Quote :

"If we aren't producing a significant amount of greenhouse gas (compared to the whole of nature)"

We are.



http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

Quote :

"my initial 'arguments' were classified as troll."

I think they assumed you were because very often trolls get bored and create aliases, with which they start topics on issues that have already been discussed ad nasuem using arguements that have already been proven false.

8/8/2006 3:32:11 PM

Ok, where are the non anthropogenic emissions. Are they at a lower level?

[Edited on August 8, 2006 at 3:35 PM. Reason : second edit]

8/8/2006 3:34:09 PM

non anthropomorphic or non anthropogenic emissions simply refer to non man-made emissions...ie plant respiration, volcanic activities, etc

but you dont need to see those...its easier to make a point if you only give evidence that supports your viewpoint

8/8/2006 3:39:03 PM

Do you really need it spelled out for you?

Jesus. Give me a minute, then.

Also, while there are natural sources of greenhouse emissions, there are also significant natural means of sequestering of those gases.

8/8/2006 3:39:51 PM

im not, but are you aware of the natural ways of sequestering natural greenhouse gases?

8/8/2006 3:46:16 PM

Quote :

"Also, while there are natural sources of greenhouse emissions, there are also significant natural means of sequestering of those gases."

And these like...won't work...on our emissions?

8/8/2006 3:49:19 PM

Quote :

"im here to see what else is out there besides what i think i know."

i urge you to move on. this isnt a place to get knowledge.

8/8/2006 3:50:59 PM

^you should've thought about that before you cliked 'Post Reply' and said to yourself "you know, i'm really not helping anything" and clicked back

8/8/2006 3:52:01 PM

uhh, the idea that tdub is place you should go for education is impossible to defend

8/8/2006 3:53:09 PM

but the idea that you can learn some things is true

but you just try to run him off

8/8/2006 3:54:11 PM

good find on that graph

8/8/2006 3:56:19 PM

i wouldnt go so far as to say the point of a debate is to obtain irrefutable evidence, especially in something as informal as a message board... but just to see what else is out there. i think critically enough, i think, to sort through the bullshit when i see it. if anyone is going out there and spending money based on knowledge they obtained from a message board... then they have issues beyond financial ones. but the point of this is to interact with people who may not agree with you and see if you can find their logic. its social education, not formal... becuase formal education is only going to get you so far.

8/8/2006 3:56:28 PM

Quote :

"Ok, where are the non anthropogenic emissions. Are they at a lower level?"

Couldn't find overall data via a couple google searches, but here's man vs. volcanoes:

Quote :

"Carbon Dioxide Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times."

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

Regardless, the point isn't whether or not we're producing more than nature produces, it's whether or not we're producing more than nature can handle.

The graph above should make it pretty obvious that nature is not able to sequester all of the extra CO2 we're emitting.

speaking of...

Quote :

"im not, but are you aware of the natural ways of sequestering natural greenhouse gases?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_sinks

The Earth can regulate CO2 levels, just probably not when you add human emissions to natural emissions.

Quote :

"And these like...won't work...on our emissions?"

Well it's a good thing these sinks have an infinite capacity to sequester greenhouse gases!


PS, while I was in wikipedia, check out what I found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change


[Edited on August 8, 2006 at 4:04 PM. Reason : .]

8/8/2006 3:56:32 PM

Quote :

"i think critically enough, i think, to sort through the bullshit when i see it."

how did that go with your cup of ice and water?

8/8/2006 3:57:34 PM

you didnt say anything to make me think it was wrong other than that it was wrong. im open to being wrong

8/8/2006 4:00:01 PM

it looks like even thought 2 people explained to you why you wrong, you still dont undestand. do you?

you still dont get what the problem with the glass of ice-water is, do you?

8/8/2006 4:02:13 PM

The glass of water analogy is false because it assumes Antarctica's ice is floating in the ocean.

Antarctica is a land mass.

8/8/2006 4:02:53 PM

it also assumes that the entire continent would melt which seems pretty counterintuitive to solar radiation at equatorial versus polar regions

8/8/2006 4:04:02 PM

you dont need it all to melt

8/8/2006 4:04:56 PM

Quote :

"which seems pretty counterintuitive to solar radiation at equatorial versus polar regions"

lol, "hey I'm going to sound smart by saying 'solar radiation at equatorial versus polar regions' instead of 'it's colder down there.'"

Well "colder" is a relative thing, isn't it?

8/8/2006 4:06:51 PM

joder6925....you need a picture, dont you? you still dont get it, do you? nobody is going to draw you a picture. so, you are going to live out the rest of your life in ignorance.

[Edited on August 8, 2006 at 4:08 PM. Reason : 234]

8/8/2006 4:08:06 PM

Boondocks, I get your point on that we could overwhelm the earth's capacity to sequester the gases, but I think I need a more complete argument (from scientists) on that. Also, this IPCC shit referenced in the wiki article as "most notabl[e]" has been torn to shit before. Maybe even in this thread. And several of the reports (including the IPCC) are specifically referenced in that research I posted earlier as not using accurate assessments of climate variability.

Again, I'm not saying that we aren't causing it. I'm saying we need to get all the world's climatologists in a room together and let them discuss and research this shit. And then, unlike the IPCC, let them post dissenting opinions on the report. Several scientists asked to post dissenting opinions to the IPCC and they weren't allowed to.

8/8/2006 4:08:18 PM

lol, "hey I'm going to sound smart by making the whole country fear gas burning cars so the alternative fuel companies I own stock in can make money"

8/8/2006 4:10:28 PM

certain people's mind is so driven by money, that they can only image others as being driven the same way

its sad

8/8/2006 4:12:49 PM

so bush and his friends want money

but nobody else does

k

8/8/2006 4:17:31 PM

Quote :

"Also, this IPCC shit referenced in the wiki article as "most notabl[e]" has been torn to shit before."

I remember that.

It was essentially an ad hominem against the scientists because their original data was imperfect, and was revised when new data came out.

You know... because scientists aren't supposed to do that...

Then they ignored the fact that the revised data also supported anthropogenic climate change.

[Edited on August 8, 2006 at 4:18 PM. Reason : .]

8/8/2006 4:17:39 PM

And the attack that most of the scientists had nothing to do whatsoever with climate...or even geology

Like the OBGYN...thank god the Vag doctor knows about climate change.

(which was a different "respected" viewpoint, not the IPCC)

[Edited on August 8, 2006 at 4:24 PM. Reason : not IPCC]

8/8/2006 4:22:52 PM

Quote :

""Or, perhaps The Washington Post and others determined there was a consensus based upon the Second Assessment Report of the United Nations Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released in 1995. The report, which purports to be the culmination of some 2,000 scientists' work, found that the "balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence" on climate. But this is misleading: While many scientists did indeed work on the Second Assessment Report, they did not necessarily support the conclusions of the final report. As Dr. John W. Zillman, one of the scientists who participated in the process noted, "[The IPCC was] meticulous in insisting that the final decision on whether to accept particular review comments should reside with chapter Lead Authors. This was at variance with the normal role of journal editorial boards and led to suggestions that some Lead Authors ignored valid critical comments or failed to adequately reflect dissenting views when revising their text."""

And the others from the first page...

8/8/2006 4:23:50 PM

Quote :

"so bush and his friends want money but nobody else does"

some people do not work for money.

doctors for example, most of them could make shit loads of money in other less demanding fields.

8/8/2006 4:24:43 PM

This just in, Doctors don't work for money!

8/8/2006 4:25:25 PM

^I agree, treetwista is a moron.

8/8/2006 4:28:37 PM

English mother fucker...do you speak it?

8/8/2006 4:29:54 PM

josh is the biggest troll on here...which doesnt bother me...except he tries to act like he's not trolling

8/8/2006 4:30:49 PM

Quote :

"so bush and his friends want money but nobody else does "

8/8/2006 4:31:52 PM

The thing is, there's legitimate nitpicking to do, but there's no way these questions counterbalance the overall consensus, or the data.

8/8/2006 4:40:24 PM

which is...?

8/8/2006 5:05:31 PM

I bet these are the same scientists who try to tell us God didnt bury the dinosaur bones to trick us.

8/8/2006 5:48:14 PM

It looks like this was the 2nd hottest July on record, not even the first. The first was during the 30s, but was much worse because the lack of rain turned the midwest into the Dust Bowl.

Thought this map was interesting. Even though we have been bitching about it being hot here, this averaged out to be a normal July in NC according to NOAA.

8/8/2006 7:53:13 PM

Quote :

"Ice Ice...Maybe Glacier National Park could be due for a name change Photographs like these might soon be all that's left of Grinnell Glacier, seen at left in 1938 and at right in 2005, globally the hottest year on record. The 7,000-year-old ice monolith, located in Montana's Glacier National Park, has shrunk by 70 percent in the past century or so. "Virtually all the glaciers of the world are retreating," says ecologist Daniel Fagre of the Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, stationed in the park. "It's clear evidence of global climate change. They don’t retreat for any other reason." If temperatures continue to climb at current rates, the last of the park’s glaciers will vanish by 2030. Visitors, Fagre says, are conscious of the deadline: "We hear more often that people want to come see the glaciers before they disappear." "

8/11/2006 5:18:29 PM

Quote :

"in 2005, globally the hottest year on record"

ROFL

8/11/2006 5:23:08 PM

i don't see what's so funny about that statement.

are you saying it is false, cuz i have no clue.

i got that from the Popular Science website.

i don't think a bunch of wackos write stuff for it; i would believe it over anything you say, unless you show me a more reliable source.

8/11/2006 5:25:13 PM

yes its false...last year was not the hottest year on record

8/11/2006 5:26:50 PM

...ehe...

i actually think Twista's got a point

it's not a scientific indictment of the report at all

more of a "duh" that didn't occur to the writer i guess

8/11/2006 5:28:47 PM

it was the hottest year on record since 1880

although thats still debatable as thermometer technologies have improved over the last few decades, meaning temperature records from the earlier 20th century are not as accurate as current readings

also 125 years (1880-2005) sounds like a lot

but 125 years isnt a lot compared to 4,000,000,000 years...the approximate age of the Earth

if you say "on record" as meaning "since 1880" then they would probably be correct

but then they also take ice core samples from hundreds of thousands of years and dont include any of that as "on record"

btw i've never tried to say global warming doesnt exist...or that it exists

my years of taking MEA classes with PhD holding professors gave me too much evidence from each side to formulate a strong opinion for either side

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 5:32 PM. Reason : mea]

8/11/2006 5:29:52 PM

Quote :

" although thats still debatable as thermometer technologies have improved over the last few decades, meaning temperature records from the earlier 20th century are not as accurate as current readings"

only a troll would try and pass this of as legit

who else wants to chime in and agree with treetwista on this remark

PLEASE SOMEONE SAY THEY AGREE

8/11/2006 6:50:17 PM

Quote :

"i got that from the Popular Science website."

I would warn you to avoid Popular Science as a credible source. They tend to be... a bit overanxious about every obscure untested technology that some farmer just came up with that will "completely change the world in a year". Stick to Scientific American, Skeptic, and National Geographic. Thanks.

For instance, http://img.timeinc.net/popsci/images/2006/07/mp_july06_8.jpg<- this image could be comparing a summer image and a winter image. Also note that the black-and-white aspect of the first shot gives the illusion of more ice than there really is. If the image doesn't specify WHAT TIME OF YEAR it was taken, it isn't being very intellectually honest.

That said, Treetwista is just being a troll, and I agree generally with your point.


[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 10:57 PM. Reason : stupid link tag]

8/11/2006 10:54:15 PM

haha i like how i'm the only one in this thread with a science degree yet I'm being a troll by going against the liberal grain

typical

8/14/2006 1:38:18 PM

josh#'s has a chemistry degree (and that was just the first one i checked). but of course, you don't care about actual facts.

oh, perhaps he hasn't graduated.

well, i have an aerospace engineering degree. the very same equations i use every day for simulations are used by metereology computational models on a larger scale for weather prediction.

[Edited on August 14, 2006 at 1:41 PM. Reason : .]

8/14/2006 1:40:18 PM

Quote :

"josh#'s has a chemistry degree (and that was just the first one i checked). but of course, you don't care about actual facts. oh, perhaps he hasn't graduated. "

what does this even mean? he has a degree or he hasnt graduated? "the first one you checked" where? wtf are you trying to say?

8/14/2006 1:47:48 PM

I haven't read the thread at all, but I just saw 60 Minutes.

It was an interview with James Hanson.

Has he been mentioned? I don't want to waste time if he and his work have been mentioned.

[Edited on August 14, 2006 at 2:12 PM. Reason : And why the Guvment is trying to muffle him and restrict who he speaks with.]

8/14/2006 2:09:12 PM