The New Global Warming Thread

[AMosely]

(It is worth noting your first and second pieces have different authors, so this isn't a complete turnaround in a single person's opinion.)

It certainly is. My post is to be taken with a grain of salt, as is the National Review itself, at least in my opinion.

[TheFatKidDeath]

Most of the claims you mention have the convenient characteristic of having precisely zero effect on national policy. That allows them to be nothing more than academic curiosities...those who care can spend time arguing about them, and those who don't care can just go with the majority opinion and not worry about it.

Global Warming is different in being involved with multi-Trillion-dollar policy decisions, making it much more dangerous to come to rash conclusions. Claims that Bush orchestrated 9/11 fall in about the same camp as far as severity of consequence, but the level of evidence available is much different--we can say with far greater certainty that 9/11 was caused by Al-Qaeda then we can that global warming was caused by industrial America.

We do not ignore the 9/11 conspiracists because we don't like their conclusions, we ignore them because their evidence is non-existant. Go check out the WTC thread that just finished running for a sample. But climate change is an entirely different arena--being ignored because of your conclusions is par for the course in the science of climate change, and you have demonstrated that you are more than eager to continue that course. Scientists who produce research opposed to the "consensus" view of warming do not find their methods attacked, they find their personal reputations attacked. The science of climate change is "settled" only in the minds of those who value a political result more than they value knowing the truth.

But let me present your own question to you in reverse. Looking a little closer, it would be more appropriate to compare 9/11 conspiracists with global warming alarmists rather than with global warming skeptics. The primary difference is that global warming alarmists are far more numerous than 9/11 conspiracists, so they are more difficult to ignore. But both have taken a few fragmentary pieces of evidence, whose relation to the whole remains unclear, and extrapolated incredible results. Both present a conclusion which would require drastic action from all those around them, not just those who actually believe the conclusion. In fact, the conclusions of the global warming alarmists go much further in changing the lives of their fellow citizens, as they dictate the the entire American lifestyle is completely untenable, while the 9/11 conspiracists merely ask us to throw out the President and/or overthrow the government. We dismiss the 9/11 conspiracists as kooks...why should we not do the same with the global warming alarmists? Why should we take you seriously?

Why should we take global warming seriously? Because it's an issue that effects the survival of our species on this planet.

False analogy. 911 conspiracy theorists are not scientists and are not qualified to make scientific judgements. Unlike global warming proponents who have the necessary back ground in climatology, biology and other relevant scientific fields.

Furthermore, it's not the scientists making unsubstantiated claims but the 911 conspiracy theorists. Don't confuse the two.

[deathknight]

I think we should take the possibility that global warming is a reality and that humans are contributing to it very seriously. I am not suggesting that we give up everything that produces CO2 or stop cutting down trees but we need to show restraint. Because if we are causing the problem, or even if we are just contributing to the problem, if we don't stop soon it may be too late once we do realize it. If we are not, then studies will show we are not, the scientific community will accept them and then we can go back to destroying the environment, polluting streams, wiping out species and being the general virus we are to the planet as a whole. Let's face it, humans are the earth's worst enemy.

But if we are the cause or contributing to it, we can limit our impact and through conservation and coordinated planting of trees, etc. we can undo the damage we have done and perhaps make this planet a little better for everyone involved. I don't know about you but I am tired of every time it snows or rains it seems to be a flood or blizzard.

[Kerostasis]

@TheFatKidDeath:

Alright then, I shall graciously take you seriously. You have elevated yourself past the level of 9/11 conspiracists, and we shall be happy to hear you make your case about why our lifestyle is untenable.

Your move.

[Lucky Shot]

But if we are the cause or contributing to it, we can limit our impact and through conservation and coordinated planting of trees, etc. we can undo the damage we have done and perhaps make this planet a little better for everyone involved. I don't know about you but I am tired of every time it snows or rains it seems to be a flood or blizzard.

So before Global Warming became hyped on the news, we didn't have floods or blizzards? Or does bad weather increase news ratings?

Lucky Shot

[TheFatKidDeath]

@TheFatKidDeath:

Alright then, I shall graciously take you seriously. You have elevated yourself past the level of 9/11 conspiracists, and we shall be happy to hear you make your case about why our lifestyle is untenable.

Your move.

I'm not a scientist nor do I have any of perquisite education in the required fields to explain temperature rise or decline over X amount of years or any of the other theories put forth by mainstream science to explain global warming. Nor does my background qualify me to refute global warming skeptics scientifically.

Like any layman I require the expertise of those with more advanced knowledge of a subject to form and solidify my position. I'm basing my belief on global warming in these scientific experts, as I've stated previously, who work with conservative methodology that for large measure does not make wild statements about matters which is important for the survival of the human race.

[GhostintheShell]

CO2 levels have risen from 350ppm to ~376ppm during the industrial age. (25ppm net)

Lets give CO2 a heat retention factor of 1 as a reference.

H20 is present in the atmosphere varying between 40,000ppm and 10,000ppm depending on altitude and longitude. (percent relative humidity)

H2O has a comparative heat retention factor of 3 when compared to CO2.

Water vapor: 10,000ppm * 3 = 30,000 units

Carbon Dioxide: 25ppm * 1 = 25 units

30,000:25 = 1200:1

Water vapor in our atmosphere is conservatively ~1200 times more responsible for heat retention compared to CO2.

Why is water vapor not the main issue? Because there is nothing we can do about it. The majority of water vapor in the atmosphere is due to evaporation of our oceans and lakes. Possibly increased due to higher output from the sun in recent decades.

It is of little importance to the oil producers who know very well that there is enough oil for everyone for the indefinite future. It isn't profitable to sell oil at $15usd per barrel though, it is a lot more profitable to scare the crap out of everyone and sell oil for $65+usd per barrel during the manufactured "crisis".

CO2 is a red herring.

[-=DW=-Hitman]

So before Global Warming became hyped on the news, we didn't have floods or blizzards? Or does bad weather increase news ratings?

Lucky Shot

LOL !! lucky the one and only good reply

[GhostintheShell]

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnis...85924-sun.html

Another pair of major victories for the contrarian point of view....

[AMosely]

Since carbon dioxide inhibits the escape of heat from the Earth, maybe the most environmentally friendly thing you could do would be to start each day by driving your SUV around the block four or five times to bolster carbon dioxide emissions and thus retard the Earth's heat loss.

Are we sure that Ted Byfield doesn't work for the Onion? This is an opinion piece citing two studies that could have both been published in the scientific journal 'Duh.' We know that the Earth has survived far worse conditions in the past - both warmer and colder. We also know that solar activity affects all sorts of things in the upper and lower atmosphere, and not just cloud formations. Solar radiation is of significant concern as well and is another area of active research, but is only a small piece of the larger puzzle that is the Earth's warming climate.

I'm sure you might assume I'm attacking it because I disagree with it, but that's really not my point. I've seen this same style of writing on the opposite side of the fence. It's not informative, and it doesn't further the debate. It's tit-for-tat stuff, 'in your face flanders,' and it annoys me.

[Lucky Shot]

So what percent of warming the earth do you attribute the sun? Please give us a list and where the sun fits in.

Lucky Shot

[Kerostasis]

Are we sure that Ted Byfield doesn't work for the Onion? This is an opinion piece citing two studies that could have both been published in the scientific journal 'Duh.' We know that the Earth has survived far worse conditions in the past - both warmer and colder. We also know that solar activity affects all sorts of things in the upper and lower atmosphere, and not just cloud formations. Solar radiation is of significant concern as well and is another area of active research, but is only a small piece of the larger puzzle that is the Earth's warming climate.

I'm sure you might assume I'm attacking it because I disagree with it, but that's really not my point. I've seen this same style of writing on the opposite side of the fence. It's not informative, and it doesn't further the debate. It's tit-for-tat stuff, 'in your face flanders,' and it annoys me.

Well, he kinda left out a significant piece of his line of logic there. Lets see if we can reconstruct it.
(1): Research indicates solar activity is the largest driver of global warming/cooling
(2): (This piece not included)
(3): Therefore, global cooling is more likely than global warming
(4): Therefore, anthropogenic global warming is beneficial, because it offsets the damage from naturally occurring global cooling

Unfortunately, he left out step 2, and the rest of his line of logic is hard to evaluate properly without it. So I'll agree with you that the article is rather poorly written, especially the particular paragraph you quoted.

However, that does not mean it is totally uninformative, as the two studies he cited, however "duh" they might seem, do appear to run contrary to consensus on global warming.

[GhostintheShell]

How much is attributed directly to the sun? That has been well known for some time.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhous...-1997_Fig7.jpg

Really the entire article is a good read. I can't remember if it is a repost so here goes...

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

[Lucky Shot]

Interesting, from your link...

The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds.

Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total greenhouse effect.

Interesting also... CO2 is plant food, or...

carbon dioxide being an essential trace gas that underpins the bulk of the global food web.

CO2... Not Pollution... It's life. But how much CO2 do humans put out, the majority right?

Gracious no! Humans can only claim responsibility, if that's the word, for abut 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural

All fascinating stuff and the source of warming is the sun.

Lucky Shot

[AMosely]

I've recently discovered that sarcasm is among the top reasons cited by global warming naysayers for forming their perspectives on the issue.