

[Hosnon]

55. The OP said that nature = unstoppable. I provided a counter-example.

You've provided examples of where humans have yet to be able to stop nature. It may very well be the case that we can't but I'd wager the other way.

I'm waiting for the OP to explain why global warming is unstoppable if it is natural.

[Blue Fire]

64. Natural global warming very likely is unstoppable.

The believed historical causes of global warming is increased solar activity or weakening of Earth's magnetic field, the only defense against solar radiation. But I may be wrong. It's happened before!

[Hosnon]

73. That may be the case.

If it is, harveyc should be more worried about it than the rest of us who think humans are the primary cause. Again, we have a lot of moving to do if it is not something that can be stopped.

[Solon]

77. The Magnetosphere of the Earth protects our atmosphere from being...

"bled out" into space by solar winds, it also creates awesome lightshows at certain latitudes.

Now, technically a weakened magnetosphere could contribute to global climate change, because certain molecules in the upper atmosphere are more likely to leave the planet when bombarded by solar winds. Usually these are lighter molecules, such as oxygen(O2) and nitrogen(N2), CO2 is much "heavier" due to obvious reasons, so would be retained in the atmosphere. This could change the composition of the atmosphere, and therefore affect the climate. However, allow me to stress that this process would be slow, for while the Earth may have lost TONS of molecules, they also gain something as well. The Magnetosphere would have to be weakened to a point where it doesn't extend to the upper atmosphere, and at the same time, stay that way for thousands, if not millions of years to affect the climate this way.

The Magnetosphere also protects astronauts from cosmic radiation, etc. However, our atmosphere absorbs most of at type of radiation as well. In fact, without cosmic radiation, we would get lethal doses of Ultraviolet radiation from the Sun. The cosmic rays react with oxygen molecules in the upper atmosphere to create ozone(O3), which is an unstable molecule. This is why CFCs had such a drastic effect on the ozone layer. They were splitting up the oxygen molecules at rates greater than they could be replenished through the cosmic ray interactions. This is also why the hole is closing up, its a self replenishing process, thank goodness.

[bananas]

10. not true - we could stop it either way.

for example by reducing ghg emissions

[Hosnon]

29. I think we are being ignored. Hey harveyc, why does natural = unable to stop? nt.

[BoneDaddy]

3. Of course there

has been a fluctuation of warm and cold weather patterns and climate change, but it has always been within a relatively short wavespan. What we are experiencing now has been a constant shift towards higher temps over a very short period of time and way beyond the height of warmth.

[harveyc]

9. Not true ...

in the '70s scientists were talking about global cooling.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

14. The theory never had strong scientific support

It is occasionally asserted that "in the 1970's, the scientific establishment believed in global cooling"<7> and therefore we should be skeptical of global warming now. However, the scientific literature does not support this (see below); there is limited support from the popular press.<8>

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

The cooling period is well reproduced by current (1999 on) Global Climate Models (GCMs) that include the effect of sulphate aerosol cooling, so it (now) seems likely that this was the dominant cause. However, at the time there were two physical mechanisms that were most frequently advanced to cause cooling: aerosols and orbital forcing.

Aerosols
Human activity — mostly as a by-product of fossil fuel combustion, partly by land-use changes — increases the number of tiny particles (aerosols) in the atmosphere. These have a direct effect: they effectively increase the planetary albedo, thus cooling the planet by reducing the sunshine reaching the surface; and an indirect effect: they can affect the properties of clouds by acting as cloud condensation nuclei. In the early 1970s some speculated that this cooling effect might dominate over the warming effect of the CO2 release: see discussion of Rasool and Schneider (1971), below. As a result of observations (aerosol concentrations may have increased, but not enormously) and a switch to cleaner fuel burning, this no longer seems likely; the overwhelming bulk of current scientific work concentrates on the forcing, prediction and understanding of possible global warming. Although the temperature drops foreseen by this mechanism have now been discarded in light of better theory and the observed warming, aerosols are believed to have contributed a cooling tendency (outweighted by increases in greenhouse gases) and also have contributed to "Global Dimming".

Orbital forcing
The other mechanism was orbital forcing (Milankovitch cycles): slow changes in the tilt of the planets axis and shape of the orbit change the total amount of sunlight reaching the earth by a small amount and the seasonality of the sunshine by rather more. This mechanism is believed to be responsible for the timing of the ice age cycles, and understanding of it happened to be increasing rapidly in the mid-1970s.

[hatrack]

16. Which scientists? Name them. Give me peer-reviewed articles, dates, publications.

Give me specifics on how "in the 70s scientists were talking about global cooling".

Specifics.

Now.

[Hosnon]

22. Come now...we've entered the "No-Fact Zone" of Freepthinkland. nt.

[donco6]

31. I definitely smell fresh TOMBSTONE.

And I don't mean pizza.

[FormerDittoHead]

75. YUP, me too. Still, it doesn't hurt to learn a little more.

Don't you understand?

If man didn't cause the warming 100's of millions of years ago, therefore, logically, thusly, we CAN'T be causing now!

I suppose, however, we may take this opportunity to check out the current crop of propaganda from the the never-ending petroleum industry financed misinformation machine.

[FormerDittoHead]

137. YOU WERE RIGHT - but not this thread yet. Search for his msgs. Catalog of talking points...

Seriously, read what he has to say and the way he 'argues'.

I think this is the same guy who posts as either "Sawdust" or "RisingTide" on the Thom Hartmann BBS, throwing water on the give and take.

I DO like to see Mike Malloy's BBS not hesitating to ID these guys and give them the boot...

I think it WOULD be useful if we can, at our own pace, put together more 'snappy' retorts to these "talking" points. It's kind of nice to have them all cataloged this way, however...

Pliocene Era - INDEED!

[Igel]

34. It made the cover of

"My Weekly Reader" when I was in 6th grade, at least I think it was on the cover. Might have been page 2.

Had me terrified, I went home and told my parents to prepare for an ice age, and somehow assumed I'd be living in an igloo when I was in my 30s.

I don't know about peer-reviewed journals--most 6th graders don't subscribe to Nature, much specialty journals. But the weekly reader got it from somewhere.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

41. the media has long been the bane of science...

Concern peaked in the early 1970s, partly because of the cooling trend then apparent (a cooling period began in 1945, and two decades of a cooling trend suggested a trough had been reached after several decades of warming), and partly because much less was then known about world climate and causes of ice ages. Although there was a cooling trend then, it should be realised that climate scientists were perfectly well aware that predictions based on this trend was not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example see reference<10>). However in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports.

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

[hatrack]

21. Still waiting for your extensive list of peer-reviewed scientific articles

You know, from the 70s, all about global cooling.

[BoneDaddy]

67. They were wrong and were only looking at a small part of the larger global warming picture

There will be points on this earth where it will get cooler, such as in Europe where, if the Gulf Stream, is affected could bring great cooling But in terms of trends it has been getting increasingly warmer.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. There have been something like 900 peer-reviewed papers

published by leftist loons from hotbeds of radicalism like M.I.T., all of which state unequivocally that global warming is not only real, but that it is being caused by human activity. There are no longer any reputable scientists who claim otherwise -- the only "scientists" who continue to insist that global warming is merely a natural cycle had their "research" funded by the oil companies. The issue is about as well-decided as gravity. The only question remaining is exactly how long it will take.

[harveyc]

11. GISS / NOAA are loons? They made up the Pliocene warming period? ... n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. You miss my point. And my sarcasm.

The Pliocene warming period was real. So is human-caused global warming now.

[harveyc]

18. How can you say that ...

until the warming is higher than that of the Pliocene period?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

17. GISS / NOAA says Pliocene warming was probably caused by...

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/pliocene/page3.html

Simulating past warm climates and identifying model/data contrasts for periods such as the Pliocene provide a test of the sensitivity of our primary tool for study future climate change: global climate models. At present, our results do not support the suggestion that Pliocene warming was caused by carbon dioxide increase since such changes are not consistent with the SST distributions derived from deep sea cores. There is evidence that changes in ocean circulation and the amount of heat oceans transport may be one potential cause of the warming.

Still, investigators have found evidence that minor increases in CO2 (up to 380 ppm) did occur in the Pliocene. This causes us to wonder whether it is possible that an, climate feedback, as of yet unknown, associated with small increases in CO2, could lead to the larger changes seen in the ocean circulation? Certainly the evidence for higher levels of CO2 and stronger thermohaline circulation challenges recent results from coupled ocean- atmosphere models, which suggest that thermohaline circulation weakens as global temperature rises. Perhaps the Pliocene warming is uncharacteristic of next century's expected warming, perhaps the causes are different but the effects will be similar, and perhaps the Pliocene is a warning that unkown factors still exist that could exacerbate or mitigate the CO2 increase and global warming.

[Telly Savalas]

12. But can you offer solid proof that the authors of these 900 papers

and the people reviewing them weren't all really drunk?

Until you can, the anthropogenic nature of climate change is still an open question.

[hatrack]

51. For all we know, they were touched by His Noodly Appendage

You can't prove it didn't happen!!

[mucifer]

6. Are you watching the Waxman investigations on the censorship of

scientists? It's on cspan2 now it's kinda fun to watch.

[hatrack]

15. Since you can't be bothered to read the NASA division you cite . . .

Here's their position on what may have caused the Pliocene warming (short version - very different ocean heat transport patterns, though somewhat higher CO2 levels of a bit less than 500 ppm had something to do with it):

EDIT

Our simulations of the Pliocene climate used near-modern levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (315 ppm) but required a nearly 30% change in the implied meridional ocean heat transports to maintain Pliocene conditions. This additional heat transport implies substantial changes in the ocean's thermohaline circulation, wind-driven circulation, or both. Evidence of such thermohaline circulation changes comes from carbon isotopic data from deep-sea microfossils, which show that the strength of North Atlantic deep water production was increased during the middle Pliocene. Wind-driven changes, however, are not yet supported by the wind velocities indicated by model simulations or by geologic evidence.

We also conducted several Pliocene simulations with varying levels of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. Simulated surface energy fluxes were collected from those simulations and were used to calculate the ocean heat convergence/divergence at each grid cell. From the convergences we calculated the implied ocean heat transports which would have been necessary to maintain the specified SST distribution; in this case the SSTs are those derived from Pliocene paleo observations. Figure 5 shows the poleward heat transports from this series of Pliocene experiments. The plot reveals that CO2 levels must be four times current values, and perhaps higher, before ocean heat transports could be reduced to modern levels. At lower levels of atmospheric CO2 the ocean heat transports must remain higher than modern in order to maintain anything close to the observed Pliocene SSTs.

Estimates based on carbon isotope measurements (Raymo and others, 1992; 1996) indicate that Pliocene atmospheric CO2 levels were, at most, 100 ppm greater than today. Moreover, if we compare Pliocene and modern ocean heat transport distributions (Figure 5) we find that a poleward shift in the peak ocean heat convergence would have been necessary to balance the Pliocene SSTs regardless of the CO2 level. Thus, neither simulation results or data support the conclusion that Pliocene warming was caused entirely by a large increase in atmospheric CO2 content. We cannot rule out, however, that some combination of the altered CO2 and altered ocean heat transport caused the warmer climate of the middle Pliocene.

EDIT

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/pliocene/page3.html

Oh, and it also may have had something to do with the emergence of the Isthmus of Panama, which shut off existing circulation between the modern Pacific and Atlantic oceans:

Pliocene Epoch
5-1.8 million years ago

The emergence of the Isthmus of Panama changes ocean circulation patterns and coincides with the formation of an Arctic ice cap. Plate tectonic interactions result in the uplift of the Sierra Nevada, formation of the Cascade Range, and onset of strike-slip faulting on the San Andreas Fault. In Europe, the Alps continue to rise.
The global climates become cooler and drier.

http://www.sdnhm.org/exhibits/mystery/fg_timeline.html

Next obvious flamebait POS question?

[Hosnon]

19. Is it just me or does anyone else feel like a cat that just got tossed a mouse

to play with?

:evilgrin: :9

[Viva_La_Revolution]

25. shhhh!

don't scare him away!

:evilgrin:

[harveyc]

24. So what? The Pliocene period was still warmer, a lot warmer ... n/t

[Viva_La_Revolution]

28. What Caused the Middle Pliocene Warming?

page 3 of the report from GISS which you claim to be siting...

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/pliocene/page3.html

[hatrack]

38. Funny thing, but the timeline shows a general cooling trend from the Paleocene to the Pleistocene

Of course, there were standout events like PETM and the far smaller, shorter warming period during the Pliocene, but "warmer" is, of course, a relative thing.

Holocene Epoch
10,000 years ago to the present

The Holocene Epoch may be an interval between glacial incursions, typical of the Pleistocene Epoch and therefore not a separate epoch in itself. However, it is a period marked by the presence and influence of Homo sapiens. During this time, the glaciers retreat, sea levels rise, the climate warms, and deserts form in some areas.

Pleistocene Epoch
1.8 million-10,000 years ago

This epoch is best known as the "Great Ice Age." Ice sheets and other glaciers encroach and retreat during four or five primary glacial periods. At its peak, as much as 30% of the Earth's surface is covered by glaciers, and parts of the northern oceans are frozen. The movement of the glaciers alters the landscape. Lakes, such as the Great Lakes in North America, are formed as ice sheets melt, and retreat. Global warming begins after the last glacial maximum, 18,000 years ago.

Pliocene Epoch
5-1.8 million years ago

The emergence of the Isthmus of Panama changes ocean circulation patterns and coincides with the formation of an Arctic ice cap. Plate tectonic interactions result in the uplift of the Sierra Nevada, formation of the Cascade Range, and onset of strike-slip faulting on the San Andreas Fault. In Europe, the Alps continue to rise. The global climates become cooler and drier.

Miocene Epoch
24-5 million years ago

Modern ocean currents are essentially established. A drop in sea level near the end of the Epoch isolates and dries up the Mediterranean Sea, leaving evaporite deposits on its floor.
The climate is generally cooler than the Oligocene Epoch. A cold transantarctic ocean current isolates the waters around Antarctica, and the continent becomes permanently frozen.

Oligocene Epoch
34-24 million years ago

Tectonic plate movement is still very dynamic. Africa and Europe nearly collide, closing the Tethys Sea and leaving as a remnant the Mediterranean Sea. Volcanism and fragmentation of western North America is associated with the emplacement of major ore deposits. The southeren ocean forms and the climate is generally temperate. Glaciation begins in Antarctica.

Eocene Epoch
55-34 million years ago

Plate tectonics and volcanic activity form the Rockies in western North America. Erosion fills basins. Continental collisions between India and Asia culminate in the Alpine-Himalayan mountain system. Antarctica and Australia continue to separate and drift apart. The climate is subtropical and moist throughout North America and Europe.

Paleocene Epoch
65-55 million years ago

During the Paleocene, the vast inland seas of the Cretaceous Period dry up, exposing large land areas in North America and Eurasia. Australia begins to separate from Antarctica, and Greenland splits from North America. A remnant Tethys Sea persists in the equatorial region.

EDIT

http://www.sdnhm.org/exhibits/mystery/fg_timeline.html

Regarding PETM - A striking and very powerful (geologically) short warming trend on the cusp between these two epochs:

The end of the Paleocene (~55 Ma) was marked by sudden global change, upsetting oceanic and atmospheric circulation and leading to the extinction of numerous deep-sea benthic foraminifera and a major turnover in land mammals. Biotic and geochemical anomalies observed world-wide relate to high latitude warming (subtropical conditions prevailed at Antarctica!) and a reversal in oceanic circulation: during a short period (<100 k.y.) dense warm and salty water, formed in low latitude basins (e.g. Tethyan margins), is thought to have filled the oceanic basins. This period is known as the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum, PETM (previously known as LPTM, and also as IETM). Just over a decade ago the abruptness of these events was first recognised. Today, this is regarded as one of the most significant periods of global change during the Cenozoic. Detailed study of these events could provide insight into geobiosphere dynamics in an extreme greenhouse world.

EDIT

http://www.palmod.uni-bremen.de/FB5/geochron/Robert/RPSpeb.html

Oh, and in case you were wondering about the biological impacts: this is in German but the diagrams make things reasonably clear:

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

44. Your rebuttal is still worse than awful... n/t

[Rude Horner]

20. Have you watched "An Inconvenient Truth"?

It opened my eyes, and I highly recommend it. It talks about how and why this fluctuation in Earth's temperature is unlike any other.

[harveyc]

27. It is still way cooler than the Pliocene period ... n/t

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

42. Its still a worse than awful rebuttal... n/t

[Rude Horner]

53. I don't give a flying fuck about the Pliocene period

And we've had volcanoes so bad that they blocked out the sun and cooled the climate for years. Your point is? Plenty of natural things happen to change the climate. Nobody is arguing that.

But if this warming trend can be directly tied to greenhouse gases, which scientists agree on (those that don't work for this administration or big oil, that is), then just because it was warm once before doesn't mean jack shit. It's the REASON for the warming now, not that fact that it's getting warmer.

Wait. Let me guess your response. "But, but...but...the Pliocene period...."

whatever.

[Solon]

61. So? What is your point?

This I'm trying to figure out, it was also much warmer in the Carboniferous period than today too. Most global climate change is subtle and slow, at least in the distant past, taking 10s of thousands of years just to raise or lower global temperatures a few degrees.

In the more recent past, carbon levels have fluctuated and we have glaciation periods and warming periods, this is in our own current era, where most modern animals evolved, including Humans. However, today we have highest C02 levels in the atmosphere that are unprecedented for almost the ENTIRE Pleistocene epoch. Not to mention that while the change in climate in the recent past, the past 600,000 years or so, has been rapid compared to those in the more distant past, this is still on a timescale of a thousand years or so, not centuries, not even ONE century. We already raised the temperature of the Earth by 1 degree since the Industrial Revolution, considering that we evolved and our civilization arose in a relatively stable climate, this is cause for alarm.

[Rude Horner]

71. That didn't answer my question.

You're good at that.

[NYCGirl]

23. The SAME STUDY also says this:

"This evidence implies that we are getting close to dangerous levels of human-made pollution," said Hansen. In recent decades, human-made greenhouse gases have become the largest climate change factor. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and warm the surface. Some greenhouse gases, which include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone, occur naturally, while others are due to human activities.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20060925/

[harveyc]

26. It was still a lot warmer during the Pliocene period ... n/t

[NYCGirl]

30. Read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3087806&mesg_id=3087842

[Viva_La_Revolution]

32. duh.

however, that is irrelevant to the question - "is Global Warming real and are humans causing/exacerbating it?"

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

40. Worse than awful rebuttal n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. Holocaust- history or jewish conspiracy?

sheesh

:crazy:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

36. ...

bad hooligan! :spank:

:rofl:

[hatrack]

39. Basketballs - spherical or cubic?

Naughty, NAUGHTY hooligan!

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

35. what the cock is this?

A step down from your usual "NOBODY CARES ABOUT IRAQ BUT ME!" posts.

I'd give it a 6/10, but I'll raise it to an even 8 if you can somehow blame the Global Warming Con on Nancy Pelosi.

[Hosnon]

37. Pfft!

Thanks:)

:spray: :rofl: :spray: :rofl: :spray: :rofl:

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

45. I try

But Harvey does all the hard work.

[harveyc]

43. I know U-M isn't any MIT but ... *rolleyes* ...

--- U-M researchers: Burning fossil fuels has a measurable cooling effect on the climate

ANN ARBOR, Mich.—Atmospheric researchers have provided observational evidence that burning fossil fuels has a direct impact on the solar radiation reflectivity of clouds, thereby contributing to global climate change.

... Most evidence that increased levels of fossil fuel particles (aerosols) affects the reflectivity of clouds, thereby producing a cooling effect on the climate, has been indirect. This made it difficult to determine the impact this phenomena, known as the indirect aerosol effect, has on the global climate, Penner said. Our data makes the direct connection and opens new areas of study.

http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2004/Jan04/r011504a

[tandot]

47. Thanks for the great link, harveyc. Here is what the last paragraph says:

"Penner cautioned that over longer time scales in the future, the climate cooling due to the indirect aerosol effect will be minimal when compared to the climate warming of carbon dioxide. �We've shown that there's more work to be done to discover all of the various ways we affect the climate."

[Viva_La_Revolution]

48. good lord... read to the end paragraph...

Penner cautioned that over longer time scales in the future, the climate cooling due to the indirect aerosol effect will be minimal when compared to the climate warming of carbon dioxide. We've shown that there's more work to be done to discover all of the various ways we affect the climate.

[Ninja Jordan]

46. I question the OP's motives. From "democrat party" to this??

[hatrack]

49. Pssst!! Harvey!! FYI, it is nearly all a product of human activity - here's how we know

Isotopes of carbon may hold a key to determining the source of the increased carbon in the atmosphere (4,5,7). The studies are based on the ratio of the three different carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2. Carbon has three possible isotopes: C-12, C-13 and C-14. C-12, which has 6 neutrons, is by far the most prevalent carbon isotope and is a stable isotope. Carbon 13 is also a stable isotope, but plants prefer Carbon 12 and therefore photosynthetic CO2 (fossil fuel or wood fuels) is much lower in C-13 than CO2 that comes from other sources (e.g.: animal respiration) Carbon-14 is radioactive. Studies of carbon isotopes in CO2 has resulted in the following findings (5,7,8).

* There has been a decline in the 14C/12C ratio in CO2 that parallels the increase in CO2. In 1950 a scientist named Suess discovered that fossils do not contain 14C because they are much older than 10 half lives of 14C.

* There has been a parallel decline in 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. This has been linked to the fact that fossil fuels, forests and soil carbon come from photosynthetic carbon which is low in 13C. If the increased CO2 was due to warming of the oceans, there should not be a reduction in the ratios of C-13 and C-14 to C-12.

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html

So basically, if the increased CO2 in the atmosphere were natural, the ratios of Carbon-14 to Carbon 12 would remain unchanged. They haven't. Since fossil fuels are so old, all of the Carbon-14 they used to contain has long since decayed to normal carbon.

This relative decrease in the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere is recorded in daily samplings taken all over the world since 1958, thanks to Charlie Keeling, known for the Keeling Curve that shows rising CO2 levels. Before that, it's recorded in sediment and ice cores that go back for the better part of a million years now, and before that, it shows up in proxy fossil data which can reveal how much CO2 there was in the atmosphere a very long time ago indeed.

Next question: if increased solar activity is causing the observed warming, would summer and winter temperatures in the Arctic converge or diverge over time?

[harveyc]

50. Interesting that no one here can answer a simple question ...

except to make baseless statements.

The statistical study of microbial / bioaerosols today is a perfect example.

If the outside air can be shown to be higher at a point in time than that of the indoor air in a certain location, no conclusion can be drawn about the level of contamination in the indoor air.

Thus, if the temperature of the Earth was higher at a certain period of time than today, quite a bit higher actually, what basis is there for concluding there is global warming due to humankind?

Until it exceeds the previous temperature during the previous warming periods, it is all speculation.

[hatrack]

54. Basely statements?

Whatever.

Anyway, you might try reading my post about carbon isotopes sometime, OK?

[harveyc]

57. and you might want to read the U-M article also about CO2 from fossil fuels ... n/t

[hatrack]

60. You haven't answered my simple questions yet . . .

C'mon, Big Boy - I KNOW you can do it!

[harveyc]

66. Answer mine first .. n/t

[hatrack]

74. Nuh-UH! Make me!

:evilgrin:

[hatrack]

56. Hey Harvey! Pop quiz time! I have some simple questions!

1. What are the GHGs covered by the Kyoto Protocol - as in how many are there and what are their names?

2. What (roughly) is the amount of anthropogenic CO2 deposited annually in the atmosphere?

3. What (roughly) is the current level of atmospheric CO2?

[harveyc]

62. Plus there have been cooling periods when CO2 has gone up ...

and if CO2 was the problem, the global temperature today would be already higher than the Pliocene period!

The following makes much more sense ...

... Most evidence that increased levels of fossil fuel particles (aerosols) affects the reflectivity of clouds, thereby producing a cooling effect on the climate, has been indirect. This made it difficult to determine the impact this phenomena, known as the indirect aerosol effect, has on the global climate, Penner said. Our data makes the direct connection and opens new areas of study.

[hatrack]

63. You're missing out on your chance for pop quiz extra-credit points!

It's really a shame that you're letting the rest of the class down, don't you think?

[harveyc]

95. My classes always did quite well ... thanks ... n/t

[hatrack]

72. Yes, the snowball earth period was likely one of them

Of course, you're neglecting to mention albedo effect, which was extraordinarily high at the time, what with the entire planet being sheathed in ice and all. You could have put lots and lots more CO2 into the atmosphere at that time, and it wouldn't have made much of a difference, now would it?

I guess you just plumb forgot to mention the albedo effect, right?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

58. How bout you just stick your head in the sand a take a nap

we'll wake you in the middle of it, kay? :eyes:

[Hosnon]

59. I admit I didn't answer your question because I think it is irrelevant. nt.

[Rude Horner]

65. That is really stupid logic, I must say

"Until it exceeds the previous temperature during the previous warming periods, it's all speculation".

Ok...so....using that logic....

Let's just say that every 50 years the moon gets bombarded with meteors. Every 50 years this meteor shower revolves around the sun and just blasts away at the moon and breaks off chunks of it and causes huge craters and shit. Every 50 god damn years. It's a damn cyclical thing. But then let's say that during one of these calm periods of no meteor activity, we decide to colonize the moon and we send up big pieces of construction equipment and we start tearing up shit and moving shit around and another big chunk of the moon breaks off.

Your argument would be...well, until we break off a piece as big as one of those meteors breaks off, it's all just speculation as to whether or not we're causing this. It might just be part of the cyclical process. :crazy:

[harveyc]

76. Hypothetical ...

Assume humankind is the reason for elevated CO2 today, higher than the Pliocene period. Why was the Pliocene period 2C to 3C warmer with sea levels 80' feet higher than today?

No hypotheticals necessary.

[Rude Horner]

78. Don't you know anything?

during the Pliocene period, God held a big bunson burner under the planet as an experiment in science class.

Why was the Earth once covered in ice? Why was there once only one huge land mass? Nobody is saying that previous warming and cooling trends occured. That's not the argument.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

82. wait...

are you TRYING to be obtuse?

[Solon]

68. Your question is a good one...

At least in a vacuum. Allow me to answer, first, Warming periods are caused by more than one factor, greenhouse gases are just ONE of these factors. Others include orbital perturbations and Sun activity.

The Sun, as an example, was much hotter than it is today, at least in the distant past, and it may have been more "active" than today as well. The Earth's orbit may have gone through some perturbations over long periods of time that may have impacted the climate. Volcanism may have cooled the planet, or a large number of plants may have been killed off, leaving more CO2 in the atmosphere, also contributing to warming periods. All these types of things happens, and it has NOTHING to do with what is happening now.

We KNOW, without a doubt, the Earth's orbit, we know the level of Solar activity, we know the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and how much we have contributed to it. Taking out all other factors, we should NOT be in the middle of a rapid warming period. After subtracting most other factors, the only one that changes this equation are our contributions in CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

[Zodiak]

92. harvey, that is terrible logic

If one day someone poured paint on your head and it dripped all over every inch of you (traumatizing you), and then I come up to you and just pour it down your leg, then you weren't hit with paint?

Hey genius, why stop at the Earth being warm during recent history, when it was originally formed? It was hot as hell....molten rock and all of that. Should we wait until it is that warm before we can call it global warming?

The basis for concluding that global warming is caused by humankind is copious. Many, many peer-reviewed articles. Leave the science to the scientists. You are hurting yourself.

Try this: read on the scientific method before you try on a scientist's hat and profess to know all about logic. Scientists work with testable hypotheses and the preponderance of the information, not non-sequitirs and solace in the anecdotal. You would never pass a candidacy examination.

[Solon]

94. Its not Global Warming till we reach tempuratures that equal those when Theia collided with Earth!

That was about 4 to 8 thousand degrees easily. In case you don't know, the "Theia" theory is one of Moon formation, when the Earth cooled enough to have water and an atmosphere, it was only about 90% of the mass it is today. Another Planet, most likely formed at one of the L-points of Earth's orbit ended up getting to close, and on the next pass, this planet, Theia, about the size of Mars today, collided with the Earth, a "glancing" blow, its Molten Iron core melded with Earth's and a large amount of the mantle of both planets spewed out into orbit around Earth, this stuff formed the Moon.

[Trajan]

125. I always suspected you were one of those ....

Now we know for sure ...

'Simple question' ? .....

Modelling weather phenomena is among the MOST complex mathematics that exist ....

Perhaps the former cause was one that mimicked current man-made causes through contemporaneous natural phenomena ... Natural phenomena present then that acted like man made phenomena does now .... something like increased vulcanism or other such natural phenomena that does the SAME thing .... Whether or not we can immediately pinpoint the exact cause now is irrelevent ....

It is obvious something is happening: To what natural cause do YOU attribute these changes ? ... Cmon on now: Identify those causes IMMEDIATELY, or we 'win' ... that is how it goes ... right ?

This is no simple question; it is quite complex ...

You are committing a complex question fallacy by demanding a simple answer to such a question ....

I have never agreed with your stances .... and this is one of many such posts ....

It is obvious that whatever man does creates SOME sort of impact .... are you proposing that ALL human caused impact is positive or benign for the environment, or just his impact on climate ? .. Isnt THAT speculation ?, or do you intend to prove it ? .... One trip to the dump will cure that nonsense ....

While you are there ......

[snowbear]

127. Oh yes --- harveyc is "one of those"

They don't know how I found out FOR SURE though. And I'm not tellin'.



But your hunch was right on Trajan.

[goodhue]

69. absurd dilemma

"100s of opinions on both sides" is disingenuous and inaccurate.

In contrast to present day global warming, causation of Pliocene warming was likely largely oceanic rather than atmospheric.

[zulchzulu]

70. The term "global warming" is somewhat inaccurate...it's "global climate disturbance"

I remember not too long ago hearing from a group of scientists with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) who are very involved in what is called "global warming" who basically say that the term "global warming" is somewhat inaccurate in definition of the symptoms that the global environment has been revealing.

It's more about global disturbances in weather patterns that affect the balance in the climate. It's not always just "warming". It's also drastic cold patterns that are part of the equation. It's the imbalance due to increased atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases and other factors.

Therefore, the term "global warming" is somewhat misleading. It should be termed "global weather pattern disturbance" or something to that effect. There is also the term "climate change" and "climate variability".

Not as sexy a term as "global warming", but a lot more accurate...

As for the reasons for the cooling trends during Pliocene-Pleistocene periods, there is this:

"Astronomer Narciso Benítez of Johns Hopkins University and his team suggest that a supernova is a plausible but unproven candidate for the marine extinctions that characterize the Pliocene-Pleistocene boundary, by causing a significant breakdown of the ozone layer."

And this:
"The Sco-Cen stars now lie some 450 light-years from Earth, too far away for a supernova explosion to harm our solar system. But by using data from the Hipparcos satellite to measure the current positions and velocities of stars in the association, Benitez' team traced the stars' paths back in time. The researchers found that the Sco-Cen members were quite a bit closer a few million years ago. Some could have passed within 130 light-years of Earth.

That's near enough that if one of the stars went supernova, cosmic rays from the explosion would have destroyed much of Earth's ozone layer. Then, the sun's harmful ultraviolet radiation would have penetrated the atmosphere and could have led to the destruction of plankton, mollusks, and other marine life at the so-called Pliocene-Pleistocene boundary 2 million years ago, the team suggests."

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene and http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_5_161/ai_84153021

More here on climate change:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

[Solon]

79. Rapid Global climate change...

I put rapid in there because that is what we should be concerned about, having a stable climate is necessary for human civilization, it doesn't matter if the climate was changing on timescales of thousands of years, we could cope with that, so could most life on Earth. However, rapid climate changes usually lead to mass extinctions and major disruptions in such basic necessities as food production and fresh water access.

[zulchzulu]

81. Rapid indeed...

The trends to show the rapidness of how our climate has changed since the beginning of the industrial age in the late 1880s to now are easily there and definable to any naysayer.

[harveyc]

84. Time Magazine -- 1974

Another Ice Age?

Tell me more about this since the 1800's, ok?

http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf

[Viva_La_Revolution]

96. Media reports of the "Ice Age" have already been debunked upthread...

try to keep up.

[Solon]

85. The OP also forgot the delay that is inherent in Climate change...

especially when triggered by almost purely atmospheric composition, in other words, not based on disasters like volcano explosions and impacts. Climate change takes time, even if you dump tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. If tomorrow, all our CO2 producing machinery, from power plants, to gas powered lawnmowers, were shut down, we would STILL be on an upward curve of a warming trend for some time afterward, then it will plateau and the climate will stabilize. What we should concentrate on is making the climate stabilize as soon as possible. This can only be accomplished through a drastic reduction in CO2 production.

[harveyc]

88. One 100 km^3 volcano will put more pollutants in the atmosphere than ...

than the accumulated total of humankind.

[Solon]

91. Define "Pollutants"...

First, the composition of these pollutants differs depending on type of volcano and type of eruption. In addition, volcanoes generally have a cooling effect on the climate on the Earth, one type of "pollutants" cancels others out. Sulfur Dioxide reacts in the upper atmosphere with water droplets, creating Sulfuric Acid droplets, which REFLECT sunlight, not to mention the ash and other particulates. Also, except for in certain mass extinction events in the past, volcano pollutants can usually be absorbed or negated through natural processes over short periods of time. Try again.

[harveyc]

93. Read the M-U findings ... same as CO2 generated from fossil fuels ... n/t

[Solon]

97. So the Earth is supposed to be cooling?

Since both Volcanoes and Particulates by Human pollution aren't stopping the planet from warming, since it IS warming, we know this for a fact, after all. Doesn't this mean there are other factors involved, has the albedo of Earth changed drastically in the past 100 years? No. Has there been less volcanism lately? No. Is the Sun more active, or a lot hotter than a century ago? Yet again, No.

So what is left, besides the fact that you can't read the last paragraph of the report you linked to.

[harveyc]

109. Maybe ...

the fossil fuel pollutants are resulting in a cooling effect, U-M article.

Based on the CO2 levels today, the Earth should be warmer than during the Pliocene warming period.

We are still 2C to 3C cooler.

[Solon]

123. First, you are forgetting that we haven't stopped warming yet...

You seem to put an unrealistic expectation on the Earth, that it isn't warming up fast enough for you. Seems odd really, but seriously, it most likely took the Earth thousands if not tens of thousands of years to increase its temperature 2 or 3 degrees when reacting to atmospheric or other changes. While today, it could be argued that we are accelerating the process, the Earth can't react within a century or so to such changes, so you cannot say with that we will NEVER meet the Pliocene "goal" so to speak. It may take a few centuries, but it could happen.

This is like expecting an ice cube to melt to a puddle instantly once it is removed from the freezer.

[hatrack]

80. Well, Harvey, you missed out on your chance for extra-credit points!

Too bad - you were right on the borderline of passing Earth Science 101, but I guess that's just not in the cards this semester.

However, I think at least some sort of recognition should be in order. We don't often see your kind of naked politicized stupidity don a lab coat and high heels to pose these kinds of questions, even in this sad age of the climate "skeptic" troll - at least not to the degree displayed tonight.

Therefore, I'm nominating you for DU's prestigious Order of the Numbed Nuts for the most ham-fisted attempt at belaboring the obvious I've seen in quite some time. I wish there were a way to pass you a beaker of liquid nitrogen to make the numbing experience more than just a metaphor, but alas, there are some things you just can't do in cyberspace.

So congratulations, and a hearty "Buh-bye" from me and from my fellow DUers.

[harveyc]

83. Haha ... at Earth Science 101 ... try again ... n/t

[Rude Horner]

86. I second the nomination

for the Order of the Numbed Nuts award.

It's not too often that someone who posts here is behind the intelligence curve of Bush, but I think we found one in Harvey. I mean, even Shrub is starting to come around to the realization of global climate change. But not ol' Harvey here. He's stickin' with the Pliocene argument and he ain't lettin' go, come hell or high water. Oh wait...that's a good pun.

And speaking of high water...is that a big chunk of the arctic ice mass breaking off? Hmmmmm....

[harveyc]

90. There was no ice mass to break off ...

during the Pliocene warming period. You are lucky to have lived in an era to have seen it!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

87. now, now dear hatrack,

gloating is so rude! What if this person was just unfortunately saddled with a inability to understand basic science. Perhaps a medical condition that thicked his skull so no facts could get in?

Wouldn't you feel guilty then, picking on a challenged man. hmmmmm?








:rofl:

[harveyc]

89. Understanding of basic science? Haha ... try again ... n/t

[harveyc]

98. Sounds like you haven't a clue, like ...

the 1000's of global warming "scientists" who said that 2006 was going to be a near record hurricane season for the US, right?

Not a single hurricane made land fall on the US in 2006. (Aside: Ernesto was reported at 75 mph, hurricanes, CAT I, are 74+ mph, but it made landfall at less that 75 mph.)

I am sure there are excuses for this also, just like the Pliocene warming period.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

129. Completely unfair to Harvey

I've been reading this board for maybe two months, and the argument he puts forward is easily the dumbest thing I've read on it so far, almost dumb to the point of being Avant Garde. I believe in my heart that Harvey has so much lower to plunge, and we'd be committing a travesty to not let him express that dumbness in its full flower.

[fuzzyball]

99. Global warming is IMPOSSIBLE to STOP if

nature is causing it. If man is causing it, it could be
stopped. What we do know is that global warming is happening.
What we don't know is how much is nature and how much is man made.
We also know that global warming happened at much higher intensity
10,000 years ago. That event melted the 2 mile thick glaciers
covering what is now the great lakes. That event was most certainly
not man made. There were not enough flint stones and twigs to cause
man made global warming 10,000 years ago.

[harveyc]

100. Nor SUV's, a voice of reason in the wilderness ... n/t

[garybeck]

101. YOUR PREMISE IS WRONG. Turn off Rush Limbaugh and get your facts straight.

It is not true that there are hundreds of opinions on both sides about what is causing it. that is simply false. virtually every scientific study says that HUMANS are causing it.

Even your buddy Bush has said it, that humans are responsible.

[harveyc]

102. You mean the same people who said ...

2006 would be a near record hurricane event for the US?

Try ZERO!

[belpejic]

103. Oh brother

I can't be sure from your ramblings, but I think you're referring to global dimming. It's caused by greenhouse gases, which have risen dramatically in the past 100 years, and these gases reflect the sun's rays back into space. It is believed that over a recent thirty year period it offset global warming by single digits of percentge points. The point is that warming is still occurring despite this small offset.

And your example about 2006 hurricane predictions is ridiculously simple-minded. Yes near term weather forcasting can improve, but there's no doubt that long term global warming will cause bigger and more intense storms.

Hey, guess what? At this moment it's cold outside where I live. That means that global warming can't be happening.

[harveyc]

104. The global "lower troposphere" temperature ...

has been lower than since 1998 ... 8 years of global cooling?

I know, another excuse, El Nino in 1998, right?

Just like why the Pliocene period warming occurred and why no hurricanes as the global warming "scientists" predicted to occurred in the US in 2006.

When are they going to be right?

[garybeck]

105. No, I do not mean the same people.

You obviously haven't done any homework on this at all, and I guess I was right about you listening to Limbaugh.

The climatalogists do not make predictions about any particular hurricane season, in relation to global warming. It's like looking at one day in the stock market. The overall trend is more hurricanes and stronger hurricanes. Plus, you can't just look at US hurricanes. global climate change is GLOBAL.

[harveyc]

106. How about ...

the global "lower troposphere" temperatures being cooler for 8 years since 1998?

And if what you say is true, why did these "scientists" predict the hurricane season in 2006?

[garybeck]

107. you're showing your true colors. again your premise is just wrong.

"these scientists" did not predict anything about the hurricane season.

"these scientists" who have been studying global warming have not made any predictions about year-to-year events in any one region of the globe. their focus is on the past and the present. any predictions they would make are long range and global in scope.

now i've said it twice... I guess you just don't want to listen to the facts. I'm not going to waste my time.

[harveyc]

108. More excuses and more misinformation ....

--- As a largely inactive 2006 hurricane season came to an official end Thursday, predictions that temperature increases in the earth's atmosphere and oceans would lead to more intense hurricanes are facing scrutiny from some "global warming" skeptics.

Climatologists last May predicted that the 2006 hurricane season would be more intense than last year's season, which brought destruction to the Gulf Coast in Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

But the 2006 season brought fewer hurricanes than predicted, and none of the hurricanes made landfall. Experts attribute this to the unexpected early formation of El Nino, a periodic warming of tropical Pacific Ocean waters.

According to Gerry Bell, a hurricane forecaster with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), El Nino produces a "sinking motion" and increased wind shear in the Atlantic atmosphere, both of which kill hurricanes.

Because El Nino is a warm-water phenomenon, some global warming skeptics wonder whether warming trends blamed for a hurricane-friendly Atlantic Ocean will also lead to stronger El Ninos that will in turn kill those hurricanes.

"The failure of forecasters to accurately predict the frequency and intensity of this year's hurricanes should remind Americans that climatology is an uncertain science," David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, said in a statement.

"If increasing global temperatures increases the frequency and duration of El Ninos ... global warming could result in less intense hurricanes," he argued. "Those who claim that rising global temperatures would definitely lead to more intense hurricanes appear to be relying upon political science, not climate science."

In a September 2005 speech, former Vice President Al Gore warned that "the average hurricane will continue to get stronger because of global warming" as "unusually warm waters" create "much stronger" hurricanes.

But Gore has also linked global warming to El Nino - which according to Bell, may actually have the effect of killing hurricanes.

In November 1997, Gore was quoted as suggesting that rising temperatures might be leading to more frequent and powerful El Nino systems.

"While there is no definite link between El Ninos and overall climate change, it is worth looking at recent patterns," Gore said in a November 1997 speech to an El Nino Community Preparedness Summit in California, according to an Inter Press Service report.

"I hope they don't become more commonplace," Gore said of El Ninos, "but that's what the pattern appears to indicate."

Although Bell contends that El Ninos kill hurricanes, he is skeptical of the view that global warming may strengthen the systems.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200611/NAT20061130b.html

[Milo_Bloom]

110. Your premise is faulty

Warmer waters doesn't CAUSE MORE hurricanes; however, they can increase the intensity of hurricanes after they form.

What we are talking about in general is more EXTREME weather conditions because of global warming, whether that be an El Nino or more intense hurricanes.

[harveyc]

111. No, your logic is faulty ...

how come global warming took a break in 2006 re hurricanes? How does that happen?

If you are running a 105F temperature, does your fever just go away for a year?

[Milo_Bloom]

113. Sorry, the logic works, the premise doesn't.

"how come global warming took a break in 2006 re hurricanes? How does that happen?"

It didn't.

You are misunderstand how global warming effects hurricanes. It doesn't CREATE THEM or dictate their path. By trying to claim that it does

thus,

your premise is faulty.

[k_jerome]

112. we affect the earth in much the same way a gnat affects us...

a minor annoyance at best.

[Milo_Bloom]

114. True... but...

You have to distinguish between the "earth" and the "people on it".

THE EARTH will survive global warming. THE EARTH would survive a full nuke exchange.

However, we, unfortunately, are delicate little creatures, as is our food supplies and we/they can be destroyed very easily. The current climate change can and will take care of that in due time.

So, if your concern is ONLY for the earth... chillax... The Earth is going to do just fine.

HOWEVER, if you are concerned for the future of humanity... well, then you might want to be concerned.

[k_jerome]

115. the nature of mankind is to leave such problems for future generations...

to fix. i join the vast majority of humans on earth in not really thinking about global warming. there are far more pressing issues to worry about.

[Milo_Bloom]

116. Frightfully some people really think like that.

It's a little frightening, but some people really believe what you just said.

I suspect these are the same people who have trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time. Unfortunately, they fail to realize how this "future problem" plays into today's problems, such as higher cost of food due to extreme climate conditions, higher cost of insurance if you live in flood plains, hurricane zones, etc... It's kinda like death by a million cuts... each element causes a little inconvenience, but lumped together, they ARE the pressing issues.

[k_jerome]

117. the vast majority of people do feel like this....

the ones who do not drive the sames cars as the people who do, use the same amount of oil as the people who do, and generally pollute and contribute to global warming about the same amount as the people who do feel like this. by and large.

[Milo_Bloom]

118. You are greatly mis-underestimating people

The vast majority of people don't really understand what needs to be done, and thus, do nothing waiting for someone else to tell them what to do... they understand it is a problem and one that needs solving; however, they don't see how saving 10MPG is going to make a dent in it.

Without a specific goal and a specific plan, people don't function well... they continue the status quo.

It's similar to the recycling movement of the 70's/80's. People were told there was a problem and then given steps to a solution. People who claimed "not to care" then, now mostly seperate out their trash and feel good about it... a specific plan.

The problem with climate change right now is their is no unifying voice or plan. "STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS".. well, that seems insurmountable, impossible... and improbable.

If a leader presented people with a specific plan and a specific goal (We are going to take X steps to reduce carbon emissions by this %, which will have this effect) you will be surprised by the number of people who rally to it.

[harveyc]

119. People were also told that we would run out ...

of oil for 150 years.

--- Over the past 150 years, geologists and other scientists often have predicted that our oil reserves would run dry within a few years. When oil prices rise for an extended period, the news media fill with dire warnings that a crisis is upon us. Environmentalists argue that governments must develop new energy technologies that do not rely on fossil fuels. The facts contradict these harbingers of doom:


- World oil production continued to increase through the end of the 20th century.

- Prices of gasoline and other petroleum products, adjusted for inflation, are lower than they have been for most of the last 150 years.

- Estimates of the world’s total endowment of oil have increased faster than oil has been taken from the ground.

[Milo_Bloom]

124. Wow, can you just smell all the BS?

"--- Over the past 150 years, geologists and other scientists often have predicted that our oil reserves would run dry within a few years. When oil prices rise for an extended period, the news media fill with dire warnings that a crisis is upon us. Environmentalists argue that governments must develop new energy technologies that do not rely on fossil fuels. The facts contradict these harbingers of doom:"

This is just a plain old lie. No one has predicted oil reserves would run dry "within a few years".. The most catastrophic predictions don't have oil running out until the mid 2000's (around 2040), but that presumes NO NEW SUPPLIES FOUND, which they are discovered frequently. However, the simple fact is that fossil fuels WILL run out. That is just a reality based on what it is and the time it takes to form.

Prices of gasoline and other petroleum products, adjusted for inflation, are lower than they have been for most of the last 150 years.

This is just another lie.

http://www.fintrend.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm


Edited to add this california chart, showing in 2006, the inflation adjusted rate of gas was the highest in HISTORY (http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gasoline_cpi_adjusted.html)


Come on, can you at least try to be honest?

[harveyc]

130. I read your links, now you can read this source ...

BS? I don't think so, well referenced ...

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg/bg159/

[Milo_Bloom]

132. Yeah, BS. The source was already disproven.

The support in the "article" is woefully thin. It uses single statements by out of mainstream scientists as its "proof" that people have been predicting the end of oil. That's like trying to give credence to the religious nuts constantly predicting "the end of the world is near".

Statements like, "In 1995, a respected geologist predicted in World Oil that petroleum production would peak in 1996, and after 1999 major increases in crude oil prices would have dire consequences. He warned that “any of the world’s developed societies may look more like today’s Russia than the U.S" Here the article is quoting one, SINGLE, "respected" geologist (who they don't name) in support that PEOPLE are predicting the end of oil. As the tobacco industry proved, you can find individual "respected" people in a field to say just about anything, but that doesn't mean that the view they hold is actually respected.


The article also makes this claim, which I have already PROVEN false.

"Prices of gasoline and other petroleum products, adjusted for inflation, are lower than they have been for most of the last 150 years. "

(see previous charts proven this a MYTH).


When you find a real source, feel free to come back and try again.

[harveyc]

134. Economics 101 ...

Where in the heck do you get such misinformation? 1983 $'s ...

Year $/gal CPI $/real
1967 0.33 33.4 0.98
1968 0.34 34.8 0.97
1969 0.35 36.7 0.95
1970 0.36 38.8 0.92
1971 0.36 40.5 0.89
1972 0.36 41.8 0.86
1973 0.39 44.4 0.87
1974 0.53 49.3 1.07
1975 0.57 53.8 1.06
1976 0.61 56.9 1.07
1977 0.66 60.6 1.08
1978 0.67 65.2 1.02
1979 0.90 72.6 1.23
1980 1.25 82.4 1.51
1981 1.38 90.9 1.51
1982 1.30 96.5 1.34
1983 1.24 99.6 1.24
1984 1.21 103.9 1.16
1985 1.20 107.6 1.11
1986 0.93 109.6 0.85
1987 0.95 113.6 0.83
1988 0.95 118.3 0.80
1989 1.02 124.0 0.82
1990 1.16 130.7 0.88
1991 1.14 136.2 0.83
1992 1.13 140.3 0.80
1993 1.11 144.5 0.77
1994 1.11 148.2 0.75
1995 1.15 152.4 0.75
1996 1.23 156.9 0.78
1997 1.23 160.5 0.76
1998 1.06 163.0 0.65
1999 1.17 166.6 0.70
2000 1.51 172.2 0.87
2001 1.46 177.1 0.82
2002 1.36 179.9 0.75
2003 1.59 184.0 0.86
2004 1.88 188.9 0.99
2005 2.59 195.3 1.32
2006 2.28 201.6 1.13
2007 2.10 202.2 1.03 (see Note)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0524.html

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

Note: 1/30/07 $/gal - gasbuddy.com, CPI est, will be released 2/17/07

[Milo_Bloom]

135. More BS from you? Sure why not.

*Edited to fix links*

First, let's repeat what was already proven...


This is just another lie.

http://www.fintrend.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm


California chart, showing in 2006, the inflation adjusted rate of gas was the highest in HISTORY (http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gasoline_cpi_adjusted.html )

Heck, even your own info calls you a liar

1971 0.36 1.26
1972 0.36 1.20
1973 0.39 1.22
1974 0.53 1.53
1975 0.57 1.49
1976 0.59 1.47
1977 0.62 1.46
1978 0.63 1.37
1979 0.86 1.73
1980 1.19 2.20
1981 1.31 2.22


Are you smoking those petrolium products to come up with your misinformation???

[k_jerome]

120. i am simply following the trend of human beings throughout history...

perhaps you are correct...we shall see i suppose.

[snowbear]

121. They talked about the Bush Administration doctoring scientifical reports on our local news tonight..

It's also all over the net if you do a quick search:

Bush administration accused of doctoring scientists' reports on climate change


· Inconvenient conclusions censored, hearing told
· Researchers warned not to talk about global warming

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Wednesday January 31, 2007
The Guardian


The Bush administration was yesterday accused of systemic tampering with the work of government climate scientists to eliminate politically inconvenient material about global warming.

At a hearing of Congress, scientists and advocacy groups described a campaign by the White House to remove references to global warming from scientific reports and limit public mention of the topic to avoid pressure on an administration opposed to mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions.

Such pressure extended even to the use of the words "global warming" or "climate change", said a report released yesterday by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project. The report said nearly half of climate scientists at government agencies had been advised against using those terms.

Rest of the article is after the ad on: http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2002574,00.html

[harveyc]

122. Saw it, so what? Doesn't answer the question ... n/t

[crispini]

126. This thread is pathetic.

Over and over again, people are presenting you with facts which you're just ignoring.

It's perfectly obvious that you're letting your devotion to some RW political agenda get in the way of scientific reason and thought.

What's sad is that we have about 10 years at most to fix this problem or we're all going to fry, and you would rather play stupid ideological games rather than get to work on this problem.

Do you have children? Because they're going to see the result of your wrongheadedness. Think about that.

[snowbear]

128. It is VERY pathetic ...

And I'm sorry harveyc, but take a stroll through the boards.

Nothing you post is ever positive towards Progressives - or as you like to call them "Democrat Candidates"

I agree with the others on this particular thread --- it seriously is getting close to tombstomb time.

You know that you're here just to stir the pot.

Also, you very rarely (if ever) respond to anyone else's threads, but you start these ludicrous wingnut batshit crazy posts CONSTANTLY.

[harveyc]

131. The planet is undergoing global warming ...

Mars! Gosh darn, Martians and their SUV's. What are their kids going to do?

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

[ItNerd4life]

133. 11th- 13th century was also much warmer than it is now

There is a reason Greenland has the name it has. It was much warmer from the 11th - 13th centuries than it is now. The 13th-16th centuries are called the mini-ice age.

There isn't a debate on whether the earth is warming, everybody agrees it is. Also, whether it's been warmer (or colder) in the past is not the issue.

The issue is, Are humans causing this warming trend? Even if we're not sure, it makes sense to reduce the amount of C02 going into the air and treat the environment with respect.

However, I think it's sad that you are being flamed because you aren't following the prescribed message. I believe the message is wrong. We shouldn't call it global warming, we should call it 'Respect for the environment'. Just as we have pollution laws to protect the environment, we should also have C02 and methane laws to protect the Earth's atmosphere.

[Javaman]

136. Argggg, why are these posts still allowed...

The majority of the worlds scientists agree that global warming is man made.

The so called debunker's are from two sources which are funded by exxon.

this is the first case in recorded history where bullshit and money do the walk.

it's man made, get over it and start conserving.

[proud patriot]

138. Locking this thread

the op is no longer with us