# Global Warming?



## utahgolf

What is up with this weather?


----------



## Lonetree

utahgolf said:


> What is up with this weather?


I guess you could say global warming, but then when it finally snows you would be wrong, right?


----------



## Loke

Its all about school lunch. The new federal regulations are forcing us to feed our children more methane producing foods. This in turn is causing an increase in the greenhouse gasses emitted by our school children. Blame michelle obama.


----------



## utahgolf

I was going to blame Obama regardless of any outcome!


----------



## DallanC

Its in a statistical chart, its MUST be true! :mrgreen:

-DallanC


----------



## phorisc

nah its just the planet getting ready for the dinosaur era a 2nd time...duh 
we must feel really special if we think we are the cause of global climate changes...


----------



## massmanute

Not to criticize the other posts, which are fine with me, but just out of curiosity, is anyone interested in a serious scientific discussion on this topic?


----------



## utahgolf

massmanute said:


> Not to criticize the other posts, which are fine with me, but just out of curiosity, is anyone interested in a serious scientific discussion on this topic?


I am all for cleaning up the air regardless if warming trends are man made or not. I haven't studied this issue at all or looked at the hard data, ice sheets, temperature trends etc..... There are some that think it's man's arrogance to believe that we can alter the earths climate, but I think it would be man's ignorance to think that everything we put up into the atmosphere might not have any consequences at all. So by all means, I am up for a serious discussion.


----------



## SidVicious

If you take into account the 4.5 billion years that the Earth has been in existence, we are in a colder period of time than the majority. That being said, humans have definitely had an impact on the climate. Climate change and warming has happened more rapidly than any other time, and the pollution being poured into our air is taking its toll. I believe the Earth is in a natural warming trend that man has probably sped up.


----------



## Kwalk3

utahgolf said:


> There are some that think it's man's arrogance to believe that we can alter the earths climate, but I think it would be man's ignorance to think that everything we put up into the atmosphere might not have any consequences at all.


Well said. It seems asinine to believe man-made pollution and problems do not at the very least contribute to other factors at play.

My favorite thing is when we have a cold spell to see all the humorous(or at least I hope they are) social media posts implying that since it's so cold global warming must be a hoax.:shock:


----------



## Lonetree

I'll throw this out there, since its related to my studies. I have not looked into this all that deeply. There are people working on herbicide use issues that are pointing to agricultural run off of fertilizers and herbicides into the ocean, as being a huge driver of localized weather change. 

Big dead zones in the Gulf, from algae blooms have an affect on ocean temperatures, which then affects weather patterns. While this is "localized", if you do this at many places, it becomes global, and a climate issue, rather than a weather issue. And localized weather, can have global impacts. Our winters are affected by ocean temps off the coast of South America.

Don't think changing the color of the water has a huge impact? Go out to GSL and see how they harvest salt, and other minerals, and find out why they dye the water blue.


----------



## SidVicious

It's interesting to see how much of an impact plant life has on the climate change. Deforestation has an impact as well. What seems to be a small thing in one place, could have huge effects in another.


----------



## utahgolf

I remember reading about greenland and how all of the air pollution has "dirtied" the glacial ice there. This blackening of the glacier means it can't deflect the sunlight and rather absorb it which leads to increased warming. Interesting stuff.


----------



## SidVicious

I had the opportunity to hike Mendenhall glacier in Juneau this past summer, and in the last 52 years it has lost an average of 110 million cubic meters of ice annually. They have markers on the hike in that show where the glacier used to be. It's pretty staggering


----------



## Skally

its not called global warming anymore. its Climate Change.


----------



## grousehunter

I would love to have a discussion about global warming. There is absolutely no doubt that we humans are damaging the planet but I am tired of the lies and politics behind it. Some may not remember but in the 70's both Time and Newsweek declared we were heading into another Ice age and lets not forget back in 2006 Al Gore declared we had 10 years to stop Global warming or the planet would be scorched! Who has there starship packed? Also I have noticed no one talks about solar flares even though the sun is the reason we are warm in the first place!:shock:


----------



## DallanC

SidVicious said:


> I had the opportunity to hike Mendenhall glacier in Juneau this past summer, and in the last 52 years it has lost an average of 110 million cubic meters of ice annually. They have markers on the hike in that show where the glacier used to be. It's pretty staggering


And yet at the south pole, its added more ice than in recorded history. There has NEVER been more ice in recorded history than there is now. Climate is shifting, more ice there, less in other places.

THE CENTER OF THE EARTH IS MOLTEN! We float around on the thinnest amount of solid "Crust" over this vast molten mass.. and worry about the temperature of the air changes a degree or two over time. Its comical.

-DallanC


----------



## Lonetree

grousehunter said:


> I would love to have a discussion about global warming. There is absolutely no doubt that we humans are damaging the planet but I am tired of the lies and politics behind it. Some may not remember but in the 70's both Time and Newsweek declared we were heading into another Ice age and lets not forget back in 2006 Al Gore declared we had 10 years to stop Global warming or the planet would be scorched! Who has there starship packed? Also I have noticed no one talks about solar flares even though the sun is the reason we are warm in the first place!:shock:


Time and newswek are news sources, that may have been reporting on the science of the time.

CO2 traps the suns heat in our atmosphere, causing it to get hotter. ie. the green house effect. Sure solar flares could make this worse, but it is not the root of the problem.

Trust me, I am all over the politics of science. And over and over again, whether it be climate change or something else, its the deniers with no scientific back ground that are the most egregious examples of lies and politics.


----------



## Lonetree

DallanC said:


> And yet at the south pole, its added more ice than in recorded history. There has NEVER been more ice in recorded history than there is now. Climate is shifting, more ice there, less in other places.
> 
> THE CENTER OF THE EARTH IS MOLTEN! We float around on the thinnest amount of solid "Crust" over this vast molten mass.. and worry about the temperature of the air changes a degree or two over time. Its comical.
> 
> -DallanC


If the molten core were to account for air temps and seasons, we would not have winter anywhere.


----------



## grousehunter

Lonetree said:


> Time and newswek are news sources, that may have been reporting on the science of the time.
> 
> CO2 traps the suns heat in our atmosphere, causing it to get hotter. ie. the green house effect. Sure solar flares could make this worse, but it is not the root of the problem.
> 
> Trust me, I am all over the politics of science. And over and over again, whether it be climate change or something else, its the deniers with no scientific back ground that are the most egregious examples of lies and politics.


Who is more "egregious" than Al Gore? Here is a link to the Newsweek article and in it they source NOAA and Columbia University. I guess they have "no scientific back ground". So forgive me when I reserve my trust!

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm


----------



## Lonetree

grousehunter said:


> Who is more "egregious" than Al Gore? Here is a link to the Newsweek article and in it they source NOAA and Columbia University. I guess they have "no scientific back ground". So forgive me when I reserve my trust!
> 
> http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm


:mrgreen: Come on, Al Gore invented the internet.

From the article: _"Here is the text of _Newsweek_'s 1975 story on the trend toward global cooling. It may look foolish today, but in fact world temperatures had been falling since about 1940. It was around 1979 that they reversed direction and resumed the general rise that had begun in the 1880s, bringing us today back to around 1940 levels._"

In 1940 we were in the Dust bowl, and one of the largest droughts ever seen, and it was hot. The '30s and '40s were highs. The dust bowl was man made by the way, and affected weather.

This is about ambient average temperature, and does not take into account the larger interconnectedness of "Climate" which is undoubtedly changing. The last 30 years of temp rise is only one of the symptoms, of that larger change.

Did I mention its from 1975?


----------



## grousehunter

The year isn't important, its the lies and half truths I have a problem with. Man is responsible for many environmental problems and we do destroy our environment. I am just tired of the "do it now or we are all going to die", crap. I believe most people are reasonable and will do their part if we speak honestly about our changing climate instead some of the claims based on doctored data. So join me with a tinfoil hat and read about East Anglia University in the UK on Fox news.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011...-more-emails-leaked-from-climate-researchers/


----------



## Lonetree

:mrgreen: You keep coming up with news sources, and talking points. 

That's the problem with having conversations about science, its not talking points, and ideology. Its a lot of math, and data, and differing ideas, and what can be shown unequivocally, and what is possible verses probable. You keep saying "lies" and "doctored data", but you are not demonstrating an understanding of the concepts or subject matter. 

I know when to cut and run, I have bigger fish to fry.


----------



## massmanute

grousehunter said:


> Here is a link to the Newsweek article and in it they source NOAA and Columbia University.
> http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm


Go to this link and look at the graphs for global temperature trends since 1880.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

There is an unmistakable generally upward trend in the temperature over that period of time, starting somewhere around 1880-1910, with some relatively minor fluctuations along the way.

There is a relatively small decrease between about 1940 to 1970, but an examination of the graphs shows that this decrease is best explained by an upward bump in the years near 1940 rather than anything related to a decrease in the long term trends.

Also go to this link.

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

This reference contains a graph of global temperatures going back about 2000 years. (The third graph.) Although the earlier results are less reliable than the temperatures in the modern period because the older results are reconstructed using indirect methods, the graph nevertheless shows a strong upward spike in temperature over about the last 100 or more years.


----------



## phorisc

this discussion really wont lead anywhere...call me a pessimist but this discussion is the same thing as having a political discussion republican vs democrat...it usually leads to name calling and crap...lets just stop the discussion.

There are scientists for and against the theory of global warming they have specialized in it...all do it as a full time job sometimes they lie etc for job security...anyhow i'm not gonna participate anymore with one final word...

After the flood we were promised there would not be another flood...so if all that ice melts i'm sure we would have a flood like from the bible where else could all that water have gone or maybe it disappeared?. may not be scientific but its faith that all that ice isnt gonna all melt.


----------



## Lonetree

-_O-


----------



## polarbear

The debate is not over whether or not the climate is changing or arctic sea ice extent is diminishing. That is not up for debate. It is. The debate is whether it is human caused. I don't pretend to be an expert on it or even pick a side, but honestly, I'm not sure why people get so bent out of shape about it. If you shut down your diesel instead of idling it, or if you turn your lights off during the day, or if you find energy solutions with less emissions... how does that hurt you? More money in your wallet? Cleaner air to breath? It's true, not all climatologists agree on the subject, but some of the science says the trend is reversible over time with some minor course corrections. Some people will say, "it does hurt me, it would cost American jobs, etc." I get that. There's no easy answers, but IF it is human caused, WE have to change or the planet will change for us.


----------



## GaryFish

My deal is this. I know that temps go up and down, and things swing all over the board with it. Utah has been covered with ice sheets, multiple times along earth's timeline. There have also been time when there has been no global ice, multiple times. And we are somewhere in between those at this point. And those shifts to both extremes came before man was pumping junk into the sky. And regardless of what we pump into the sky, the temp will continue to fluctuate.

However, after spending most of my life on the Wasatch Front, I'd love if we could reduce the amount of junk we pump into the air. With the inversions trapping all that crud into the air, especially in winter, the air quality is horrible. I've been in Arizona this past year and have absolutely welcomed the cleaner air. Even in the PHX metroplex of 6 million people, the lack of inversions means much better air quality than along the Wasatch. I want to reduce the human impact on planet earth but my motivation isn't so much global warming/cooling/climate change, it is just daily quality of life. I prefer cleaner air to polluted air. I prefer less garbage to more. I prefer cleaner water to polluted water. 

I know. Radical stuff. Agree or not, if it takes global warming discussions to get people to take notice and start making decisions that reduce the amounts of pollution that humans generate, then that improves our daily quality of life, and I'm all in.


----------



## phorisc

http://liveweatherblogs.com/index.php/community/groups/viewdiscussion/398-salt-salt-lake-city-winter-forecast-2014-2015-northern-utah-winter-outlook?groupid=75

Well im gonna go and say NO our bad winter is not due to climate change or global warming its just simply El Nino at work...thanks I ended the discussion


----------



## Lonetree

phorisc, I already covered that earlier.


----------



## The Naturalist

DallanC said:


> And yet at the south pole, its added more ice than in recorded history. There has NEVER been more ice in recorded history than there is now. Climate is shifting, more ice there, less in other places.
> 
> THE CENTER OF THE EARTH IS MOLTEN! We float around on the thinnest amount of solid "Crust" over this vast molten mass.. and worry about the temperature of the air changes a degree or two over time. Its comical.
> 
> -DallanC


http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/

Climate change is about Earth as a whole. We can't just look at one place/continent and say climate change is or is not happening.


----------



## The Naturalist

grousehunter said:


> Who is more "egregious" than Al Gore? Here is a link to the Newsweek article and in it they source NOAA and Columbia University. I guess they have "no scientific back ground". So forgive me when I reserve my trust!
> 
> http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm


Although I believe Al Gore had good intentions, I wish he would have kept quiet. Politicians shouldn't attempt a wannabe scientist. All he did was polarize the electorate and it became a mostly republican vs. democrat debate...science got thrown out the window.


----------



## Lonetree

The Naturalist said:


> Although I believe Al Gore had good intentions, I wish he would have kept quiet. Politicians shouldn't attempt a wannabe scientist. All he did was polarize the electorate and it became a mostly republican vs. democrat debate...science got thrown out the window.


 That sounds strangely familiar, like I've seen it some where before.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

People can pinpoint one spot or another pretty easy and say things are better, worse or the same as before. One question can not be avoided though, does the world right now as a society emit more greenhouse gases than any time in history?

Well Jeez Wally I don't know.......

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ghg/ghgbull06_en.html


----------



## DallanC

Mr Muleskinner said:


> People can pinpoint one spot or another pretty easy and say things are better, worse or the same as before. One question can not be avoided though, does the world right now as a society emit more greenhouse gases than any time in history?
> 
> Well Jeez Wally I don't know.......
> 
> http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ghg/ghgbull06_en.html


You all do know that c02 makes up an incredibly tiny percentage of the earths atmosphere right? NITROGEN makes up 78% of what we breath, Oxygen makes up nearly 21%. Argon takes up nearly a percent so those three gasses put us at 99.7%.

C02 makes up a whopping .043% of our atmosphere. 4 one hundredths of a percent. Meanwhile that massive molten glowing orb in our sky is experiencing one of the longest and uncharted solar cycles in recorded history.

-DallanC


----------



## Lonetree

DallanC said:


> You all do know that c02 makes up an incredibly tiny percentage of the earths atmosphere right? NITROGEN makes up 78% of what we breath, Oxygen makes up nearly 21%. Argon takes up nearly a percent so those three gasses put us at 99.7%.
> 
> C02 makes up a whopping .043% of our atmosphere. 4 one hundredths of a percent. Meanwhile that massive molten glowing orb in our sky is experiencing one of the longest and uncharted solar cycles in recorded history.
> 
> -DallanC


 Yep, that's how critical CO2 is, that's why we as humans have an impact on its content. You don't have to add that much more to the atmosphere, and we've added a lot, to be able to trap more of that solar heat within our atmosphere.

With out the added CO2, all that extra heat would not get trapped, and the temp would not remain increased, because it could escape the atmosphere. But it can't because the additional CO2 traps it.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

DallanC said:


> You all do know that c02 makes up an incredibly tiny percentage of the earths atmosphere right? NITROGEN makes up 78% of what we breath, Oxygen makes up nearly 21%. Argon takes up nearly a percent so those three gasses put us at 99.7%.
> 
> C02 makes up a whopping .043% of our atmosphere. 4 one hundredths of a percent. Meanwhile that massive molten glowing orb in our sky is experiencing one of the longest and uncharted solar cycles in recorded history.
> 
> -DallanC


Dallan,

When we chlorinate water tanks we perform a wash down with a 200 parts per million solution to disinfect the the tank. Once the tank is filled our target is 2 parts per million residual chlorine. We are not allowed to go over that.

Why?

A human can not taste 2 parts per million but can taste 3 parts per million. So the human tongue can distinguish a difference between .002% and .003%.

You care to take a shot at what your numbers actually mean to Mother Earth and the greenhouse effect?

How many parts per million affects global climate and/or pollution? Not to the extent that it affects YOUR ability to breathe but to the extent it affects the Earth? Your numbers don't mean diddly squat by themselves.


----------



## Bax*

60 degree December is ruining my duck hunting. I need storms


----------



## Trooper

This group has come a long way. It wasn't many years ago when 3/4 of the discussion would be about the "global warming lie". Now we're down to mentioning something Al Gore said a decade ago or 1970's era discredited science only a couple of times. Speaking of that 1970's global cooling theory, it always gets pointed out like "see science was wrong once, so all science is bullpoop." That argument never made any sense to me. I'm pretty sure science gets better over time, with missteps here and there along the way. Look at the machine I'm typing this on!


----------



## Lonetree

Trooper said:


> This group has come a long way. It wasn't many years ago when 3/4 of the discussion would be about the "global warming lie". Now we're down to mentioning something Al Gore said a decade ago or 1970's era discredited science only a couple of times. Speaking of that 1970's global cooling theory, it always gets pointed out like "see science was wrong once, so all science is bullpoop." That argument never made any sense to me. I'm pretty sure science gets better over time, with missteps here and there along the way. Look at the machine I'm typing this on!


In some circles of wildlife science we always say that we are at least 30 years behind the curve, when it comes to our scientific understanding, and where we should be. It is not just wildlife science of course, but most of the sciences.

And this is nowhere more pronounced than among the public at large.

People sticking their heads in the sand is one thing, it is their right, but to actively promote that as a policy and culture is suicidal, yet all too often the case.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Lonetree said:


> People sticking their heads in the sand is one thing, it is their right, but to actively promote that as a policy and culture is suicidal.


Great Quote.


----------



## DallanC

Mr Muleskinner said:


> You care to take a shot at what your numbers actually mean to Mother Earth and the greenhouse effect?
> 
> How many parts per million affects global climate and/or pollution? Not to the extent that it affects YOUR ability to breathe but to the extent it affects the Earth? Your numbers don't mean diddly squat by themselves.


The climate IS changing, no-one disputes that... the problem is the CLIMATE IS ALWAYS CHANGING, people are grabbing data from a VERY narrow time frame and trying to draw conclusings as to the cause.

You want relevant #'s? Stop focusing on CO2 and look at other data. How about this, from factual data based on ice cores gathered in Greenland... that narrow window of data you posted above suddenly takes on a new (and less scarey) meaning doesnt it? The earth is in a long term cooling period with minor spikes in temperature. Its quantifiable, its proven.

Edit: Posting this as a image link vs a attachment... but I dont know how to delete the attachment 









-DallanC


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

DallanC said:


> The climate IS changing, no-one disputes that... the problem is the CLIMATE IS ALWAYS CHANGING, people are grabbing data from a VERY narrow time frame and trying to draw conclusings as to the cause.
> 
> You want relevant #'s? Stop focusing on CO2 and look at other data. How about this, from factual data based on ice cores gathered in Greenland... that narrow window of data you posted above suddenly takes on a new (and less scarey) meaning doesnt it? The earth is in a long term cooling period with minor spikes in temperature. Its quantifiable, its proven.
> 
> Edit: Posting this as a image link vs a attachment... but I dont know how to delete the attachment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -DallanC


Is CO2 the only greenhouse gas? You are the one that just wants to look at that. Even at that you refer to it not knowing how adding to CO2 affects the bottom line or when it does. Ice...........yep that is the only thing we should look at............. and only at specific locations that have more ice. Brilliant.

Not to mention that ice formations are also influenced by tectonic shifting. Especially in Greenland of all places.


----------



## Kwalk3

O|*. I don't think anyone is disputing that the earth naturally cools and warms. I also don't believe anyone can, in good conscience, fail to admit that we do many things that release a plethora of pollutants into the environment. No one here is saying that our emissions are the only piece to the puzzle. They are, however, the one piece to the puzzle that we can at least attempt to remedy as a society. It may not be the end of the world tomorrow if we don't change, but it certainly will be a better place if we as individuals that make up a global society at least try. The fact that earth is in a cooling or warming cycle has little to do with acknowledging the fact that the massive amounts of pollutants we pour into our environment(something we CAN change) do have consequences, and absolutely do contribute to trends outside of our control.


----------



## Gweedo

In order to do my part to reduce CO2 output I have decided to hunt and eat more tasty animals, thus eliminating their CO2 output and allowing the poor innocent vegetables to grow stronger. That way the vegetables will be better able to do their part at "breathing in" the CO2 and exhaling oxygen. Just think of the poor innocent vegetables people! ;-)


----------



## Lonetree

"The earth is in a long term cooling period with minor spikes in temperature. Its quantifiable, its proven."

Over a 10,000 year period, if you want to go to that extreme to make a case about the here and now. That is taking things very out of context. Here in the West where our culture and history are a mere 160 something years old, we have seen the negative impacts of the current rising temps. And we can tie that rise in temps, to our emissions. 

Like has been pointed out, regardless of temperature, there are many other good reasons to reverse this trend. 

The only debate is an ideological, or political one.


----------



## Lonetree

Let me break it down a little more simply. If it is colder here now than 10,000 years ago............where did the glaciers go?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Lonetree said:


> Let me break it down a little more simply. If it is colder here now than 10,000 years ago............where did the glaciers go?


I think they were moved to build some houses and stuff


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I think they were moved to build some houses and stuff


OOooooohhhhhh...........


----------



## DallanC

Lonetree said:


> Let me break it down a little more simply. If it is colder here now than 10,000 years ago............where did the glaciers go?


They melted. Remember we are talking average temperatures over a huge time frame. Over time there are peaks and valleys as shown in the ice core samples I posted above. I posted that to show extreme swings in temperatures we've experience in the past.

You want simple sure. Explain the cause of the Minoean, Roman and Medieval periods, because at current, evidence isn't pointing to c02. Is it not plausable the same cause of those peaks isnt a factor in this current one?

Look, I believe in climate change but I don't believe C02 is the sole or dominant factor involved. I think its very close minded to focus so much directly on that, especially when we have solid evidence of many large temperature swings in the past that cannot be attributed to the same factors as are touted today.

-DallanC


----------



## Lonetree

It correlates perfectly. 

But by all means propose an alternative.


----------



## Lonetree

If one understands the science and the subject matter, and says that the prevailing view is wrong. Then that person should be able to explain how it is wrong, and propose an alternative explanation, that also takes into account the current understanding, and why it just happens to "look" correct.

I'll go so far as to say this is possible. You first have to start with the correlation of CO2 and temp rises. Once you explain that away with an alternate explanation, then you have a pretty good starting point. 

Until then, its just ideology, politics, and talking points, its not a scientific conversation.


----------



## Kingfisher

climate change. always an interesting thread. here is an interesting question then - justify why the current temperature is "the" goldilocks temperature for this planet. why not 2 degrees warmer? why not 2 degrees colder? because humans stand to lose something? there will be winners and there will be losers. the greening of this planet over the past 50 years is mostly due to carbon dioxide. the increase in crop yield -due mostly to increased co2. the increase in plant and animal diversity and density - due to co2. habitat loss is a bigger immediate threat to animals than warming. and to plants as well - in all studies I have reviewed - plant life is increasing in density and diversity - even in the supposedly most threatend areas like the sahael and in the alpine zones across the world. latest research indicate economically that 2 degrees of warm would be net beneficial. that said - it really is a moot point - we are not going to rein in co2 emissions with china, india, Africa,russia, indonesia and south America. its going to increase. we will have to adapt to whatever comes. our soon to be piddling in comparison contribution to co2 vs these other countries will be so small that even if we completely decarbonized it wont make a difference. I am practical - co2 will continue and solutions are in the form of adaptation.


----------



## Lonetree

False pragmatism.

P&J encroachment from CO2 is increased density, not increased diversity. Same with most alpine regions. Then factor in that we have more to lose than to gain in the Intermountain West, as we lose agriculture to the North. 

2 degrees is "ambient", across the globe. Right now, out side, real world. We are seeing much more than 2 degrees. And it is these kinds of extremes that drive that global 2 degree ambient average.

I love the "there is nothing you can do argument" about as well as the "it doesn't exist" argument. It is every bit as false, and based on the decision and beliefs of the individual making the case, not reality. 

Like I said, false pragmatism.


----------



## Lonetree

Real scientific conversation? Again, just like with wildlife science, it will degrade to ideology, politics, and distractions. That is how some people want it. When you can't understand or navigate the substance, its much easier to create that which you can.


----------



## Lonetree

"the increase in plant and animal diversity and density - due to co2."

I need to hear more about this, be specific.


----------



## Loke

I'm still trying to figure out why a warmer climate would be a bad thing. And to all the liberals who think CO2 is bad, you can do your part to lower its emission. QUIT BREATHING!!!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Loke said:


> I'm still trying to figure out why a warmer climate would be a bad thing. And to all the liberals who think CO2 is bad, you can do your part to lower its emission. QUIT BREATHING!!!


So if you think too much CO2 is bad you are now labeled a liberal? stupid.


----------



## Kingfisher

heres a set of links on peer reviewed paper on co2 and plants

* -- Two Decades of Global Dryland Vegetation Change
* -- U.S. Climate Change and Its 20th-Century Biological Consequences
* -- The Long-Distance Gene Flow of Trees
* -- Effects of Rising Temperatures on the Progamic Phase of High-Mountain Plants
* -- Fifty Years of Increasing Tree Densities on South African Savannas
* -- CO2 and Global Vegetation: From the Last Glacial Maximum to the Pre-Industrial Holocene
* -- Vegetation Changes of the Semi-Arid Region of South Africa
* -- Why Plants Sometimes Migrate _Downhill_ as Temperatures Rise
* -- The Case Against Climate Envelope Models of Species Range Shifts
* -- The Expanding Monsoon Rainforests of Australia
* -- African Savanna Trees Owe Their Increasing Abundance to Increases in the Air's CO2 Content
* -- Storms, Fires and Insect Pests: Bad for Trees in a Warming World?
* -- Effects of Elevated CO2 on Forest Ecosystem Succession
* -- Woody Plant Encroachment and Groundwater Recharge
Black Cottonwood Trees of Alberta, Canada
The Monsoon Rainforests of Northern Australia
Woody Plants Invading Grasslands: Effects on Soil Carbon Storage
The Fate of Earth's Trees in a Rapidly Warming World
Enhanced Consumption of Methane by Soils May Slow Global Warming as Ranges of Hardwood Trees Expand
A Bright Future for the Biosphere
Interactive Effects of Elevated CO2 and Temperature on _Quercus myrsinaefolia_ Saplings
Pasture and Rangeland Responses to Elevated CO2
CO2, Vegetation and Climate: Learning from the Past


----------



## Kingfisher

here is a set on increased water use efficiency in plants due to co2... note in the FACE experiments in north Carolina, pine and conifers became up to 75% more efficient in water use... has huge implications for the southwest.

* -- Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment and the Growth of Corn Under Various Degrees of Water Stress
* -- The Debt We Owe to Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment
* -- Photosynthetic and Stomatal Conductance Responses of Plants to Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment
* -- Response of Sugar Cane to Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment
* -- Effect of Elevated CO2 on Water Use Efficiency of Maize
* -- Effects of Elevated CO2 on Growth and Water Relations of Sorghum
* -- Effects of Elevated CO2 on C4 Grasses
Elevated CO2 Enhances Water Use Efficiency in Field-Grown Sorghum
Effects of Elevated CO2 on Photosynthesis in a C4 Tallgrass Prairie Plant
Effects of Elevated CO2 on an Important C4 Crop: Maize
Responses of Pineapple to Elevated CO2 and Temperature
Responses of Wild C4 and C3 Grass Species to Elevated CO2
* -- Effects of Elevated CO2 and Water Stress on a C4 Grass
Interactive Effects of CO2 and Ozone on C3 and C4 Plants
* -- C4 Grass Responses to CO2
 
Copyright © 2014. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide


----------



## Kingfisher

here is a set on agricultural productivity...

Technological Progress vs. Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment
Food Security in a Changing Climate: A Back-to-Basics Approach
Calculating the Effects of Climate Change and Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment on California (USA) Crop Production
Pasture and Rangeland Responses to Rising CO2 Concentrations and Projected Changes in Climate
High-Temperature-Induced Male Sterility in Crop Plants
Feeding the Future World
Will Global Warming Reduce Crop Yields?
Effects of Post-1980 Warming on Cropping Systems in China
FACE-Based Crop Responses to Projected CO2 and Climate Changes in Germany
Effects of Global Warming, Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment and Technological Innovations on Bean and Maize Yields in Brazil
Chinese Agriculture to the End of the 21st Century
The World's Water Problems
Hydrological and Agricultural Responses of China's Loess Plateau to Predicted Climate Change
Can the World Produce 40% More Rice by 2030?
Climate-Mediated Changes in 20th-Century Argentina Agriculture
A Half-Century Forward Look at Agricultural Production in Canada's Atlantic Provinces
Central U.S. Agricultural Productivity: 1972-2001


----------



## Kingfisher

bottom line - you can look for a lot of negative and find it, you can look for a lot of positives and find that as well. as stated, there will be winners and losers. false pragmatism? how will we cut co2 in the future? Germany is by far the biggest converter to solar and wind, getting rid of all nuclear and trying to cut coal. their economy is tanking, their electric costs per household are the highest in all Europe, companies are leaving and they are ramping coal back up to stabilize the energy grid... and their co2 hasn't been cut, it has increased. if the krauts cant do it - who can?


----------



## Loke

some people take themselves WAY too seriously. The sky is not falling, CO2 produced by people is insignificant compared to the levels emitted naturally from volcanic events. If the ice packs melt and inundate coastal areas, the folks that live there will need to move. Humankind will adapt and survive. The ones that don't will prove Darwin correct. I do believe that we need to be good stewards of our planet. But I don't believe that we have as much effect as we think we do on such matters as climate change.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Basically then the balance of nature is really insignificant. We should be able to do whatever we want. It's cool to be good stewards but not necessary. That whole Valdez thing was pretty much meaningless as well. When something matters and is important enough that it may affect you guys or might be something Mother Earth could do without please be sure to let us know.

Thanks.


----------



## Kingfisher

for chuckles and grins... take a look at these two graphs from NOAA - the GISS temperature record.
one is the deviation from normal of the temperature record (how warm we have gotten in recent years), the other with the single line is the adjustments to the temperature data set... NOAA adjusts the historical temperature record for various things like time of day the readings were taken sensor and site changes, etc. notice the magnitude and timing of the two curves. it is interesting.
hope they post...


----------



## The Naturalist

Kingfisher said:


> here is a set on increased water use efficiency in plants due to co2... note in the FACE experiments in north Carolina, pine and conifers became up to 75% more efficient in water use... has huge implications for the southwest.
> 
> * -- Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment and the Growth of Corn Under Various Degrees of Water Stress
> * -- The Debt We Owe to Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment
> * -- Photosynthetic and Stomatal Conductance Responses of Plants to Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment
> * -- Response of Sugar Cane to Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment
> * -- Effect of Elevated CO2 on Water Use Efficiency of Maize
> * -- Effects of Elevated CO2 on Growth and Water Relations of Sorghum
> * -- Effects of Elevated CO2 on C4 Grasses
> Elevated CO2 Enhances Water Use Efficiency in Field-Grown Sorghum
> Effects of Elevated CO2 on Photosynthesis in a C4 Tallgrass Prairie Plant
> Effects of Elevated CO2 on an Important C4 Crop: Maize
> Responses of Pineapple to Elevated CO2 and Temperature
> Responses of Wild C4 and C3 Grass Species to Elevated CO2
> * -- Effects of Elevated CO2 and Water Stress on a C4 Grass
> Interactive Effects of CO2 and Ozone on C3 and C4 Plants
> * -- C4 Grass Responses to CO2
> 
> Copyright © 2014. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide


Interesting articles Randy, thanks for posting. 
Our Earth is a system that requires energy in and energy out. Global warming is not hard to understand when one uses this perspective...if more energy leaves on a daily basis then enters, over a period of time, then Earth experiences a global cooling. If less energy leaves the Earth than enters on a daily basis, over a period of time, then Earth experiences a period of global warming. This has happened countless times over the course of geologic time. There are many causes as to why, such as the Milankovitch cycles (variations in the orbit of Earth), and volcanic activity.

The question climate scientists try to answer is; what is driving this period of global warming?
The data is overwhelming that carbon dioxide levels are higher now than they have been for the last 800,000 years (ice core and ocean sediment records).

Then the next question; What is driving the increased levels of carbon dioxide? With near normal solar, volcanic and other natural phenomenon, that leaves basically one other possibility... it is anthropogenic. I know it is hard for some to believe that humans could be responsible, but it is not the first time living organisms have made major changes to our planet. Evolving plants changed an atmosphere high in carbon dioxide (similar to Venus and Mars current levels) to an atmosphere rich in oxygen.

The next question then; What does this mean for planet Earth? This question is hard to answer! Doomsday? No. Major changes? Very likely!

Being a Botanist I understand completely Kingfishers posted articles. Every greenhouse/nursery I'm aware of "fertilizes" by increasing the carbon dioxide levels in the greenhouses. Unequivocally plants love carbon! They will do great in a carbon rich atmosphere, just as ancient bog and forest coal producing plants did. Will this cause shifts in current agricultural producing areas? Probably. We are already seeing changes in animal migrations and plant reproduction responses to warmer temperatures.

What do we do, or should we do? I agree with many on here that along with the increased levels of carbon come other problems in the form of pollution and degradation of the environment that must be looked at pragmatically without hype, or political (liberal/conservative) ideologies.


----------



## Kingfisher

nicely state doug... there will be changes...


----------



## brookieguy1

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Basically then the balance of nature is really insignificant. We should be able to do whatever we want. It's cool to be good stewards but not necessary. That whole Valdez thing was pretty much meaningless as well. When something matters and is important enough that it may affect you guys or might be something Mother Earth could do without please be sure to let us know.
> 
> Thanks.


Crazy, but you may be absolutely correct in this obsene statement. I kind of hope you are!


----------



## Kingfisher

there are some indications that the situation may not be as bad as originally thought. there are two distinct methodologies of determining or 'predicting' climate sensitivity to a doubling of co2. one is the climate models - these are immensely complex models requiring massive computations by simulating energy transfer in 3 dimensions from squares of atmosphere 3 to 10 kilometers in size from the surface of the earth to the top of the atmosphere. small errors on top, bottom or sides can propogate and lead to inflated or deflated errors. we measure how good they work based on how they simulate past climate. they do reasonably well with the overall pattern and mostly poor when it comes to smaller scale and regional patterns... they don't do real well with el nino as well. that said, there is a different methodology and there have been to date, 14 papers published using satellite data and top of atmosphere radiative imbalance techniques (TOA). basically measuring what goes in and what comes out (the naturalist mentioned this in his post). each of these has put climate sensitivity to a doubling of co2 at a much lower value than the modeled results. are they correct? or are the 'models' correct? well the range of the models is from basically less than one degree up to as high as 6 to 8 degrees with everything in between. so, pick which one you think is right from the many many options. and their accuracy or range of variation hasn't improved over the past years. the measured TOA seems to say that the problem may be smaller than the models indicate....


----------



## Lonetree

Loke said:


> I'm still trying to figure out why a warmer climate would be a bad thing. And to all the liberals who think CO2 is bad, you can do your part to lower its emission. QUIT BREATHING!!!


I'm a progressive centrist, get an education. Or by all means follow your own advice.

Thanks for making my point about the conversation being about ideology, and politics, which is where the uneducated take the it every time. Because facts do not matter in those contexts. And you can make up your own reality, in the face of not understanding or being able to deal with actual reality.


----------



## Kingfisher

and now... after that little bit of hope... here is some cold water. a team from google - yes that big tech firm with tons of money, put together a team to determine how to solve the global warming problem - if wind and solar can bail us out.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change

short answer - no. back to that pragmatism. climate is going to change and we are going to have to adapt to whatever that brings.


----------



## Kingfisher

by the way... read that link carefully - it stated that if we were able to replace 100% of all coal burning plants across the entire planet... they still could not keep co2 levels at their defined acceptable limits. all coal plants gone. still cant achieve goal.
so, pragmatic about the problem. we will have to adapt.


----------



## Lonetree

Kingfisher,

Be specific and answer the question about biodiversity. You claim that in all the stuff you have read, it is increasing. Please show us the proof. Not a bunch of links that are irrelevant to your biodiversity claim. And not more lies about Germany's economy. Germany has one of the strongest economies in Europe, despite what you think. Same with Denmark, I have family there.

Back to your positive biodiversity claim, show us! Prove it! Like I said not ag studies about growing monocultures(BS distraction, not BS economic claims. Back up your lies.

People like you are the reason we have the problems we do with wildlife politics. You prefer to sell off our hunting heritage to politicians and ideologues. 

On a singular note, climate change is bad for deer, moose, and bighorn sheep. And climate change has reduced biodiversity. It is therefor bad for hunters. But that won't matter to a lot of "hunters" that would sell us all down the river, for politics and ideology.


----------



## Lonetree

Kingfisher said:


> by the way... read that link carefully - it stated that if we were able to replace 100% of all coal burning plants across the entire planet... they still could not keep co2 levels at their defined acceptable limits. all coal plants gone. still cant achieve goal.
> so, pragmatic about the problem. we will have to adapt.


The we can't do anything argument is not realism, its not pragmatism, its the manta of failures who give up easily, and are apathetic. All to common these days.

When you've sold off your ability to effect change over the last 20 years, I guess that's how you feel, powerless.....


----------



## Lonetree

The Naturalist said:


> Interesting articles Randy, thanks for posting.
> Our Earth is a system that requires energy in and energy out. Global warming is not hard to understand when one uses this perspective...if more energy leaves on a daily basis then enters, over a period of time, then Earth experiences a global cooling. If less energy leaves the Earth than enters on a daily basis, over a period of time, then Earth experiences a period of global warming. This has happened countless times over the course of geologic time. There are many causes as to why, such as the Milankovitch cycles (variations in the orbit of Earth), and volcanic activity.
> 
> The question climate scientists try to answer is; what is driving this period of global warming?
> The data is overwhelming that carbon dioxide levels are higher now than they have been for the last 800,000 years (ice core and ocean sediment records).
> 
> Then the next question; What is driving the increased levels of carbon dioxide? With near normal solar, volcanic and other natural phenomenon, that leaves basically one other possibility... it is anthropogenic. I know it is hard for some to believe that humans could be responsible, but it is not the first time living organisms have made major changes to our planet. Evolving plants changed an atmosphere high in carbon dioxide (similar to Venus and Mars current levels) to an atmosphere rich in oxygen.
> 
> The next question then; What does this mean for planet Earth? This question is hard to answer! Doomsday? No. Major changes? Very likely!
> 
> Being a Botanist I understand completely Kingfishers posted articles. Every greenhouse/nursery I'm aware of "fertilizes" by increasing the carbon dioxide levels in the greenhouses. Unequivocally plants love carbon! They will do great in a carbon rich atmosphere, just as ancient bog and forest coal producing plants did. Will this cause shifts in current agricultural producing areas? Probably. We are already seeing changes in animal migrations and plant reproduction responses to warmer temperatures.
> 
> What do we do, or should we do? I agree with many on here that along with the increased levels of carbon come other problems in the form of pollution and degradation of the environment that must be looked at pragmatically without hype, or political (liberal/conservative) ideologies.


As a botanist you also know that not all plants LOVE carbon. And that when we increase CO2 we unbalance things and favor plants like pinyon and juniper, that then encroach upon everything else, creating monocultures, driving down diversity of both plants and animals.

Pragmatism is that this is happening, and has happened, and that we must deal with this as well as, working to reverse it.

The "there is nothing we can do bit" is propagandist BS.


----------



## Lonetree

You boys have fun trying to convince yourselves, of your own disillusions.


----------



## Lonetree

The world is changing, change happens, change is good!.............................But there is no need to change, change won't do anything, change is bad.


Some people would be really funny, if it weren't for the consequences of ignorance.


----------



## DallanC

-DallanC


----------



## Lonetree

Dallan

That already got covered, making it a picture, doesn't mean anything.

But I do understand the need for pictures.

Dr. Suess would not be the same without them.

Have any actual substance to add?


----------



## Lonetree

I like the other piece in the 1977 TIME magazine as well "Why we can't beat the Soviets" 

While many are repeating the 1990s, some have decided to not leave the '70s


----------



## wyogoob

Kingfisher said:


> here is a set on agricultural productivity...
> 
> Technological Progress vs. Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment
> Food Security in a Changing Climate: A Back-to-Basics Approach
> Calculating the Effects of Climate Change and Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment on California (USA) Crop Production
> Pasture and Rangeland Responses to Rising CO2 Concentrations and Projected Changes in Climate
> High-Temperature-Induced Male Sterility in Crop Plants
> Feeding the Future World
> Will Global Warming Reduce Crop Yields?
> Effects of Post-1980 Warming on Cropping Systems in China
> FACE-Based Crop Responses to Projected CO2 and Climate Changes in Germany
> Effects of Global Warming, Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment and Technological Innovations on Bean and Maize Yields in Brazil
> Chinese Agriculture to the End of the 21st Century
> The World's Water Problems
> Hydrological and Agricultural Responses of China's Loess Plateau to Predicted Climate Change
> Can the World Produce 40% More Rice by 2030?
> Climate-Mediated Changes in 20th-Century Argentina Agriculture
> A Half-Century Forward Look at Agricultural Production in Canada's Atlantic Provinces
> Central U.S. Agricultural Productivity: 1972-2001


Thank you.


----------



## Kwalk3

It's cold today. Looks like it's a hoax after all......


----------



## Loke

Here is where I stand on Global Warming, Climate change, or whatever you pseudo intellectuals may want to call it. I don't care. It is not something I worry about. I am not powerful enough to change the earth's climate, and neither are you. I may not study it or read stories about it in some "peer reviewed" journal. (what does that mean, peer reviewed? that your friends read your ideas and agree with them, so that somehow proves that you are right? ) Yes, I do what I can to clean up the environment, and make the world a little better than my predecessors left it. I call that being a good steward of the environment. I recycle aluminum cans. That helps too. But to think that if I quit driving my truck and buy a horse I will save a glacier from melting is not reasonable. I will offer that a horse has a larger carbon footprint than my truck. It has more greenhouse gas emissions than my truck. Not only from the CO2 it exhales (constantly by the way, not just while running) but the methane produced from the other end as well. I will end my argument the same way that you dismiss mine. Your opinion matters not at all to me. I do not believe your theories, nor those of your self styled experts. Neither you nor I know what the normal operating temperature of our planet is. Do not pretend that you do. Our planet will warm and cool itself as it pleases. Nothing you or I do or say will change that.


----------



## The Naturalist

Lonetree said:


> As a botanist you also know that not all plants LOVE carbon...My apologies, I was using a general reference. Yes, there are insectivorous, and haloparasitic, and semiparasitic plants that either don't require carbon or reduced levels. There are also studies that show increased levels of carbon dioxide can be detrimental to some plants. You are mistaken if you took my post to mean that I think increased carbon dioxide levels were a "good" thing, or that we can't, or shouldn't do anything about it... And that when we increase CO2 we unbalance things and favor plants like pinyon and juniper, that then encroach upon everything else, creating monocultures, driving down diversity of both plants and animals....and overgrazing, and fire suppression have added to an increase in pinyon/juniper encroachment. I agree with you that monocultures (a product of corporate agriculture, forestry and land management) does drive down diversity, and increases numerous other problems.
> 
> Pragmatism is that this is happening, and has happened, and that we must deal with this as well as, working to reverse it.
> 
> The "*there is nothing we can do bit*" is propagandist BS....??? Did I say, or hint that?[/QUOTE]
> 
> Positive and negative feedback scenarios are fun to play with in connection with climate change.


----------



## riptheirlips

I believe in this global warming thing, 30 years ago when I broke a few horses the ground was pretty soft and you would bounce off it a little. But now this global warming has made the ground a lot harder and I don't even want to fall off my horse because it is so hard.


----------



## Lonetree

The Naturalist said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a botanist you also know that not all plants LOVE carbon...My apologies, I was using a general reference. Yes, there are insectivorous, and haloparasitic, and semiparasitic plants that either don't require carbon or reduced levels. There are also studies that show increased levels of carbon dioxide can be detrimental to some plants. You are mistaken if you took my post to mean that I think increased carbon dioxide levels were a "good" thing, or that we can't, or shouldn't do anything about it... And that when we increase CO2 we unbalance things and favor plants like pinyon and juniper, that then encroach upon everything else, creating monocultures, driving down diversity of both plants and animals....and overgrazing, and fire suppression have added to an increase in pinyon/juniper encroachment. I agree with you that monocultures (a product of corporate agriculture, forestry and land management) does drive down diversity, and increases numerous other problems.
> 
> Pragmatism is that this is happening, and has happened, and that we must deal with this as well as, working to reverse it.
> 
> The "*there is nothing we can do bit*" is propagandist BS....??? Did I say, or hint that?[/QUOTE]
> 
> Positive and negative feedback scenarios are fun to play with in connection with climate change.
> 
> 
> 
> I did not mean to insinuate that you said the last part, I was only contrasting the view that keeps getting tossed around here by some folks.
Click to expand...


----------



## Lonetree

Loke said:


> Here is where I stand on Global Warming, Climate change, or whatever you pseudo intellectuals may want to call it. I don't care. It is not something I worry about. I am not powerful enough to change the earth's climate, and neither are you. I may not study it or read stories about it in some "peer reviewed" journal. (what does that mean, peer reviewed? that your friends read your ideas and agree with them, so that somehow proves that you are right? ) Yes, I do what I can to clean up the environment, and make the world a little better than my predecessors left it. I call that being a good steward of the environment. I recycle aluminum cans. That helps too. But to think that if I quit driving my truck and buy a horse I will save a glacier from melting is not reasonable. I will offer that a horse has a larger carbon footprint than my truck. It has more greenhouse gas emissions than my truck. Not only from the CO2 it exhales (constantly by the way, not just while running) but the methane produced from the other end as well. I will end my argument the same way that you dismiss mine. Your opinion matters not at all to me. I do not believe your theories, nor those of your self styled experts. Neither you nor I know what the normal operating temperature of our planet is. Do not pretend that you do. Our planet will warm and cool itself as it pleases. Nothing you or I do or say will change that.


Its easy to dismiss your argument.......you don't have one. Like a bunch of other people here you have never looked at the issue any deeper than what you heard on talk radio.

The only people pretending to know things here, are the likes of you, and the other science deniers.

While I'm no expert on climate change, I'm positive that myself and many others here have an actual demonstrable grasp on math, physics, biology, engineering, chemistry, etc.

BTW, peer reviewed means you sent your work out to be reviewed by other qualified scientist in the field. You can request review by particular scientist, but they are only one of many. Review will many times be done anonymously, you won't know the reviewers. It is a very rough process, and takes a long time.

Then you have the less rigid process of peer editing, where your work is edited and picked apart by scientists in the field. I have been peer edited, its not nice clean and pretty. The whole idea in these processes is to tear the work down and test it, challenge it, and verify accuracy.

Maybe you can call me a psuedo intellectual when you have had your "ideas" torn apart and tested by MIT scientists with 180 IQs. Your false premise, deflective, "argument" doesn't pass scientific muster.

This is why there was talk of a "serious conversation" about the subject, because scientific conversations are always taken over by the ideologues, politicians, "pragmatists", and apologists. All typically people that do not even understand the basics of the subject matter at hand.

Its no different in the case of wildlife science. At least in those cases we have people that have some hands on knowledge and understanding of the subject matter. Yet with all that familiarity, putting any of it into a demonstrable scientific context with real world affect, appears to be next to impossible here. But some of the same people think they know more about the Earth, than those that have actually studied it for decades. Yet they don't even understand subject matter that they have time into.

Denying science is your right, flaunting your ignorance is also your right. It is your right to have these opinions and feelings, but you do not have a right to pass them off as anything but that. They are just the opinions and feelings of people that do not know what they are talking about, and refuse to educate themselves in a substantive matter. ppm? nano grams? adjusted mean?

I don't care about climate change, thats why I put energy into how I don't care about climate change......................

Help us to understand how horses play into the chemical outputs below. I think I was told it was closed minded to focus on CO2, so lets expand this to other emmissions.

Photochemical Smog . Originally smog meant a combination of smoke and fog. Today it generally refers to the polluted air found over cities as a result of industrial emissions and automotive exhaust. The major chemical substances involved are hydrocarbons (unburned fuel), nitrogen oxides (which form at the high temperatures and pressures of internal combustion engines) and ozone. Ozone production is a light activated reaction and an example of a process contributing to photochemical smog. NO 2 decomposes in light to nitrous oxide and free oxygen. The latter combines with molecular oxygen to make ozone. Visible smog also effects heat retention with a similar affect of CO2, which is emitted from the same sources. It is just a matter of where in the atmosphere this heat retention occurs. 

NO2 ---> NO + O O + O2 ---> O3

The ozone then reacts with various hydrocarbons to produce aldehydes, peroxynitrates, acrolein, and other irritants. These induce health problems in humans and produce a phytotoxic effect in plants. Even some carcinogens are found in smog. Air pollution problems are aggravated by local geographic conditions in cities such as Denver and Los Angeles. Consequently, gaseous emissions are restricted in these places. 

Don't worry your answer won't be peer reviewed.


----------



## DallanC

Lonetree said:


> While I'm no expert on climate change, I'm positive that myself and many others here have an actual demonstrable grasp on math, physics, biology, engineering, chemistry, etc.
> 
> BTW, peer reviewed means you sent your work out to be reviewed by other qualified scientist in the field. You can request review by particular scientist, but they are only one of many. Review will many times be done anonymously, you won't know the reviewers. It is a very rough process, and takes a long time.


And that was my point with the opposing Time magazine covers. Back in the 1970's scientists, heads of their fields noticed climate trends and started real research. The gathered data, formed hypothesis, did more research and from their results they extrapolated and gave us the picture of dim and gloomy future as a frozen waste land. That was the accepted science of the day.

Fast forward to today, the next generation of scientists gathered more data with better tools, and found flaws in the previous generation of scientists work, work with conclusions that had been previously reviewed and accepted by most back then. They worked with new tools and new methods and gathered facinating data, formed new hypothesis and have been off testing, validating, and extrapolating to gain a new perspective on how the future is affected.

What will the next generation of scientists discover?

There are alot of parallels with C02 and average warming of the planet sure, but they have been able to validate warming periods independent of C02 levels. So is or is not, C02 the "smoking gun" ? Alot of scientists say yes, others still keep an open mind and continue to explore other factors.

Climate is one of the most complex systems on the planet, its awfully arrogant to think we've completely figured it out, especially when people take such a microscopic view to trends and ignore data from longer trends.

I suspect when we really do have a very solid understanding, just like most other complex systems, C02 will be a piece of the puzzle (ala selenium and mule deer survival) along with other factors.

If you get bored with the C02 research, take a read on "Heat Islands" if you haven't. A dominant factor in climate change? I doubt it, but locally along with a negative effect on water quality, it creates ground level Ozone issues. The EPA states heat related deaths "exceeds the number of mortalities resulting from hurricanes, lightning, tornadoes, floods, and earthquakes combined." As cities grow in scope world wide, the effect will only be magnified.

Maybe they just need a cool comfy SUV to sit in hehe.

-DallanC


----------



## Lonetree

The current science is built on the last science. In climate change, we see wheather extremes, including extreme weather driving cooling patterns. We see it now, and they saw it then.

Yes we may know more in 30 years, but much of these things will not change, only our understanding of what drives them.

Selenium: Nothing has changed there, only the understanding of what drives it role in wildlife declines. Same with CO2, that will not change in 30 years, only our understanding of it.

Human emissions of CO2 correlate perfectly with temp rises. Are there other factors? Yes there are bound to be, it does not diminish our role in the emitting of CO2, and the perfect correlation to temp rises. Will understanding these other factors help? Sure, if one is compounding, then addressing it would help slow temp rises down, more rapidly in conjunction with reducing CO2.

Minimizing the role of CO2, or its reduction, or the affects of climate change, is intellectually dishonest. It is not a conversation about the science itself, but rather how some would like to frame it.

Using wildlife science as an example again, we all know the consequences of this behavior. The only difference is we have moved climate science forward since 1977, nothing has changed with Western wildlife science in that time. This is a direct result of the lack of actual science, because of the people that want to override its realities based on how they feel or believe about it, regardless of facts.


----------



## DallanC

Lonetree said:


> Human emissions of CO2 correlate perfectly with temp rises.


Except for the previous Minoean, Roman and Medieval periods, but hey, 1 out of 4 ain't bad!

-DallanC


----------



## Loke

Thank you for your compliment. I will gladly wear the science denier title. I prefer to place my confidence in something higher than human understanding. I believe there is a lot more at work than science is able to explain. And that you can somehow divine my intelligence level from a few lines written on an internet forum is comical. It proves my theory of higher education and common sense retention, and how one stands in direct inverse proportion to the other. Perhaps I will do an additional doctoral thesis on it and submit it for peer review. And I would welcome the chance to compare my IQ to that of your MIT folks. 
My point to all of this is that I believe that the science of global climate is inherently flawed. The interpretation of the data is subjective, and can be used to "prove" either side if the argument depending on which side you choose. Science looks at a very small portion of the Earth's climatic history, and declares that "normal", and freaks out at the slightest indication that things might change. And then science has the need to validate its existence by assigning blame for that change. And assuming that man is the sole cause of such a catastrophe. Because man is evil and not a part of nature. 
My assertion is that this planet was put in place for no other reason than for man to have somewhere to exist. It will exist as it is until it is needed in another state. Then it will be changed. And there is nothing that science can do to stop that change. I don't need science to tell me that this will happen. The folks in charge have told us that it will happen.


(top of the page...WOOHOO)


----------



## Dunkem

Loke said:


> Thank you for your compliment. I will gladly wear the science denier title. I prefer to place my confidence in something higher than human understanding. I believe there is a lot more at work than science is able to explain. And that you can somehow divine my intelligence level from a few lines written on an internet forum is comical. It proves my theory of higher education and common sense retention, and how one stands in direct inverse proportion to the other. Perhaps I will do an additional doctoral thesis on it and submit it for peer review. And I would welcome the chance to compare my IQ to that of your MIT folks.
> My point to all of this is that I believe that the science of global climate is inherently flawed. The interpretation of the data is subjective, and can be used to "prove" either side if the argument depending on which side you choose. Science looks at a very small portion of the Earth's climatic history, and declares that "normal", and freaks out at the slightest indication that things might change. And then science has the need to validate its existence by assigning blame for that change. And assuming that man is the sole cause of such a catastrophe. Because man is evil and not a part of nature.
> My assertion is that this planet was put in place for no other reason than for man to have somewhere to exist. It will exist as it is until it is needed in another state. Then it will be changed. And there is nothing that science can do to stop that change. I don't need science to tell me that this will happen. The folks in charge have told us that it will happen.
> 
> (top of the page...WOOHOO)


+1
It is written,people reading wrong book


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

The good book can be the most convenient thing in the world.


----------



## Lonetree

-_O-

Now data and IQs are "subjective". Relative sure, but not subjective. Science, not philosophy.

The MIT person I mentioned has an IQ of 180, 25 points higher than mine. She is university educated, I'm a high school drop out. 

I'll drop a guess that Loke is packing about 125, which is not shabby. Care to prove otherwise? 

:grin: Casting doubt is not making an argument, or proving anything. It is still just deflection away from the subject matter at hand, because one can't navigate that subject matter.


----------



## Lonetree

DallanC said:


> Except for the previous Minoean, Roman and Medieval periods, but hey, 1 out of 4 ain't bad!
> 
> -DallanC


So its rising, it correlates perfectly with temp increases and an increase in extreme weather, and a changing climate, but because DallanC doesn't understand the data, its not man made.....OK

Like I asked before, and you again dodged, what is the alternate explanation?

Not semantics, not magazine articles, lets hear your alternate explanation. Its one thing to say that something is not something, its quite another to have such a handle on the subject as to be able to also say what it supposedly is, as opposed to what you say it is not.

Pleece, splain et two us.


----------



## DallanC

Lonetree said:


> So its rising, it correlates perfectly with temp increases and an increase in extreme weather, and a changing climate, but because DallanC doesn't understand the data, its not man made.....OK.


Good GAWD, spoken like a high school drop out. I posted DATA... HERE IT IS AGAIN:










Current CO2 Emissions correspond over the short term, as shown by the RED section but you want to ignore temperature data gathered showing mean temperatures over such a greater amount of time. Those other peaks were NOT caused by rises in CO2. YOU fixate on the short term, what about the longer term historical records? YOU cannot prove this isn't apart of a NATURAL cycle that apparently shows up over time, AS PROVEN BY GATHERED DATA.

I'm the one that doesnt understand? Holy **** dude... I was a physics major in College, I program AI and complex physics systems for a living. Yea, I'm the problem.

-DallanC


----------



## Lonetree

:grin: That explains it all, except for the part about your alternate explanation. 

Seems you keep missing that part. What natural cycle accounts for the current increase?

If it is not as you say it is, then it must be something else. What is it? As you pointed out, you are a smart guy, this should be easy.


----------



## Lonetree

I find myself dismantling the current understanding all the time. 101 is, if you say it is not A, then you better be able to show that it is B. Just saying it is is not A, is just saying it is not A, it does not mean anything, without B.


----------



## Lonetree

So if the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval increases were obviously not caused by burning fossil fuels, what caused those?

Is it the same thing causing the current increases? 

Data without reference, is just that.


----------



## The Naturalist

The hype that goes on over climate change is unreal. It shouldn't be that hard to understand. Earth is going through a period of global warming. The data is overwhelming. Earth has gone through other periods of warming as clearly shown in Dallen C's data. The question for science is what is driving this current warming period? With near normal patterns for all known natural causes the correlation with carbon is the only plausible explanation (over 95% consensus), which correlates directly to human usage of fossil fuels. No scientist I'm associated with suggests we stop using autos and go back to horse and buggy days. I'm certainly not giving up my SUV, but there are things that we need to be concerned with if the trend continues. Earth is very resilient and thrives on negative feeback scenarios. As in all past periods of cooling and warming the Earth manages to "right" itself. Now that humans are in the picture we need to address what happens to the billions of people that could be in harms way due to increased severity of storms, increased droughts, coastal flooding, changes in agriculture and food distribution, etc.
No scientist I'm associated with is saying humans are evil because of this. We just need to be aware of this and try to figure out the consequences and be prepared to make the necessary changes if possible.


----------



## captain

I am an Environmental Scientist for the State of Utah, and I can tell you first hand that the proof of global warming is all around us. I am sure that if all of you study the photo I have attached you will have a hard time arguing that something is not happening.


----------



## Loke

Lonetree, you just answered your own question. It is a _natural_ cycle. There may not be a measurable cause. It could be that the Earth has moved fractionally closer to the Sun. Or the Sun is fractionally hotter, or the Earth's rotation has slowed, or sped up. It could be the fault of pine beetles killing all of the forests, and the trees are no longer converting the CO2 in the atmosphere to O2. It could be there are too many elk, moose, and deer flatulating in the forest, thus increasing other more potent greenhouse gasses. Just because some one was able to quantify an increase in CO2 emissions that happened to coincide with a minuscule increase in global temperatures, does not automatically mean that is the sole cause. And even if it is the cause, is a warmer planet necessarily a bad thing? We still do not know how anything will be affected by a warmer climate. It is pure assumption that world wide catastrophe will ensue. Yes, people will need to adapt. Some will need to move away from the present coastal areas. They can move to the new coastal areas. Yes, some people will die if they do not adapt. That is what we do to survive.


----------



## Dunkem

captain said:


> I am an Environmental Scientist for the State of Utah, and I can tell you first hand that the proof of global warming is all around us. I am sure that if all of you study the photo I have attached you will have a hard time arguing that something is not happening.


Captain, now Im worried:shock:


----------



## Lonetree

The Naturalist said:


> The hype that goes on over climate change is unreal. It shouldn't be that hard to understand. Earth is going through a period of global warming. The data is overwhelming. Earth has gone through other periods of warming as clearly shown in Dallen C's data. The question for science is what is driving this current warming period? With near normal patterns for all known natural causes the correlation with carbon is the only plausible explanation (over 95% consensus), which correlates directly to human usage of fossil fuels. No scientist I'm associated with suggests we stop using autos and go back to horse and buggy days. I'm certainly not giving up my SUV, but there are things that we need to be concerned with if the trend continues. Earth is very resilient and thrives on negative feeback scenarios. As in all past periods of cooling and warming the Earth manages to "right" itself. Now that humans are in the picture we need to address what happens to the billions of people that could be in harms way due to increased severity of storms, increased droughts, coastal flooding, changes in agriculture and food distribution, etc.
> No scientist I'm associated with is saying humans are evil because of this. We just need to be aware of this and try to figure out the consequences and be prepared to make the necessary changes if possible.


Given that all indications are that we are driving the current climate change, we as humans need to worry for one very singular reason: "As in all past periods of cooling and warming the Earth manages to "right" itself."

It will be us getting checked. That removes all freedom of choice, and control from the process. That's not where we want to be.


----------



## Kingfisher

from the university of utah, new study. just released. has some interesting findings.
http://unews.utah.edu/news_releases/past-global-warming-similar-to-todays/


----------



## Lonetree

Loke said:


> Lonetree, you just answered your own question. It is a _natural_ cycle. There may not be a measurable cause. It could be that the Earth has moved fractionally closer to the Sun. Or the Sun is fractionally hotter, or the Earth's rotation has slowed, or sped up. It could be the fault of pine beetles killing all of the forests, and the trees are no longer converting the CO2 in the atmosphere to O2. It could be there are too many elk, moose, and deer flatulating in the forest, thus increasing other more potent greenhouse gasses. Just because some one was able to quantify an increase in CO2 emissions that happened to coincide with a minuscule increase in global temperatures, does not automatically mean that is the sole cause. And even if it is the cause, is a warmer planet necessarily a bad thing? We still do not know how anything will be affected by a warmer climate. It is pure assumption that world wide catastrophe will ensue. Yes, people will need to adapt. Some will need to move away from the present coastal areas. They can move to the new coastal areas. Yes, some people will die if they do not adapt. That is what we do to survive.


I never said it was a natural cycle. I asked that IF it was, as some like to contend, then what is driving it? We can attribute natural events to past increases, we can not do the same for the current rise.

It takes a lot of extremes to end up with an ambient 2 degree temp rise. That means for every polar vortex, and 8 feet of snow in New York, there were warming events that were more extreme and over rode these affects on the mean temperature.

And its not just the temp increase. If it were only the temp increase, them yeah we could just adapt. But there is all the other chemical inputs that go along the with extreme weather, and temp increase that we have to deal with. These not only drive the extremes, but may themselves be more harmful to us than the weather itself.

You can say it is not CO2 driving the increased temps, but if that is your contention, what is driving the increase? You say its natural, what is the "natural" phenomenon driving the increases.

Spouting nonsense about deer farts only shows you don't grasp the basics of this.

The affects of climate change are bad, 9 out of 10 results are bad for us as humans. No one is blaming climate change on humans because we are bad and evil, you interjected that nonsense, which says a lot. It is being blamed on humans, because everything says that our actions are playing a significant, and detrimental role in this. It is called responsibility.

The term acid rain was coined over 200 years ago, when it was observed that in industrial areas the rain had become acidic, and was killing trees. Prior to the industrial revolution, we were changing the chemical make up of the rain, and it was, and is having detrimental consequences. If our forefathers could affect such change, measure it, and see it, we would have to be completely blind to say that at the current scale we are not having a negative impact.

What is the natural cycle, driving the current climate change?


----------



## Lonetree

Kingfisher said:


> from the university of utah, new study. just released. has some interesting findings.
> http://unews.utah.edu/news_releases/past-global-warming-similar-to-todays/


"The rate at which carbon emissions warmed Earth's climate almost 56 million years ago resembles modern, human-caused global warming much more than previously believed, but involved two pulses of carbon to the atmosphere, University of Utah researchers and their colleagues found."


----------



## Jedidiah

You gotta love the "man it's cold outside, how's that for global warming?" stuff. In other news, I ate breakfast today so that solves world hunger too.

One solid fact that can be directly attributed to global warming is the mass extinction of frogs that is happening right now and could easily be over with for many species within our lifetimes. While it's true there have been extreme, natural cycles of global warming and cooling in the past the simple fact is that we are in control of this one. We should look at what we want to keep safe in the natural world and make decisions and changes that reflect those convictions.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Lonetree said:


> What is the natural cycle, driving the current climate change?


The ignorant and self centered man that doesn't lift a finger until there is a fast acting and perceived required benefit.


----------



## Kingfisher

The affects of climate change are bad, 9 out of 10 results are bad for us as humans.

and the source of this statistic is where?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Kingfisher said:


> The affects of climate change are bad, 9 out of 10 results are bad for us as humans.
> 
> and the source of this statistic is where?


HAHA! Out of all that you want backup on the 9 out of 10? Thanks for the laugh. :grin:


----------



## Lonetree

Oh, they got me, I generalized about the negative affects of climate change. We've been busted, they know its a hoax now..............

Skinner, when its all you got, its all you got. And that's all he has got. :grin:


----------



## Loke

More acid rain is caused by natural phenomena than human causes. Ask any volcano. Species will become extinct because of human actions. That is a given. Species will become extinct with out any human influence. It happens. But if the Earth decides to change its climate without asking us first, we don't have much say in the matter. Am I advocating that we treat our atmosphere like we did as little as 40 years ago? Not hardly. I enjoy breathing air that I cannot see or smell. Are there other factors than human causes at work that are affecting our climate? I believe so. And there are probably quite a few that we don't know about. And many more that we have no control over. To say that only man can control our climate is asinine. And that is the basis of this whole argument. It is the question of man vs. nature. I absolutely guarantee you that nature will win. According to science, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. And man has been on it for about 10,000 of those. My calculator won't even tell me how small that percentage is. Something like .0000002% if my guess is correct. It managed for that long with out us, and probably will again if we as a species no longer deserve to live here.


----------



## Kwalk3

Fatalism isn't really my cup of tea. I don't think that anyone is saying that we are the only factor impacting the environment. There are so many factors at play that we can't even begin to comprehend. However, that in no way negates the fact that we have an impact and should do everything within our power to minimize that impact. It is the one thing that we can control, and as such, we should recognize it and make an effort to correct behaviors science is proving to be contributory to the warming of the earth.


----------



## brookieguy1

Kwalk3 said:


> Fatalism isn't really my cup of tea. I don't think that anyone is saying that we are the only factor impacting the environment. There are so many factors at play that we can't even begin to comprehend. However, that in no way negates the fact that we have an impact and should do everything within our power to minimize that impact. It is the one thing that we can control, and as such, we should recognize it and make an effort to correct behaviors science is proving to be contributory to the warming of the earth.


Why should we change? We have just as much right as any living thing to do as we wish. It is fate. If man only lasts another 1000 years or 10 years, that is how it is going to play out. I do feel man has certain small choices that he can make to change his own future, but the big script is already written. It's too late, Mother Earth will decide.


----------



## Kwalk3

brookieguy1 said:


> Why should we change? We have just as much right as any living thing to do as we wish. It is fate. If man only lasts another 1000 years or 10 years, that is how it is going to play out. I do feel man has certain small choices that he can make to change his own future, but the big script is already written. It's too late, Mother Earth will decide.


At least make it a little better for ourselves and everyone else until we are all wiped off the face of the planet, but hey, what do I know?

The truth of it is that if you believe we have the right to do what we wish, without consequence, because it's all predetermined, then there is not a real conversation to have. My mind doesn't really wrap around that way of thinking, and it's depressing at the very least.


----------



## DallanC

Facinating:

http://phys.org/news/2014-05-earth-magnetic-field-important-climate.html


> *Earth's magnetic field is important for climate change at high altitudes*
> 
> New research, published this week, has provided scientists with greater insight into the climatic changes happening in the upper atmosphere. *Scientists found that changes in the Earth's magnetic field are more relevant for climatic changes in the upper atmosphere (about 100-500 km above the surface) than previously thought. *Understanding the cause of long-term change in this area helps scientists to predict what will happen in the future. This has key implications for life back on earth.
> 
> A good understanding of the long-term behaviour of the upper atmosphere is essential; it affects a lot of satellite-based technology, such as global navigation systems and high-frequency radio communication systems. Some satellites even operate within the upper atmosphere itself.
> 
> *The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been thought to be the main cause of climatic changes at these high altitudes. This study suggests that magnetic field changes that have taken place over the past century are as important.*
> 
> Both increasing levels of CO2 and changes in the Earth's magnetic field affect the upper atmosphere, including its charged portion, also known as the ionosphere. Dr. Ingrid Cnossen from the British Antarctic Survey used computer simulations to compare the effects of these two factors over the past century.


Similarly:

http://viewzone.com/magnetic.weather.html


> COPENHAGEN (AFP) -- The earth's climate has been significantly affected by the planet's magnetic field, according to a Danish study published Monday that could challenge the notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming.
> 
> "Our results show a strong correlation between the strength of the earth's magnetic field and the amount of precipitation in the tropics," one of the two Danish geophysicists behind the study, Mads Faurschou Knudsen of the geology department at Aarhus University in western Denmark, told the Videnskab journal.


With that in mind, its even more scary when you consider:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3693932/n...earths-magnetic-field-weakening/#.VI-kzXuLVmE



> SAN FRANCISCO - The strength of the Earth's magnetic field has decreased 10 percent over the past 150 years, raising the remote possibility that it may collapse and later reverse, flipping the planet's poles for the first time in nearly a million years, scientists said Thursday.


Just more recently discovered pieces to a very complicated puzzle.

-DallanC


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

brookieguy1 said:


> Why should we change? We have just as much right as any living thing to do as we wish. It is fate. If man only lasts another 1000 years or 10 years, that is how it is going to play out. I do feel man has certain small choices that he can make to change his own future, but the big script is already written. It's too late, Mother Earth will decide.


Fate........another convenience. It excuses everything. Responsibility, laziness, lack of courage, poor decisions, failure to make one. You name it.

Question though? How can fate apply to big things but not small? Where is the line drawn before something is not small anymore and only fate has a say? I am not that smart.

I would think that for fate to exist at all it would have to apply to everything somewhat equally. I can choose the fate of somebody tomorrow on the way to work and change the fate of pretty much everybody that they were once associated with to one degree or another.

Does fate only apply to mankind?

This fate thing has me confused. Please explain.


----------



## Kingfisher

perhaps back on topic - here is link to a report a few of us were invited to put together in 2007 by and for governor huntsman much of which is specific to Utah. it has many limitations, we had a short time line of about 6 months to put it together, lots of assumptions but in general it spells out potential changes assuming a 3 to 7 degree increase or pretty much worst case scenario.
http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~steenburgh/papers/utah_climate_report_2007.pdf


----------



## BDawg

*The Sad Truth*

I am a former climate-change doubter, an environmental scientist who now occasionally publishes research on climate change, a Republican, and a Mormon. It's been interesting to read all the reasons people here give for dismissing a very strong scientific consensus that human-caused global warming will probably have (and is starting to have) some very negative effects if we don't change our ways. What I can tell you from experience is that you have been badly misled, and if you don't let go of a little hubris and try to understand the problem, you will continue to be easy marks. Let me give some examples.



> Loke says:
> My point to all of this is that I believe that the science of global climate is inherently flawed. The interpretation of the data is subjective, and can be used to 'prove' either side if the argument depending on which side you choose. Science looks at a very small portion of the Earth's climatic history, and declares that "normal", and freaks out at the slightest indication that things might change. And then science has the need to validate its existence by assigning blame for that change. And assuming that man is the sole cause of such a catastrophe. Because man is evil and not a part of nature.


In fact, there is an entire branch of science called "paleoclimatology" that uses various geochemical indicators to track the climate back hundreds of millions of years. They know the climate changes naturally. They can pin down the major causes, in most cases. And guess what? Greenhouse gases have always been big players. If humans dig up fossil fuels that were stored over millions of years, and burn them to make CO2 over a few hundred years, then we can expect the CO2 to do... pretty much what it has always done. It's just that now we are adding to the natural fluctuations so fast that we are starting to swamp the system. The fact that the climate is changing is not a big deal. Things adapt, and they always have. BUT, if the change is too fast, many organisms will not have time to adapt, and they will die out. Such things (mass extinction events) have happened in the past when the climate has rapidly changed because of natural processes.

Loke also said, 


> To say that only man can control our climate is asinine. And that is the basis of this whole argument. It is the question of man vs. nature.


Sorry, but no it isn't. (That is, it is asinine to say that "only man can control our climate," but since the climate scientists don't actually say that, it's asinine to say it is a "question of man vs. nature". It's a question of what greenhouse gases do, and what the consequences are if we change their atmospheric concentrations 50-100 times faster than has occurred in the last 20,000 years (and probably much longer, but the data resolution isn't good enough to tell.)

Is the current climate change really that big of a deal? Well, DallanC says no... because DATA.



> Good GAWD, spoken like a high school drop out. I posted DATA... HERE IT IS AGAIN:


Yes, DATA. What data? Oh, the caption says it is ice core data taken in Central Greenland, which, astonishingly enough, is not the whole world. Yes, astonishingly rapid LOCAL climate changes have happened in the past, due to things like changes in ocean circulation patterns. Don't believe me? The caption also says the data was published by one Richard Alley, a church-going, Republican climate scientist at Penn State? Why not ask him what he thinks about human-caused global warming, and how it fits in with past natural climate changes? Look here, or here, or especially here.

Faced with the fact that they don't know what they are talking about, some people here (and elsewhere) hunker down in the Religion foxhole. Loke, for instance.



> My assertion is that this planet was put in place for no other reason than for man to have somewhere to exist. It will exist as it is until it is needed in another state. Then it will be changed. And there is nothing that science can do to stop that change. I don't need science to tell me that this will happen. The folks in charge have told us that it will happen.


I am assuming Loke is a Mormon like me, because his statement sounds pretty Mormonish. All I can say is that his (or her?) attitude is morally bankrupt, because we don't have any right to cause another mass extinction just because we're too lazy and stupid to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions using existing technology. Just ask Brigham Young, who said we are supposed to be MULTIPLYING the organisms on the planet, not throwing them under the bus.



> The very object of our existence here is to handle the temporal elements of this world and subdue the earth, multiplying those organisms of plants and animals God has designed shall dwell upon it. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:168.)


My advice, as a former climate-change doubter, is to stop assuming that you're so brilliant you can figure out a complicated question like this without DOING THE WORK to get the facts and understand the arguments. And stop making excuses for doing whatever you find convenient.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

BDawg said:


> I am a former climate-change doubter, an environmental scientist who now occasionally publishes research on climate change, a Republican, and a Mormon. It's been interesting to read all the reasons people here give for dismissing a very strong scientific consensus that human-caused global warming will probably have (and is starting to have) some very negative effects if we don't change our ways. What I can tell you from experience is that you have been badly misled, and if you don't let go of a little hubris and try to understand the problem, you will continue to be easy marks. Let me give some examples.
> 
> In fact, there is an entire branch of science called "paleoclimatology" that uses various geochemical indicators to track the climate back hundreds of millions of years. They know the climate changes naturally. They can pin down the major causes, in most cases. And guess what? Greenhouse gases have always been big players. If humans dig up fossil fuels that were stored over millions of years, and burn them to make CO2 over a few hundred years, then we can expect the CO2 to do... pretty much what it has always done. It's just that now we are adding to the natural fluctuations so fast that we are starting to swamp the system. The fact that the climate is changing is not a big deal. Things adapt, and they always have. BUT, if the change is too fast, many organisms will not have time to adapt, and they will die out. Such things (mass extinction events) have happened in the past when the climate has rapidly changed because of natural processes.
> 
> Loke also said,
> 
> Sorry, but no it isn't. (That is, it is asinine to say that "only man can control our climate," but since the climate scientists don't actually say that, it's asinine to say it is a "question of man vs. nature". It's a question of what greenhouse gases do, and what the consequences are if we change their atmospheric concentrations 50-100 times faster than has occurred in the last 20,000 years (and probably much longer, but the data resolution isn't good enough to tell.)
> 
> Is the current climate change really that big of a deal? Well, DallanC says no... because DATA.
> 
> Yes, DATA. What data? Oh, the caption says it is ice core data taken in Central Greenland, which, astonishingly enough, is not the whole world. Yes, astonishingly rapid LOCAL climate changes have happened in the past, due to things like changes in ocean circulation patterns. Don't believe me? The caption also says the data was published by one Richard Alley, a church-going, Republican climate scientist at Penn State? Why not ask him what he thinks about human-caused global warming, and how it fits in with past natural climate changes? Look here, or here, or especially here.
> 
> Faced with the fact that they don't know what they are talking about, some people here (and elsewhere) hunker down in the Religion foxhole. Loke, for instance.
> 
> I am assuming Loke is a Mormon like me, because his statement sounds pretty Mormonish. All I can say is that his (or her?) attitude is morally bankrupt, because we don't have any right to cause another mass extinction just because we're too lazy and stupid to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions using existing technology. Just ask Brigham Young, who said we are supposed to be MULTIPLYING the organisms on the planet, not throwing them under the bus.
> 
> My advice, as a former climate-change doubter, is to stop assuming that you're so brilliant you can figure out a complicated question like this without DOING THE WORK to get the facts and understand the arguments. And stop making excuses for doing whatever you find convenient.


Double Like and welcome to the forum!


----------



## Lonetree

BDawg

Nice entrance, welcome to the forum.

"What I can tell you from experience is that you have been badly misled, and if you don't let go of a little hubris and try to understand the problem, you will continue to be easy marks."

My concern with the global warming "conversation" is of its over all parallels to other science, and your summation can not be overstated.

In the case of wildlife science, and the management and policies being derived from it, we see something that is in equally poor shape, though connected, to the global warming "debate" in many ways.

In the current circle of scientists I associate with(all church goers), the consensus is that we are at least 30 years behind the curve on wildlife science. And most of this is because of peoples beliefs, feelings, and as you pointed out, what is convenient. There does not seem to be a moral imperative when addressing many of these issues. Oh sure the arguments are framed to appear to be of concern to us as humans, but are they really? Are any of those arguments really about what is best for us, morally, economically, ethically, for our children? 

I tend to look broadly, and I see some of this as a symptom of a much larger problem. And people allowing themselves to be "marks" is certainly part of this. Very few of us carry our own water, and rarely is it carried for the thirsty.


----------



## Skally

I'm trying to figure out what church has to do with global warming?????


----------



## LostLouisianian

It's all the candles in church


----------



## brookieguy1

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Fate........another convenience. It excuses everything. Responsibility, laziness, lack of courage, poor decisions, failure to make one. You name it.
> 
> Question though? How can fate apply to big things but not small? Where is the line drawn before something is not small anymore and only fate has a say? I am not that smart.
> 
> I would think that for fate to exist at all it would have to apply to everything somewhat equally. I can choose the fate of somebody tomorrow on the way to work and change the fate of pretty much everybody that they were once associated with to one degree or another.
> 
> Does fate only apply to mankind?
> 
> This fate thing has me confused. Please explain.


Perhaps we could just call it " Predestination" We all have freewill, but the choices we make are already known. If you choose not to decide, or choose, you've still made a choice. 
I really don't know where the line is drawn between large and small choices. In my simple (obviously) opinion, the end big result is unchangeable. 
I may have gotten a little ignorant with my "we have the right to do what we want" reply. I guess I go a little overboard to get my point across. I am a decent and responsible person, clean up when I camp, and pick up trash in the outdoors. I treat other people right. And yes, I agree we should do all we can to make every day a better and cleaner day than the previous. I'm not going to quit burning gas to get to my mountain fishing spots though! (Especially when it's down to $2.47 a gallon!):grin:


----------



## massmanute

Loke said:


> ...I may not study it or read stories about it in some "peer reviewed" journal. (what does that mean, peer reviewed? that your friends read your ideas and agree with them, so that somehow proves that you are right? ) ...


I am pretty familiar with the peer review process. In fact, I know quite a bit about it. Rather than comparing reviewers to your friends who agree with you and make it easy to publish, it is closer to the truth to compare most peer reviewers to goalkeepers who feel it is their role to keep you from scoring, i.e. to keep you from publishing the paper you submitted.


----------



## Loke

massmanute said:


> I am pretty familiar with the peer review process. In fact, I know quite a bit about it. Rather than comparing reviewers to your friends who agree with you and make it easy to publish, it is closer to the truth to compare most peer reviewers to goalkeepers who feel it is their role to keep you from scoring, i.e. to keep you from publishing the paper you submitted.


I'm still at a loss to see how this can determine the veracity of a theory. If the theory presented is outside the accepted norm of the day, the theorist will be, at the least, ridiculed. In times past the persecution could be a bit more harsh. Galileo was charged with heresy for suggesting that the Earth orbited the Sun, and was therefor not the center of the galaxy. Leonardo DaVinci was forced to keep most of his writings in code for fear of prosecution. We are all familiar with what happened to a 13 year old kid from upstate New York. The list goes on and on. 
To blame climate change on CO2 alone, and discount every other possibility is closed minded and will limit any chance to understand the root cause. Or even if there is a root cause. 
I'm still trying to understand why "global warming" has to be a bad thing. Maybe it will bring about changes that will make our planet a much nicer place. Mass extinctions just might make room in our environment for something even better than what we have. There are some organisms we could certainly live without. The viruses that cause ebola, influenza, aids, and bacteria that cause the plague, strep, staph, and joe biden come to mind. Not every life form is beneficial our survival. 
No, my theories do not mesh well with the accepted scientific norm. Can I prove them? No. I do not proclaim them to be the absolute truth. I simply present them as possibilities. And not the only ones. 
And I'm still waiting for Stephen Hawking to show me the absolute scientific proof that God does not exist. Until he does, I will accept science for what it is. Mans feeble attempt to explain a spiritual creation through mortal senses.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Loke said:


> To blame climate change on CO2 alone, and discount every other possibility is closed minded and will limit any chance to understand the root cause.


I have not seen anybody on this forum do that. Nobody.

CO2 is but a single greenhouse gas and comes from many sources.

BTW............if your or your family get ill would you go to a doctor and hope to get some medication or do you just hope that a good prayer is answered?


----------



## Loke

I occasionally go to doctors. But I do not expect them to have the cure for every ailment. You will see that I have already answered that question with the statement, "I will accept science for what it is." 
As for the CO2 comment, that is what this whole argument has been. That increased CO2 emissions, specifically those from human sources, is causing an increase in global temperatures.


----------



## Lonetree

To stand behind Galileo, and Divinci, while denying science from a religious fox hole is about as hypocritical as anyone can get. Absolutely amazing. 

Tying to equate your beliefs with the work of thousands of scientist? Even more amazing.

BTW, there is a climate change connection with the rise of new diseases(SARS, H1N1, coxsackie variants, etc.) out of specific regions of China, and Sub Saharan Africa(Ebola, increases in thyroid disease, Marburgs, AIDS, etc)

"I will accept science for what it is."--Loke You don't even understand the basics of what you won't accept. 

Also, Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist, that is not what this conversation is about. We are talking about climate change having dire consequences for us, not artificial intelligence, aliens, or the god particle.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Loke said:


> Mans feeble attempt to explain a spiritual creation through mortal senses.


You left out your definition of science in your last post.

science= "Mans feeble attempt to explain a spiritual creation through mortal senses"

Science goes much, much further than that. I would bet that if it were not for science you would not have the job that you have. Medical treatments would not exist. You would either walk or take horses to work. You certainly would not communicate with others on the internet. You take for granted much that man has accomplished. Most that man has accomplished in fact. Many times in spite of prayer. You owe a lot to those that have questioned the existence of God. You should be thankful.


----------



## Kingfisher

loke - there are many positive things that will come from modest warming.
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/ccr2biologicalimpacts.html

while this site is hardly impartial - they have done a great job in assimilating research from all over, compiling it and presenting it in an easily readable format. you can search on any subject in an extensive database on climate change and get easy references on virtually any topic.
as for the rest - i agree with the naturalist - the amount of ad hominem, denigration, hyperbole, diversionary tactics and outright hostility on this subject precludes a civil dialogue respectful of differing opinions. no one is an expert on this subject since is includes such a wide diversity of science.


----------



## Lonetree

Kingfisher said:


> loke - there are many positive things that will come from modest warming.
> http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/ccr2biologicalimpacts.html
> 
> while this site is hardly impartial - they have done a great job in assimilating research from all over, compiling it and presenting it in an easily readable format. you can search on any subject in an extensive database on climate change and get easy references on virtually any topic.
> as for the rest - i agree with the naturalist - the amount of ad hominem, denigration, hyperbole, diversionary tactics and outright hostility on this subject precludes a civil dialogue respectful of differing opinions. no one is an expert on this subject since is includes such a wide diversity of science.


Yeah, on the bright side, pinyon and juniper encroachment is great, and the deer love being tied down in the summer, trying to find thermal cover in beetle killed pine forests, as they waste away.

"ad hominem, denigration, hyperbole, diversionary tactics and outright hostility"

Hey, if you can't do the substantive, do what works for you. Opinions are one thing, that's not what this is about.


----------



## Lonetree

And here is the quick, easy, scientific debunking of the link Kingfisher posted.

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/10/31/nipcc-and-climate-change-denialism/#more-12682


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Great source Kingfisher. Way to gain credibility for yourself and your sources.

The Heartland Institute is a Chicago-based free market think tank and 501(c)(3) charity that has been at the forefront of denying the scientific evidence for man-made climate change. The Heartland Institute has received at least $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998 but no longer discloses its funding sources.

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute

I dare you to read it. Follow the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$


----------



## Kingfisher

loke - here is a another reason I like this site. say someone posts a graph of the vostock ice core showing the medevial warm period and another makes an innocent statement like - its only one place on the planet... you can go to the subject index under medevial warm period http://co2science.org/subject/g/globalmwp.php and see there are like 400 peer reviewed papers from every hemisphere and continent and many countries that confirm the existence of that very warm part of our planetary history from all kinds of paleo proxy sequences... very handy


----------



## Kingfisher

Loke - say someone is concerned about frogs and other amphibians as well they should be... you can see a specific one that tests the hypothesis of whether it was warming that contributed to the bacterial infection wiping out amphibians or possibly something else... http://co2science.org/articles/V12/N4/B2.php and there are other that suggest under certain specific conditions, such as the expansion of the boreal areas, frogs will do very well...


----------



## Kingfisher

loke - perhaps you have a question on desertification... are the growing, shrinking? http://co2science.org/subject/d/desertification.php
lots of stuff to ponder... of course all peer reviewed and published in scientific journals.


----------



## Kingfisher

hey loke - you might remember the great pika scare of the early 2000's... you can get the updated research here... http://co2science.org/articles/V13/N24/C1.php seems the little fellers are doing very well and have actually expanded range... downward, not upward.


----------



## Lonetree

And the heap just gets taller. :shock: Pointing to things you don't understand does not make your case, it makes you.

Don't forget to donate to these "scientific sites".


----------



## Lonetree

Kingfisher said:


> loke - here is a another reason I like this site. say someone posts a graph of the vostock ice core showing the medevial warm period and another makes an innocent statement like - its only one place on the planet... you can go to the subject index under medevial warm period http://co2science.org/subject/g/globalmwp.php and see there are like 400 peer reviewed papers from every hemisphere and continent and many countries that confirm the existence of that very warm part of our planetary history from all kinds of paleo proxy sequences... very handy


It points to the past warming periods, as if that explains away the current one. It is only a distraction, becasue the rapid pace of the current warming is not looked at, nor is there an alternate explanation to account for the human cause of the current warming period. No one disputes past warming, and pointing to it does not abdicate our role in the current, singular, rapid warming of the globe.


----------



## Lonetree

Kingfisher said:


> Loke - say someone is concerned about frogs and other amphibians as well they should be... you can see a specific one that tests the hypothesis of whether it was warming that contributed to the bacterial infection wiping out amphibians or possibly something else... http://co2science.org/articles/V12/N4/B2.php and there are other that suggest under certain specific conditions, such as the expansion of the boreal areas, frogs will do very well...


This piece claims that there only two competing theories for the decline of amphibians, when that is not the case. In the Sierras, same part of the world as the Pika references in another piece, the herbicide Endosulfan has been implicated in the extirpation of alpine amphibians. Which is cited as one of the reasons for it being banned in 2013.

So those amphibians were not killed by climate change? So then it must not exist right? It does not change the reality of CO2 and climate change, its a distraction.


----------



## Lonetree

Kingfisher said:


> loke - perhaps you have a question on desertification... are the growing, shrinking? http://co2science.org/subject/d/desertification.php
> lots of stuff to ponder... of course all peer reviewed and published in scientific journals.


Yeah, I already covered this, P&J encroachment. We spent millions chewing them up, as they convert wildlife habitat into less desirable habitat. You can look at satellite imagery of the last 30 years of the intermountain West, and huge swaths of Africa. It is greening, and correlating with it perfectly, wildlife is declining.

Just one more bright spot in Climate change.


----------



## Lonetree

Kingfisher said:


> hey loke - you might remember the great pika scare of the early 2000's... you can get the updated research here... http://co2science.org/articles/V13/N24/C1.php seems the little fellers are doing very well and have actually expanded range... downward, not upward.


This one is complete and utter BS, I happen to know a Pika biologist. Comparing the very hot and dry Sierras of 1924 to now, is not apples to apples. And further more it is just one location. In Oregon, and Wyoming their numbers have continued to decline, and they have retreated further up the mountain.

Again just another singular location, out of context. So pikas moved down the mountain in the Sierras, so climate change is not real? OK, that proves everything.

BTW, when dealing with the Sierras, you see marked differences depending on slope, this goes for bears, deer, sheep, etc. I don't see this being taken into account.


----------



## Lonetree

Those links are mostly anecdotal at best, but certainly written to your level.

The soft sell of "Its not as bad as they say", is just another sales pitch for science denialism.

I heard using cocaine is not as bad as using crack cocaine, so that makes it good right?

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/1...sm/#more-12682


----------



## Kingfisher

so, loke, i like this site because it gives me in a nicely organized form, access to many peer reviewed articles on climate... and tho these folks have an obvious bias, i can get an overview of the substance and if i want further information, i can go to that journal and get the abstract and if more interested, i can purchase the paper for further information. note that every site is biased even real climate. these papers stand on their own and for me, provide more information on a complex topic. i try to gather info from all locations and has helped form my opinion that modest warming will be a net benefit around the world. milder winters, increased vegetation - i view that as postive. i think deer and elk will too. just 10,000 years ago, the ice cap on north america was hundreds of meters to over a kilometer thick over cities such as montreal, chicago and seattle... how did the deer and elk like that? the fact that we have recently had an ice age and the studies like the one from the U of U and the many on the medevial warm period here suggest that they will do fine under a modest warming scenario... because they have been through it before. it is also why the face experiments as so valuable - the impact that co2 may have on transpiration rates is critical to the hydrology of the west. if, as suggested by the face experiment results - conifers are up to 75% more water efficient - that has huge implications on water resources. most precipitation falling on western watersheds is consumed by evapotranspiration and never makes it to a stream. think what if those losses were cut by... 25 to 75% - that could mean more water instead of less. and if we managed our forests for snow and runoff via the experimental designs from the frazier forest experiments, where the fools creek research showed cutting conifers increased streamflow up to 40% for 20+ years - the combination of these two could have significant implications for water management. also, dont be dismissive of research findings that contradict your ideas of how things work... science is the business of refining knowledge and climate science is very new and there are a lot of kinks that need work


----------



## utahgolf

well it's suppose to be in the 50's again next week and I want to ice fish dang it!!!! This truly has been the warmest december! Thanks a lot Obama!


----------



## Loke

Lonetree, to deny the role of our Creator in the advancement of knowledge and the technologies that we have, while enjoying the benefits they provide, in in my mind the pinnacle of hypocrisy. 

Mule, I understand the limits that science has. It provides many things that our ancestors didn't have. I appreciate medical science for its ability to prolong life while a body can heal itself. I also appreciate the ability that medical science has to prolong the suffering of that same individual. Science does not have all of the answers. On more than one occasion they have not been able to explain why I am still alive.
Does that make me a denier?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Loke said:


> Lonetree, to deny the role of our Creator in the advancement of knowledge and the technologies that we have, while enjoying the benefits they provide, in in my mind the pinnacle of hypocrisy.
> 
> Mule, I understand the limits that science has. It provides many things that our ancestors didn't have. I appreciate medical science for its ability to prolong life while a body can heal itself. I also appreciate the ability that medical science has to prolong the suffering of that same individual. Science does not have all of the answers. On more than one occasion they have not been able to explain why I am still alive.
> Does that make me a denier?


I come from a background of nuclear engineering. I fully understand that science doesn't have all of the answers. That is indeed why we have scientist to continually try to find answers. All of the questions will never be answered. It is not possible.

As far as religion goes.......I am a believer. The two coexist in my world. Science has in fact brought me closer to God and has solidified my belief in Him. Albert Einstein once said "When the solution is simple, God is answering".

Sometimes that simple solution is the fact that something is so complex it can not and never will be answered by the likes of mankind. One of those complexities is the actual existence of God.

If you can prove that He exist you are worth more than anybody that ever walked the face of the earth. Science is not the only thing that fails to explain many things. Science can not prove that God does not exist but religion can not prove that He does. A person either believes or they do not believe.

I would be very interested to see you attempt to prove to any of us the role that our Creator has played in science. Like you said it is *in your mind*. You believe. Good luck proving any of it.


----------



## Loke

I can prove it to me. Only you can prove it to you. The process is to ask Him.


----------



## PBH

Albert Einstein said:


> When the solution is simple, God is answering


You guys don't know how easy it is to find out all of these questions you keep asking. It's as easy as picking up the phone.

855-FOR-TRUTH

You're welcome!


----------



## Dunkem

PBH said:


> You guys don't know how easy it is to find out all of these questions you keep asking. It's as easy as picking up the phone.
> 
> 855-FOR-TRUTH
> 
> You're welcome!


You know Ive read that book many times,and have never seen that phone number in there,guess I wasnt paying attention:mrgreen:


----------



## Lonetree

:rotfl:-_O-

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
 Donald Rumsfeld 

And then we have unknown knowns, these are things we know but would like to conveniently act like we don't know.


----------



## BDawg

Loke said:


> I'm still at a loss to see how this can determine the veracity of a theory. If the theory presented is outside the accepted norm of the day, the theorist will be, at the least, ridiculed. In times past the persecution could be a bit more harsh. Galileo was charged with heresy for suggesting that the Earth orbited the Sun, and was therefor not the center of the galaxy. Leonardo DaVinci was forced to keep most of his writings in code for fear of prosecution. We are all familiar with what happened to a 13 year old kid from upstate New York. The list goes on and on.


Loke, peer review doesn't "determine the veracity of a theory". It's just a first-cut quality control measure, taken by people who are in the best position to even understand what the argument is. If it passes peer review, then at least a few experts thought it wasn't too idiotic to print.

If you don't want to believe the consensus of experts, which you wisely point out isn't infallible, then there is an alternative. You can do the work to obtain an informed opinion yourself. You have not done that.



> To blame climate change on CO2 alone, and discount every other possibility is closed minded and will limit any chance to understand the root cause. Or even if there is a root cause.


Since the IPCC Reports have large sections on different climate drivers, both natural and man-made, and what has been done to try to figure out what the most important factors are at the moment, it's obvious that you haven't read them. Instead, you are getting your information from people who are either ignorant or dishonest. So tell us, where did you get this information?



> I'm still trying to understand why "global warming" has to be a bad thing. Maybe it will bring about changes that will make our planet a much nicer place. Mass extinctions just might make room in our environment for something even better than what we have. There are some organisms we could certainly live without. The viruses that cause ebola, influenza, aids, and bacteria that cause the plague, strep, staph, and joe biden come to mind. Not every life form is beneficial our survival.


Once again, the IPCC reports have comprehensive summaries of research on what likely effects will be. And guess what? Not all of them are bad. It's just that after a little while the negative effects look like they will likely far outweigh the positives.



> No, my theories do not mesh well with the accepted scientific norm. Can I prove them? No. I do not proclaim them to be the absolute truth. I simply present them as possibilities. And not the only ones.


Science operates under the assumption that there is _no such thing_ as "absolute truth" that can be captured by humans in a scientific theory. But that does not mean that some theories don't have much more supporting evidence than others. There is such a thing as a good argument and a bad argument. Just pulling a "theory" out of you-know-where, without surveying the available evidence, and then patting yourself on the back for being so open-minded, does not constitute a good argument.

Hugh Nibley had a good way of putting it.



> Is an open mind, then, a negative thing-an empty mind? It is, unless it is a searching mind. An oyster has few prejudices-in the field of astronomy it has, we may safely say, absolutely none. Are we then to congratulate the oyster for its open-mindedness? A first-rate and very broad-minded scientist, J.B.S. Haldane, defines prejudice as "an opinion held without examining the evidence." Prejudice does not consist in having made up one's mind-in defending an opinion with fervor and determination-as too many liberals seem to think; it consists in forming an opinion before all the evidence has been considered. This means that freedom from prejudice whether in the field of science or any other field requires a tremendous lot of work-one cannot be unprejudiced without constant and laborious study of evidence; the open mind must be a searching mind. The person who claims allegiance to science in his thinking or who is an advocate of the open mind has let himself in for endless toil and trouble. [Hugh Nibley, "The Prophets and the Open Mind," in The World and the Prophets (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1987,) pp. 128-129.]


----------



## bowgy

I kept up with this for the first few pages and will admit that I haven't read all 16 pages, but it has been interesting.

So for those of you better versed on this subject maybe you could clarify something.

We have volcanoes going off all the time and from time to time a large one will blow its top, I remember reading some of the science writings that came out when Mt St Helen blew and some said that this one instance put more carbon emissions into the atmosphere than all mankind had up to that date.

If this is true I think Mother Nature or God has more control than man does.


----------



## redleg

cave men driving SUVs caused the ice age to end.
and to beleave in man-made global warming, pretend the planet hasn't been getting cooler for the last 10 years.


----------



## wyogoob

bowgy said:


> I kept up with this for the firs few pages and will admit that I haven't read all 16 pages, but it has been interesting.
> 
> So for those of you more well versed on this subject maybe you could clarify something.
> 
> We have volcanos going off all the time and from time to time a large one will blow its top, I remember reading some of the science writings that came out when Mt St Helen blew and some said that this one instance put more carbon emissions into the atmosphere than all mankind had up to that date.
> 
> If this is true I think mother nature or God has more control than man does.


I'm thinking very soon God will grow weary of all the spelling and punctuation errors and flip the switch.

.


----------



## massmanute

bowgy said:


> We have volcanos going off all the time and from time to time a large one will blow its top, I remember reading some of the science writings that came out when Mt St Helen blew and some said that this one instance put more carbon emissions into the atmosphere than all mankind had up to that date.
> 
> If this is true I think mother nature or God has more control than man does.


It's not true. There is a quote from the Scientific American website dealing with this topic. The article references the US Geological Survey. Here is the quote.

_"According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world's volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today's human endeavors."_

Here is the link.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/


----------



## bowgy

wyogoob said:


> I'm thinking very soon God will grow weary of all the spelling and punctuation errors and flip the switch.
> 
> .


Thanks goob , that is what I get for posting when I am too tired and lazy to proof read before posting.:shock:

But maybe, just maybe the Southern Utah language is Gods true lingo


----------



## wyogoob

bowgy said:


> Thanks goob , that is what I get for posting when I am too tired and lazy to proof read before posting.:shock:
> 
> But maybe, just maybe the Southern Utah language is Gods true lingo


 uh.....I wasn't talking about you.

God's true lingo is the sound of wind through a quaking aspen, a riffle in a stream, an April robin singing her song.

.


----------



## Springville Shooter

^^^^^or the crackling sound of Buffalo balls sizzling in the frying pan!^^^^^


----------



## bowgy

wyogoob said:


> uh.....I wasn't talking about you.
> 
> God's true lingo is the sound of wind through a quaking aspen, a riffle in a stream, an April robin singing her song.
> 
> .


Ohh:-o I thought it was since my post was the one you had in quotes and it did have a couple of misspelled words and poor sentence structure.

And make that a bow in hand at 10,000 feet in southern Utah in September with the bull elk screaming.8)


----------



## BPturkeys

Loke said:


> Lonetree, you just answered your own question. It is a _natural_ cycle. There may not be a measurable cause. It could be that the Earth has moved fractionally closer to the Sun. Or the Sun is fractionally hotter, or the Earth's rotation has slowed, or sped up. It could be the fault of pine beetles killing all of the forests, and the trees are no longer converting the CO2 in the atmosphere to O2. It could be there are too many elk, moose, and deer flatulating in the forest, thus increasing other more potent greenhouse gasses. Just because some one was able to quantify an increase in CO2 emissions that happened to coincide with a minuscule increase in global temperatures, does not automatically mean that is the sole cause. And even if it is the cause, is a warmer planet necessarily a bad thing? We still do not know how anything will be affected by a warmer climate. It is pure assumption that world wide catastrophe will ensue. Yes, people will need to adapt. Some will need to move away from the present coastal areas. They can move to the new coastal areas. Yes, some people will die if they do not adapt. That is what we do to survive.


Loke is absolutely correct here. Who and why should we give a dam*. 
The way I look at it, just give me a few more turkey hunts and I'll be out of here. The rest of you can worry about your own **** problems.


----------



## Dunkem

You know someday we are all going to die,there is no stopping it.Maybe old age,heart attack,liver failure,some gals husband,mad xwife,to many brain cells shot to heck in the 60s,somehow,someway,someday:ripersonally I hate the cold and warm sounds good to me.


----------



## Clarq

BPturkeys said:


> The way I look at it, just give me a few more turkey hunts and I'll be out of here. The rest of you can worry about your own **** problems.


The problems we didn't even cause...


----------



## redleg

Lonetree said:


> Time and newswek are news sources, that may have been reporting on the science of the time.
> 
> CO2 traps the suns heat in our atmosphere, causing it to get hotter. ie. the green house effect. Sure solar flares could make this worse, but it is not the root of the problem.
> .[/QUOTE
> 
> This poplar fantacy is based on "computer models" which were designed to show that human industry must be halted. these models have never been authenticated using the scientific method.
> The same "scientists" "demonstrated" in the 1970s how American Industry was going to freeze the world. But the planet started on a warning cycle so they reversed their story and alarmed people about global warning.
> the results change but the cause is always American industry.


----------



## massmanute

redleg said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time and newswek are news sources, that may have been reporting on the science of the time.
> 
> CO2 traps the suns heat in our atmosphere, causing it to get hotter. ie. the green house effect. Sure solar flares could make this worse, but it is not the root of the problem.
> .[/QUOTE
> 
> This poplar fantacy is based on "computer models" which were designed to show that human industry must be halted. these models have never been authenticated using the scientific method.
> The same "scientists" "demonstrated" in the 1970s how American Industry was going to freeze the world. But the planet started on a warning cycle so they reversed their story and alarmed people about global warning.
> the results change but the cause is always American industry.
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa! You are making some pretty bold and unsubstantiated claims here. How about if you back them up by citing some legitimate and credible references? (Hint: radio talk show hosts are neither legitimate nor credible when it comes to science.)
Click to expand...


----------



## massmanute

redleg,

Let's do a quick, one-question pop quiz on science that is highly relevant to the issue you are commenting on.

What is an absorption coefficient?

No cheating now. Just use your own knowledge to answer the question. After you answer it then you could look up the answer.


----------



## Kwalk3

redleg said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time and newswek are news sources, that may have been reporting on the science of the time.
> 
> CO2 traps the suns heat in our atmosphere, causing it to get hotter. ie. the green house effect. Sure solar flares could make this worse, but it is not the root of the problem.
> .[/QUOTE
> 
> This poplar fantacy is based on "computer models" which were designed to show that human industry must be halted. these models have never been authenticated using the scientific method.
> The same "scientists" "demonstrated" in the 1970s how American Industry was going to freeze the world. But the planet started on a warning cycle so they reversed their story and alarmed people about global warning.
> the results change but the cause is always American industry.
> 
> 
> 
> No one is talking about halting American industry. However, there are certainly ways that we can be better stewards of the land and continue to thrive industrially as a nation. We all just need to be a little more cognizant of the effects that our actions can have and do our best to remedy them where possible.
Click to expand...


----------

