Re: Global warming hoax

In article
<bobinnv-CDFE78.16553717062006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Bob B." <bobinnv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <alangbaker-B9B841.12091117062006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Alan Baker <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx> 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 an incredibly stupid argument: "Our ancestors must have survived,
therefore why worry?"

Except of course I didn't say "why worry", I merely tried to look at
things with a little perspective - humans have survived climate change
in the past,

Humans have also died out because of climate changes in the past:
Anasazi
Vikings in Greenland
Easter Islanders



and I don't think it is at all clear exactly what changes
might be in store in the future. A sea level rise of 20 feet, like Al
Gore says, or a sea level rise of 19 inches, which is more in line with
the "consensus" everyone likes so much. There is a big difference. GW
"advocates" like to focus on the most alarming scenarios, the end of the
world as we know it, when in fact the current climate change isn't much
different than what has happened before.

Well, if you always pick the most alarming figures that people mention,
then it's easy to dismiss the whole thing as alarmist and not worry
about it. On the other hand, the more benign figures are not enough to
worry you.

It's interesting to note that you do know about the range of
possibilities that have been predicted. Perhaps you know that even the
median figures are alarming.

While human beings in general will almost certainly survive,

In "An Inconvenient Truth" Al Gore says: "What is at stake is our
ability to live on planet earth, to have a future as a civilization".

If Al Gore is mistaken in that summation, will that make you think the
whole thing is a hoax and that all the climatologists are lying?


a major
change in average temperature (and a few degrees *is* a major change)
will result in hardship for many, many people in *specific*.

Yes, and the CURRENT climate is causing hardship for many. But before we
start making drastic changes to the way we live, we need to understand
what exactly is going to happen, and why.

What sort of evidence will convince you? What if that exact knowledge
cannot, in principle, be had until it occurs, but people could give
really good estimates ahead of time?


What if only 25% of the
current warming is caused by humans? Then a drastic cut in CO2
production wouldn't do all that much good, would it? To use your word,
it would be 'stupid' to, for instance, start gutting industries and
putting people out of work without knowing that it will really pay off.
Sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease.

What if your lifespan was potentially five hundred years. How would you
feel about activities that could kill you and millions of other people
within fifty?



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? 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.

Look more closely at the graph:

The previous highs for CO2 have never been more than about 300ppm.
Today, we're at 380ppm; more than 25% higher than at any time in the
past 300,000 years.

That doesn't answer the question, either. How much is due to human
activity? Why has it happened in the past without human help?


I addressed this issue elsewhere. You can calculate how much CO2 has
been pumped into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution and come
up with a pretty good figure for our contribution. Would it surprise you
to know that people have done that and come up with an answer? What do
you think the answer is? What do you want the answer to be?

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Global warming hoax
    ... The looming crisis is that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere ... and humans have survived just fine. ... A sea level rise of 20 feet, ... current climate change isn't much different than what has ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • 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
    ... The looming crisis is that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere ... and humans have survived just fine. ... A sea level rise of 20 feet, ... current climate change isn't much different than what has ...
    (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: Global warming hoax
    ... 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. ... Current conditions are not necessarily 'perfect' for humans, they are just what we are used to. ... A sea level rise of 20 feet, like Al Gore says, or a sea level rise of 19 inches, which is more in line with the "consensus" everyone likes so much. ... GW "advocates" like to focus on the most alarming scenarios, the end of the world as we know it, when in fact the current climate change isn't much different than what has happened before. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)