Global Warming and Gun Bans?
- Thread starter TX1911fan
- Start date
- Status
Charles Martel
Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2007
- Messages
- 71
That is one for the ages! I just wish John Kerry or Algore had made the comment instead.
longrifleman
Member
This is troubling to me as well. One problem you will have convincing me to accept your position is I simply don't trust virtually all of the prominent spokesmen for your position. As in I think most of them are lying scum. If you can get the socialist politicians to shut up, we can talk. Does that me unreasonable? Maybe. If so, tough.
There is no way to separate politics from this issue, so we will have to deal with it. An excellent example is Helmetcase's advocacy of nuclear power, something I have wanted for 30 years. How many plants are under construction nationwide now? Two, maybe? When Algore stands on the Capitol steps and demands a crash program of new pebble bed reactors, I'll maybe believe there is more to this than a socialist power grab disguised as science.
There's plenty of people, myself included, who think that nuclear power seems to be the most sensible low carbon alternative. I haven't done a whole lot of research in this area.
I agree that it is unlikely that the two will ever be totally separated. However, the position that near-all Democrats support AGW they are anti-business and that is the 'why' therefore I don't support AGW is as fallacious as the idea that near-all Republicans reject AGW and they are all pro-business and that is the 'why' therefore I reject their position.
Seems the debate is often little more sophisticated than this.
I agree that it is unlikely that the two will ever be totally separated. However, the position that near-all Democrats support AGW they are anti-business and that is the 'why' therefore I don't support AGW is as fallacious as the idea that near-all Republicans reject AGW and they are all pro-business and that is the 'why' therefore I reject their position.
Seems the debate is often little more sophisticated than this.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
I'm not a scientist
I know a few.
They laugh. Global warming caused by man = snake oil.
However, if you need a barometer for belief:
1) Science isn't consensus. Consensus isn't science. We regularly have love fests in the scientific community about stuff that is later disproved. They never apologize. They just arrogate to the next consensus and race to get published. "Consensus science" has been predicting a worldwide bird flu pandemic for years now. We're all gonna die.
2) The U.N. has completely bought into man-blamed global warming. The U.N. is a beacon of truth and integrity. That's why they want to disarm the populations of the world, and the U.S. in particular.
I am not a scientist, but I AM a trained observer and analyst. Any time clusters of scientists begin to do rain dances together while predicting doom, my BS radar kicks in.
And as a matter of principle, anything the U.N. endorses at all -- especially where it grants plausible rationale for their authority to dictate global behavior -- is immediately suspect to me.
I am not a scientist, but I can recognize the signs of scientific fraud when I see them.
I know a few.
They laugh. Global warming caused by man = snake oil.
However, if you need a barometer for belief:
1) Science isn't consensus. Consensus isn't science. We regularly have love fests in the scientific community about stuff that is later disproved. They never apologize. They just arrogate to the next consensus and race to get published. "Consensus science" has been predicting a worldwide bird flu pandemic for years now. We're all gonna die.
2) The U.N. has completely bought into man-blamed global warming. The U.N. is a beacon of truth and integrity. That's why they want to disarm the populations of the world, and the U.S. in particular.
I am not a scientist, but I AM a trained observer and analyst. Any time clusters of scientists begin to do rain dances together while predicting doom, my BS radar kicks in.
And as a matter of principle, anything the U.N. endorses at all -- especially where it grants plausible rationale for their authority to dictate global behavior -- is immediately suspect to me.
I am not a scientist, but I can recognize the signs of scientific fraud when I see them.
Charles Martel
Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2007
- Messages
- 71
I'll go you one better: I don't trust ANY, repeat ANY prominent or less famous advocate of humans causing GW. Utter rubbish - ALL of it. Sheer unadulterated idolatry performed at the altar of GW.
agricola
Member
bowline,
Thats a complete crock.
No, as is obvious, however selectively you quote it. Sure, some irrelevant people make that allegation (which is rather more repeated by skeptics), and Foriegndudes links only provided evidence for one of your views, the rest of which were dealt with in my initial reply.
Then you need an object lesson. A straw man argument definition:
An actual strawman argument from Foriegndude:
and a strawman from yourself:
Healthy skepticism is a vital tool of science - which is why so many of the studies that show GW are peer reviewed, well researched and thorough studies (and why, for that matter, the anti-GW studies remain not so, despite no lack of funding available for them). This might suggest that one view was the more correct, but in the strange world of the skeptic it means that the opposite is true.
And then the cheese:
No, you are using the same tactics as skeptics use all the time, both on this thread and the previous one - ignore the science, label the consensus as invalid because of a very small number of contrarians and a larger number of lobbyists, label the adherents as wrong because of their perceived politics etc.
Thats a complete crock.
No, as is obvious, however selectively you quote it. Sure, some irrelevant people make that allegation (which is rather more repeated by skeptics), and Foriegndudes links only provided evidence for one of your views, the rest of which were dealt with in my initial reply.
Then you need an object lesson. A straw man argument definition:
An actual strawman argument from Foriegndude:
and a strawman from yourself:
Healthy skepticism is a vital tool of science - which is why so many of the studies that show GW are peer reviewed, well researched and thorough studies (and why, for that matter, the anti-GW studies remain not so, despite no lack of funding available for them). This might suggest that one view was the more correct, but in the strange world of the skeptic it means that the opposite is true.
And then the cheese:
No, you are using the same tactics as skeptics use all the time, both on this thread and the previous one - ignore the science, label the consensus as invalid because of a very small number of contrarians and a larger number of lobbyists, label the adherents as wrong because of their perceived politics etc.
Iain,
We are, I think (see the first post of this discussion) actually trying to point out that the tactics of debate used by those who are proclaiming the 'Truth of Global Warming' are very similar to the tactics of debate used by a couple of other groups, notably those who are in favor of gun control. In many instances they are the same group of people.
It is a truism that one is known by the company one keeps, a leopard doesn't change its' spots, and if your best argument consists of shouting louder than the other fellow, it is a good bet that the facts won't support your position. The short version of that is SKerry and Al Gore couldn't sell me a life preserver if I was drowning.
It is, perhaps, unfortunate that those who favor gun control use junk science and the 'lalalala I can't HEAR you' school of debate to 'prove' their position.
It is, perhaps, unfortunate that this method is also being used by what I have come to think of as the 'Cult of Global Warming'.
It weakens their position, casts doubt on the legitimacy of their stated goals, and causes 'the average joe' to discard their argument out of hand.
Now, you and I probably want to get to the same place. A cleaner environment, and renewable energy.
The position of the GW faithful is that in order to reach these goals, industrial growth must be halted in its' tracks, and economies worldwide must be brought under the control of the UN. Anyone who disagrees with these points, in any way, is a tool, a fool, or an enemy of mankind.
The position of skeptics is that 1) We don't know if we are seeing a trend, or a bump in the road. 2) We don't know, absolutely, what the cause is, 3) The last time that the earth got considerably warmer was actually beneficial to man and 4) The global economy / retrograde industrial growth method will certainly cause more problems than it will cure.
This is not the forum to rehash the fact and conjecture behind the GW debate. We are debating the tactics and known history of the individuals and groups behind the debate.
We are, I think (see the first post of this discussion) actually trying to point out that the tactics of debate used by those who are proclaiming the 'Truth of Global Warming' are very similar to the tactics of debate used by a couple of other groups, notably those who are in favor of gun control. In many instances they are the same group of people.
It is a truism that one is known by the company one keeps, a leopard doesn't change its' spots, and if your best argument consists of shouting louder than the other fellow, it is a good bet that the facts won't support your position. The short version of that is SKerry and Al Gore couldn't sell me a life preserver if I was drowning.
It is, perhaps, unfortunate that those who favor gun control use junk science and the 'lalalala I can't HEAR you' school of debate to 'prove' their position.
It is, perhaps, unfortunate that this method is also being used by what I have come to think of as the 'Cult of Global Warming'.
It weakens their position, casts doubt on the legitimacy of their stated goals, and causes 'the average joe' to discard their argument out of hand.
Now, you and I probably want to get to the same place. A cleaner environment, and renewable energy.
The position of the GW faithful is that in order to reach these goals, industrial growth must be halted in its' tracks, and economies worldwide must be brought under the control of the UN. Anyone who disagrees with these points, in any way, is a tool, a fool, or an enemy of mankind.
The position of skeptics is that 1) We don't know if we are seeing a trend, or a bump in the road. 2) We don't know, absolutely, what the cause is, 3) The last time that the earth got considerably warmer was actually beneficial to man and 4) The global economy / retrograde industrial growth method will certainly cause more problems than it will cure.
This is not the forum to rehash the fact and conjecture behind the GW debate. We are debating the tactics and known history of the individuals and groups behind the debate.
Agricola,
I will put this as simply as I can.
Skepticism is an approach used to ensure the soundness of theory.
Proclaiming that any disagreement with your position is 'a crock' is an approach used to drown dissent.
This second approach is most usually associated with fanatics, socialists, and those who really don't know what they are talking about.
The first law of holes - when you are in one, stop digging.
I will put this as simply as I can.
Skepticism is an approach used to ensure the soundness of theory.
Proclaiming that any disagreement with your position is 'a crock' is an approach used to drown dissent.
This second approach is most usually associated with fanatics, socialists, and those who really don't know what they are talking about.
The first law of holes - when you are in one, stop digging.
agricola
Member
Bowline,
Lets not try and pretend you have backed up your arguments with any evidence, please. I oppose your stance because its wrong, not because of any other reason.
I also note you have, however, made yet another strawman in your reply to Iain:
Want to evidence that?
Lets not try and pretend you have backed up your arguments with any evidence, please. I oppose your stance because its wrong, not because of any other reason.
I also note you have, however, made yet another strawman in your reply to Iain:
Want to evidence that?
agricola
Member
Bowline,
I thought not.
I thought not.
Charles Martel
Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2007
- Messages
- 71
I cannot prove that man does not cause global warming. And of course, neither can anyone else - it is impossible to prove a negative. Come on folks - basic logic, not too demanding at that! The burden of proof in the scientific method is on that person or persons trying to establish a hypothesis, i.e. man causes global warming.
I am under no obligation as a scientific skeptic to meet any burden whatsoever other than testing hypotheses. Those testing the GW hypothesis have fallen woefully short in meeting the burden of proving their hypothesis.
They are a bunch of quacks and charlatans beholden to special interest groups. End of story.
AStone
Member
Getting past the politics, looking at the science
So far in this thread, just like in others that I've participated in, most of the arguments have been based in assertions about the uncertainty of the science, or the nature of science, or the political affiliations of one side of the argument or the other.
Yes, the role of skepticism in science is crucial, but there comes a time when the skeptics must be willing to yield to consensus. That time has arrived with this issue. And I tire of the argument that supporters are demopublicans, deniers are republicrats {yawn}. (For the record, I am neither, and in fact am as apolitical as one can get.)
There are allegations here that the GW supporters merely wish to increase their leverage for gun control, and that they are unwilling to accept nuclear power as an alternative to burning fossil fuels.
Several posters have danced dangerously close to ad hominem, which is a sure recipe for getting this thread locked. (Art WILL get out a big padlock if that happens, as he should. You can trust that. I only hope to get this lengthy essay posted before he does.)
But interestingly, with all the allegations of bad science, of uncertainty, of politics, etc, no one has bothered to look at what we do know, or site any sources of information about that.
This post is a step in that direction. I'd like to get past politics and name calling and get down to basic knowledge.
Below is a partial list of what we know. All of it is published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. (Peer review processes include skeptics who rake a fine tooth comb over methods of experimental design, data analysis and conclusions searching for logical flaws in all.)
It is important to try to grasp that the Earth's climate regulation system is the single most complex issue that science has ever tackled, bar none. It involves physics, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, chemistry, atmospheric sciences, oceanography, astronomy, ecology, geology, evolution, mathematics (much of it complex) and computer science. It is no wonder that many people have trouble grasping it; in many cases that includes the scientists themselves, many of whom are trained in only one or two of the requisite disciplines, and rarely in all of them.
For the record, I have a PhD in ecology, an MS in mathematics, and teach two college-level classes about this issue. That doesn't make me any smarter than you. It doesn't make me an expert or an authority. (I don't believe in either.) It simply states that I've spent some time studying these issues (several hundred hours at least just over the last three years) and have a bit of information about them. As a person with an interest in science, especially ecological dynamics and the evolutionary and geologic history of our planet, I find this at least an intellectually fascinating exercise. I have NO agendas in terms of solutions. Humanity will do what it will in terms of dealing with this, or not as the case will probably be. I am responsible only for myself.
I am very open to arguments in favor of nuclear fission (as a short term solution) and nuclear fusion (as a longer term solution). As a gun owner (4 presently {see user name}, working on #5: a SW 686+), I support RKBA and will resist use of GW arguments by any who try to take my guns away.
(As a matter of fact, I came to THR seeking advice on guns for my tool kit since, based on my knowledge of global warming and climate change, and the rapidity with which both can and do occur (a certainty from various studies including geology and - more importantly - ice core studies), I fully expect that the current bout of climate change will disrupt civilization as we know it within a decade or three, including agricultural production and water availability for hundreds of millions, and I intend to be ready for the ensuing criminal anarchy.)
As a student of the concept of ecological stability, I am also well aware that climate change IS the rule rather than the exception on this planet (and presumably others), and that the relatively stable climate of the last few thousand years (since the end of the last Ice Age after the Younger Dryas event ended 11,200 years ago) has been an anomaly, and that our civilization has neither experienced large scale climate change, nor are we prepared to deal with it when (not if) it happens.
As oceanographer Wally Broecker said as early as 1988, "The climate system is a capricious beast and we are poking it with a sharp stick. Expect surprises."
I strongly recommend a web site by physicist Spencer Weart called The Discovery of Global Warming. IMO, it is the best source of the history and current state of the science of climate change on the web. It is clearly written for an educated lay reader; he sites references for every piece of data, every assertion and every conclusion (unlike many so-called "skeptics") and freely notes where uncertainties exist, but - importantly - explains the nature of those uncertainties [e.g., the important distinction between qualitative statements (warming is occurring) v. quantitative statements (X degrees of warming will occur in the next t years)].
To his credit, Weart divides most of his chapters into two unequal sections: what we thought we understood about this science before 1988, including the confusion that existed in the climate change science community before data collection and computing power was sufficient to deal with the issue (e.g., yes, they did erroneously believe that global cooling was more likely in the 1970's, but he explains clearly why) and after 1988 when the amount of data increased exponentially and computing power (especially the super computers of the 21st century) resulted in far better data analysis and modeling reliability.
I particularly recommend the following essays on Weart's site. For those trying to understand the scale and speed of the challenge before us, and why there has been such confusion in the scientific community about this issue that has fueled the skeptics, these are essential reading.
Note that each essay includes a summary at the top (minimum reading). If time is short, jump to the section of each entitled "After 1988".
The Modern Temperature Trend
Rapid Climate Change
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Aerosols: The effects of haze and cloud
Biosphere: How Life Alters Climate
Changing Sun, Changing Climate?
Ocean Currents and Climate
Simple Models of Climate Change
Chaos in the Atmosphere
General Circulation Models
I may or may not continue to participate in this thread. Honestly, I've grown bored of the argument now, having seen so much ad hominem and so many of the tired old bits of misinformation trotted out again and again and again. These days, I generally only engage in discussion with those who have at least read Weart's pages in which he addresses the arguments that have now been debunked by sound, peer-reviewed published science so that we are not "talking past one another". And, I'm pretty busy with work, and my main reason for being on THR is to learn about guns and tools, not to debate this issue.
And, it is, after all, a testable hypothesis: regardless of arguments on either side, nature will do what it will, and we will know "the answer" to this debate, most likely within a couple of decades. I find myself increasingly willing to sit back and wait for the answer rather than wade through endless debates among people who often haven't really studied the issues.
I wish you all well in what seems to be coming our way.
Nem
_____________
Here is what we know with great certainty. Note that most of this is based in direct observation.
Those denying the reality of global warming and climate change on the Earth now must provide refutation of each of these bits of information, including references to published data serving to refute them. (I have little doubt that some will attack the sources of some of these stories; readers should be aware that regardless of the story source, there is published data to back it up.)
Those wishing to understand the issue need to focus NOT on any single bit of information in this list, but instead attempt to develop a gestalt of all of it, how they fit together as a coherent whole suggesting that we have a serious problem.
The crux of the issue is this: if melting of the northern polar ice cap (both the Arctic ocean sheet and the Greenland cap) cannot be stopped and reversed, then heating of that region will continue its upward spiral. The models have predicted (accurately) from the beginning that the poles would heat disproportionately fast, and that warming in that region would seriously impact climate changes in other regions. That is indeed occurring.
Yet, even though every single positive feedback process known to be involved in rapid climate change has now engaged, we know of no negative feedback processes that can now stop the melting of that northern ice cap.
1. Global average temperatures have accelerated during the late 20th century & early parts of the 21st. 2005 (tied with 1998) was the hottest in at least 400 years, & possibly 1000 years. This is not a one-off event; 11 of last 12 years are among 12 warmest on record worldwide. 2006 was the hottest year on record for the US (sixth hottest worldwide). 2007 is projected to be the hottest year on record globally.
2. The end-of-summer Arctic ice has decreased 20% in less than 3 decades. The rate of melting is accelerating. Ice accumulation decreased by 6% in the last two winters. Alaska has heated more & faster than other place on Earth (2oC).
3. Greenland's ice sheet is melting twice as fast (conservatively) than it was only five years ago, as confirmed by NASA satellite studies.
4. Loss of the northern ice cap will accelerate warming by loss of albedo. Ice reflects more than 80% of solar radiation, cooling a region; dark ocean water absorbs more than 80% of solar radiation. Absorption of heat, therefore, accelerates ice loss, a positive feedback process.
5. From ice core data: CO2 levels are already significantly higher now than in the last 800,000 years. (Previous high: 300 PPM; now: 379 ppm).
6. The CO2 increase is accelerating. Past increases never exceeded 30 ppm/1000 years, yet CO2 increased 30 ppm in the last 17 years.
7. Cycling times (“pump down”) for CO2 operate on the order of 50 years; thus, the CO2 in the atmosphere now, & any added to it from now, will remain in the atmosphere for at least 50 years, even if we minimize emissions now.
8. Ocean heating is causing a decrease in population sizes & northward redistribution of marine phytoplankton that play a MAJOR role in absorption of CO2 and production of clouds that reflect sunlight, cooling tropical oceans. This is another positive feedback.
9. From ice core data: methane is also at a record high levels: 1780 ppb vs. 650 ppb in average interglacial. Though far lower in concentration than CO2, methane is 23X more powerful, molecule per molecule. It oxidizes (compared to CO2) quickly (~ a decade) to H2O + CO2.
10. Vast regions of permafrost near the Arctic are thawing, methane increase is 5X what was expected just a few years ago, & threatens to engage another positive feedback process accelerating heating. This issue has been called "a sleeping giant” by those studying it.
11. There is a 50 year lag time (committed heating or oceanic inertia) between stabilization of gases & cessation of heating.
12. We are being cooled by sulfur aerosols in the atmosphere, mostly resulting from burning fuels. Under proper conditions (e.g., an economic decline), aerosols would wash out of the atmosphere in several weeks, significantly enhancing the heating effect by 2-3oC.
So far in this thread, just like in others that I've participated in, most of the arguments have been based in assertions about the uncertainty of the science, or the nature of science, or the political affiliations of one side of the argument or the other.
Yes, the role of skepticism in science is crucial, but there comes a time when the skeptics must be willing to yield to consensus. That time has arrived with this issue. And I tire of the argument that supporters are demopublicans, deniers are republicrats {yawn}. (For the record, I am neither, and in fact am as apolitical as one can get.)
There are allegations here that the GW supporters merely wish to increase their leverage for gun control, and that they are unwilling to accept nuclear power as an alternative to burning fossil fuels.
Several posters have danced dangerously close to ad hominem, which is a sure recipe for getting this thread locked. (Art WILL get out a big padlock if that happens, as he should. You can trust that. I only hope to get this lengthy essay posted before he does.)
But interestingly, with all the allegations of bad science, of uncertainty, of politics, etc, no one has bothered to look at what we do know, or site any sources of information about that.
This post is a step in that direction. I'd like to get past politics and name calling and get down to basic knowledge.
Below is a partial list of what we know. All of it is published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. (Peer review processes include skeptics who rake a fine tooth comb over methods of experimental design, data analysis and conclusions searching for logical flaws in all.)
It is important to try to grasp that the Earth's climate regulation system is the single most complex issue that science has ever tackled, bar none. It involves physics, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, chemistry, atmospheric sciences, oceanography, astronomy, ecology, geology, evolution, mathematics (much of it complex) and computer science. It is no wonder that many people have trouble grasping it; in many cases that includes the scientists themselves, many of whom are trained in only one or two of the requisite disciplines, and rarely in all of them.
For the record, I have a PhD in ecology, an MS in mathematics, and teach two college-level classes about this issue. That doesn't make me any smarter than you. It doesn't make me an expert or an authority. (I don't believe in either.) It simply states that I've spent some time studying these issues (several hundred hours at least just over the last three years) and have a bit of information about them. As a person with an interest in science, especially ecological dynamics and the evolutionary and geologic history of our planet, I find this at least an intellectually fascinating exercise. I have NO agendas in terms of solutions. Humanity will do what it will in terms of dealing with this, or not as the case will probably be. I am responsible only for myself.
I am very open to arguments in favor of nuclear fission (as a short term solution) and nuclear fusion (as a longer term solution). As a gun owner (4 presently {see user name}, working on #5: a SW 686+), I support RKBA and will resist use of GW arguments by any who try to take my guns away.
(As a matter of fact, I came to THR seeking advice on guns for my tool kit since, based on my knowledge of global warming and climate change, and the rapidity with which both can and do occur (a certainty from various studies including geology and - more importantly - ice core studies), I fully expect that the current bout of climate change will disrupt civilization as we know it within a decade or three, including agricultural production and water availability for hundreds of millions, and I intend to be ready for the ensuing criminal anarchy.)
As a student of the concept of ecological stability, I am also well aware that climate change IS the rule rather than the exception on this planet (and presumably others), and that the relatively stable climate of the last few thousand years (since the end of the last Ice Age after the Younger Dryas event ended 11,200 years ago) has been an anomaly, and that our civilization has neither experienced large scale climate change, nor are we prepared to deal with it when (not if) it happens.
As oceanographer Wally Broecker said as early as 1988, "The climate system is a capricious beast and we are poking it with a sharp stick. Expect surprises."
I strongly recommend a web site by physicist Spencer Weart called The Discovery of Global Warming. IMO, it is the best source of the history and current state of the science of climate change on the web. It is clearly written for an educated lay reader; he sites references for every piece of data, every assertion and every conclusion (unlike many so-called "skeptics") and freely notes where uncertainties exist, but - importantly - explains the nature of those uncertainties [e.g., the important distinction between qualitative statements (warming is occurring) v. quantitative statements (X degrees of warming will occur in the next t years)].
To his credit, Weart divides most of his chapters into two unequal sections: what we thought we understood about this science before 1988, including the confusion that existed in the climate change science community before data collection and computing power was sufficient to deal with the issue (e.g., yes, they did erroneously believe that global cooling was more likely in the 1970's, but he explains clearly why) and after 1988 when the amount of data increased exponentially and computing power (especially the super computers of the 21st century) resulted in far better data analysis and modeling reliability.
I particularly recommend the following essays on Weart's site. For those trying to understand the scale and speed of the challenge before us, and why there has been such confusion in the scientific community about this issue that has fueled the skeptics, these are essential reading.
Note that each essay includes a summary at the top (minimum reading). If time is short, jump to the section of each entitled "After 1988".
The Modern Temperature Trend
Rapid Climate Change
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Aerosols: The effects of haze and cloud
Biosphere: How Life Alters Climate
Changing Sun, Changing Climate?
Ocean Currents and Climate
Simple Models of Climate Change
Chaos in the Atmosphere
General Circulation Models
I may or may not continue to participate in this thread. Honestly, I've grown bored of the argument now, having seen so much ad hominem and so many of the tired old bits of misinformation trotted out again and again and again. These days, I generally only engage in discussion with those who have at least read Weart's pages in which he addresses the arguments that have now been debunked by sound, peer-reviewed published science so that we are not "talking past one another". And, I'm pretty busy with work, and my main reason for being on THR is to learn about guns and tools, not to debate this issue.
And, it is, after all, a testable hypothesis: regardless of arguments on either side, nature will do what it will, and we will know "the answer" to this debate, most likely within a couple of decades. I find myself increasingly willing to sit back and wait for the answer rather than wade through endless debates among people who often haven't really studied the issues.
I wish you all well in what seems to be coming our way.
Nem
_____________
Here is what we know with great certainty. Note that most of this is based in direct observation.
Those denying the reality of global warming and climate change on the Earth now must provide refutation of each of these bits of information, including references to published data serving to refute them. (I have little doubt that some will attack the sources of some of these stories; readers should be aware that regardless of the story source, there is published data to back it up.)
Those wishing to understand the issue need to focus NOT on any single bit of information in this list, but instead attempt to develop a gestalt of all of it, how they fit together as a coherent whole suggesting that we have a serious problem.
The crux of the issue is this: if melting of the northern polar ice cap (both the Arctic ocean sheet and the Greenland cap) cannot be stopped and reversed, then heating of that region will continue its upward spiral. The models have predicted (accurately) from the beginning that the poles would heat disproportionately fast, and that warming in that region would seriously impact climate changes in other regions. That is indeed occurring.
Yet, even though every single positive feedback process known to be involved in rapid climate change has now engaged, we know of no negative feedback processes that can now stop the melting of that northern ice cap.
1. Global average temperatures have accelerated during the late 20th century & early parts of the 21st. 2005 (tied with 1998) was the hottest in at least 400 years, & possibly 1000 years. This is not a one-off event; 11 of last 12 years are among 12 warmest on record worldwide. 2006 was the hottest year on record for the US (sixth hottest worldwide). 2007 is projected to be the hottest year on record globally.
2. The end-of-summer Arctic ice has decreased 20% in less than 3 decades. The rate of melting is accelerating. Ice accumulation decreased by 6% in the last two winters. Alaska has heated more & faster than other place on Earth (2oC).
3. Greenland's ice sheet is melting twice as fast (conservatively) than it was only five years ago, as confirmed by NASA satellite studies.
4. Loss of the northern ice cap will accelerate warming by loss of albedo. Ice reflects more than 80% of solar radiation, cooling a region; dark ocean water absorbs more than 80% of solar radiation. Absorption of heat, therefore, accelerates ice loss, a positive feedback process.
5. From ice core data: CO2 levels are already significantly higher now than in the last 800,000 years. (Previous high: 300 PPM; now: 379 ppm).
6. The CO2 increase is accelerating. Past increases never exceeded 30 ppm/1000 years, yet CO2 increased 30 ppm in the last 17 years.
7. Cycling times (“pump down”) for CO2 operate on the order of 50 years; thus, the CO2 in the atmosphere now, & any added to it from now, will remain in the atmosphere for at least 50 years, even if we minimize emissions now.
8. Ocean heating is causing a decrease in population sizes & northward redistribution of marine phytoplankton that play a MAJOR role in absorption of CO2 and production of clouds that reflect sunlight, cooling tropical oceans. This is another positive feedback.
9. From ice core data: methane is also at a record high levels: 1780 ppb vs. 650 ppb in average interglacial. Though far lower in concentration than CO2, methane is 23X more powerful, molecule per molecule. It oxidizes (compared to CO2) quickly (~ a decade) to H2O + CO2.
10. Vast regions of permafrost near the Arctic are thawing, methane increase is 5X what was expected just a few years ago, & threatens to engage another positive feedback process accelerating heating. This issue has been called "a sleeping giant” by those studying it.
11. There is a 50 year lag time (committed heating or oceanic inertia) between stabilization of gases & cessation of heating.
12. We are being cooled by sulfur aerosols in the atmosphere, mostly resulting from burning fuels. Under proper conditions (e.g., an economic decline), aerosols would wash out of the atmosphere in several weeks, significantly enhancing the heating effect by 2-3oC.
Last edited:
Helmetcase
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2005
- Messages
- 706
Charles Martel,
As far as I can tell, fully 50% of your posts contain distortions and personal attacks on me.
I politely suggest you read up on the forum rules for THR, in particular this part:
Pretty clearly you're attacking me, not the argument. I'm going to simply refuse to acknowledge your childish antics, but I do think it should be noted that you showed up here and your first few posts were nothing but personal attacks on me. For now, I'm content to just point that out and ignore you till you grow up a bit.
As far as I can tell, fully 50% of your posts contain distortions and personal attacks on me.
I politely suggest you read up on the forum rules for THR, in particular this part:
Pretty clearly you're attacking me, not the argument. I'm going to simply refuse to acknowledge your childish antics, but I do think it should be noted that you showed up here and your first few posts were nothing but personal attacks on me. For now, I'm content to just point that out and ignore you till you grow up a bit.
agricola
Member
Now thats a post.
ReadyontheRight
Member
The globalists need to get our guns before they can control every other aspect of our lives. Another really good thing to take away from us is our personal transportation.
It's all about COMBUSTION! Combustion puts too much power in the hands of us regular people and cannot be tolerated. It hurts children and it hurts Mother Earth.
It's all about COMBUSTION! Combustion puts too much power in the hands of us regular people and cannot be tolerated. It hurts children and it hurts Mother Earth.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Yadda Yadda Yadda
Ladies and laddies...this one's about run its course. So far off topic that there probably ain't a way to salvage it.
Cheers!
Ladies and laddies...this one's about run its course. So far off topic that there probably ain't a way to salvage it.
Cheers!
- Status
