FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Global Warming is a Lie





Possum
Very interesting Youtube Vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8&feature=player_embedded

Watch it before you comment

If you don't like this video or disagree please send supporting links so we all can Learn..

Thank You..
ocalhoun
He's got a few good points, mostly about the lies and over-exaggerations of the climate change crowd.

I do like the theory of the cloud cover though...
Higher temps --> More clouds develop --> more clouds reflect more light --> less light hits the Earth --> less heat.

That might just be the mechanism for the reversal of warming I was looking for.
Possum
I don't mind cleaner air and water. And where ever there is a major amounts of CO2 going into the atmosphere there are normally pollutants entering the ecosystem share with people whose heath is effected. But its not the CO2 that cause the damage. Either to the people or the environment. Its the pollutants that are created in paralle with the release of CO2 that is the problem. The Smelting of metal would be a prime example.

I think a more significant discover from the study of ice cores is the rise in atmospheric lead during the Reign of the Roman empire. There is no hiding it, there are environment urgencies out there. I just dont see CO2 as being one of them.
ocalhoun
Possum wrote:
There is no hiding it, there are environment urgencies out there. I just dont see CO2 as being one of them.

And I don't like how climate change measures are crowding out other environmental issues. 'Going green' no longer means protecting the environment... it just means reducing global warming now.
coolclay
Ocalhoun, while that maybe true in the broad publicity/media sense, it's not true when it comes to things actually being done. There are millions of jobs and people around the world who deal with other environmental issues everyday. Many of my friends (and myself) are in the industry, I have friends in the EPA, DEP, US F&W, and alternative energy companies, so just because climate change gets all the news and attention doesn't mean that's the only thing people are working on and that money is going into.

But I digress more publicity certainly wouldn't hurt about other issues, we are still far from making the progress in this day and age that we should be on protecting our only home, Earth. I honestly feel quite hopeless most days, there is only so much that can be done when there is so much dishonesty, hatred, and ignorance still rampant about how to best preserve our Earth.
deanhills
coolclay wrote:
there is only so much that can be done when there is so much dishonesty, hatred, and ignorance still rampant about how to best preserve our Earth.
It is wonderful that you are actually actively involved, but I can relate to your feeling, not only for global warming but all other areas of protecting the earth, and particularly in the area of overpopulation. There is just too much self-interest and dishonesty going on, and then there is of course also the limitation of our lifespans. As soon as people start to make a mark, they get to be retired and someone else has to reinvent the wheel.
richiweb
I am afraid it's not.
ocalhoun
richiweb wrote:
I am afraid it's not.

Yeah! The debate is over, the science is proven!

Desist in questioning authority!
Indi
ocalhoun wrote:
I do like the theory of the cloud cover though...
Higher temps --> More clouds develop --> more clouds reflect more light --> less light hits the Earth --> less heat.

Higher temps --> More clouds develop --> more clouds reflect more light --> less light hits the Earth --> less CO₂ is converted back into oxygen by trees --> more CO₂ enters the atmosphere --> more greenhouse effect (so that even if the clouds reflect more heat, more heat is absorbed by the CO₂ in the atmostphere when the heat is coming and going --> more heat --> back to start

Incidentally, clouds are also a major contributor to the greenhouse effect, so more clouds --> more heat.

Get your science from scientists, please.
paul_indo
It's just the fad for this decade, a new fad will come along within the next 5 years and this will be mostly forgotten.

I believe we would be better of planning ahead for the natural change in world climate which is a permanent and inevitable process which has happened since the beginning of the earth.
deanhills
paul_indo wrote:
It's just the fad for this decade, a new fad will come along within the next 5 years and this will be mostly forgotten.

I believe we would be better of planning ahead for the natural change in world climate which is a permanent and inevitable process which has happened since the beginning of the earth.
What do you mean by "natural change". As far as I can see the change that seems to be regarded as a problem is an unnatural one. There is nothing natural about deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.
jabce85
Natural change: I think he is referring to the fact that this has happened countless times before to our planet... before we were even here. You can't deny that the earth's climate fluctuates, and who's to say that this whole "global warming" is not just another natural change our planet is going through.... We did have a little ice age just a few hundred years ago mind you, and that was documented.

Oh, and the science behind this is definitely NOT proven by any stretch of the imagination.
Bielhelm
The global Warming can be the beginning of a new BIG ICE AGE. We are living right know inside
a little Ice Age. But the mankind is warming up our Planet, so you cant see its getting colder.

At the moment are the glaciers melting cause of the CO² that mankind is powering into atmoshere.
But it will change someadays.

after that: all 120000 Years the earth is moving slowly towards the sun, after that it will expand the measure again (... and we are expanding now!) So it must get colder in 1000 Years after all.

http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/living-in-an-ice-age/

http://www.winningreen.com/site/epage/59549_621.htm

http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/nexticeage.htm
paul_indo
That is exactly what I meant jabce85.

Quote:
There is nothing natural about deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.


You are right deanhills but deforestation and burning fossil fuels are not climate change.
They are the purported causes of climate change and that is what the whole argument is all about.
Some people agree, some don't.
philipw
I don't think the global warming is a lie.

We need to rescue our earth.
MarzEz
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-108865.html
that is all.
eday2010
[quote="Indi"]
ocalhoun wrote:
Get your science from scientists, please.


So he should ignore everything you just said then, right?
ocalhoun
eday2010 wrote:
Indi wrote:
Get your science from scientists, please.


So he should ignore everything you just said then, right?

And then get it from real scientists instead. It is a valid point.
Bikerman
[quote="eday2010"]
Indi wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Get your science from scientists, please.


So he should ignore everything you just said then, right?

No. Indi's point is valid. IF you are talking about science, then ask a scientist. Is that not obvious? If you want to learn about the latest economic theories who would you ask? Perhaps an economist or expert in economics? I think that would be a good choice. Same for science.
Cliffer
i can't open youtube,but i can feel the climate around me is getting warmer and warmer in recent ten years.
metalfreek
I really don't care what facts has to say. Some say its right and other says its not but climate change is a burning issue and my life experience says that.
Let me share one of my personal experience. During winter in my town, temperature reached up to 0 degree and there use to be ice in some water bucket about 10 years ago.
Now the minimum temperature that was seen this year was about 3 degree.

I think this is due to global warming and I really have a strong feeling that global warming is gonna cost us dearly in future.
Bikerman
metalfreek wrote:
I really don't care what facts has to say.
Therefore your view has no chance of being taken seriously...
tamilparks
no no global warming is true...

you wait and see whats going to happen
metalfreek
Bikerman wrote:
metalfreek wrote:
I really don't care what facts has to say.
Therefore your view has no chance of being taken seriously...


What my point was that the facts that is being given are challenged by some groups so at this time I am only accepting the facts that I have seen by my eyes.
Bikerman
metalfreek wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
metalfreek wrote:
I really don't care what facts has to say.
Therefore your view has no chance of being taken seriously...


What my point was that the facts that is being given are challenged by some groups so at this time I am only accepting the facts that I have seen by my eyes.
And how would you recognise these 'facts' ? Are you a meteorologist or a climatologist? Perhaps you are keeping up with the literature? Do you know the basic theories in play? How CO2 acts and what the specific emissivity is? That sort of stuff...? Or do you, in fact, decide that certain things are facts and certain things are not facts by an arbitrary process, like most people?
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
Or do you, in fact, decide that certain things are facts and certain things are not facts by an arbitrary process, like most people?

Blindly trusting the experts is also an arbitrary process of deciding what is fact or not... Perhaps the most reasonable, short of becoming an expert yourself, but still arbitrary.
Indi
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Or do you, in fact, decide that certain things are facts and certain things are not facts by an arbitrary process, like most people?

Blindly trusting the experts is also an arbitrary process of deciding what is fact or not... Perhaps the most reasonable, short of becoming an expert yourself, but still arbitrary.

Trusting experts is not "blind", and nor is it an arbitrary thing to do. It is a logical thing to do if you are unable to understand a concept yourself.

It only becomes unreasonable to trust experts when those experts are:
  1. Withholding information that you could use to check their word.
  2. Giving you facts that contradict reason or observation, without a good reason for why.
  3. Not basing their conclusions on any observations or methodology that they can explain - whether you understand it or not.


In the case of climate change scientists:
  1. Virtually all of their data is freely available to the public, as are all of their published papers and conclusions, and in most cases the models they are using. (There are a very few bits of data that are not public, because they were collected by military satellites or equipment, and are considered classified. However, anyone who has the proper credentials and can pass a security screening can view those materials... they're just not available to the general public.)
  2. Nothing the climate scientists say contradicts reason or observation (unless you're not really listening to what they are saying, which is far too common).
  3. You know how they got their observations - various meteorological stations and satellites, etc. - and you can easily find out the methodology they use to reach their conclusion. They are scientists: they publish everything.


So there is no rational reason to doubt the scientific consensus of the climate change scientists. If for some reason you are suspicious of them, there are plenty of ways you can test their integrity without becoming a climate scientist yourself (for starters, look at what the opponents are saying, and see if they are making sense (they're not)).
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Or do you, in fact, decide that certain things are facts and certain things are not facts by an arbitrary process, like most people?

Blindly trusting the experts is also an arbitrary process of deciding what is fact or not... Perhaps the most reasonable, short of becoming an expert yourself, but still arbitrary.

Not at all arbitrary - just the opposite in fact. Nothing impulsive, whimsical or random about believing the exerts in a field. In fact the question becomes why would you not? Given that their research has, by definition, been subjected to rigorous jury trial in the peer-review process, and given that they know more than any other people about the subject, then it would seem wise to trust what they say, if the choice is either that or actively doubt it. It isn't a faith position - the evidence is there, just one doesn't understand it. Therefore one has four choices:
a) Accept what the experts say unconditionally
b) Remain sceptical but accept it as a 'best hypothesis' until better comes along or until it is refuted
c) Remain sceptical and do not accept it or choose to act on it
d) Adopt the contra position that AGW is a myth or that there is little or no human contribution.

If you pick d then you had better have some good evidence. If you pick c then you are either hiding away or you have determined that there is nothing that can or should be done.
If you pick b then go to the top of the class. If you picked a then be sure you know who the experts are first.
metalfreek
Bikerman wrote:
metalfreek wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
metalfreek wrote:
I really don't care what facts has to say.
Therefore your view has no chance of being taken seriously...


What my point was that the facts that is being given are challenged by some groups so at this time I am only accepting the facts that I have seen by my eyes.
And how would you recognise these 'facts' ? Are you a meteorologist or a climatologist? Perhaps you are keeping up with the literature? Do you know the basic theories in play? How CO2 acts and what the specific emissivity is? That sort of stuff...? Or do you, in fact, decide that certain things are facts and certain things are not facts by an arbitrary process, like most people?


The point is whom do you trust? I trust my experience and facts that I have learned from my life than other people. One should not be a meteorologist or a climatologist to see what is happening around. If you are a careful observer then you will see facts clearly. Yes I accept that meteorologist or a climatologist have some knowledge and has a more accurate prediction but individual experience is as important as the facts that books taught us.
Bikerman
metalfreek wrote:
The point is whom do you trust? I trust my experience and facts that I have learned from my life than other people. One should not be a meteorologist or a climatologist to see what is happening around.
Yep, you do, that's sort of my point.
Quote:
If you are a careful observer then you will see facts clearly.
Which will not help you in the slightest, you now just have a really clear view of the same stuff you still don't understand. If you stay in one place and observe for years then you can develop some useful trends, but it won't necessarily tell you anything about global climate. If you move around a lot then you won't gather any useful data. Experience just doesn't do here - you need data, and lots of it. You also need to be clear about the difference between weather (meteorologist) and climate (climatologist).
Quote:
Yes I accept that meteorologist or a climatologist have some knowledge and has a more accurate prediction but individual experience is as important as the facts that books taught us.
Nope - individual experience isn't worth a plug-nickel, and I doubt you have learned any facts from books on this...
Do you know anything about radiative transfer? Anything about carbon sinks? Anything about forcing effects? And you think that this is worth the same as the actual facts?

Your experience is as reliable for climate forecasting as the questions asked.
eg. If I ask a question with two possible answers then you'll get around 50% right and if there are 3 possible answers and you'll drop to 1/3rd or so In other words no better than blind chance.
Barmij
yeah
i agree with you i think it's just a lie the disapear of animal is normal and i haven't niticed a great change in climat natural distastres exist since old ages it's not a new thing
Bikerman
Barmij wrote:
yeah
i agree with you i think it's just a lie the disapear of animal is normal
The disappearance of species is indeed quite normal - in fact it is an essential part of natural selection. There have also been mass extinction events which are also 'natural' - such as the Cretaceous–Tertiary 'Dinosaur' extinction event. By this reasoning you could justify wiping out nearly every species on earth - a large comet impact would do that 'naturally'.
The point is that species are current going extinct at a very high rate and we know why - us. Estimates vary but a reasonable one is that species are currently going exinct at a rate about 100 times as great as it would be without us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
Quote:
and i haven't niticed a great change in climat natural distastres exist since old ages it's not a new thing
Why would you expect to notice anything? As it happens I could say the exact opposite - it has got noticably warmer in my 49 years, using 2 simple but telling measures - amount of snowfall in winter and max temp in summer.
The point is that it doesn't really matter what my experience is, or yours for that matter. Different parts of the globe are in different cycles of climate - some getting colder, some warmer, some pretty static. Neither does it actually matter about changes in your lifetime. We know pretty much how the temperature over the globe has changed, so if you are my age (49) then the global average is now around 0.55 degrees (C) warmer than it was when I was born.
Indi
i'm not as old as Bikerman, but even i have noticed distinct shifts in climate. For example, the lake i skated on as a child no longer freezes over. When snow falls, we get dumped on - to the point that the city is increasingly unable to keep up with it and runs into problems of where to put all the snow (and for those who don't know, snow only really falls when the weather is relatively warm... not cold - because when the temperature is too cold, the air can't hold as much moisture, and clouds can't really form - snow tends to fall when the temperature is between around −3° to −10°, when it gets down to −20°, you rarely see any snowfall).

But really, this is a silly discussion to have, because in terms of GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE (climate being a particularly long-term phenomenon)... one person's personal perspective is about as interesting and useful as a single letter in War & Peace. It's just like the situation last winter when the smug dimwits started pointing to the blizzard in Washington DC as evidence against global warming... while at the same time blissfully ignoring the fact that there was so little snow at the Vancouver Winter Olympics that they were seriously talking about moving events and/or trucking the stuff in: global climate change is GLOBAL climate change. In order to form an understanding of what is going on, you need to look GLOBALLY, and you need to do that over an extended period of time to understand what is really going on.

The scientists have done that. And the evidence is so blatantly clear that, as of 2007, the last national or international scientific body to claim that climate change was not real - the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (surprise surprise) - finally changed their tune.
inuyasha
Perhaps you're right! Very Happy , as the climate here in Southern China is a bit strange. The cold air kept coming from the north until Mid June Sad Besides, 2 years ago, Southern China was frozen! The usual lowest temperature is only 10 degrees or so, but it reached 2 at that time.
slashnburn99
The Earth is constantly changing has done always will
Indi
A recent report says that climate change is "unmistakeable".

What makes this report interesting is that:
  • The size of the data set used is enormous, spanning over 150 years of data, with 300 contributors from 160 organizations in 48 countries.
  • The report didn't bother with projections or models... just raw data. In other words, the conclusion is not that global warming will happen, but that it is happening, unmistakably.
  • The report didn't bother to point fingers - it was just a bare-bones assessment of current and historical fact. In other words, there is no opinion in the report, it just states the facts.

As you can see in the article, there are still people trying to claim that the temperature rise is "natural", or that it's "a good thing". Fine and good, we'll deal with them, but at least we've gotten to the point that no-one in their right mind can deny that the world is warming. Which means that if you hear anyone trying to deny that temperatures are rising, you can write them off as a kook right away. That's progress, because it narrows down the field of kooks that we have to answer.
ato784
ocalhoun wrote:
Possum wrote:
There is no hiding it, there are environment urgencies out there. I just dont see CO2 as being one of them.

And I don't like how climate change measures are crowding out other environmental issues. 'Going green' no longer means protecting the environment... it just means reducing global warming now.


That is so very true, today people don't care about the planet anymore and just care about global warming. Well, except for Disney, who seems to still promote cleaning up the earth, and getting kids to help out.
bukaida
I am only feeling that the sea levels are rising resulting from melted ice, causing flood every year.Every winter is getting warmer.Global warming is a fact.
mugundhan
Possum wrote:
Very interesting Youtube Vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8&feature=player_embedded

Watch it before you comment

If you don't like this video or disagree please send supporting links so we all can Learn..

Thank You..

haha this is a first every comedy which i heard
Bikerman
I wasn't going to comment on Monkton because I don't particularly think he should be given any more publicity than he already tries to grab. Since, however, people appear to be taking him seriously (judging by the introduction to that video) - here are a few facts about him.
a) He isn't a Lord, he is a Viscount.
b) He was never a scientific advisor to Margaret Thatcher - that is invention.
c) He is not a member of the House of Lords. He stood for election and got 0 votes.
d) He claimed to have a cure for AIDS a few years ago. Basically he proposed testing everyone on a 6 month cycle and lifelong quarantine for anyone infected.
e) He has no scientific qualifications or standing or expertise.
f) Here is an article he submitted to APS on the issue.
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
and here is a list of the errors it contains
http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
HadesOt
In its most commonly used sense, “global warming” refers to the gradual warming of global-average temperatures due to the slowly increasing concentrations of man-made atmospheric greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide. But global warming can alternatively refer to simply the observation of warming, without iplying the cause(s) of that warming.
Greetings!
Navigator
HadesOt wrote:
But global warming can alternatively refer to simply the observation of warming, without iplying the cause(s) of that warming.
Greetings!


The thing with that is that the weather isn't warming, its getting colder. The data from the mainstream weather institutions was rigged, thats what is now known as "climategate".
HadesOt
The Greenhouse Effect: Scientists are sure about the greenhouse effect. They know that greenhouse gases make the Earth warmer by trapping energy in the atmosphere.

Climate Change: Climate is the long-term average of a region's weather events lumped together. For example, it's possible that a winter day in Buffalo, New York, could be sunny and mild, but the average weather – the climate – tells us that Buffalo's winters will mainly be cold and include snow and rain. Climate change represents a change in these long-term weather patterns. They can become warmer or colder. Annual amounts of rainfall or snowfall can increase or decrease.

Global Warming: Global warming refers to an average increase in the Earth's temperature, which in turn causes changes in climate. A warmer Earth may lead to changes in rainfall patterns, a rise in sea level, and a wide range of impacts on plants, wildlife, and humans. When scientists talk about the issue of climate change, their concern is about global warming caused by human activities.
ecomente
A theory says that not only the Earth is warming up, but the whole solar system. The claimed reason is that from the core of our galaxy (super massive black hole) an energy is spreading (search NASA pages) that will hit earth in these years (2012?). This energy is increasing the speed an quantity of neutrinos that hit and pass the phisical bodies (sun, jupiter, earth, our body, vulcanos...) without noticing them and this is causing them to heat.

It maybe sounds strange, but it is a possibilty. There is more than phisics in this.

Also check this:
[MOD: Nonono...I'm not having this crap on a science forum. Sorry - if you want to post youtube videos of cranks then don't do it in the science forums.
What 'theory' is this supposed to be, and in what papers was it published?
Don't say 'search the NASA Pages, provide a REFERENCE.
Bikerman]
malaysia
GLobal warming is a LIE of Rich country to poor country.
Bikerman
malaysia wrote:
GLobal warming is a LIE of Rich country to poor country.

And your evidence for this is?
This is a science forum. Individual opinions are worthless unless supported by evidence.
Ankhanu
Bikerman wrote:
malaysia wrote:
GLobal warming is a LIE of Rich country to poor country.

And your evidence for this is?
This is a science forum. Individual opinions are worthless unless supported by evidence.


Hell, what does this even mean??? A lie of rich country to poor country... does that mean that rich countries are telling poor countries that global warming is a lie? That rich countries are denying global warming, while poor countries are convinced of its veracity? Something else?

Not only is this devoid of a scientific stance, it's devoid of any clear meaning at all.
asnani04
it's obviously a good point. I just think, be it because of global warming or any other point, but we should stop polluting the atmosphere. This is enough. Now we need to take action and end this. We somehow need to end the pollution, otherwise the earth will be closing its doom. That is all I have to say. The rest depends on how the people perceive this and act accordingly. It's we, the people, who can cause the change.
kaba85
I don't know if it is a global warming, but there are changes around the globe.
metalfreek
Bikerman wrote:
metalfreek wrote:
The point is whom do you trust? I trust my experience and facts that I have learned from my life than other people. One should not be a meteorologist or a climatologist to see what is happening around.
Yep, you do, that's sort of my point.
Quote:
If you are a careful observer then you will see facts clearly.
Which will not help you in the slightest, you now just have a really clear view of the same stuff you still don't understand. If you stay in one place and observe for years then you can develop some useful trends, but it won't necessarily tell you anything about global climate. If you move around a lot then you won't gather any useful data. Experience just doesn't do here - you need data, and lots of it. You also need to be clear about the difference between weather (meteorologist) and climate (climatologist).
Quote:
Yes I accept that meteorologist or a climatologist have some knowledge and has a more accurate prediction but individual experience is as important as the facts that books taught us.
Nope - individual experience isn't worth a plug-nickel, and I doubt you have learned any facts from books on this...
Do you know anything about radiative transfer? Anything about carbon sinks? Anything about forcing effects? And you think that this is worth the same as the actual facts?

Your experience is as reliable for climate forecasting as the questions asked.
eg. If I ask a question with two possible answers then you'll get around 50% right and if there are 3 possible answers and you'll drop to 1/3rd or so In other words no better than blind chance.


I take individual experience as more strong point than all those numbers flying around and challenged by other groups. Let me give you an example: During winter our town used to hit less than 0 degree Celsius for at least a day or two. But for last 7/8 years I have never seen it go below 2 degree Celsius and this along makes me believe that the climate change is real and its effect is very dangerous.
Bikerman
I understand your point, but I think you are wrong.
Personal experience of climate is usually very geographically limited. Very few of us have the sort of life which means that we experience extended periods of weather in many different parts of the world.

So, to start with, we are drawing on EXTREMELY limited data. Secondly, our memory is horribly good at reinventing the past. My memories of weather as a child include the 'fact' that white winters (snow) were common - in fact the rule. When I look back at the actual evidence, however, it is clear that my memory is at fault.

In the case of climate, the first problem - limited data - is absolutely critical. There is a general perception - understandable - that Global Warming means that everywhere will get warmer. Whilst this is understandable, it is wrong. Shifting periodic climate-influencing events - el Nino, the great conveyor, the gulf stream - there are too many to mention - will mean that some places actually get colder, whilst in others the temperature might not change much at all.

Local experience can be useful for predicting the weather, but it is a terrible basis for predicting climate.
Insanity
Not to mention that weather and climate are pretty different things.
ankur209
I don't think its a lie ! Infact from the latest stats i read on INTERNET the size of the hole of the Ozone layer had increased upto the size of North America ! So Global Warming is likely to get out of control in future years if we are not going to think and ponder over the situation...

Mad
Bikerman
I thinki you are confusing two separate issues.
Oxone depletion was largely caused by CFC gasses in the 60s-80's.Most climate models predict that the stratosphere will cool with Global warming and the relationship between Ozone level and warming is very complex.
silverdown
Not only is it a lie it a unbelievable excuse for total world control....
Bikerman
If you are going to make accusations then please support them. Saying that thousands of scientists are lying requires some evidence. If you have none, then you are posting in the wrong forum.
athomas
I've often pondered the possible outcomes of global warming. Earth has effectively dealt with large amounts of CO2 in the past (carbon sync)? I don't know of any limiting factors other than Humans that says plant life won't diversify and exponentially expand, this has occurred over geologic time in response to high CO2 amounts (8 x pre-industrial CO2 in the Devonian) and continents are covered in far more soil than in the past due to erosion further allowing for widespread plant growth. We know that plants evolve much faster than animals which allows them to act on a different time scale, could we be witnessing the catalyst of the next evolutionary explosion in plants? I have to say I trust my peers when they say global warming is real, but I haven't found sufficient evidence to associate it with Human activity nor do I have any reason to assume it will end in disaster.

Aaron
Ankhanu
athomas wrote:
I've often pondered the possible outcomes of global warming. Earth has effectively dealt with large amounts of CO2 in the past (carbon sync)? I don't know of any limiting factors other than Humans that says plant life won't diversify and exponentially expand, this has occurred over geologic time in response to high CO2 amounts (8 x pre-industrial CO2 in the Devonian) and continents are covered in far more soil than in the past due to erosion further allowing for widespread plant growth.

Carbon dioxide is but one element in the equation of plant success. Among the others are temperature, water availability and other nutrient availability... and don't forget competitive interactions with other plants and predation by other organisms. Among the factors influencing plant proliferation, temperature and water availability are quite neatly tied into the question of climate; change the climate, you change these factors. Change these factors, you change how well suited a plant is to where it is... and they can't just get up and go somewhere else.

There are VERY few systems in which CO2 availability is a limiting factor in plant growth/development. More often than not temperature, water and nutrients, particularly phosphorus and nitrogen, are limiting factors. With this in mind, ramping CO2 will have little net effect, as they'll still be limited by other fixed factors that were previously limiting.

Yes, changes in the plant community and CO2 have happened over geologic time... but the current changes in CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) in the atmosphere are NOT happening in geologic time; the rate is MUCH higher. It's increased greatly in the span of two human generations... this isn't exactly a slow process. It's the rate of change, more than the change itself, that is of great concern.

athomas wrote:
We know that plants evolve much faster than animals which allows them to act on a different time scale, could we be witnessing the catalyst of the next evolutionary explosion in plants?

This is highly inaccurate. SOME plants are capable of rapid evolution, just as some animals are. Just as with animals, some plants are k selected, some are r selected; meaning they employ life/reproduction strategies that focus on either development and maintenance of individuals which reproduce slowly, or focus on rapid reproduction, producing many young at the expense of the individual, respectively. K selected species tend to evolve more slowly than r selected species. There are animals that evolve very rapidly, there are plants that evolve very rapidly, there are those that evolve slowly... there are organisms in the other Kingdoms that do likewise.

If you have sources showing that plants generally evolve faster, please supply them.

athomas wrote:
I have to say I trust my peers when they say global warming is real, but I haven't found sufficient evidence to associate it with Human activity nor do I have any reason to assume it will end in disaster.

Aaron

... You accept that climate change science is correct in that it is occurring... but you disagree with the mechanisms that they've identified as being the cause? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Even the petroleum funded scientists are on board with the consensus that anthropogenic hydrocarbon emissions are a major factor in the current climate trends... that should tell you something.

PS - carbon sink, not sych Wink Sink as in something that draws something away and/or sequesters it, not synch as in to occur in the same time/rate.
liangli
Watch it before you comment
liangli
The Earth is constantly changing has done always will
deanhills
liangli wrote:
The Earth is constantly changing has done always will
So are we as a species .... and particularly our thinking about ourselves, global warming and our place in the world and the universe.
Insanity
I think that the bottom line is to follow the precautionary principle -- that we should take the cautious approach because we really only have one planet. If we do not do anything to prevent climate change, and it happens, we will be facing problems that would be much worse than whatever petty economic woes we will run into at the present time. If there is a strong consensus amongst climate scientists (not any scientist, mind you) that the earth is warming, we should take heed and take steps to mitigate the issue. If not, there would be dire consequences.

It highlights a real problem in our society today when scientific data can be so easily thrown aside by right wing media pundits and general ignorance amongst the general public.
Ankhanu
Insanity wrote:
It highlights a real problem in our society today when scientific data can be so easily thrown aside by right wing media pundits and general ignorance amongst the general public.

Unfortunately, it's not just the right wing, though I would be inclined to agree that the right are more prevalent in this.
Outside of politics, the general public is just (willfully?) uneducated on the topic, and most simply don't care. Climate is a big topic and is difficult to understand, especially since climate change is an additive/cumulative problem. Since one's own actions are pretty insignificant to the system, it's the accumulation of all efforts helping and hindering that result in the net effect, it's easy to believe that what one does as an individual just doesn't matter, especially since there will be no clear benefit or consequence from what you do. Climate is something on a scale most people can't readily relate to.
Add in to that the general idea of behavioural and social inertia, and you have a machine that needs to change, doesn't understand the reason, and doesn't want to.
ocalhoun
Ankhanu wrote:

Add in to that the general idea of behavioural and social inertia, and you have a machine that needs to change, doesn't understand the reason, and doesn't want to.

Which is why I think global warming activists' efforts would be better spent on preparation rather than prevention.

With the inertia of the system being too large to reverse, it would be better to spend your time, effort, and resources in preparing for the inevitable rather than a futile effort to stop it.
fgallego
Estoy de acuerdo.
nickfyoung
While the majority of science seems to support global warming of some degree and most of it caused by man made activities and that it will continue to rise there is a portion of science that refuses to accept it in some form or another.

Some scientists are questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections and others argue that warming is not man made while others argue that there will be no negative consequences.

If the issue is so straight forward surly there would be consensus or in the science world is there always a few renegades.

Wiki even lists some of these scientists who have made statements to that effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Afaceinthematrix
That list contains six scientists who question the accuracy of certain calculations. That does not mean that they are global warming deniers; they just question the accuracy of certain calculations. You then have twenty global warming deniers (by claiming that it is a natural process) - almost all of them not working in the relevant field. You then have seven people who say that it is unknown. This is hardly being a denier; it's just saying that the cause of global warming is unknown. You then have three people who don't deny global warming but that just claim that it's no big deal. So really, there are just 20 scientists actually denying it. Most of them work in irrelevant fields. Even if you include everyone on this page it only adds up to thirty-six. Given that there are probably several million scientists and engineers in the world (I don't know how many in the relevant field), that is pretty insignificant.

Quote:
Climate is something on a scale most people can't readily relate to.


It also doesn't help that most people don't understand the difference between climate and weather i.e. global warming cannot be happening because it snowed more this winter than last winter!
Afaceinthematrix
My friend recently posted this picture on Facebook and I liked it and so I thought that I would share it....

Ankhanu
It's an oldie, but it's still deliciously true, and funny Smile
nickfyoung
We have just had a carbon tax imposed on us which is causing some radical price rises in energy, we use coal, and other stuff.

It is not going to make any difference globally. Wouldn't be so bad if it was compulsory in all countries.
Bikerman
Of course it will make a difference - maybe not huge but a difference nonetheless.
The US and China are not looking likely to take serious measures anytime soon - so I guess they had better get used to scenes like the NewYork flooding - morons.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Of course it will make a difference - maybe not huge but a difference nonetheless.
The US and China are not looking likely to take serious measures anytime soon - so I guess they had better get used to scenes like the NewYork flooding - morons.



When the opposition gets back they reckon they are going to repeal the tax and replace it with farm and tree based carbon sinks and achieve the same targets.

What do you reckon, is that achievable.
Bikerman
Achievable yes - doesn't mean they will, of course.
The basic problem is massive, but a major confounding factor is that the political cycle is way too short for this to be taken seriously enough. Every 4-5 years you can blame the others......
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Achievable yes - doesn't mean they will, of course.
The basic problem is massive, but a major confounding factor is that the political cycle is way too short for this to be taken seriously enough. Every 4-5 years you can blame the others......



The basic problem, the current Prime Minister campaigned under the slogan, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.'

Then when she was in with a minority she had to rely on the green vote , hence the carbon tax.
It didn't go down too well with the electorate.

As a side, she has just introduced a full Royal Commission into child sex abuse in the Catholic church and the cover up by hierarchy. They haven't announced the terms of reference yet but haven't ruled out taking away confessional confidence.

Do you think her being an Atheist has anything to do with her decision.
Afaceinthematrix
Bikerman wrote:
Of course it will make a difference - maybe not huge but a difference nonetheless.
The US and China are not looking likely to take serious measures anytime soon - so I guess they had better get used to scenes like the NewYork flooding - morons.


The issue with the States is that we are a country of apathy. As a society, we hate change. I mean, look at the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" as used in our politics (and not in the traditional sense). The word "liberal" has basically evolved into a word meaning "for change" and the word "conservative" has basically evolved into a word meaning "against change." When you have around half the political spectrum against change then change is almost impossible. Plus, even many liberals are against changes that involve energy because it will raise energy prices and they want change without discomfort. It sucks. Furthermore, many people use the economy as an excuse and claim that as soon as unemployment is down we can worry about greenhouse gases. They'll come up with another excuse when unemployment is down. California tried putting in a train system and the mere suggestion raised hell from the public when it was announced in the '80s and 20-30 years later it's still a touchy subject. Americans are addicted to driving and any alternative is seen as "socialist" and that is definitely a touchy subject with our current president.

However, even when there is an opportunity for change with little to no cost, our apathetic society is STILL against it. Check out this post that I wrote in another thread a while back...

Myself wrote:
I cannot figure this one out. I do not own a house and I won't be in a position to purchase instead of rent for a while and so I do not have the choice on this matter, but as soon as I can purchase my house I am going solar. With all of the government incentives these days and the abundant sun in Southern California, there is absolutely no reason to - yet hardly anyone does!

With government incentives, tax breaks, rebates, etc. they really do not cost that much! I have seen people with them and have talked to them about their solar panels and they really do not cost much. Plus, I am handy with tools and so I am just going to buy the panels (which are cheap anyways) and install them myself (most of the cost is labor). Plus, you can get loans for solar panels at interest rates barely above the level of inflation.

I don't understand why more people don't go solar because solar panels for your house are one of those few investments where you can actually calculate how much you'll earn. If you invest in the stock market or almost anywhere else there will be some risk and so you never know what your return will be. With solar panels, you just need to look at how many kwh your panels will produce each month and then multiply by the cost per kwh and there you have it! You know exactly how much money you will save each month and furthermore, you know how long it will take you to pay off your investment and then how much money you will, essentially, make each year.

When you have an investment opportunity with guaranteed payoffs and you can even calculate how much money you'll make yet you don't do it then I am just shocked...


The U.S. is seriously getting ridiculous and is becoming more and more unbearable to live in. Luckily, I speak two major languages (English and Spanish) and so I am looking for a way out of this place. If I spoke German I'd look into Germany because I love that place. But since I don't, I am looking for employment (and the legal hurdles that I'd have to go through to get eligibility to live and work in that country) in countries where my current language skills can be useful...
Ankhanu
Bikerman wrote:
The US and China are not looking likely to take serious measures anytime soon - so I guess they had better get used to scenes like the NewYork flooding - morons.

Nor is Canada.
My government shames me.
Related topics
"global warming" questions... please share your an
Cow-Made Global Warming
Global Warming Source..
Global Warming
US media finally aknowledge Global Warming
Global Warming
Al Gore = :OWNED: (again)
What did Jesus do to cause global warming??
Global warming... Is it a problem?
Global Warming
Global Warming
Apocalypse Now? Global Warming Hotspots
Global Warming
Global Warming.... Truth or Lie?
Global Warming article - critique and pointers
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> Earth

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.