castledoom.com

[Batchman]

So this question is mostly fo the 'balanced' folks who check out what both sides are saying (Joe?), though I expect a few people will jump in with one-sided views, and that is absolutely fine!

Where does the truth seem to fall on global warming? I don't believe the liberals, I can't buy the stuff Al Gore spouts, and I refuse to consider using just one square of toilet paper to improve the environment (Yeah, I know it was a joke ....)

I would be a lot more likely to be open to some thoughts on a need to improve the environment if the libs weren't trying to force feed us such over-stated nonsense.

So Joe, share your thoughts on how bad the issue actually is.

[JuntaJoe]

The exact same conditions that is ranted about causing global warning was used to create a decade long rant that we were going into global cooling a mere 25 years ago.

No serious proponent of global warming will meet in public debate with scientists who disagree.

Gore needs to grow some stones and meet this challenge:

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/docs/20070316_monckton.html

[Morticcia]

JuntaJoe wrote:

No serious proponent of global warming will meet in public debate with scientists who disagree.

Where did you read this?

[JuntaJoe]

Heard it.

Many of the big radio talk show hosts have been trying to get a proper 2 sided scientific debate going on this, but while they have accredited scientists willing to challenge the global warming crowd, they can't get any takers from that other side that have proper scientific credentials.

Anyway, Gore could go to Oxford and meet with England's former science minister and get his props if he wanted to.

It's quite legit and could make Gore's bonifides iron clad if he does well.


The accredited debunkers are waiting in the wings all over the place to meet in proper debates, but the global warming "experts" keep sticking to protected settings where they and a moderator/journalist are the only ones there.


Let's have a serious debate with scientists from both sides meeting to settle this once and for all.

[ExarKun]

I don't truly have any comments expect a wtf!?!?!?! where did Batchy come from :-p

[Batchman]

I see Exar still manages a good typo or two in each post!

How's it going, Exar?!?

(Found myself at work with a few spare minutes, a wireless connection I could sponge off of, and a question which I wondered what JJ thought of, and here I am!)

[Maus]

Oh gawds, not Viscount Monckton of Brenchley -- the newest and most promising addition to the court jester circuit. His hilarious... uhh, *research* (see here and here) makes even Al Gore look like an elite climate scientist. :lol:

If you'd rather not get your information from politicians, op-ed writers, talk-show hosts and bored English aristocrats, the IPCC's 2007 summary of current AGW data and theory is available online here

A good layman's-level explanation of the history and present state of climate research is Kerry Emanuel's Phaeton's Reins, available online here.

[Batchman]

But where does it fall between the "We have no effect on global warming" crowd and the "We will have turned the Earth into a huge ball of fire by August 8th, 2008" crowd?

[NibbyCat]

Personally, I don't think we can know for sure until we can look back and compare cycles. But what bother me more are people and corporations who think that "humans aren't having that much effect" means that we have a free rein to trash our planet. I'd rather err on the side of caution.

[Maus]

The gist is that warming in excess of about 2 degrees C above pre-industrial times is not a good thing -- high likelihood of triggering major melting of the Greenland ice sheet, accelerated sea-level rise from ice-melt and thermal expansion of seawater, accelerated warming triggered by the warming ocean releasing its dissolved CO2, large-scale agricultural disruption, major die-off of tropical rainforests, etc.

The (genuine) debate over what to do centers on probabilities of reaching the 2-degree level. The IPCC estimates a 33% chance if atmospheric CO2 reaches about 510ppm, and a 90% chance at 590ppm. We're presently sitting at about 460ppm. So, the engineering push is develop technologies allowing us to stabilise near the present level.

It's almost worth it just to see Greenpeace having to think of nuclear power as a nice thing to have. :shock:

[ExarKun]

Batchman wrote: I see Exar still manages a good typo or two in each post!

How's it going, Exar?!?

(Found myself at work with a few spare minutes, a wireless connection I could sponge off of, and a question which I wondered what JJ thought of, and here I am!)

If I don't add a typo somewhere I feel I am not doing my English teachers proud...

Now on the topic I feel like Nibby sort of, I like the idea of trying to help stabilize everything, and be cautious, but at the same time it's impossible to stop the effect of humanity so going completely crazy on the issue isn't going to solve the problem.

Now maybe I should go read some actual articles from scientist that deal a wee bit more than me in this field, if you need a network or re-built computer or some web page I may be your expert, but global eco-system isn't really my forte'

[Morticcia]

*read's maus' (maus's?) posts* *heaves sighs of relief*

:cheesy: 8)

[s_stabeler]

my own opinion based on what I know of CO2 ( I don't claim to be an expert by any means) is that CO2 would cause a warming effect, but for a slightly different reason. CO2 is heavier than air ( that's why it's a useful fire extinguisher), and thus would settle in a band fairly near the ground. excluding oxygen, for one- DANGER. for another, if CO2 reacts with carbon, if forms carbon monoxide- DANGER. ok, the carbon monoxide takes a fair amount of heat. as for if it is a greenhouse gas, it's a possibility. it removes heat from the fuel of a fire, so clearly is a thermal insulator. that alone means it can cause global warming, simply by preventing heat escaping into space. now, as for ice melting and the danger of that- actually, that depends on the average temperature where the ice is. ice melts at 0 degrees celsius, so if the temperature at the poles gets above that, the ice melts. important is the temperature of the ice, as if the ice is below 0 degrees it won't melt. the sea ice, whihc is what is melting at the moment, melts in the summer ( providing there is no ice age), so it must go above 0 degrees in the summer. therefore, we can extrapolate that if it would vanish, then the sea ice must be around -2 degrees in the winter now. unfortunately, i do not know the temperature of the sea ice now, so cannot conclude on the risks of it vanishing completely. more worrying, by the way, is the risk of the artic ice itself melting, as that will be what rasies sea levels. I do not know enough to be able to judge the risks of thta melting, but it is a possibility during the Arctic summer. I doubt it would be water year-round.

overall, I think it is a definite possibility, but need more data before I can evaluate the claims.

[Morticcia]

I'd like to add some photographic hyperbole which I snapped (!) up from http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=10856.

Now I'm not debating what's on the site. I barely skimmed the text. I just think the photos of Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa say something important.

[Brf]

s_stabeler wrote: if CO2 reacts with carbon, if forms carbon monoxide-

No.
CO is formed from an incomplete burning of carbon -- forming CO, rather than CO2. CO2 does not react with carbon.

CO2 only forms bands near the ground when it gathers in a large quantity, such as the CO2 bubbles which can be burped up by lakes, which are near volcanic sources. There have been reports of kills from CO2 bubbles rolling out of lakes and down hills, smothering all the people and animals below. That has nothing to do with greenhouse warming though.

[JuntaJoe]

Tish, do you know where that photo came from?

From a special satellite that is part of the US government's efforts to understand climate change. Dozens of these small satellites were launched.

Most were launched in the 80's as a response to the panic caused by the global cooling lobby. That same lobby exists today as the global warming lobby.

The problem with this whole debate is the hype. Far smarter people than us will tell you bluntly that the situation is far more complicated and "proof" of a change going either direction is really little more than a hypothesis.

Let's face it. The meteorologists can barely predict what the weather will be a week from now. Start tracking your local forecaster during spring and fall if you want a startling exercise in repeat failure.

So how can you trust people to predict the climate years from now when figuring what happens day after tomorrow stumps them?

[s_stabeler]

Brf wrote: s_stabeler wrote: if CO2 reacts with carbon, if forms carbon monoxide-

No.
CO is formed from an incomplete burning of carbon -- forming CO, rather than CO2. CO2 does not react with carbon.


actually, Brf, that is ( unfortunately) where I will have to disagree with you. in a blast furnace, when the CO has been oxidised to CO2, it is reacted with more carbon and forms CO again. you would be right under normal conditions, though.

JuntaJoe, that's true, but you can make a reasonable guess by using trends. and before someone goes on about it being natural swings in climate, it's happening a bit fast for it to be natural. having got that out of the way, my opinion on the global warming issue is it does occur ( the recent scorching temperatures in midwinter are a pretty good clue :flames: I liked the snow that now falls for TWO days at best. when it used to last a week. not to mention, temperatures in the 20-30 degrees are getting typical, while before 15 degrees was considered a nice day. empirical observation seems to support global warming, and as for the global cooling lobby, anyone can make a mistake.

[Brf]

s_stabeler wrote: in a blast furnace

In a blast furnace everything reacts with just about everything.

We are talking about extra CO2 in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is not a blast furnace. Therefore the CO2 in the atmosphere will not react with carbon to form CO.

[s_stabeler]

ok, I admit I got a bit muddled. however, I believe the rest of my post was sound.

[JuntaJoe]

s_stabeler wrote: empirical observation seems to support global warming, and as for the global cooling lobby, anyone can make a mistake.

Priceless!

You just round-filed every argument for global warming in a single shot! :lol: