Turns Out That Global Warming Isn't Just A Liberal Conspiracy After All

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

The big animals are going to go away.

There isn't anything we can do about it.

I've spent the majority of my life concerned about the megafauna in Africa, India Asia and the Americas.

I've spent time and money on conservation efforts for them.

We can slow the process, but in the long run, it is a lost cause.

Time is their enemy. As our population increases in their habitats they will slowly be driven into extinction no matter what we do.

The only thing that can save them, is if there is a huge human die off.

Enjoy them. Enjoy the wild they live in. Enjoy your life. Fight against reason for their survival. 200, 300, 1,000 or 2,000 years from now they will all be gone unless something happens to us.

Just typing it makes me sad.

There is a huge contradiction in this world, when there is enough food produced to feed the entire population and there are starving children in many countries. What am I trying to say? That animals wouldn't be driven to extinction if we had a different distribution of food. I'm not talking about distribution of wealth, just food. I just feel like when there are places where food is thrown into the garbage and other places where children don't eat for weeks.

[Extra Stout]

(Time.com) -- No one can say exactly what it looks like when a planet takes ill, but it probably looks a lot like Earth.

Never mind what you've heard about global warming as a slow-motion emergency that would take decades to play out. Suddenly and unexpectedly, the crisis is upon us.

From heat waves to storms to floods to fires to massive glacial melts, the global climate seems to be crashing around us.

The problem -- as scientists suspected but few others appreciated -- is that global climate systems are booby-trapped with tipping points and feedback loops, thresholds past which the slow creep of environmental decay gives way to sudden and self-perpetuating collapse. That's just what's happening now.

This article is a prime reason this stuff doesn't get taken seriously. The global climate is "crashing?" We're in "self-perpetuating collapse?" And their evidence is heat waves, storms, floods, and fires?

Don't these ing goddamned know-it-all liberal journalists ever open a history book?

The rising sea level is going to be enough of a problem. And history shows that changes in climate can disrupt human settlements. Why do they have to add the alarmist bull ?

[Extra Stout]

There is a huge contradiction in this world, when there is enough food produced to feed the entire population and there are starving children in many countries. What am I trying to say? That animals wouldn't be driven to extinction if we had a different distribution of food. I'm not talking about distribution of wealth, just food. I just feel like when there are places where food is thrown into the garbage and other places where children don't eat for weeks.

Starving children in third-world countries have more to do with rampant corruption in those countries than with any problem concerning how the food is grown or distributed.

[MannyIsGod]

I wish people would actualy educated themselves on the subject. I'm so tired of the "save the planet" opinion that has nothing to back it up other than the warm fuzzies someone gets when they march around in a beluga whale costume with a peace sign knit on the front.

#1. In order to "solve" a problem, one must pinpoint the cause. No one has done that in regards to climate change and it is unkown whether the change is prompted by the sun, CO2, or another factor. Yes, many people have latched onto the greenhouse effect theory, but there are plenty of holes in that theory and it is far from being prooven - even in a theoretical sense.

#2. If it is CO2, you can't really stop it.

#3. If you're really worried about world hunger, read up on the side effects of having large regions of artic area thaw. Say o to a knew breadbasket.









TIME IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL.

[MannyIsGod]

Global warming is a myth.

At least if I believe the phrase above, I don't feel guitly driving around in my Tahoe.

If global warming is a indeed caused by CO2 emissions, you think you contributed less CO2 than the average resident of the planet earth? Because, you're in America so I doubt it. Tahoe's aren't the only ones distributing C02.

How does that make you feel? Do you still feel superior to Tahoe drivers?

[MannyIsGod]

From this study:

Scafetta, N., and B. J. West, 2006. Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming.

The sun played a dominant role in climate change in the early past, as several empirical studies would suggest, and is still playing a significant, even if not a predominant role, during the last decades. The impact of solar variation on climate seems significantly stronger than predicted by some energy balance models…The significant discrepancy between empirical and theoretical model estimates might arise because the secular TSI [total solar irradiance] proxy reconstructions are disputed and/or because the empirical evidence deriving from the deconstruction of the surface temperature is deceptive for reasons unknown to us. Alternatively, the models might be inadequate because of the difficulty of modeling climate in general and a lack of knowledge of climate sensitivity to solar variations in particular. In fact, theoretical models usually acknowledge as solar forcing only the direct TSI forcing while empirical estimates would include all direct and indirect climate effects induced by solar variation. These solar effects might be embedded in several climate forcings because, for example, a TSI increase might indirectly induce a change in the chemistry of the atmosphere by increasing and modulating its greenhouse gas (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.) concentration because of the warmer ocean, reduce the earth albedo by melting the glaciers and change the cloud cover patterns. In particular, the models might be inadequate: (a) in their parameterizations of climate feedbacks and atmosphere-ocean coupling; (b) in their neglect of indirect response by the stratosphere and of possible additional climate effects linked to solar magnetic field, UV radiation, solar flares and cosmic ray intensity modulations; (c) there might be other possible natural amplification mechanisms deriving from internal modes of climate variability which are not included in the models. All the above mechanisms would be automatically considered and indirectly included in the phenomenological approach presented herein.

[Extra Stout]

Nbadan is now property of MannyisGod.

Nbadan is not interested in honest intellectual discussion. He's interested in partisan ideological demagoguery. Carry on.

[Sec24Row7]

There is a huge contradiction in this world, when there is enough food produced to feed the entire population and there are starving children in many countries. What am I trying to say? That animals wouldn't be driven to extinction if we had a different distribution of food. I'm not talking about distribution of wealth, just food. I just feel like when there are places where food is thrown into the garbage and other places where children don't eat for weeks.

It's not about hunger, it's about population and time. In fact, bountiful food for everyone would increase the process becauase the population explosion would be steady. Starving children in Africa actually gives respite to animals because we can put laws and enforcement in place to slow down the local poachers from meat hunting. As long as the environment is still there the animals can bounce back the way they were. If you have a bazillion new people that go move into an uninhabited area or that need firewood... that is what creates the problem that isn't as easily solved.

Anything that curbs human population gives the megafauna more time. Disease (AIDS may play a huge role), Famine and Natural disaster.

War is another story though. Nothing cleans out the environment of animals faster than giving 150,000 people automatic weapons and a short supply of food.

As an animal lover, how can you root for AIDS or famine though? You just can't. In the long run it is either us or them, and you are crazy to take any other side but your own.

[Nbadan]

Nbadan is not interested in honest intellectual discussion. He's interested in partisan ideological demagoguery. Carry on.

No, Manny, in his over-zeal ness on this topic, seems to be the only one now debating with himself minute details about something we know, scientifically/mathematically/statistically, which every way he wants it, is going on...he keeps posting these sun spot articles, and any study, or articles, no-doubt sponsored by the energy industry, which attempt to debunk any theory relating CO2 emissions, Global-warming, and the severity of Hurricanes and other natural earth phenomenon. I've already posted that if the scientific community can't come to a consensus on Global warming, we certainly aren't gonna get to it in this forum.

If that's being owned then you've been owned in the forum since you poked your head in here, biatch!

[Sec24Row7]

I've been corrected on specifics by people who post here and have accredited evidence to back it up.

I don't post bull lies like you do.

*shrug*

[Nbadan]

Eh, I don't have to spin anything, the numbers speak for themselves..

Source:Wikipedia

[Sec24Row7]

Ok dan... if Co2 causes warming... what caused the release of it in previous ice age thaws? Things just don't happen on their own. What was the trigger that released the Co2 before that caused the warming?

Find that for me and then we will talk. Until then, in pre history, I've got to say that the increase in Co2 levels in the atmosphere were a result of and not a cause of the earth warming up.


As long as you are doing that, find out where it went when the next ice age started.

Thanks.

As far as the second graph, I think that surface temperature models have been significantly trounced in enough publications now that I don't have to respond to that one.

[MannyIsGod]

The funny thing is, I'm using the studies Dan posts against what he's saying. When he uses them, they are ok. When I quote these same scientists they are sponsored by the energy lobby in order to distort the truth.

Ok.

Oh, and I provided scholarly sources while Dan provides Wiki ingpedia. Its good to know that not just anyone can edit the good ole wiki.

[Nbadan]

Ok dan... if Co2 causes warming... what caused the release of it in previous ice age thaws? Things just don't happen on their own. What was the trigger that released the Co2 before that caused the warming?

Find that for me and then we will talk. Until then, in pre history, I've got to say that the increase in Co2 levels in the atmosphere were a result of and not a cause of the earth warming up.

From Wikipedia:

he degree of the greenhouse effect is dependent primarily on the concentration of greenhouse gases in the planetary atmosphere. The deep and carbon dioxide-rich atmosphere of Venus causes a runaway greenhouse effect with surface temperatures hot enough to melt lead, the atmosphere of Earth creates habitable temperatures, and the thin atmosphere of Mars causes a minimal greenhouse effect.

The use of the term runaway greenhouse effect to describe the effect as it occurs on Venus emphasises the interaction of the greenhouse effect with other processes in feedback cycles. Venus is sufficiently strongly heated by the Sun that water is vaporised and so carbon dioxide is not reabsorbed by the planetary crust. As a result, the greenhouse effect has been progressively intensified by positive feedback. On Earth there is a substantial hydrosphere and biosphere which respond to higher temperatures by recycling atmospheric carbon more quickly (in geologic terms; the timescale for the ocean/biosphere to remove a CO2 perturbation is on the order of several hundred years). The presence of liquid water thus limits the increase in the greenhouse effect through negative feedback. This state of affairs is expected to persist for at least hundreds of millions of years, but, ultimately, the warming of an aging Sun will overwhelm this regulatory effect.

The average surface temperature would be −18°C without a greenhouse effect or 72°C with just the greenhouse effect and no convection, but in reality this temperature is closer to 15°C due to convective flow of heat energy within the atmosphere and partly above much of the thermal IR absorbence of the atmosphere. [2]

Recent measurements of carbon dioxide amounts from Mauna Loa observatory show that CO2 has increased from about 313 ppm (parts per million) in 1960 to about 375 ppm in 2005. The current observed amount of CO2 exceeds the geological record of CO2 maxima (~300 ppm) from ice core data (Hansen, J., Climate Change, 61, 269, 2005). This suggests that the CO2 production rate from increased industrial activity (automobile use and fossil fuel generation) and other human activities such as land-use changes has overwhelmed the normal feedback control mechanisms. Global climate model calculations indicate that the elevated CO2 levels are likely to lead to global warming. There has been an observed global average temperature increase of about 0.5oC since 1960 (Science 308, 1431, 2005). There is still some public controversy about the role of human activities and that of CO2 and other greenhouse gas increases for global warming.

[Extra Stout]

Ok dan... if Co2 causes warming... what caused the release of it in previous ice age thaws? Things just don't happen on their own. What was the trigger that released the Co2 before that caused the warming?

Well, duh, it was prehistoric Republicans.

[Extra Stout]

From Wikipedia:

That Wikipedia quote failed to answer the question.

[Nbadan]

The Oh, and I provided scholarly sources while Dan provides Wiki ingpedia. Its good to know that not just anyone can edit the good ole wiki.

If you have a problem with Wikipedia's sources maybe you and your best-buddy, Chris Landsea, ought to take it up with them Manny. There, now you have a new goal in life, go debate the sources Wikipedia uses in it's Green-house effect section.

[Nbadan]

That Wikipedia quote failed to answer the question.

I think it answered it quite effectively.

[Sec24Row7]

Exactly. They don't have an answer. When they do answer they go... well.. warming caused the increase in Co2...

Ummm?

Ok so Co2 caused the warming and warming causes the Co2 increase...

On the same token, Cooling causes co2 drops and co2 drops cause cooling...

WHAT?

[Oh, Gee!!]

prehistoric Republicans.

Redundant

[Nbadan]

The current observed amount of CO2 exceeds the geological record of CO2 maxima (~300 ppm) from ice core data (Hansen, J., Climate Change, 61, 269, 2005)

Have you been getting electro-shock therapy? Or did this finding not click in that Spurs-dominated brain of yours?

[Sec24Row7]

Redundant

Apparently so.

You KNOW some flower wearing hippie is going to be the one slamming a 4 foot pole into the side of a Mastadon with an atl atl.

[Sec24Row7]

Have you been getting electro-shock therapy? Or did this finding not click in that Spurs-dominated brain of yours?

There are also more cows on the planet than there have ever been. What does that have to do with anything?

[Extra Stout]

Have you been getting electro-shock therapy? Or did this finding not click in that Spurs-dominated brain of yours?

Sec24Row 7 asked you to explain the driving force behind previous warming trends, specifically the ones following ice ages over the past 400,000 years.

Your answer is that current CO2 levels exceed any found in ice core samples.

That does not answer the question he asked.

I happen to know the correct answer. Manny and Sec24 certainly know it. You don't because you have no idea what the you are talking about. You're posting wikipedia articles and calling yourself an expert. I don't claim to be an expert, but a lot of this information is readily obtained. Clearly, you are evidence that obtaining information is not the same thing as comprehending it.

And it's funny, because those two are not denying the existence of global warming. They simply are separating the hard science from the political bull . This bothers you because you care more about the political bull .

[Nbadan]

There are also more cows on the planet than there have ever been. What does that have to do with anything?

The three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down. Studies of the thermal inertia of the oceans suggest that there is more warming in the pipeline.