Global Warming - What Do You Believe - O. T.

[Kyle]

Global warming debunked....
Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained...

Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect...

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.
However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively...

I'm pretty sure the guy you quoted is full of it, and I've included the quotes that I don't think he could back up with evidence. I've found at least two sources that would appear to directly contradict the bold part above.

This one also offers a good explanation of how we know that the rising carbon levels are due to human activity. The contributors to the cite also appear to be climate scientists.
RealClimate » How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned.

The following is from a BBC article discussing a 2004 study of ice cores.
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'

"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years."

 

[Cyclonepride]

You are. :wink0st: Your theory makes some sense with regards to floating ice, such as most polar ice. However, land based ice does not contribute at all to sea levels. Most land based ice is found in Antarctica and Greenland, and if all of that ice melted sea levels would rise dramatically.
Sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Land based ice is actually on the increase. The oceans are warming, melting the adjacent ice.

 

[Kyle]

Land based ice is actually on the increase. The oceans are warming, melting the adjacent ice.

I don't have anything to dispute this assertion, although I'd appreciate any source you could provide.

It should be noted that our knowledge of just how land based ice will react to higher temperatures is rather lacking.

RealClimate » Ice Sheets and Sea Level Rise: Model Failure is the Key Issue

Common sense suggests to me that more of it would melt if temps went up. The biggest question is how quickly it would do so.

 

[Wesley]

The ice is thickening at the South pole. One thing that is relevant is that the last ice age in North America ended ONLY 10,000 years ago. That is not very long ago. We tend to think it was a long time ago. It was not.

I think people will eventuall;y find out that surface temperature varies quite a bit over 10,000 years. The Colombia Gorge was not formed too long ago. Intrhe days of Christ, the North Afrixa desert was plush and green. That was not too long ago.

We have overestimated how much water we have to utilize in the western US. We hit is at a "wet stage " the last 250 years. We are now entering most likely an extended drought in the West.

People wish things were stable. They are not. Change is constant. Telephones, TVs, cell phones, computers, drought, hurricane cycles, tornado cycles, 1993 floods, etc. What we think is the norm is only for now.

 

[alaskaguy]

Why don't we control the weather to halt global warming? We could bombard the Arctic stratosphere with specially engineered particles to deflect the sun’s rays, thereby lowering temperatures. Alternatively, a fleet of crop-dusting airplanes could deliver the particles by flying continuously around the Arctic Circle. Or perhaps a huge fleet of mirrors could be placed in orbit to divert solar radiation.

 

[alaskaguy]

There was a general cooling of the atmosphere between 1940-1975. This cooling did not fit into the global warming models so it was attributed to polluting “aerosols”, which has since been eliminated. Well, if all that is true, we have nothing to worry about because China is dumping so much polluting aerosols that it should surely offset global warming.

 

[Wesley]

Actually the biggest increasing polluting nation is China by far followed by India. The steel mills, auto industry, and chemicals is moving to these countries. If you want to slow things down, you stoip growing. Funny that the most air polluted cities in the world are not American - Mexico City and Bejiing and ewastern Europe are in the worst shape.

Some things that make a lot more sense: is to put electric motors in most urban cars who normally ride in stop and go traffic, upgrade pollution controls on older coal plants, planting tees in Austrailia, mandate exhaust emissions on trucks, boats, planes, and busess, shut down Al Gore's plane trips and all campaigning , stop long running wars, quit burning rain forests in Brazil, by edict plug volcanos wherever needed, and go along the European call to put their livestock on a diet to stop methane production, take energy made from methane out of our landfills, practice teleworking, practice more Catholic birth control, take a M****m out for dinner to discuss rationality, wear more sweaters in the winter, build wind generation and nuclear power plants, and avoid vacations.

Now which ones of the above do we want to do? Thought so.

Otherwise China will diassembloe more steel production plants from Dortmund Germany and move them in 13 months to China to light up the skies. They cleaned up their work dorm and left behind one set of work boots with a Made in China label on the bottom. China will use more steel and concrete and copper than rest of the world as they struggle to build roads, dans, and vertical buildings on expensive land. They will be the new USA under a red flag.


Still waiting for that big world carbon dioxide project to sink carbon dioxide into the oceans which are now realeasing more as they warm. Heard it is a real energy guzzler to do so.

 

[Kyle]

People wish things were stable. They are not. Change is constant.

True. It is a bit alarming though when we can accomplish in a few hundred years what it took nature thousands to do before.

 

[Clone9]

You all are right about China, India, and the rest. But unfortunately, we can't tell them to do anything until we do it ourselves. We need to make some progress, and then really put the heat on China to comply.

 

[herbiedoobie]

True. It is a bit alarming though when we can accomplish in a few hundred years what it took nature thousands to do before.

So, you are implying that man-caused global warming started in the 1600s? Sloppy rhetoric, or sloppy "science?"

 

[herbiedoobie]

You all are right about China, India, and the rest. But unfortunately, we can't tell them to do anything until we do it ourselves. We need to make some progress, and then really put the heat on China to comply.

Unfortunately, you don't get the point. The more "progress" we make here, the more "pollution" they will make there.

As we increase regulation and decrease industrial consumption, the more industry will move to China and India. It is a little something called the "revenge effect" or rather "displacement effect" that always seems to bite the ecological movement in the butt.

I know the solutions "sound" good, but as of yet, none proposed were free of prices to pay.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Unfortunately, you don't get the point. The more "progress" we make here, the more "pollution" they will make there.

As we increase regulation and decrease industrial consumption, the more industry will move to China and India. It is a little something called the "revenge effect" or rather "displacement effect" that always seems to bite the ecological movement in the butt.

I know the solutions "sound" good, but as of yet, none proposed were free of prices to pay.

Exactly, though with some in left, this is part of the point. They think that it's not fair that we have too much wealth, and want to redistribute it around the world to balance things out. Much like what they try to do within America.

 

[cyclonenum1]

Do you know for certain that gravity will exist tomorrow? How do you know you are not just dreaming?

You can't irrigate with salt water.

Yes, I am quite certain that gravity will exist tomorrow and no I am not dreaming it.

Have you ever read about desalination of sea water on wikipedia?

 

[cyclonenum1]

Cyclone#1:

If we wanted to, we could completely destroy the planet in a number of minutes. All life would end. If the US, Russia, etc. just started launching nukes, EVERYTHING would be destroyed. To say that we CANNOT alter the environment is ridiculous. In a matter of months we could chop down every tree or burn every forest. You don't think that would have an effect on the environment? Of course, we would never do these things (at least I hope the nuclear war doesn't happen). But the point is that we COULD destroy the planet right now.

Iowa WAS a swamp before we tiled it. Here is a source from the Iowa DNR:

"It is estimated Iowa had four million acres of wetlands in the mid-1800s (includes oxbows, floodplain wetlands, and natural lakes). As humans realized how rich soils under wetlands and prairies were, these areas soon were drained or filled and converted to cropland, urban areas, housing complexes, industrial areas, railroads, and highways.

Iowa has lost approximately 99 percent of its original wetlands. Wetlands were, and still are, considered by many to be waste areas. Until recently, drainage of wetlands for agriculture was promoted by state and federal programs.

In 1990, approximately 27,000 acres of wetlands remained in Iowa. Since the mid 1980s several programs have emerged to assist in the protection and restoration of wetlands. From 1987-1996, nearly 27,436 acres of land were acquired through the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture in a 35 county area of Central Iowa. Acquisitions included 2,651 acres of existing wetlands and 4,449 acres of restorable wetlands. For information about other programs to restore wetlands see People, Land, and Water."

Iowa's Waters

4 million down to 27,000 acres of wetland.....sounds like a pretty significant impact we humans have had on the environment. Clearly this hasn't resulted in any "doomsday" scenarios.....but the fact is that we can do it.

You are totally wrong. If every nuclear weapon went off at once it would certainly destroy some life forms but not "EVERYTHING". There is no way we could rid the earth of all trees in a matter of months...you must be crazy. Do you realize that there are more trees on the mainland of the US than there were when the country was established? We could not "destroy" the planet. I do believe we can alter the environment but any man-made alteration is small and inconsequential.

All swamps are wetlands...but not all wetlands are swamps. The term wetlands has become a prostituted term used by the government to limit property ownership rights. The definition has been expanded numerous times by the government.

 

[jdoggivjc]

Iowa was once a swamp before the farmers got to it? Someone want to inform me how prairie = swamp? Last time I checked prairie land looked NOTHING like the Everglades...

 

[cyclonenum1]

Iowa was once a swamp before the farmers got to it? Someone want to inform me how prairie = swamp? Last time I checked prairie land looked NOTHING like the Everglades...

As I said previously...nothing more than the government defining any area where it rains as a "wetlands"...actually it's not quite that bad yet but they are working to that point.

 

[Clone9]

You are totally wrong. If every nuclear weapon went off at once it would certainly destroy some life forms but not "EVERYTHING". There is no way we could rid the earth of all trees in a matter of months...you must be crazy. Do you realize that there are more trees on the mainland of the US than there were when the country was established? We could not "destroy" the planet. I do believe we can alter the environment but any man-made alteration is small and inconsequential.

All swamps are wetlands...but not all wetlands are swamps. The term wetlands has become a prostituted term used by the government to limit property ownership rights. The definition has been expanded numerous times by the government.

No, you are wrong. If every country on the planet launched all of their nukes, all life as we know it would cease to exist. Maybe a few cockroaches or bacteria would survive, but all animal and plant life would be gone. If it didn't get blown up, it would die in the "nuclear winter" that would follow (or is this just a liberal creation?). If you don't believe this, why do you think the cold war was such a big deal? It wasn't just because the US and USSR would get destroyed, its becuase we would destroy the planet.

I would give a citation for this, but that apparently doesn't matter. All anyone does on this website is believe whatever they want to hear. Nobody will believe anything else.

We can't trust the scientists, the government, liberals, conservatives, the Chinese.....nobody.

So we can't even trust the Iowa DNR about wetlands. I'm sure they prostituted the term all the way from 4 million acres to 27,000. Whatever.

 

[alaskaguy]

If you believe that it is bad in Iowa come on up north.

Almost everything is designated as being a "wetland" when you get into permafrost. Even the tops of mountains are designated as wetlands.

 

[herbicide]

No, you are wrong. If every country on the planet launched all of their nukes, all life as we know it would cease to exist. Maybe a few cockroaches or bacteria would survive, but all animal and plant life would be gone. If it didn't get blown up, it would die in the "nuclear winter" that would follow (or is this just a liberal creation?). If you don't believe this, why do you think the cold war was such a big deal? It wasn't just because the US and USSR would get destroyed, its becuase we would destroy the planet.

Partially true. Nuclear winter would do a lot the survivors in, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. While we and the former USSR have enough nukes to wipe out all major cities in Eurasia and North America ten times over, there still isn't near enough to "Nuke" the entire landmass. An example, Des Moines likely is not a target, but we wouldn't survive long between Omaha (former SAC base) and Cedar Rapids (Rockwell Collins) Both cities would likely be primary targets. There would likely be survivors, I think the models that they used during the cold war was something like 20-30% of the worlds population would survive. I would rather not be one of the survivors.

However, the Southern Hemisphere would be relatively unchanged because the climates (wind patterns) don't interchange hardly at all.

In reality, all this is moot because the cold war ended. There is not a near or likely threat anymore of a large scale nuclear exchange.

 

[247cy]

Can anyone tell me what "credentials" Al Gore has to be considered such an expert on the subject of global warming?

He invented the Internet, so that means he must know Science.

So if you were to extend that out, Al Gore also invented Cyclone Fanatic. Indirectly. But he didn't design the smiley 'emoticons'. Or gifs/jpegs.

Thanks Al.