2008 - The year global warming was disproved.

[PeterMP]

I forget the exact figure, but I read in a textbook once that like 90-some percent of the photosynthesis that takes place on earth happens in the oceans. Once again, we are exaggerating the effect of what we can see, because we are around trees every day.

I think 90% is off, but most of the ocean's photosynthesis is due to microscopic organisms and don't "store" it the way larger plants do. In addition, they have affects. Try reading about algal blooms, and there is this:

http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/ocean-acidification-may-effect-photosynthesis-in-marine-algae/

[HighOnHendrix]

I suspect that's part of the problem. It's like my tea/ice cube example. In my fumbling attempt to explain things I muddied things up. Worse, if I sound reasonable and people carry my flawed explanation forward... then we have more confusion as the explanation gets further off with each retelling. That's why it's such a problem that most of us our receiving our definitions from politicians (or the press). It's the old cliche... a little knowledge is dangerous. The difficult part is that we do deserve to be briefed... it's just that our filters seem too often to have agendas.

Ever notice how you'll watch the news and they go, "Scientists say," then say something that may or may not be true or even plausible in any way? Do you ever, EVER hear them say a few days later, "My bad, what we said was bogus." ??? Nope. They put it out there and let it hang, like a foul, putrid urban legend. We all make mistakes, but I would love for the news outlets to man up and admit their b.s. I don't expect that from politicians; they're too far gone for redemption. This goes beyond the subject we're on: it involves what causes cancer this week, what is healthy for you, what you should drive, etc. /rant

[HighOnHendrix]

I think 90% is off, but most of the ocean's photosynthesis is due to microscopic organisms and don't "store" it the way larger plants do. In addition, they have affects. Try reading about algal blooms, and there is this:

http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/ocean-acidification-may-effect-photosynthesis-in-marine-algae/

Good find. I tried to find a number before I posted that, but came up empty. Trying to remember something from school is hard work. Been a while.

I want to emphasize that I don't think it's cool to cut down trees willy-nilly, but they ARE a renewable resource. Plant more and you'll have more.

[HighOnHendrix]

When dinosaurs roamed the earth, there were no humans. And shortly after that, there wasn't much of anything alive. And your point is?

I'm glad you brought this up. We should really all be way more concerned with averting or dealing with the aftermath of the myriad of cataclysms that will befall us in the times ahead. An asteroid or comet impact could make us not care about climate change really fast. Did you know that Yellowstone Park is basically the most enormous volcano on the planet? And that volcanism is increasing around the world? Plenty of other bad things could happen to us, but most of them are self-inflicted.

[PeterMP]

The C02 thing I brought up is what they are doing in factories not with cars :doh:

My point is pretty much everything gives up C02 so instead of trying to fight it with unrealistic alternatives we need to figure ways to be able to handle it now. My other point about the Moon was the waves are due to the magnetic pull to the moon, but there is also studies that show the moon is starting to slow down, which could have a huge impact on the planet in the years to come. When the earth was forming one of the main reasons why it was such a dangerous place was due to the extremely rapid rotation with the moon.

The fact is we think we know but we don't one volcanoe eruption can get everyone to stop forgetting about global warming and be more worried about global cooling and a coming ice age due to the impact it has.

1. Gasoline prices historically are a good proxy for fossil fuel prices generally.

2. What is ethanol used for mostly?

3. We do know. We know that volcaneo eruptions affect climates. The understanding has always been in the context of no massive changes in the other variables in a non-random manner. Are willing the bet the future on volcano eruptions?

4. The moon slowing isn't new.

[PeterMP]

I'm glad you brought this up. We should really all be way more concerned with averting or dealing with the aftermath of the myriad of cataclysms that will befall us in the times ahead. An asteroid or comet impact could make us not care about climate change really fast. Did you know that Yellowstone Park is basically the most enormous volcano on the planet? And that volcanism is increasing around the world? Plenty of other bad things could happen to us, but most of them are self-inflicted.

You deal w/ avert different cataclysms differently.

[HighOnHendrix]

The problem is, we can't get together on how much of a threat GW really is. When politicians start muddying it up with slogans like "Planet in Peril!" it just makes things that much harder to discern. Better observation and tracking is a cut and dried solution. What the hell do we really do if it's getting warmer in a bad way?

[PeterMP]

The problem is, we can't get together on how much of a threat GW really is. When politicians start muddying it up with slogans like "Planet in Peril!" it just makes things that much harder to discern. Better observation and tracking is a cut and dried solution. What the hell do we really do if it's getting warmer in a bad way?

You think people are going to agree on which cataclycism we should tackle first and then on the appropriate method to avert it or deal w/ the solution?

[HighOnHendrix]

You think people are going to agree on which cataclycism we should tackle first and then on the appropriate method to avert it or deal w/ the solution?

Good point. I'm gonna go kill some people on my Playstation now. :mad:

[alexey]

Get education.

[Jumbo]

Get education.

Small audience.

[Corcaigh]

Just in passing, and not as an attack on the author of the article (Christopher Booker ) referenced by the OP because of what he specifically wrote here, but Booker can at best be described as a 'maverick'. In his other 'scientific' writing he has claimed repeatedly that asbestos is not dangerous.

[Corcaigh]

Get education.

A dangerous disease to which the left are susceptible, according to the OP.

We rightly mock loons when they lack scientific knowledge to back up their claims (take the fear that the Large Hadron Collider would destroy the world as one example). But when it is the majority of professional scientists presenting the argument, it's OK to dismiss them as "leftists" who "disregard logic and reason."

[Jumbo]

Just in passing, and not as an attack on the author of the article (Christopher Booker ) referenced by the OP because of what he specifically wrote here, but Booker can at best be described as a 'maverick'. In his other 'scientific' writing he has claimed repeatedly that asbestos is not dangerous.

The Telegraph, which I noted ahwile back has become a mildly popular source in the tailgate with those of certain political bent, traditionally favors right-side platforms and, fittingly, a 2004 Market & Opinion Research International poll showed 61% of the readers support the conservative party, just fwiw.

[Jumbo]

A dangerous disease to which the left are susceptible, according to the OP.

We rightly mock loons when they lack scientific knowledge to back up their claims (take the fear that the Large Hadron Collider would destroy the world as one example). But when it is the majority of professional scientists presenting the argument, it's OK to dismiss them as "leftists" who "disregard logic and reason."

Earlier, skimming this thread (since it is a well-worn and complex topic) I again pondered the reality that in these forums, opinions on matters like this are "equally" the province of everyone, regardless of their "equality" in level of general critical thinking skills, specific education, or actual experience relevant to the topic. It's always an interesting dynamic, especially considering one may be "right" in their position on this or any number of topics independent of competency--that simply being whether it's by merit or merely happenstance.

[Corcaigh]

The Telegraph, which I noted ahwile back has become a mildly popular source in the tailgate with those of certain political bent, traditionally favors right-side platforms and, fittingly, a 2004 Market & Opinion Research International poll showed 61% of the readers support the conservative party, just fwiw.

The UK Daily Telegraph certainly leans right, and its readership has a high proportion of 'older' adults. That aside, the writer of this article is an ignorant loon, irrespective of his politics.

[Corcaigh]

Earlier, skimming this thread (since it is a well-worn and complex topic) I again pondered the reality that in these forums, opinions on matters like this are "equally" the province of everyone, regardless of their "equality" in level of general critical thinking skills, specific education, or actual experience relevant to the topic. It's always an interesting dynamic, especially considering one may be "right" in their position on this or any number of topics independent of competency--that simply being whether it's by merit or merely happenstance.

One of the curses of the internets is that the claims of unqualified bloggers are apparently all it takes to refute peer-reviewed scientific studies.

[Destino]

The dangerous susceptibility of leftists has been exposed. It's amazing.......and sad...... how many people will disregard logic and reason and allow themselves to be so bamboozled.

You should love global warming. It has distracted people from the right wing stance of the environment. Instead of talking about how the right has moved from a party that supported and promoted the preservation of the natural world to one that would sell it off to the highest bidder - we are talking about global warming. The right is filled with nothing but weak short sighted views when it comes to the environment, consistently placing short term business interest and temporary work ahead of irreparable and permanent harm.

Destroy an endangered species forever so you can get a few years worth of lumber? No problem! Sell off national parks? Sure thing! Weaken every agency that monitors those destroying the world? Of course! Allowing companies to decide for themselves what the enviromental impact of pursuing their interests will be? Great idea!

The right loses on the environment because they don't have a stance to talk about. This is why we are talking about global warming. On every other issue they offer an alternative view yet on this one all they talk about is a theory that they want to disprove. The reason is simple, talking about their actual policy to a national audience would be suicidal. Their stance is disturbing on it's face and it only gets worse the deeper you dive into it.

So thank the global warming faithful. They've allowed you to avoid talking about something that would hurt your bankrupt ideology.

BTW - I don't care if global warming is true or not. The bottom line is dumping toxins into our air, water, and earth is obviously a bad thing. The more we can reduce all pollution the better. Does this have to be balanced with business interests? Obviously not. We can't all go back to living in tents for fear polluting anything. The thing is though that we have to push business to be greener, not create loopholes for business to be free to pollute more. Moving forward is progress and progress is cleaner better technology. Reducing standards is a step in the wrong direction.

[skinfan133]

Hmmm... 95% of the scientists who seriously study this agree that global warming is real. 97% of the studies demonstrates that global warming is real. Yet the left are the people ignoring logic and are imbeciles?

There is almost zero doubt that the polution and crap that we put into the environment has had a negative impact on us. Whether you want to measure that in terms of cancer, asthma, climate change etc. Why we have people who want to champion toxins and pollution and things which at the minimum are carcinogins is amazing to me.

1034% of statistics are made up bull**** :2cents:

edit: looks like techboy beat me to it. damn

improving our effect on the environment is definatly a good thing, but instead of focusing on things like co2, we should worry about actual pollution and carcinogens as you put it. co2 doesn't cause cancer.

but what are harmful are man made artificial chemicals and materials such as some pesticides and such. whats harmful are bad habits associated with manufacturing industries. not co2.

to suggest that we, humans, can have such a large impact upon God's infinitely complex and varying creation is just absurd and egotistical.

[skinfan133]

I guess you haven't noticed that the price of gasoline has dropped like a rock recently, huh? If the Chinese were "making up for it in spades" as you say, the price of gas/oil wouldn't have dropped like they did and OPEC wouldn't be cutting production.

As for your lack of faith in computer modeling, I suppose you'll chose to ignore the next severe weather warning in your area? After all, those typically come from computer models as well.

I might point out that those models are based off radar and numbers, not just numbers. They are also more local and deal with less time. less variables as well. models that have to deal with (literally) a multitude of thousands of variables as opposed to say a few hundred is certainly going to be much less reliable.

[robotfire]

Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.

I suppose I'm as close to a weather scientist as one can be defined, and I work with other weather scientists. All we can do is look for trends. The way we collect data is constantly improving, and the way we collect it is still somewhat poor. When you see a graph showing the way weather has changed over a very long period of time, you can bet serious money that it was constructed on very limited data. We barely have reasonable techniques to project the weather for the next few days, let alone the past millions of years.

In my opinion, the earth is warming. I think there is probably enough data to show a trend in that direction. That's not an alarming statement in my opinion, though. The earth goes through phases of warming and cooling, and there are a lot of factors involved in that. The way we live may correlate to the weather, but we have no real way to prove that. All we really have is a bunch of data and a bunch of nerds trying to guess what it means.

[robotfire]

BTW - I don't care if global warming is true or not. The bottom line is dumping toxins into our air, water, and earth is obviously a bad thing. The more we can reduce all pollution the better. Does this have to be balanced with business interests? Obviously not. We can't all go back to living in tents for fear polluting anything. The thing is though that we have to push business to be greener, not create loopholes for business to be free to pollute more. Moving forward is progress and progress is cleaner better technology. Reducing standards is a step in the wrong direction.

This is very well said. I personally don't think we impact the temperature all that much, but I think everybody can agree that we want clean water, land, and air. No matter where you stand on the issue, you have to agree that people can make a mess.

[robotfire]

One of the curses of the internets is that the claims of unqualified bloggers are apparently all it takes to refute peer-reviewed scientific studies.

I don't think you need special science glasses to look at the data. You'd be amazed at how much guessing goes on when we scientists meet to talk about the weather. All we do is exactly what everybody else does - we look for trends. For the most part, the data used is terrible.

That being said, the data used to guess what's coming within the next few days has been constantly improving over the years. There's a lot more of the scientific process involved in that. There's validation in it, because we make a guess and get to see the result fairly quickly.

[Burgold]

to suggest that we, humans, can have such a large impact upon God's infinitely complex and varying creation is just absurd and egotistical.

You're contradicting yourself. You admit that man can create pesticides that cause cancer, pollutants that cause asthma, and all the rest. Why I bet you would even agree that man's overuse and misuse of land has created and expanded deserts. Therefore, it is clear that we can and do impact the Earth.

Contrarily, the idea that nothing we do can impact the Earth even when we see the Earth changing before our eyes in terms of land, extinction, temperature, health, etc. is not being good shepherds to Mother Earth which was one of the roles that God put to us. The Earth was not to be our toybox, but we were assigned to be her caretakers... even as she takes care of us.

[DeanCollins]

You should love global warming. It has distracted people from the right wing stance of the environment. Instead of talking about how the right has moved from a party that supported and promoted the preservation of the natural world to one that would sell it off to the highest bidder - we are talking about global warming. The right is filled with nothing but weak short sighted views when it comes to the environment, consistently placing short term business interest and temporary work ahead of irreparable and permanent harm.

Destroy an endangered species forever so you can get a few years worth of lumber? No problem! Sell off national parks? Sure thing! Weaken every agency that monitors those destroying the world? Of course! Allowing companies to decide for themselves what the enviromental impact of pursuing their interests will be? Great idea!

The right loses on the environment because they don't have a stance to talk about. This is why we are talking about global warming. On every other issue they offer an alternative view yet on this one all they talk about is a theory that they want to disprove. The reason is simple, talking about their actual policy to a national audience would be suicidal. Their stance is disturbing on it's face and it only gets worse the deeper you dive into it.

So thank the global warming faithful. They've allowed you to avoid talking about something that would hurt your bankrupt ideology.

BTW - I don't care if global warming is true or not. The bottom line is dumping toxins into our air, water, and earth is obviously a bad thing. The more we can reduce all pollution the better. Does this have to be balanced with business interests? Obviously not. We can't all go back to living in tents for fear polluting anything. The thing is though that we have to push business to be greener, not create loopholes for business to be free to pollute more. Moving forward is progress and progress is cleaner better technology. Reducing standards is a step in the wrong direction.

Thanks Destino, this is exactly how I feel about it. What blows my mind is how the GOP party faithful, who have no financial stake in the corporate greed that wants the right to pollute for profit with zero responsibility, are brain washed into carrying their message. Even the religious right are in lock step, presumable because they believe that the "end of days" (formally "the rapture") is nearer than any possible side affects of the corporate destruction of our planet. It's amazing how a group of people, who believe that the universe is only 6,000 years old, and that dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time as adam and eve :doh:, are now also experts on climate issues.