Re: Global warming hoax

Bob B. wrote:
In article <timberwoof.spam-BAD2C6.23144317062006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


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?


Why would I think climatologists are lying, or that GW is a "hoax"? All that Al Gore's statements show is that many GW 'advocates' treat science like politics - they like to selectively present the evidence, and they like to focus on the worst case scenarios, rather than taking a more dispassionate approach.


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?


Sorry, when the UN predictions for increased sea level range from 4 inches to 35 inches, that tells me scientists don't have a real good handle on it. When 60 Canadian scientists publish an open letter to their prime minister asking for an independent review of global climate change and the Kyoto treaty, it tells me that despite the "consensus", there are still serious, scientific questions about GW and its effects.


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?


What in the world does my lifespan have to do with anything? Do you think that the only reason someone might be cautious about interpreting our current ideas about climate change has to do with how long they will live?



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?


Well, good. Where is this "elsewhere"? And why would I "want" the answer to be one thing or another?


Thnx, Bob. You've pretty much hit the nail on the head on many of these issues. Interesting to note that there are many scientists that have a lot of doubts about GW. In the beginning of this thread, I said "I can't tell you how many times I've lived thru the End-of-The-World scenarios".


--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
.

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
    ... 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 ... 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: Greenland glaciers disappearing more quickly
    ... that solar activity, hallelujah, is the culprit behind climate change? ... planet with CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gasses. ... for Global Warming can be found in the variable solar irradiation. ... scientists tasked with briefing congressional committees on the dangers ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Interesting Take on Climate Change Argument
    ... proof of man-made increase of CO2 content in the global atmosphere, ... as needed by man-made warming hypothesis. ... temperature histories. ... "Responses to climate change are being seen across the U.S.A," said ...
    (rec.audio.pro)