Some people think global warming is a result of natural cycles of climate change that have occurred throughout the earth’s history. Some think it’s entirely blameable on human activity.Hmm you do make a good point. I realized when I got to work that I hadn;t really explained the no proof in science thing correctly. I think it would be more accurate using the gravity guy thing again to say this. Now the fact that gravity exists is a fact more or less I mean it doesn;t take a scientist to figure out things fall when you drop them. But the exact mechanics of how it works is where it gets interesting.
As for the Galileo situation yes I think he should have been taken with a grain of salt. But a scientific grain of salt. Then his views embraced. Course obviously that ended up well in the long run I think. And I have to wonder had Galileo been dismissed and lets say it took a few hundred years more for someone to prove it again what sort of advancements might we have missed out on?
But do you have absolutely accurate figures? And can you estimate what proportion of that percentage became extinct before modern humans appeared? The real test would be to try to estimate the average extinction rate throughout natural history, and compare that to the extinction rate that can be substantially credited to human activity. Then you’d have a good picture of our culpability or otherwise.99.9% of all animals ever to walk the earth are currently extinct.
I am uncertain of the balance part of your statement.Read what you want to read, believe what you want to believe, but just remember that everyone has an agenda, and balance is always important.
What I mean by balance is that any method that is chosen to deal with global warming must take into account the needs of the environment and humans. If mutual benefit can be achieved - looking after the natural world, it’s fauna and the humans that live on it - it should be the ideal that we strive for.I am uncertain of the balance part of your statement.
But I will agree readily that everyone has an agenda. The question we need to ask ourselves before picking a dog in the fight is if the agenda is something we want (or at least are willing to accept).
So whose agenda do we agree with??
Exactly what I said in post 765:I have read that the main issue behind global warming is birth control and abortion.
The agenda behind global warming is no secret.Actually, I believe it to be more insidious than that. Not so much that individual politicians are hoping to get relected and draw voter support through pushing global warming initiatives. I don’t know how much of an affect on voter turnout is for reelecting a politician because they promised incentives on ‘green goods’. Rather, it is more of a means for the rulers to ultimately **push their agenda of population control. **This means limits on family size, extermination, forced abortion, etc…
Al - thanks for the link; it was a very interesting presentation, not least because of the references to hundreds of scientific papers on the various topics.sydneyminingclub.org/presentations/2008/november/plimer/player.html
Click on that and sit back and enjoy the lecture with fantastic slides.
If you like it, pass it along to your friends.
It is the best presentation I have ever seen.
Al - thanks for the link; it was a very interesting presentation, not least because of the references to hundreds of scientific papers on the various topics.
Ender
One of the most interesting slides was #64 which shows that even massive increases in CO2 will add virtually zero additional greenhouse warming. As I understand it, CO2 absorbs IR radiation at a specific frequency (or small range of frequencies), and I understand the assumption that there is a fixed amount of radiation at that frequency from the earth and that the amount of CO2 necessary to interact with it is already in the atmosphere. It’s not exactly clear, however, why additional CO2 wouldn’t hold the energy in the atmosphere longer (thus raising the temperature). Do you have an explanation for that?sydneyminingclub.org/presentations/2008/november/plimer/player.html
Click on that and sit back and enjoy the lecture with fantastic slides.
See it appears that is incorrect. what that slide/Ian Plimer is apparently claimingOne of the most interesting slides was #64 which shows that even massive increases in CO2 will add virtually zero additional greenhouse warming. As I understand it, CO2 absorbs IR radiation at a specific frequency (or small range of frequencies), and I understand the assumption that there is a fixed amount of radiation at that frequency from the earth and that the amount of CO2 necessary to interact with it is already in the atmosphere. It’s not exactly clear, however, why additional CO2 wouldn’t hold the energy in the atmosphere longer (thus raising the temperature). Do you have an explanation for that?
Ender
According to the National Research Council, doubling the CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppmv would increase the temperature by 1.2 deg C in the absence of feedback.So if I am understanding these correctly the idea that massively increasing C02 wouldn;t raise the temperature hardly at all is wrong.
** *If there were no climate feedbacks, the response of Earth's mean temperature to a forcing of 4 W/m2 (the forcing for a doubled atmospheric CO2) would be an increase of about 1.2 °C (about 2.2 °F). ***Of course remember that is in the absence of feedbacks and that link goes on further to mention a couple such feedbacks. I will add one as well that I donlt think it talks about. You might have heard about methane in the frozen tundra recently frozen for thousands of years within the ice. Well probably more accurate long dead plant and even animal matter frozen within the ice for thousand of years. But a link with better info. climateprogress.org/2008/05/22/tundra-part-1-the-permafrost-wont-be-perma-for-long/ Also I think that is mean temperature for the whole globe not all places will rise to the same degree some will be less likely some much more. But of course I think that important part here is that is in the absence of feedbacks and it doesn;t seem we are going to be that lucky!According to the National Research Council, doubling the CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppmv would increase the temperature by 1.2 deg C in the absence of feedback.
Since the temperature is assumed to have actually gone up by more than this simple calculation accounts for and since CO2 is assumed to be the cause it is assumed that feedback amplifies this value two and a half times. So, in order to increase the Earth’s mean temperature by 3 deg C (according to the theory) the CO2 concentration would have to double from 280 to 560; in order to go up another 3 deg it would have to double again from 560 to 1120 ppmv (since the effect is logarithmic). And all of this assumes that the climate models are right:Code:** *If there were no climate feedbacks, the response of Earth's mean temperature to a forcing of 4 W/m2 (the forcing for a doubled atmospheric CO2) would be an increase of about 1.2 °C (about 2.2 °F). ***
(based on climate system models: see section 4). ** The central value of 3 °C is an amplification by a factor of 2.5 over the direct effect of 1.2 °C (2.2 °F).**
Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council (pp 6-7)
books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/
Ender
Also to add here it seems that a few degrees difference in temperature can make a big difference. climate.weather.com/science/global-warming/faqs/faq07.htmlOf course remember that is in the absence of feedbacks and that link goes on further to mention a couple such feedbacks. I will add one as well that I donlt think it talks about. You might have heard about methane in the frozen tundra recently frozen for thousands of years within the ice. Well probably more accurate long dead plant and even animal matter frozen within the ice for thousand of years. But a link with better info. climateprogress.org/2008/05/22/tundra-part-1-the-permafrost-wont-be-perma-for-long/ Also I think that is mean temperature for the whole globe not all places will rise to the same degree some will be less likely some much more. But of course I think that important part here is that is in the absence of feedbacks and it doesn;t seem we are going to be that lucky!
Is this a typo?**a rise in sea level between 3.5 and 34.6 in. (9-88 cm), leading to more coastal erosion, flooding during storms, and permanent inundation **
I question whether this is a prediction of the scientists involved or the invention of the bureaucrats responsible for creating the Summary. Can you point to the section of the TAR containing this prediction?**Scientists predict that continued global warming on the order of 2.5°-10.4°F over the next 100 years (as projected in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report) is likely to result in: **
I find these scenarios less convincing than the plot of some B sci-fi movie about sea monsters. I especially find the mosquito threat inventive, given that the greatest concentration of them is already north of the Arctic Circle. Do you take any of this stuff seriously? Chicken Little is obviously alive and well.**a rise in sea level between 3.5 and 34.6 in. (9-88 cm), leading to more coastal erosion, flooding during storms, and permanent inundation
severe stress on many forests, wetlands, alpine regions, and other natural ecosystems
greater threats to human health as mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects and rodents spread diseases over larger geographical regions
disruption of agriculture in some parts of the world due to increased temperature, water stress, and sea-level rise in low-lying areas such as Bangladesh or the Mississippi River delta. **
They may be wrong about their science, but they are right about their PR methods-Is this a typo?
Usually when someone gives a range that large, they have no idea what they are talking about.