Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  10 ... 12  Next

Very good, but none of what you says changes the radiative properties of a carbon dioxide molecule. Fact: If you put enough CO2 into an atmosphere similar to Earth's, the atmosphere will heat up. So it's indisuptable, contrary to your claim above, that CO2 can cause global warming.

It may amaze you to realize that some of the several hundred scientists who put together the latest IPCC report actually considered the evidence of the ice core samples in their analysis. The ever-dwindling bunch on the "no" side of anthropogenic climate change seem to always infer that there is some secret cache of evidence that the scientists are conspiring to keep from people.

As for you challnege. Take two greenhouses (except make sure that the glass is reasonably transparent in the infrared spectrum). Fill one with air. Fill the other with carbon dixiode. Measure temperature over a period of a few days. Compare. Draw conclusions.

CO2 and temperature are closely correlated and interreact in a dynamic ecosystem in a complex way. Often raising one creates a positive feedback mechanism that raises the other. So a Milankovitch effect (changes to climate resulting from changes in the Earth's orbit) results in a small solar forcing that raises temperatures. However, the small amount of solar forcing does not account for the magnitude of the warming periods experienced in climate history. To account for that you have to take into account other factors such as a change in albedo (reflectivity of the earth's surface) and the positive feedback relationship between temperature and CO2. The solar forcing initially results in more CO2, but the CO2 then amplifies the effect of the solar forcing but re-radiating some infrared radiation back to earth that otherwise would have reflect back to space. The same happenes in periods of global cooling.

In the current scenario, we are engaged in very quickly (a couple of hundred years) in converting a god chunk the accumulated organic carbon in the earth to carbon dioxide. Human-induced contributions to carbon dioxidce in the atmosphere have resulted in an increse in atmospeheric CO2 that is at least an order of magnitutde faster than anything that has occurred in the last 20,000 years. CO2 concentration has increased from about 280 ppm (pre-industrial) to 379 ppm now. It can be demonstrated (through carbon isotope analysis, for example) that most of the CO2 increase is due to anthropogenic emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels. Humans added about 26 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere per year from 2000-2005. Increasing CO2 concentration will change the radiative forcing of infrared radiation.

Finally, as for your contention that CO2 does not cause climate change, well, that's an opinion that is becoming more difficult to support based on the evidence available, as demonstrated by the fact that there are few climate scinetists now who support that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are not changing the climate in measurable ways.

   

Frankly, I don't think Canadians are very motivated by fear, so we have a philosophical disagreement there. Just my opinion. I don't understand your statment about the only money invovled going to India and China. My point was that you can change people's behaviour through economics.

Your anecdotal observations notwithstanding, I think that the body of evidence clearly indicates that the planet is warming up. As for the fear factor--you may be a victim of it yourelf. No one is saying that the world will come to an end. The pine beetle infestation is the kind of negative thing we can exspect wiht climate change. No one is starving or dying because of it, but it sucks if you live in a community impacted by it.

   

I'd rather trust 80% of the scientific community than 20%.

To Scape: You're holding an impopular and regressing point of view, but the points you raise are worthwhile.



It is diffucult to predict temperatures over the years - you can show the tendency of a few decades, but if you want to give out the numbers for a single year, you're almost certain to be wrong. Incidently, one would expect each year would be warmer than the one preceeding it by now. Yet, 1998 was significantly warmer than 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Few would have expected that back in, say, 1995, even if, somehow, they possessed the same info we currently have. Therefore, I wouldn't base an argument on a comparison of 2 given years, there's too much space for error. Only a tendency can really reveal anything, a single year can only be a sign of said tendency.



Interesting. I didn't know the oceans cooled down recently. Could this be linked to El Niño's influence on the Pacific waters? I know little of the phenomenom, but know its intensity has decreased somewhat since 2000, which could explain a certain cooling of oceanic waters since several years - that is, if its effect only affect the pacific waters, as I believe.

Can someone enlighten me?

Likewise, if anyone could link me to a study about the oceanic waters's temperature diminution, I'd appreciate. This surprises me and, as I had never heard of that before, I'd like to know more.



I do believe the UN changed its criteria for that particular matter. That might explain such a large difference, which seems at odds with the rest of the latest reports.

To SJ-24: It's easy to say something is brought to the front of politics and talks because of fear : in fact, everything that can have consequences is largely brought forward thanks to it. It's true for global warming and the war on terror for the most part. It's also true when it comes to gestion and administration (people fear the government's money will be wasted or lost to corruption), to economic competitivity (people fear their country will lost its international economic strenght), to taxes (people fear either themselves or the state will lack money... generally themselves), to justice (people fear false imprisonments or to see dangerous people set free, depends a lot on the current situation in this case)... it's true for everything. Argumenting a problem has been exacerbated by fear can be used for so many situations

In fact you even use fear in your own argumentation somewhat by claiming that our eventual actions against global warming will be counterracted evilly by the oh-so scary China. You make people fear such an eventuality, therefore influencing them. That's okay. After all, as I said earlier, every possibility that can have bad consequences will eventually end up being protected by "fear arguments", usually sooner rather than later. (But then there's also the whole 'conspiracy-thinking', but that's just aggravating. And stupid. And worthless. And something else entirely, and I don't feel like writing about that stuff)

One last thing though: Any person in their right mind, no matter how close to environmental issues, would not recommend closing down factories like you seem to believe. People want environmental efficiency. Not to put everything we have to help the environment, no matter the other consequences. There's a certain level of logic to keep, you know.

I really am annoyed by how popular this extremely easily-refutable semblant of an argument is among detractors of pro-environmental policies. =/ I mean, it's obvious suddenly closing down every factory in Canada to help the environment would be moronic and have a list of dire consequences, no need to believe anyone serious actually advocates such an idea.



It might as well be worse.

   

A slight calibration is in order. I present the articles points to elaborate on the discussion. Sort of a devil's advocate as it were. I like to broaden this discussion in order to find out more points of interest. It's an attempt to hear both sides with out being deafened by inane rhetoric of unending talking points made by extreme special interest groups.



Has more to do with the effect of the base temperature rising 1 degree at the equator and that subsequently having at 12-15 degree rise at the polls. Imagine dropping a large rock on the tub and the ripple effect it causes. In the turmoil that it causes there are going to be highs AND lows created by that shift. Oceans temperature is also effected in a similar way by this massive and constant shift as it attempts to maintain a mean temperature.



Smithsonian is a good starting point

Pew Oceans Commission report

Shifting baselines has lots as well

Anyway back to being the Devil:

Global warming debate spurs Ore. title tiff



This, not science, is at the heart of the matter.

   

The whole thing is a big socialist gimmick. These scientists are mostly full of shit. I'd like to see some of them make some solid predictions on what the situation will be temperature and sea level wise in 20 years, not some convenient future date like 2100 when we won't be around to see if it was another big Y2K type hype.

Everyone knows temperatures are rising.

Let's see some solid evidence of it being caused by us, and not just rely on coincidence and emotional bandwaggoning.

   

Mankind has gone from 2 Billion to over 6 Billion in just over a generation.

That has impact.

We live on an economy that is based on constant growth and that growth is sustained by creating disposable income that we then spend upon disposable, non renewable consumerism. Rampant and unrestricted consumerism if you will. We are now finding limits.

   

Yes it is a strong argument. But there are way too many assumptions going with it and not enough hard core evidence. If we were really having as much impact as everyone is all lathered up about, the impact would have been way faster and sooner. To talk about temperatures rising 2 degrees by 2100 or whatever it is, is not compelling enough. That is more in line with longer term pattern changes. That is 93 years from now. And a lot longer after the industrial revolution.

Surely the impact would have been felt way earlier in a bigger way?

   

The only assumption I have is if our very existence is based upon the 'throw away society' then it only follows that our civilization is also subject to such an obvious flaw. Clearly if the Earth is dying, as some here have suggested, then WE are dying. Now in life your either busy doing two things: busy living or busy dying. I like living myself.

   

Still assumptions. And the margin of temerature changes predicted are not big enough. If the scientists came out and said temperatures would increase by 5% on average by 2050, it might get my attention more. But with what they have come up with I am sceptical.

It's a very emotional issue for a lot of people and I understand why. But blindly believing is a bit scary.

I like to keep an open mind until I see substantial evidence.

   

You should restate your assumptions then. Do you like breathing? If you were a miner in a coal mine and the canary dies are you going to leave or keep mining?

The heights of Kilimanjaro are nearly bare now, the north and south poles are rapidly and markedly retreating and the oceans are turning acidic. If there was to be a change in the climate it would effect the most extreme and vulnerable parts of it such as the highest elevations, deepest oceans or the poles first. These are not an assumptions, they are all facts. If you want to be the lemming and jump off that cliff ahead I won't stop you but don't take me with you and your 'open mind'.

   

I love breathing, and my breathing is just as good as it was 25 years ago.

There is no doubt the earth is warming a little, Scape, but NO proof that it's caused by us.

Y2K all over again.

   

So Branson is throwing away 25$M then?

Y2K had to do with computers. We are seeing extreme heat waves, cold snaps, droughts and flooding. Sometimes only kilometer from each other. Such phenomenon are not in any way unique but the rather it is the amount and frequency of them that is an indication that this is more that just a bogus media scare. Bomb shelters were made in the 1960's because of the scare of nuclear war and that culminated in the Cuban missile crisis. The bomb shelters may have been just busy work but it in turn created a social conscious that sparked action to the very real threat of nuclear brinkmanship. That same action must be taken now to address carbon independence.

Ultimately a very simple truth is in effect that an overabundance of anything is a bad thing. Mother nature has a way to dealing with populations booms of any species on this rock by adding more predators or removing food supply. Mankind is a huge success as a species and since there is no natural counter to us on the food chain the only counter is our own success. That success has poisoned the planet. We can either deal with the fallout of our massive population boom or we can have it deal with us. That is natures highest law.

   

Wanna cigarette?



There's reams of proof, actually. Hard data collected by respected scientists who have no reason to lie to you.

Or you can just head up north. Or you can talk to farmers about seasonal shift.



Funny thing about Y2K...we had every major company and government who thought they might be affected hiring people to write code around the clock to fix the problem for a year.

When nothing bad happened, everybody said, "See, told ya there was no problem."

So what would have happened if nobody had done anything?

I doubt the world would have ended, but I bet it would have been more than a minor inconvenience too.

   

I think every country should do it's part I just don't think Kyoto is working, i think we need to begin this emmisions which are easy to control and work from there. That is the international community needs to begin phasing out PFCs, and HFCs, now while developing ways to control nitrous oxide and methane, then finally controling carbon dioxide.

Most of the actual control should lie with power comapanies and water copmapanies at the provincial and municipal level. Also people need tot do things int he home and at work. We need to turn off lights, not idle engines or use the exhast to unthaw oil wells, or drive everywhere.

   

Well Kyoto was made a while back and even then it was built with the intent that it was not a finished product. I don't think abandoning Kyoto is productive for we will end up reinventing the wheel as International framework is a must.



I agree, but we don't all work in the big city so catching the bus isn't viable for all of us. Also, not all of us use energy like it is going out of style either so there is only so much this can do.

However, that is one important tier to the solution and the one we can all do right now. Recycling, composing and reusing is something my grandparents did and it is something we all need to relearn again.

Brandon's carbon scrubbing attacks the threat directly and we should have been on that band wagon eon's ago. This is the 2nd tier but there should be work on the oceans as well to make them less acidic.

The last tier is to change the way we create and use energy itself and I find that is is not emphasized at all in the energy debate: Energy Independence. We should be encouraging, not making illegal the act of private power creation. Living off the grid should be given tax write offs.

   

Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  10 ... 12  Next