Re: Global warming hoax

In article
<bobinnv-4083B7.10370518062006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Bob B." <bobinnv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
t>,
Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

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

Explain this graph:

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/histor
ical02.j sp

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.

Who are "they"? If you mean scientists themselves, that's bull***.
You're perfectly welcome to read their research and come to your own
conclusions. If you mean Al Gore, then it's still bull*** for the same
reason.


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.

Let me see if I understand your reasoning: Sea-level rise estimates
range from 4" to 35" (over the same spans of time?) for an average
estimate of 20", and you conclude that whether sea levels will rise is
in doubt?

Oh, there is consensus: Our contribution of extra CO2 to the atmosphere
will cause an unnaturally fast increase in temperatures which will lead
to rising sea levels. These climate changes will trigger potentially
disastrous effects we can't predict. Now the exact rates of temperature
increase, sea level rise, and specific changes to climate are all being
debated, but the basics aren't in dispute.

If you demand to have exact numbers to the nearest 0.1°C temperature
increase and nearest 1" sea level rise before you'll do something, then
you will not get those numbers until it's too late.

The alternative is to have scientists say nothing to anyone until
they're sure ... and then it will be too late, too.

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?

Because some people act as if they don't give a flying *** what
happens to the planet after they die.

Why didn't you answer my question?

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"?

In endless tiresome discussions with a fool named GreyCloud on this
newsgroup.

And why would I "want" the
answer to be one thing or another?

I don't know your motivations, but they may color your belief about what
will happen.

Again, why didn't you answer my question?

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