Edit to add - bold mine for emphasis.

This post has been edited by JohnWho: Oct 13 2007, 08:24 AM

Just an observation by a layman, but if the earth can have an "ice age" wouldn't it by reason dictate that the pendulum can
swing the other way?


MOD EDIT. Remove unnecessary code symbols. DSTM

This post has been edited by DSTM: Oct 13 2007, 07:13 PM

Seems plausable,'Vicki' Worries me that the Polar Ice Caps,are melting at such an alarming rate, and the Hole in the Ozone layer which protects us, is getting larger every year.

Global Warming is something to be concerned about to a degree. Before every ice age the world gets warmer to melt the ice capes and then the water freezes and over time the ice retracts back to the poles. As for us humans meddling with it, do you really think 300 years of heavy industry is going to affect the previous 4.7 billion years the world has been here? The Earth has been through a lot worse than this; earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles…hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, and cosmic rays and we think they some carbon dioxide is going to ruin good ole' mother nature? The Earth is a self correcting system.

Ah, that would seem logical, wouldn't it?

But you are talking about a natural cycle.

The "alarmists" are blaming it primarily on mankind's actions.

I think any rational person should understand that we need to be better stewards of our environment - stop poluting rivers, streams, lakes, and the oceans, for example. But, should we be reacting in a manner that may cripple many countries economies and ultimately make absolutely no appreciable difference to the environment?

That's the problem - these organizations want us to change the way we do things, yet there is not a major consensus that what they want us to do will have any more than a minimal impact, if at all, on the described problem.

I fully support protecting the environment, but not through unwarranted fear mongering that may not make any difference.

I agree that we need to take better care of our planet. Untill we learn to live in harmony with nature we will continue to
run into problems - Mom Nature is going to do what she is going to do. ie the only way to grow a sequoia is to burn the forest. I really can't believe they gave the Nobel to the top "alarmist"! I'm from Tn but I still don't like the man.

Look at the past winners of the Nobel Peace Prize
http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/peace.html

It's a joke.

Of course its all a joke - purely political not what you know - its who you know

This is the kind of trash that makes the whole GW issue so full of conflict. I'm not coming at this from a GW alarmist point of view (God knows they are just as irrational). It is just that this article is really bad. A high school education is enough to tell why it isn't worth the paper it is written on (or the space in your RAM it takes up for that matter).

Gee, I have more than a High School education and I posted the article link.






Do you disagree with the assumptions of the author regarding the assumptions of the Clinton Global Initiative group?

It sounded a little emotional of me. Sorry. Let me see if I can add some reason to back my feelings. I do more than disagree with the assumptions in the article; the reasoning is faulty as well. It was not meant as a critique of you.

Lets start with this part:This part has several things wrong with it. A poison is something that causes damage, illness or death to an organism. Excessive CO2 causes blood acidosis where the pH level of the blood drops. All CO2 is not a poison per assumption, it is a poison per definition.

The second thing wrong is the absorption. The number 40% may be correct. The rest is absorbed by the oceans or the ground or flies out into space. Sooner or later 100% of the CO2 ends up somewhere else. But claiming that this negates its harmfulness is like saying people come back to life when we put their murderers in prison. That the CO2 will end up somewhere else at some point in the future doesn't change that it can cause harm while it is in the atmosphere.
There has been some revision to the Global Temperature Record earlier this year (they may still be ongoing) because some flaws were detected. What the end result of this will be remains to be seen. But it should be noted that the connection between CO2 and warming is based on more than just an observed correlation. There is and physics theory explaining why CO2 causes warming.
This one's more complicated. That the predictions of the climate models vary is true. But assuming that the climatologists don't know this is, well, I don't know if it is ignorance or malice. The difference is taken into account. They test the models by turning back the time in them and then letting them run to see how well their predictions compare to our measure records. They also combine the results from several different models with some statistical hocus pocus to generate the end result. Werther their method is perfect or not I do not know, and I'm sure there are people working on bettering it, but assuming the differences between models are ignored is wrong.
This thing is the most complicated to judge because it is all a statistics game. As you know there are lies, damn lies and statistics. I do not feel I have what it takes to make a proper judgment here, but taking into account the other flaws of this article I wouldn't put any trust to this statement.

Now I'll see if I can explain why I am so emotional about all of this. Most reporting done about GW simplifies the science to such an degree that is ends up being untrue. But that is not the biggest lie they tell. The biggest lie is that a the layman, Joe Average, actually can understand and judge these matters without any education in the field. The consequences of this are far reaching. Step one to understanding is recognizing ones own ignorance. The result of the lie is that Joe Average thinks he can understand the issue and so keeps him from recognizing his own ignorence. Not only does this keep him from actually learning about the matters, it also leaves him vulnerable to manipulation. There are a lot of political parties and groups praying on this vulnerability.

The GW reporting as it stands now is at best dishonest, and at worst harmful. This upsets me.

This post has been edited by Mr Alpha: Oct 16 2007, 11:38 AM

I agree with that statement.

The majority of the GW reporting seems to be supporting the concept that it is being caused by humanity and if we (the people) conduct ourselves differently the warming trend can be lessened, maybe even reversed.


Also, please remember, that article is specifically describing the assumptions of that particular gathering. It does appear to me that it describes much of what Gore is saying as well.



Agreed.

But, does the warming cause an increase in the CO2 levels or do the rising CO2 levels cause an increase in the temperature? There are some who claim that it is the warming that is causing the rise in CO2 levels, which directly contradicts these GW alarmists.

First off, I definitely think that Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize is a farce; especially when you consider the past nominees/winners, and who he beat out this year; read for more details.

I agree that the GW nuts are going overboard. The fact that the science contradicts itself proves that there is more going on then what the tree-hugging hippies say. And I also think that even if Earth is getting warmer, it is very arrogent of us to think that humans can stop it or make it worse. As yano said, the earth has been around a lot longer than humans have been polluting. While I do think we should reduce some emissions for health reasons, thinking that it will have anything but a minimal impact on the planet is pointless.

Most of everybody agree that warming increases the CO2 levels. The is a lot of CO2 in the glaciers; as they melt they release this CO2. But this does not in any way contradict the possibility that CO2 causes warming. There is no reason why both can't be true.