Who believes in Global Warming?

“I prefer the title of insane troll, thanks.”

“it's amazing to me that a volcano can erupt and have 100 millions times the amount of harmful gasses than the atomic bombs we dropped on japan yet mother nature can clean that one up. It's just stupid. There is a pattern to this earth that's on about a 75,000 year cycle of "global warming" and "ice ages". Most scientist discredit any talk of human cause to the earth causing global warming. They understand that the earth's rotation and tilt vary slightly throughout the centuries and the smallest angle cause catastrophic changes to the earth. Scientist have studied ocean levels through geology to learn that this phenomenon is the earth's normal cycle.
you should be more worried about the methange gas in cow farts than anything else.”

“If I had invested tons of money in developing technologies for sequestration, I'd be screaming "Global Warming!" too.”

“If the oil companies oppose it, it must be bunk.”

“A paragraph a little further down in the story:

According to a 3,000m (about 10,000ft) ice core from Antarctica revealing the Earth's climate history, carbon dioxide levels are the highest for at least 440,000 years.”

“Tell me more about those natural cycles.”

“Maybe the oil companies know that we know that what they say must be bunk?”

“Whether these weenies "believe" or not, its happening.

But if Limbaugh says so........

I have it from a math/physics professor who worked with atmospherics that it is happening.”

“Of course I believe in Global warming.

It happens every summer.

Then in the winter it gets cool again.

In 50 years the world will run out of fossil fuels anyway and the problem will cure itself in much the same way as the New York City problem with disposing of horse sh1t was cured by the horseless carriage 100 years ago.

Unless of course NYC goes back to horses !!

Yikes !! now think of the health and disposal problems. Logistics for importing hay,

and

Oh No!

The greenhouse effect from the methane given off by horse farts


we are doomed.”

“I wonder if sleeping bags will get cheaper and cheaper the warmer the earth gets? I'm gonna e-mail Marmot® and ask.”

“Those are just wacky scientist claims! The next thing you know, they'll be telling us the world is round and that the earth's land masses float on continental plates!”

“The world is a sphere, a solid.

Round is a two dimensional shape where you could fall off the edge.

Float is a drink made with Coca Cola and ice cream. It is served in glasses not on plates.”

“Lynch Galileo ! !

Just ask Pat Robberson or Mush Flimflam.

Them ya can trust!”

“manuka, you are wise beyond words.”

“"ost scientist discredit any talk of human cause to the earth causing global warming."
srperry01
12:54:42 PM
06/21/04

That's dead wrong. While human causes for global warming have not been proven, the scientific consensus is overwhelmingly behind the idea that human activity is "that human-induced climate change is already occurring and that future change is inevitable."

see http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=515 or do a google search using: scientific consensus global warning and look for yourself.”

“LOL @ Buddha.”

“I prefer floats made with root beer to Coke.”

“ok pedxing; google anything to do with global warming and myths and you'll get the exact opposite. the fact is that there is no scientific proof that humans are causing global warming. if we are causing it then why have there been ice caps in the past that haven't been present for thousands of years? Exactly which oil company melted that ice age? For every web page/arguement you can make for "global warming" i can make one that debunks it and the same goes for you. This isn't exactly an arguement that I think is going to be resolved by people on TT. Most of my knowledge on this subject came from one college course i took 6 years ago but that i still believe. in my opinion, there is more evidence that shows global warming so to speak is a natural occurance that will be followed by global cooling in thousands of years from now. if you're really interested in learing google something about scientific data on the temperature change in the past 600 million years and watch it go up and go right back down.”

“the fact is that there is no scientific proof that humans are causing global warming.
srperry01
03:31:26 PM
06/21/04

You're right. Like all good science there are theories that humans are causing global warming.”

“The notion that the scientific reporting on warming is motivated by greed is ludicrous, though.

Its the greedy who are trying to de-bunk it.

Now, who's really motivated?”

“srperry: It's huge difference between saying there is no proof that human activity causes global warming and saying "Most scientist discredit any talk of human cause to the earth causing global warming" (sic). The first is true, the second is totally false.

BTW: "In a letter endorsing Kerry, 48 scientists who have won the Nobel Prize said the Bush administration is undermining the nation's future by impeding medical advances, turning away scientific talent with its immigration practices and ignoring scientific consensus on global warming and many other criti cal issues."

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1087903810222820.xml#continue”

“I think the point that most scientists agree on is that human activity is having an effect on the natural warming and cooling trends that occur on the planet.”

“There is no scientific consensus on global warming, and even those scientists who think it is happening, there is no consensus on the cause.”

“My take on global warming: It was mother cold on the slopes last winter, and not warming up very much this summer. Okay, that's very localized, but I can say that "You prove global warming by me." At least until it starts getting mother hot in my neck of the woods.”

“Some of the theories involving global warming point to the process forming an ice age.”

“This thread isn't going to end w/ one of us saying, "holy cow, you're right after all!". The simple fact is that we disagree and have learned different things throughout our lives and education. I don't believe that humankind has had much of an effect on global warming and believe that it (global warming) is a natural phenomenon. You believe that man is responsible for this. Ok. I hear you. Just because you throw in some political reference to how many people endorse Kerry really isn't very impressive. I think that it is great to disagree on certain topic's but at some point the arguement must end. I understand your standpoint and you understand mine. Period.”

“I think reasonable people can disagree about global warming, its extent, further course and its causes. I don't think reasonable people who have looked into the situation can disagree about what most scientists think.

The point of my last post was that 48 Nobel Prize winning scientists signed onto a statement asserting that there was a scientific consensus on global warming - you won't find anywhere near that many nobel prioze winning scientists taking the opposite point of view. Now you can say that the consensus is wrong, it has happened before - or that since most scientists have academic backgrounds they are liberals. But so many scientists have gone on record on one side and so few on the other side, you do have to be biased to believe that most scientists think human causwation of global warming is wrong.”

“I thought this was interesting ---



Oil chief: my fears for planet
Shell boss's 'confession' shocks industry

David Adam, science correspondent
Thursday June 17, 2004

The Guardian

The head of one of the world's biggest oil companies has admitted that the threat of climate change makes him "really very worried for the planet".

In an interview in today's Guardian Life section, Ron Oxburgh, chairman of Shell, says we urgently need to capture emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, which scientists think contribute to global warming, and store them underground - a technique called carbon sequestration.

"Sequestration is difficult, but if we don't have sequestration then I see very little hope for the world," said Lord Oxburgh. "No one can be comfortable at the prospect of continuing to pump out the amounts of carbon dioxide that we are pumping out at present ... with consequences that we really can't predict but are probably not good."

His comments will enrage many in the oil industry, which is targeted by climate change campaigners because the use of its products spews out huge quantities of carbon dioxide, most visibly from vehicle exhausts.

His words follow those of the government's chief science adviser, David King, who said in January that climate change posed a bigger threat to the world than terrorism.

"You can't slip a piece of paper between David King and me on this position," said Lord Oxburgh, a respected geologist who replaced the disgraced Philip Watts as chairman of the British arm of the oil giant in March.

Companies including Shell and BP have previously acknowledged the problem of climate change and pledged to reduce their own emissions, but the issue remains sensitive, and carefully worded public statements often emphasise uncertainties over risks.

Robin Oakley, a climate campaigner with Greenpeace, said: "This is an important statement to make but it does have to come with a commitment to follow through, and that means making the case to his peers in the oil industry who are still sceptical of climate change."

Mr Oakley said a gulf was opening between more progressive oil companies such as Shell, which invests in alternative energy sources including wind and solar power, and ExxonMobil, the biggest and most influential producer, particularly in the US.

In June 2002 ExxonMobil's chairman, Lee Raymond, said: "We in ExxonMobil do not believe that the science required to establish this linkage between fossil fuels and warming has been demonstrated."

Lord Oxburgh's words will also fuel arguments over sequestration. Supporters say it will allow a smoother transition to reduced emissions by allowing us to burn coal, oil and gas for longer. Critics argue that the idea is an expensive and probably unworkable smokescreen for continued reliance on fossil fuels.

Last year the Guardian revealed that ministers were considering plans for a national network of pipelines to carry millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide from power stations to be buried under the North sea.

"You probably have to put it under the sea but there are other possibilities. You may be able to trap it in solids or something like that," said Lord Oxburgh, who claimed even vehicle emissions could be trapped and disposed of. "The timescale might be impossible, in which case I'm really very worried for the planet because I don't see any other approach."

According to a 3,000m (about 10,000ft) ice core from Antarctica revealing the Earth's climate history, carbon dioxide levels are the highest for at least 440,000 years.

Lord Oxburgh said the situation is particularly urgent because many developing countries, including India and China, are sitting on huge untapped stocks of coal, probably the most polluting fossil fuel.

"If they choose to burn their coal, we in the west are not in a very good position to tell them not to, because it's exactly what we did in our industrial revolution."

Bryony Worthington, a climate campaigner with Friends of the Earth, said: "It isn't a responsible attitude to say we're going to pledge to do sequestration but if the plans don't work out then the world's messed up. He's done quite a clever job by making it clear he's concerned but at the same time not pledging to do anything about it."

She called for tougher emission standards for new vehicles, as well as greater investment in energy efficiency measures and renewable sources.

A former non-executive director with Shell, Lord Oxburgh was catapulted into the chairman's role after the company was forced to reveal it had overstated the extent of its reserves. He was widely viewed as a safe pair of hands.

He followed his long-standing academic career with spells as chief science adviser to the Ministry of Defence and rector of Imperial College, London. A crossbench life peer, he still chairs the Lords science and technology select committee, although he must retire from Shell next year.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004”

“What amazes me is that everyone is so focused on the political nonsense of the issue that no one talks of the human and economic devastation that will come of this.

What would the effects be of a massive rise in sea level?
The vast majority of the world's great cities are on the coast, including virtually every city with a population of above 10 million. They were built there to utilise the sea by fishing and trading abroad. Many grew because of the size of their harbours.

However, there are disadvantages to being located on the coast. It leaves these cities extremely vulnerable to a rise in sea levels. A rise of just a metre could mean that the ocean flowed into city streets at high tide. A rise of several metres would make holding this water back near impossible without hugely expensive flood defences. A rise of much more than that could mean that low lying area of cities would have to be evacuated. Imagine the consequences of what would happen if sea levels were to rise by more than 55 metres.

New York, Los Angeles, Rio de Janeiro, Sau Paulo, Bombay, Tokyo, Kobe, London and Shanghai, to name but a few, would all be swamped by this rise. Not only cities would suffer: thousands of islands would disappear, which would be especially difficult to evacuate in poor countries. Much of the world's best farmland is below this height and the loss of it could mean massive food shortages around the world. Our already overcrowded world would then have even less space and less food to go around.

What might cause sea levels to rise?
Global warming could potentially cause this massive increase. Global warming is a proven fact, no scientist debates that temperatures are rising. The debate is whether this is caused by greenhouse gasses (like carbon dioxide, methane and CFCs), but this is irrelevant to the ice caps.

Global warming is having a dual effect on sea levels. Rising global temperatures make the sea warmer. As liquids warm they expand. This means that without any more water entering the sea, it is getting deeper. Scientists are already beginning to observe this effect as sea levels start to rise, watched in horror by inhabitants of small islands as the coastline recedes.

The second effect is that the increased temperature will make the polar ice caps (the Arctic and Antarctica) start to melt. As the ice warms, it melts, putting more water into the sea. If all of Antarctica melts sea levels would rise by 55 metres. That is excluding the North Pole and all the glaciers combined.”

“"What amazes me is that everyone is so focused on the political nonsense of the issue that no one talks of the human and economic devastation that will come of this....."

Very correct. An eviromental shift one way or the other, no matter how slight, would cause somethings to change; however, it's happened many times over the years to many civilizations. Most of Cleo's chit is under 15 feet of the Med.

For as solid as the Earth is, there is a lot of *flexiblity* within our sphere. Like everything in the Universe, the Earth is in constant state of flux. Millions of cycles, upon cycles of processes are happening, all at once.

The Earth is propbably going through a process of natural events and we just happen to make things worse by our habits.

On the grand scale, we are due for an enviromental situation that could alter the way we do bidness. It's happened many time before in every civilization, it will happen many times after this......!”

“But take into account the number of people on the earth today compared to centuries ago(In cleo’s time the earths population was measured in the few millions. Today it’s measured in the billions.)and the population is still growing at an alarming rate combine that with large areas of the earths best farmland gone. Then take into account that about a billion people today across the globe depend on glacial melt for fresh water and those glaciers will be all gone. Weather patterns are sure to change, so we can’t assume that this country will be able to grow food in the abundance it does now. Remember that not long ago North Africa was once a lush forest, a small climate shift turned it into the largest desert on earth. I read a study that was done on some of the earth’s main food crops grown under conditions of increased carbon dioxide levels and while the increased levels caused greater growth rates, the food that was produced from those plants had a lower nutritional value than the same plants grown under current conditions. In the past people could migrate to a more favorable place, but that is no longer an option. I’m not trying to sound all gloom and doom, but this is going to cause some serious trouble. Maybe the earth is going to give itself some human population control.”

“I don't believe that humankind has had much of an effect on global warming and believe that it (global warming) is a natural phenomenon."
srperry01
03:41:16 PM
06/22/04

Of course global warming (and ice ages) are a natural phenomenom, one that we can't do a darn thing about because of the natural variability of this occurrance. However, by adding greenhouse gasses (carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, CFCs, etc.) to our atmosphere we are inadvertently enhancing this natural occurrance.

If you paid attention to your class then I'm sure you know how incoming solar radiation enters our atmosphere and is thus re-radiated back into space as infrared (heat) radiation. And that these greenhouse gasses absorb this infrared radiation and keep it from leaving our atmosphere, essentially trapping heat like a greenhouse.

Seriously, do you really think that humankind's addition of volumous amounts of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere doesn't affect our climate in any way at all?

And you can talk all you want about global climate change in the Phanerozoic, but what is important to humankind is NOW and the next 1000 years!”

“While the earth has gone through some very large climate shifts in it’s history, if you look at the rise of modern humans there is one thing that stands out and that is unprecedented climate stability during that time. Yes there have been climate shifts during human history, but if you compare those to the wild climate shifts that predate humans they are barley noticeable.”

“The shifts may not be as wild as you say, box, or maybe they are. It's just that geologic time is condensed into both rock and ice and there could be quite a bit of time in a small section giving the appearance that it was a rapid change when in reality it could have been a rather gradual one.

The duration humans have been on earth has been such an extremely short amount of "geologic" time that change could have happened at a constant rate but our science hasn't been able to document it because not enough time has passed to notice it, which could be why our climate seems stable.

I wonder what the Anasazi Indians would say about climate change and stability?”

“From the EPA's website:

According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases – primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.
[...]
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30%, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15%. These increases have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of the earth's atmosphere.
[...]
Scientists generally believe that the combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities are the primary reason for the increased concentration of carbon dioxide.
[...]
Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists expect that the average global surface temperature could rise 1-4.5°F (0.6-2.5°C) in the next fifty years, and 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) in the next century, with significant regional variation. Evaporation will increase as the climate warms, which will increase average global precipitation. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Sea level is likely to rise two feet along most of the U.S. coast.
[...]”

“http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3915245.stm
eco quiz thingy”

“8 out of 10 right. Not too bad considering that I don't know the language.”

“yeah, I got eight too”

“Crap, I only got 4. I hate tests.

Bloody English!”

“8/10 as well.”

“A friend asked the other day if I ever got tired of writing about environmental issues. Well, to be frank I'm getting pretty tired of writing about climate change. Not because it isn't interesting or important, but because I'm getting tired of having to defend the science against conspiracy theorists and ideologues.

Greatest climate challenge may be overcoming ideology”

“9/10, but I won't rub it in.”

“6/10

Still...you can drive from england to th alps right??!!!

also...the diaper service. Don't they have to drive to your house to deliver??!!!

btw: nappies?? LOL that's cute!! Nappies!!”

“Gretchen Cook-Anderson
Headquarters, WashingtonAugust 2, 2004
(Phone: 202/358-0836)

Krishna Ramanujan
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
(Phone: 607/273-2561)

RELEASE: 04-252

RETREATING GLACIERS SPUR ALASKAN EARTHQUAKES

In a new study, NASA and United States Geological Survey
(USGS) scientists found that retreating glaciers in southern
Alaska may be opening the way for future earthquakes.

The study examined the likelihood of increased earthquake
activity in southern Alaska as a result of rapidly melting
glaciers. As glaciers melt they lighten the load on the
Earth's crust. Tectonic plates, that are mobile pieces of the
Earth's crust, can then move more freely. The study appears
in the July issue of the Journal of Global and Planetary
Change.

Jeanne Sauber of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center,
Greenbelt, Md., and Bruce Molnia, a research geologist at
USGS, Reston, Va., used NASA satellite and global positioning
system receivers, as well as computer models, to study
movements of Earth's plates and shrinking glaciers in the
area.

"Historically, when big ice masses started to retreat, the
number of earthquakes increased," Sauber said. "More than
10,000 years ago, at the end of the great ice age, big
earthquakes occurred in Scandinavia as the large glaciers
began to melt. In Canada, many more moderate earthquakes
occurred as ice sheets melted there," she added.

Southern Alaskan glaciers are very sensitive to climate
change, Sauber added. Many glaciers have shrunk or
disappeared over the last 100 years. The trend, which appears
to be accelerating, seems to be caused by higher temperatures
and changes in precipitation.

In southern Alaska, a tectonic plate under the Pacific Ocean
is pushing into the coast, which creates very steep
mountains. The high mountains and heavy precipitation are
critical for glacier formation. The colliding plates create a
great deal of pressure that builds up, and eventually is
relieved by earthquakes.

The weight of a large glacier on top of these active
earthquake areas can help keep things stable. But, as the
glaciers melt and their load on the plate lessens, there is a
greater likelihood of an earthquake happening to relieve the
large strain underneath.

Even though shrinking glaciers make it easier for earthquakes
to occur, the forcing together of tectonic plates is the main
reason behind major earthquakes.

The researchers believe that a 1979 earthquake in southern
Alaska, called the St. Elias earthquake, was promoted by
wasting glaciers in the area. The earthquake had a magnitude
of 7.2 on the Richter scale.

Along the fault zone, in the region of the St. Elias
earthquake, pressure from the Pacific plate sliding under the
continental plate had built up since 1899 when previous
earthquakes occurred. Between 1899 and 1979, many glaciers
near the fault zone thinned by hundreds of meters and some
completely disappeared. Photographs of these glaciers, many
taken by Molnia during the last 30 years, were used to
identify details within areas of greatest ice loss.

Field measurements were also used to determine how much the
glacier's ice thickness changed since the late 19th century.
The researchers estimated the volume of ice that melted and
then calculated how much instability the loss of ice may have
caused. They found the loss of ice would have been enough to
stimulate the 1979 earthquake.

Along with global positioning system measurements made by
Sauber and Molnia a number of NASA satellites were used to
document glacier variability. Data from Landsat-7 and the
Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) were used to study
glacier extent and topography. Currently, NASA's ICESat
satellite is being used to measure how the glacier
thicknesses are changing.

"In the future, in areas like Alaska where earthquakes occur
and glaciers are changing, their relationship must be
considered to better assess earthquake hazard, and our
satellite assets are allowing us to do this by tracking the
changes in extent and volume of the ice, and movement of the
Earth," Sauber said.

For images and information about this research on the
Internet, visit:

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2004/0715glacierquake.html


-end-”

“trouble for CA
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3572532.stm”

“EEEE GADS! Don't F#@$ with my wine!”

“Judging by the warm summers we have had for 2 years straight in Seattle. I know people who are actually buying air conditioners for their home. (Unheard of here. Just never needed it before.)

Now i can help reduce emissions if I could just find a darn job near where I would like to live. I'll ride my bike to work. I like cycling.”

“I don't believe in it - it's warm enough, thank you.


I seem to recall that Western NY grapefarmers did well during drought conditions - helped the flavor of the grape somehow. Maybe this is varient specific?”

“Oh c'mon.

Everyone knows that the National Academy of Sciences is just a wing of the socialist party.”

“Here in Illinois we are having one of the coolest summers on record. there have only been something like 10 or 12 90 degree days”