Re: Global warming hoax

In article
<timberwoof.spam-0B835D.12061017062006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article
<bobinnv-CFEC40.09322517062006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Bob B." <bobinnv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article
<timberwoof.spam-CC2DDE.20112716062006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <me-13790C.17300516062006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Mike <me@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article
<timberwoof.spam-2C4D99.20052415062006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Explain this graph:

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical02.jsp

It looks to me like there is a 100,000 year cycle of warming and
cooling.

Did you notice how current CO2 levels are higher than at any other point
in that graph?

So what is the current "crisis" all about?

Oh, so did you finally pull your head out of the sand?

The looming crisis is that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere and that
with all that extra CO2, temperatures will become higher than is good
for us.

How high is "higher than is good for us"? Looking at the graph, our
ancestors must have survived similar changes in climate. It has been
both hotter and colder than it is now, and humans have survived just
fine. Current conditions are not necessarily 'perfect' for humans, they
are just what we are used to. Doesn't it make more sense to learn to
adapt to changing conditions than to make drastic changes to our way of
life in an effort to stop what may actually be a partially or even
entirely a 'natural' process?

What environmental scientists fear is that the average temperature will
change faster than systems can adapt to it. And you're not considering
the scope of the changes that will occur if temperatures rise as
expected.

Actually, I'm questioning the scope of changes that will occur. Climate
changes all the time. If we were alive 10,000 years ago, our climate
would have been warming. Forests would be disappearing or changing. We
would have to adapt our lifestyles to the changes that were occurring.
Just like today. But today we can effect the way we live in very drastic
ways, and it isn't a good idea to close factories or start building
nuclear power plants if we don't absolutely have to.


Higher temperatures will change rainfall patterns: some places will get
wetter, others will get drier. Ethiopian drought is believed by some to
have been caused by fine particulates causing clouds to form with much
smaller droplets of water than normal. These clouds don't rain as
readily. Once North American and Europe cleaned up their emissions of
such pollutants, rainfall increased a little. However, the positions of
circulation patterns has changed, leading to drought in many places:
Darfur and Nigeria are examples of civil war happening because of
climate change.

When the Greenland and Antarctica ice caps melt, that water will cause a
rise in sea level that will drown many coastal cities. Florida could
disappear. This might inconvenience Floridians, but it will be worse for
the rest of us, who will have to adapt to the ways Floridians drive. Not
only that, but the flooding of the Netherlands will send that whole
bunch all over Europe and the US, bringing their guttural language and
liberalism with them.

Forests can move ... but it takes generations. What happens is that
trees stop growing at one end of the forest and seedlings thrive and
grow at the other end. But that happens only if the climate change that
drives it is not too fast. "Too fast" means that the entire forest dies
and there's nothing left to reseed other latitudes where climate is now
suitable for that kind of forest.

So the temperature change is, so far, within normal bounds. But the rate
of that change is potentially beyond what the ecosystem can bear.

It's the "potentially" part I don't like. Will the ice caps melt soon?
Are you sure? Is it wise to make drastic changes today for the worst
possible scenario, or it it better to get a more detailed understanding
of what will happen before doing something unneccessary?



Apparently we need do
nothing and it will reverse by itself, right? We're not even at the
highpoint from the past!

You only have three "cycles"; that's not enough to determine whether
we've peaked yet or not. And then there's all that extra CO2 that's not
usually there.

So why is the current cycle "man made"? What caused the previous
cycles?

No, the cycle is not man made; the realy high level of CO2 is.

You sort of sidestepped his question - the graph shows that this cycle
of increased CO2 and higher temperature has happened before, without any
help from humans. So how much of the current bump in CO2 is due to
humans?

Considering that there's a remarkable correlation between when the CO2
bump started and the Industrial Revolution, I'd say "all of it."

But temperatures started rising before the Industrial Revolution. And
the graph you cited shows that there have been previous instances of
increase in both temperature and CO2 levels that had nothing to do with
humans.


The graph makes it look like there was going to be an increase
with or without human help. Even if we stopped producing CO2 today, the
graph makes it look like the current cycle would continue. So the
question you sidestepped - if CO2 levels have repeatedly increased in
the past without human intervention, what caused that to happen, and how
are we sure that isn't happening again now? - is pretty important.

It's not hard to calculate the amount of extra CO2 that humans are
putting out through industry, farming, and burning. It's pretty
straightforward to then calculate the expected effect on atmospheric CO2
levels. And guess what.

Don't think that you're the only person who has asked those questions.
Good science means coming up with all kinds of questions that poke holes
in your own hypothesis. You've got to think of all the things that may
be wrong with your own hypothesis because your colleagues and rivals are
sure to do the same thing, and if anyone comes up with an obvious flaw,
you'll look foolish. And scientists are looking at each others' work all
the time, and sometimes they find obvious blunders. That's how science
works.

You realize of course that everything you say here applies to those who
think GW is occurring, right? I have noticed a tendency in GW
"supporters" to not be very tolerant of dissent.

Interestingly, your questions have all been considered.
Nevertheless, it is the overwhelming consensus of climatologists that
something's going on, the consequences could be catastrophic, and we'd
better do something about it now.

So tell me ... you have something akin to a scientific hypothesis here:
current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are well within norms; the rate
of increase is not excessive; recent record temperatures are within
expected variations; the rate of change is also normal; humans are not
contributing all that much to global atmospheric CO2 levels; the ash
from burning coal and oil isn't that much of a problem; we will somehow
be able to adapt to whatever happens.

Have you taken the time to find the obvious flaws and holes in your
beliefs? Is what you're doing good science or just wishful thinking?

No, I believe what I said was more like: we seem to be in a warming
period. There have been similar warming periods in the last 300,000
years. In fact if you graph them, they look a lot like the current one.
Because these warming periods have happened without human intervention,
and climate varies greatly as time goes by, I want to see some really
good data to show the current warming isn't just another 'natural'
warming, probably enhanced by human activity. And I also don't want to
start taking drastic actions until we really understand what is going
on. If human activity only accounts for a small portion of the current
warming, then drastic cutbacks won't help that much. If the warming is
mostly not human induced, then we should be focusing more on things like
moving cities away from coastlines, and adapting to the changing climate
like our ancestors did.

Bob B.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Global warming hoax
    ... Did you notice how current CO2 levels are higher than at any other ... ancestors must have survived similar changes in climate. ... Current conditions are not necessarily 'perfect' for humans, ... the cycle is not man made; the realy high level of CO2 is. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Global warming hoax
    ... Did you notice how current CO2 levels are higher than at any other ... Current conditions are not necessarily 'perfect' for humans, ... when in fact the current climate change isn't much ... the cycle is not man made; the realy high level of CO2 is. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Global warming hoax
    ... Did you notice how current CO2 levels are higher than at any other point ... Looking at the graph, our ... Current conditions are not necessarily 'perfect' for humans, ... the cycle is not man made; the realy high level of CO2 is. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT - Global Warming Revisited
    ... The great majority of scientific opinion is that human released CO2 is ... the rate of warming is about 10x greater than the warming ... glaciation cycle, or even better, 40 million years, long enough to cover ... the peaks of the cycle. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: Not Evil Just Wrong exposes Al Gores agenda
    ... Bush Admits to Role of Humans in Global Warming ... Roundtable on Climate Change in a statement issued Tuesday. ... of CO2 and other GHGs in major sectors of the global economy," stated ... What the science says... ...
    (soc.retirement)