Kyoto FLAMEWAR!

Oh good grief. Lemme guess...the majority of them also happen to share your viewpoint. You seem to need quite a bit of "reassurance" from friends, co-workers, other board members on a varity of issues Natoma. Dunno why that is. I'm comfortable with myself.

Indeed. That appears to be the case. No one has voiced it to me. You would think that would be the more productive route to take, wouldn't you?

Because they don't challenge you the same way as I do perhaps?

I disagree a lot with other folks on this board too...and they have never made comments TO ME about my "posting style" on this board (other than being too verbose at times.)

Think about it.

Try spending less effort on critiqing my "style," and more on actually addressing my points. You might find that it actually causes you to more fully clarify and state your position, as well as having a better understanding of my own.

You can try and clarify and add substance, or you can continue to evade and just critiqe my "Style." The choice is yours.

Back on topic:
Let's start off slow. How about responding to a single point with an actual response of substance, rather than simply dismissing it as another "out of context" thing:

My response to "that quote":

Do you have an issue with my response to your quote? Yay or nay, it would be nice for you to answer the question...

 

Lol...you weren't kidding with the title!

 

My viewpoint on your debating style? Most certainly. My viewpoint on the points of discussion? Not always.

I never bring these things up in PMs. I just receive messages. I tell people thank you for your support, and leave it at that.

And see what's happened? You become indignant, retrench, and close off all possibilities of what's being said. As people have stated, it is useless and pointless. It's kind of funny because the very thing that I stated earlier with regard to trying to debate a point with you, you're doing again.

Damn you've got an ego about you don't you. Because they don't challenge me as well as you do? Oh lord that's a good one. I'll write that down for the future.

Contrary to your belief, I do respond to your posts, in full. You just chop them up so badly that when I read your responses, even *I* can't understand what I was saying, until I re-read my original post, in context.

You are right. No one else challenges me in that fashion. You certainly do take the cake on that one.

I don't pretend to be an expert in the field of atmospheric patterns of warming and cooling. I simply read the documents provided by the nationally funded institutes of science that provide the reports.

These reports have stated unequivocably that temperature changes are measured in the sheeting of the ice, rings in very old trees, as well as geologic layers in the earth. And the overall temperature shifts studied from these sources shows that human interference is indeed changing the environment more rapidly than nature has ever done.

Again, we are talking about temperature changes, pollution, deforestation, etc, on a scale that the earth cannot replenish naturally. There has been no species, until man, on the planet that has been capable of this type of environmental change.

We are removing 1.2 years worth of natural resources for every year of regeneration, and that rate is accelerating. No other species has done that to the extent that we do.

Take locusts for instance. They can wipe out entire fields. Yet locusts only come around once every few years, and the earth does recover once they die off. For all the problems they cause, they do indeed form a balance with the environment.

Or, take for instance the introduction of various diseases to mankind. Ebola and AIDS were introduced to the human species due to over-deforestation. Hanta virus was introduced in New Hampshire because Foxes were hunted down and killed, thus the natural predators of the rodents were removed, and they exploded. So now New Hampshire has a smoldering epidemic. Hanta virus, fyi, is deposited in the urine and fecal matter of rodentia.

SARS was a duck or pig virus that leapt to human beings from the farms of Guandong due to overcrowding of the animals and unsanitary conditions.

The list goes on and on and on.

 

Interestingly, that same exact "analysis" can be applied to your take on this situation.

Right. You're not debating points, just "style." Happens all the time with you.

Indeed. A healthy one... and it doesn't need to be stroked by anyone. In PMs or otherwise.

You should.

:laughs:

You mean, your stance is so convoulted, over generalized and so often mis-represented by your own words that you can't answer simple and direct questions?

Thanks.

If you read them as well as you read and respond to my posts, then I'm worried.

You again fail to directly answer the question, and see the CONTEXT of MY point.

I'll be brief, so you won't miss the point again:

Do any of these "tree ring / ice glaciar" studies have the accuracy to determine LOCAL and SHORT-TERM trends in weather patterns throughout history?

During the time of the last "global warming" age for example, is there data that shows that over the course of that warming age, that local temperatures over a MINUTE period of time (like a dozen or a hundred years) that temperatures did not fluctatue, show warming trends that are faster than averge for the period? Or show local cooling trends?

If I FART much more than usual on May 14, 15, and 16, and observe that average daily temperates cooled 3 degrees over that period, does that mean that

1) We can "safely conclude" that since average daily temperatures from the beginning of Spring to the End of spring usually rise by 10 degrees (number pulled from my arse), that "The 3 day cooling phenomenon represents something that just doesn't happen in a "normal" spring".

2) That my farts caused the cooling.

 

Natoma wrote:

Well here's a different opinion on geologic temp. changes-
http://www.envirotruth.org/myth_1.cfm

 

Come on Silent_One...Natoma's stated that "his reports" have unequivocal findings...He said so, thus it must be true!

 

Natoma, imagine the damage done to the environment by the massive amounts of methane from the dinosaurs. And lo and behold, the Earth was just fine. The dinos died, but the Earth thrived.

As far as us changing the wind patterns, you and the "studies" are off your rockers. If we can have such an effect over the wind patterns, then why the hell did 38 people just die from tornados? The God's honest is that WE HAVE NO CONTROL. Natoma, NOTHING you do on this planet is going to have an effect on it. NOTHING.

I wish you and all the other "conservationalists" would just get to the point: the Earth isn't the issue, the human race is. You're worried about the future of humans. Nothing wrong with that. At least admit it. There is nothing we can do to kill or save the earth. Absolutely nothing. If there is anything I have learned about the Earth and nature, it's that we cannot control it. I don't care if what we do causes the extinction of the human race. If we can't adapt to a different climate, then we really don't deserve to remain. At any rate, I will be fossilized by that time, so what does it really matter to me? Or you? I recycle, b/c it just makes sense. Why throw away something you can use again? And I don't litter or stand there and spray things from a spray can all willy-nilly. But I'm not going to worry about the millisecond my car's emissions shave off the earth's natural progression.

I think I'll go fire up my charcoal grill and cook up the deer I hit with my old '79 deisel Chevy.

 

We absolutely CAN change the environment, it just won't necessarily respond in a predictable way.

The butterfly flapping his wings is as true an analogy as you will ever find in meteorology. (including the butterfly in a model run and not the other, will change things after a certain amount of time s.t. the two do not look anything like one another)

Now, there is evidence for certain global features that are somewhat predictable in bulk, and they respond poorly to variation with greenhouse emissions. Thats what scientists are worried about. But as has been pointed out, there are innumerable feedback and anti feedback variables. The whole mess is so absymally complicated.

 

Um, I agree with both of you.

To clarify:

We can and do "change" the environment, and this can include changes in weather patterns and in fact, I believe global climate as well.

However, I also believe that the earth "will recover" no matter what we do. It may recover to a different equilibrium, it may never be "the same", but it will recover, even from singular catastrophic events like large meteor strikes or global nuclear war.

Exactly. And I have no problems spending some research money to try and get a better handle on making some gross predictions and having a better understanding of climate in general. But one has to be very naive at this point in time to believe that less greenhouse gas emissions will have a "positive" or "negative" impact.

First, as MrsSkywalker was implying....positive or negative with respect to what? Humans? The red-spotted honey toad? Green leaf vegetation?

Second, for all we know, in 10,000 years after reducing greenhouse emissions, we'll have learned that doing so was the "worst" thing we could have done for a "better" global climate.

That basically sums it all up. I wish some people would come to understand that. I think they're just too afraid to admit it. Too afraid to admit that we (humans) don't have all the answers or control. They just think that doing "something" is by definition better than "nothing"..even if the effects of doing that something are not understood with any degree of certainty.

 

After reading the PDFs, I compared the temperature differentials within each century to the temperature shift from 1900 - 2000, as well as the projected temperature shift from 2000 - 2100.

The pdf here, http://www.saf.ab.ca/pdf/figure_1.pdf, shows a very detailed degree of temperature variation. Thanks yet again Silent_One for the research. Much appreciated.

1000 - 1100: 0.2+
1100 - 1200: 0.1+
1200 - 1300: 0.1-
1300 - 1400: 0.6-
1400 - 1500: 0.0 (shifted up 0.2, then down 0.2 during the century)
1500 - 1600: 0.2-
1600 - 1700: 0.0 (shifted up 0.2, then down 0.2 during the century)
1700 - 1800: 0.0 (shifted up 0.3, then down 0.3 during the century)
1800 - 1900: 0.6+
1900 - 2000: 0.7+
2000 - 2100: 1.0 - 3.0+ (projected)

In this PDF, http://www.saf.ab.ca/pdf/figure_2.pdf, the temperature variations follow roughly the same pattern as well. The massive increases or drops in temperature occurred over the course of 500 to 2000 years. We're talking about a change of 1-4 (+/-) degrees Celcius, which is enough for instance, to turn a polar ice cap into an ocean, or turn a desert into a forest, or vice versa.

What should be noted is that none of the changes displayed in either PDF showed sustained changes of 2-5 degrees Celcius changes (+/-) occurring in the span of 300 years, especially with a 1-3 degree sustained shift in temperature over the course of one century.

That is the main point of contention today among scientists. No one disputes the record of temperature fluctuation derived from ice cores, tree rings, fossil records, etc. What is in dispute today is the rapidity of temperature fluctuation over the past 200 years. Considering the advent of massively polluting technologies in the past 200 years, courtesy of the industrial revolution, we now have a shift in the balance of the normal planetary warming and cooling cycles. They have become, thus far, more pronounced and faster.

One thing that these PDFs do not convey, however, is the Carbon Load the oceans and forests can sustain. Think of the oceans as one big heatsink and carbon loading machine. The forests also perform the same function. Oceans can absorb 3.8 Billion tons of carbon every year, and disperse it naturally.

It should be noted that the United States alone is responsible for roughly 20 Carbon Tons released into the atmosphere, per person, every year. That works out to roughly 5 Billion Tons of Carbon (pop. est. at 250 Million). The rest of the world emits roughly the same amount, which leads to a rough estimate of 8 - 12 Billion Tons of Carbon released into the environment, worldwide, every year.

Let's stick with the conservative estimate of 8 Billion Tons of Carbon. Since the oceans can absorb roughly 3.8 Billion tons of carbon, and in the last recorded year of carbon emissions we went over the global carbon load amount by 1.4 Billion tons, it's safe to assume that the forests can absorb about 2.8 Billion tons, given a starting point of 8 Billion Carbon Tons released into the environment. This makes sense since there is far less forest than ocean. The excess carbon load was measured by how much carbon was introduced into the atmosphere that did not get absorbed anywhere. There was a 1.4 Billion ton excess.

This is one of the reasons why scientists are expecting the huge jump in worldwide temperature in the next century, because we only in the past 5-10 years hit the carbon load limit of the planet, and exceeded it. It's not coincidence that the period from 1930 - 1980 was the hottest recorded 50 year period on record in the past 1,000 years, when using carbon dating methods on ice, trees, and fossils, and that the decade from 1990 - 2000 had 3 of the hottest years on record ever (1993, 1994, and 1998). 1991 - 1992 were cooled because of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Phillippines, which caused worldwide temperatures to drop during that two year period by 0.2 degrees, before heating up rapidly in 1993 as the cloud cover dispersed.

With the oceans and the diminishing forest cover only able to absorb roughly 7 Billion Carbon Tons annually, we're obviously at a point where we're dumping carbon into the atmosphere, and it will linger. It has also been proven that enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can and will produce a greenhouse effect. With the natural absorption of the earth nullified by our current rates of carbon dumping, it's only a matter of time before we see the results of these actions.

According to projections, we'll see that shift in this century. Btw, sea levels have risen 4" since 1900 due to glacial melts at the poles. That melting is expected to accelerate tremendously in the 21st century due to the accompanying rise in temperature.

 

MrsSkywalker:

Eh? I've never stated that we can control the weather. There is a difference between changing the climate and controlling the climate. What we're doing right now is tantamount to uncontrolled climate change. See my last post for further explanation.

Also, I find it pretty silly to say that you don't care about what happens to the earth anyways because you won't be around here to see it. I don't have any kids, but damn I certainly want to make sure that while I'm on this Earth I do whatever I can do to preserve it for following generations.

That's quite a selfish attitude you've got.

[EDIT]

It should be noted that the current forest cover is 40% of the planet. In the past decade, we've lost 2.2% of the world's forest cover, due to deforestation mostly. Since 1900, we've lost roughly 30% of the world's forest cover.

One of the most visible effects of this decline in forest cover can be seen in China. The vast amount of pollution that blows in off the Gobi Desert is no longer buffeted from China due to the vast amount of deforestation and overfarming. What happens is that the topsoil becomes dead and airborne. How problematic is this dust cloud? It was seen as far east as Arizona as a thick haze in 2001. Here are comparison photos:








The images are from lakepowell.net. Pollution does not only affect our global climate, but it also affects humans directly in terms of our health. Is it any wonder that worldwide asthma rates have been rising exponentially for years, in both adults and children?

Many forms of lung cancer have also been associated with pollution as well.

That doesn't even begin to cover the diseases we've been exposed to due to deforestation and climate change. AIDS, Ebola, Hanta Virus, West Nile Virus (more mosquitos due to warmer, more humid weather in zones that are generally not as balmy as the environments closer to the equator), etc etc etc.

[/EDIT]

 

Natoma wrote:

Your welcome.

Eh...thats funny, the PDF does not show projected data. Where did you get your information from (apparently not from the PDFs). How convenient for your argument!

What should be noted is that none of the PDFs show projected data! You also seem to ignore the nasa.gif which indicates little temp. change since 1979.

As for future projections consider this:

Ah..but you say "the the oceans as one big heatsink and carbon loading machine" and were overloading them!
(natoma)

Well what about this:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSingerTestimony2000.html

Strange, you say last 50 years were the hottest, they say last 60 showed no warming trend....


Natoma wrote:

Where do you get your information on this? (I'd like links please so I can read about it) Here's what I found:
http://www.envirotruth.org/myth6.cfm

Then there's this:
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/sea.htm

And here's more indications that the North Pole ice is not melting -http://www.envirotruth.org/images/ice-in-90s.pdf

 

The reason I put a (projected) next to 2000 - 2100 is because that is what is currently projected by scientists to be the temperature increase on earth in the next century. It was not my intent to imply that it was in the pdf, obviously, because it could be checked quite quickly by downloading them.

Google "global climate change projection 21 century" to find the figures I put into the list. They were there because it was easier to read them. There was no duplicity intended.

I haven't had a chance to read all of the articles you've posted yet, but I wanted to clear that point up first.

[EDIT]

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/education/northeast/ne-edu-6.htm

and

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/tg/wsealvl/wsealvl1.htm

These numbers are all coming from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which released their #'s in 1995. Their website is http://www.ipcc.ch/.

I'll edit my post more as I retrace my steps. I researched a lot of articles while writing my earlier post and neglected to save them all.

[/EDIT]

[EDIT TWO]

Here is one of the articles I read with regard to the changes over the past 100 years.

http://216.239.39.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm

I ran it through the google translator because it was originally in french. The homepage for the article is here:

http://translate.google.com/transla...nt_climatique/l_3/rechauffement_planete_1.htm

There's another link that I'm currently looking for that has the actual statement that 1930 - 1980 was the warmest 50 year period in the last 1000 years. As soon as I find it in my history i'll post the link.

Finally found it:

http://www.pages.unibe.ch/products/scientific_foci/qsr_pages/thompson.pdf

So in all actuality I misquoted the article. 1937 - 1987 was the warmest in the past 12,000 years, not 1,000 years.
[/EDIT TWO]

 

I agree, the earth will recover from whatever humans do, but the concern isn't about littering the earth but having a stable environment to live in for our grandkids. You don't have to look further than smog in cities to have a reason to clean things up.

 

I agree.

Where a direct cause - effect relationship (betwen pollutant and negative consequence like smog) is known, that is certainly reason to spend money to remedy the situation.

That is not the issue here, however, when talking about global greenhouse gas reductions and global climate changes.

 

Natoma, have you seen the pics of the area around Mt. St. Helen's when it erupted? Or the amount of smoke that hovered over most of North America during last year's forest fires that were ignited by lightening?

There are hazy days, and there are clear days, even in the world's cleanest environments. Where's the pic of the canyon the day after that one was taken?

You can't set out to prove a theory with only half of the evidence. I'm not debating that smog exists. I'm not saying that I'd like to live in a smoggy area. But you are presenting "evidence" with no factual info to support it. What is the temp? Humidity level? Any volcanic activity upwind? Is there a sandstorm going on that day? A fire started in the shrubs?

I could take those same pics and use them to bolster MY POV, that the earth does more "damage" to itself than we do. "These pics show the incredible range of volcanic ash and fallout when caught in the jet stream."

Question for ya. Do you think that the climate steadily cooled into the ice age? Or do you believe that there was a sharp decrease in temp for a few decades/centuries?

 

The reason it is important is this, ice is white or close to it and reflects Infrared energy back, anyone that has gone diving knows that water absorbs red light very quickly, it absorbs infrared even faster, and the worry is that w/o the ice the sea will heat up rather quickly, and that in turn would have a huge impact on global climate. The amount of energy to heat the oceans 1 degree centigrade is staggering, and they can release that energy back into the environment, which is why this matters. Then the ice cap on antartica will melt much more quickly, not to mention polar bears will be extinct and so forth. But anyway, I actually agree with russia, why not let it warm up, the Canadians should be stoked too.

 

I agree the earth will recover from whatever we do,

BUT

We might all be dead and in that case well...

 

Sorry but it seems like manipulation of data. The data clearly shows information contrary to what you imply in your previous post.

Sorry, don't buy it. That paper was written to examine the potential impacts of climate change on the northeastern US. It was not written as a scientific paper regarding the rise in sea levels.

Answer: see my previous link which disputes the IPCC's claims.
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/sea.htm

Next: from your article -
http://216.239.39.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm

The problem with the data the IPCC uses to generate these charts and generate thier conclusions is that the temp. readings they base their information on is from surface thermometers. Surface thermometers are not credible. They are prone to local variations in temp. caused by citys and towns.
http://www.john-daly.com/

BTW - the above is an interesting site I'd love to get a picture of Baghdad Bob on this thread!