Human Related Global Warming

[Boomstick]

Originally posted by HippieSmell
An important thing to remember about burning trees is that if you let the trees grow back, it's essentially carbon neutral.
......... Oil, on the other hand, is much different because it doesn't renew nearly as fast as plants.

Hippiesmell - you could take this one step further and say that Mother Nature (God / Allah / Buddha or whom ever...) designed underground sequestion (oil wells) to hold these excess Carbon deposits to allow her (him) to slowly work through them so as not to screw up the atmosphere and humans using them up are screwing up this plan - but then, if i was to say this, i may be hung.......

Love the Avatar!

[Leilani57]

Consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic is rare in science.

~Donald Kennedy, editor in chief, Science Magazine (speaking of global warming being caused by human influence)

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by Boomstick
Hippiesmell - you could take this one step further and say that Mother Nature (God / Allah / Buddha or whom ever...) designed underground sequestion (oil wells) to hold these excess Carbon deposits to allow her (him) to slowly work through them so as not to screw up the atmosphere and humans using them up are screwing up this plan - but then, if i was to say this, i may be hung.......

Love the Avatar!

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow you, although I am pretty tired right now.

[Leilani57]

Originally posted by HippieSmell
Sorry, I'm not sure I follow you, although I am pretty tired right now.

Carbon sequestration is the term describing processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Currently, to help mitigate global warming, a variety of means of artificially capturing and storing carbon (while releasing oxygen) — as well as of enhancing natural sequestration processes — are being explored.

What Boomstick is saying is that mother nature designed the oil sinks as a way to store the carbon and keep the planet in a state friendly for life. And now that humans have tapped into that storage and released the carbon (turning it into CO2), we have messed with the ultimate plan.

I must say Boomstick, I can tell you are an engineer!

[BCreefmaker]

lol, i know exactly what your all taking about. thats why i started this post in the first place I'm not really sure what to think. however, even after all these posts i haven't really heard anything really shocking, or something i haven't heard before. it seems to me that this is really more about rallying support of certain views of our worlds future then anything climate oriented, but that aside. I'm still partially leaning toward the side the sun is the cause of most of global warming, I'm not saying that were not making it worse, i'm sure we are by releasing "toxins" like co2 that took 1000's of years to become package into hydrocarbons. but isn't it true that we are only a tiny percent of the earths annual co2 production? and what about this i hear about the sun being in a period of high solar activity? is this just coincidence? Solar Output
i just really want to know whats going on for real, you know?. but no matter what the answer is, something tells me just limiting co2 inst enough. i think control over what happens to our solar input is whats really needed like sk8r said earlier. clean, efficient, climate preserving, power generating stations that transfer solar input into something other then direct heat. but to make a impact great enough to have an effect on our climate would take a level of global cooperation i doubt is possible, and I'm not even a pessimist.

[scottras]

I hope this website is good reading for you. If not I have others.

http://www.realclimate.org/

The story on the front page is a good start.

Also if you would like a few websites that go through the myths in "The Great Global Warming Swindle", I am happy to help out.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by Leilani57
Carbon sequestration is the term describing processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Currently, to help mitigate global warming, a variety of means of artificially capturing and storing carbon (while releasing oxygen) — as well as of enhancing natural sequestration processes — are being explored.

What Boomstick is saying is that mother nature designed the oil sinks as a way to store the carbon and keep the planet in a state friendly for life. And now that humans have tapped into that storage and released the carbon (turning it into CO2), we have messed with the ultimate plan.

I must say Boomstick, I can tell you are an engineer!

I understand what sequestration is, I just wasn't sure how he was trying to link a divinely created oil well with burning trees. Anyway, it doesn't matter, I'll chalk it up to me being slower than usual.

Originally posted by BCreefmaker
but isn't it true that we are only a tiny percent of the earths annual co2 production?

That's true, but it's annual, so it builds up. Until recently, the CO2 that nature would create would be reabsorbed, so atmospheric levels stayed relatively constant. Now, a lot of that little annual increase that we create stays in the atmosphere.

Originally posted by BCreefmaker
and what about this i hear about the sun being in a period of high solar activity? is this just coincidence? Solar Output

The article itself says that the effect of solar output is being exacerbated by emissions. Go to the link scottras posted, or click my little red house. The first article (today at least) talks about solar influence.

[BCreefmaker]

That's true, but it's annual, so it builds up. Until recently, the CO2 that nature would create would be reabsorbed, so atmospheric levels stayed relatively constant. Now, a lot of that little annual increase that we create stays in the atmosphere.

Isn't the production from volcanoes, decaying matter, other natural natural sources, and co2 producing bacteria also an annual production?

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by BCreefmaker
Isn't the production from volcanoes, decaying matter, other natural natural sources, and co2 producing bacteria also an annual production?

Yes, but the planet's ecosystem has balanced itself to those additions. Those natural additions are sunk back into plant matter, oceans, etc, so that the net increase in our atmosphere is close to zero. Our additions have created an imbalance that the ecosystem can not fully negotiate, hence the increase in atmospheric CO2.

[Sk8r]

THere is research, absolutely, and I apologize to anyone in this thread who's busting his tail on research: kudos, and you're a hero. But it's not where the public emphasis is going, and for that reason we're not focusing the amount of attention on research that I think ought to happen---not the attention, not the budget, and not the [and here's the heart of my point] not the congress critter willpower it takes to say, let's get moving on this. We need more money on research, more grants, and more focus, much as there is going on already: I don't think it's enough.

That said---there's not going to be a miracle direction overnight: there are going to be a lot of projects that don't pan out. If this were easy, we'd have done it. I remain an optimist we will do it: I just think it's useful to quit dithering between 'we did it' and 'it's the sun', accept it's happening, and figure a 'what can we do now?' I'm not willing to write us off, and I'm not for scaring people worldwide into a state of denial or blame game. I think we can do something.

[Boomstick]

Originally posted by BCreefmaker
Isn't the production from volcanoes, decaying matter, other natural natural sources, and co2 producing bacteria also an annual production?

Ah this is true, but in nature a tree keeps growing (annually as it were), or a new one germinates and starts sucking up all that CO2 you mentioned above to keep the cycle - an algael blume or two also does its part them some happy whale chomps down on it, dies and heads to the bottom of the ocean where it turns into oil of sorts and keeps the carbon out of the atmosphere - yep nature had a great way of keeping things in check until we came along and started driving Hummers.....

Hippiesmells point is valid also, this is not caused by Human actions in the last couple of years - that is only when we really started paying attention to it, it started big time back in the industrial revolution era when they cut down all the trees in England/Europe to fuel fires and boilers and the use of coal became main stream - and that started in the late 1700's. So not only have we increased the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere, but we have also reduced the planets ability to remove it - 90,000 to 100,000 acres of rain forest around the world is lost every day due to human activities.

[imsocool5609]

It isn't real anyone who belives in global warmin is a nub

[Sk8r]

There's the sunspot cycle. We haven't had adequate instruments long enough to know if the 500 year cycle is real. Other people are claiming a 200 year cycle. I've observed, through reviewing ancient documents and historical records, that an event happens bigtime every 500 years plus or minus 50 years---it's fudgeable, in other words, not due to volcanic activity, never correlated with that, but it's been true since about 4000 bc, which is about as long as we've had reliable written records of nomadic movement. Going back 13000 years you're reliant on stones-and-bones archaeology and on the oral history of indigenous peoples, plus the geological record of events related to the last ice melt. Post 300 BC we have some fairly complete written histories, including weather records, and the British Navy turns out to have given us some really invaluable stuff by taking observations every few hours all over the globe in the days of the wooden ships. So we have a lot of sources, not all of which jibe well with each other, but I still, after reading all of it, tend to the 500 year cycle. The year 2000 did produce a bit of Event on and either side of it, and the Tarim basin [Asia] did produce the predicted dry spell, etc.; but there's a lot of observation of minutiae yet to go before we have a real picture. If it is a 500 year oscillation it should calm down in the next 25 to 50 years, but it's never been this bad before, not in the last 4000 years, that we know about: so it argues that it's not going to behave like the other 500 year oscillations, and that it will persist. Next question, are we now talking about events, be they solar or environmental, leading to a glaciation, of which 13000 years was the endpoint, the point of meltdown, not the beginning. So we can't count the 13000 years except as phase one of what we have been undergoing for that 13000 years, leading to pretty close to a max heat-up. Which leads to a max cooldown. Since we weren't in great abundance in 13000, there is another cycle operating, but the point remains that we haven't helped outstandingly.

[BeanAnimal]

Originally posted by Leilani57
Fact: 2006 is the warmest year on record.
Fact: 2005 is the second warmest year on record.
Fact: 2007 is already well on it's way to beating 2006 for the record.

Fact: 12 hottest years on record have occured within the last 16 years.

This past winter, european ski resorts faced the warmest winter in 1300 years-- some shut down and had to cancel ski tournaments. Some filed for bankruptcy. Insurance companies are refusing to cover ski resorts below a certain altitude because of global warming.

Daffodils and cherry trees were blooming throughout the northeastern United States on New Year's Day this year.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations on Earth continue to skyrocket (see graph, below). In fact, we have managed to get them higher than they have ever been in the past 450,000 years. These concentrations have proven to be a linear relationship with temperature over hundreds of thousands of years. This is fact, check the science.




AND THIS.... this graph is Population and Global Warming (CO2 concentration and mean global temperature verses log-population) CO2 concentration (circles) and mean global temperature (squares) plotted relative to their absolute scales, ppm on the left and oC on the right, respectively. Vertical dashed line at 1995.




My degree is in biology, I am a scientist and the scientists of the world have agreed: global warming is caused by humans.

The use of solar energy has not been opened up because the oil industry does not own the sun. ~ Ralph Nader

Sorry man... but this is the exact problem that this thread talks about. Your entire post is full of half truths and cherry picked numbers. The scientists of the world? Good grief.

Now for the part that strikes me as funny. You appear to be very motivated to prove to folks that we are wrecking the environment. But the catch is that you drive a race car Kind of strikes me as convenient when the rest of us are supposed to be looking that the "inconvenient truth"

[Leilani57]

Originally posted by BeanAnimal
Now for the part that strikes me as funny. You appear to be very motivated to prove to folks that we are wrecking the environment. But the catch is that you drive a race car Kind of strikes me as convenient when the rest of us are supposed to be looking that the "inconvenient truth"

I offset my carbon footprint, you can read my statement here:

http://leilanimunter.com/change.htm

Check out CoolEarth.org where you can be active in protecting the rainforest. My brother-in-law (Bob Weir from the Grateful Dead) has played concerts where all the proceeds went to Rainforest Action Network (RAN) which raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect rainforest. I care deeply about the Earth and conserving the biodiversity of the Earth- I volunteered for three years at a Wildlife Rehabilitaion center. I also use my ability to speak out to people to educate them, I have had almost 2 million unique visitors to my website, and I have an Earth Watch section dedicated to conservation and clean energy education.

The IndyCar series uses ethanol and I am a very vocal and public supporter of NASCAR making the switch. And cellulostic ethanol plants are coming soon...

[BeanAnimal]

Originally posted by HippieSmell
Yes, but the planet's ecosystem has balanced itself to those additions. Those natural additions are sunk back into plant matter, oceans, etc, so that the net increase in our atmosphere is close to zero. Our additions have created an imbalance that the ecosystem can not fully negotiate, hence the increase in atmospheric CO2.

Sorry man... but the earth's ecosystem does not "balance" to anything. It has evolved from day one. Organisms compete and outcompete each other daily. The climate changes and creatures adapt or die. This evolution has played out since the first amino acids combined to form cyanobacteria.

What gets so old about this is that somehow all of the creatures and phenomenon on the planet are to be viewed as "beautiful" and "natural" no matter how violent or life changing they are. Yet in the same breath, we as humans, are not counted as part of that beauty or natural part of the planet and instead we are to be viewed as evil and unnatural. The deluded romantic notions about nature and mans place in it are the source of half of this nonsense.

Sk8r has it right for the most part, as do a large portion of the scientists that do not get any credit or airtime.

The "global warming" debate has turned into a way for governments and groups to control people. The facts are long lost and the subject is quickly turning into a dangerous religion with millions of zealots pushing it forward with little or no comprehension of the ramifications or long term effects that the global warming religion will have on humanity.

Billsreef: you said The climate scientists have never said we're causing global warming, only that our increasing greenhouse gas emissions will cause the natural warming cycles to amplify Some may be saying that, but they are lost in the sea of the uninformed masses that preach that MAN is the cause.

[BeanAnimal]

Originally posted by Leilani57
I offset my carbon footprint, you can read here:

http://leilanimunter.com/change.htm

The IndyCar series uses ethanol and I am a very vocal and public supporter of NASCAR making the switch. And cellulostic ethanol plants are coming soon...

Good grief. I don't even know where to begin. Offsets? Ethanol?

I planted 50,000 trees this spring (honestly). All hardwood. How many years am I covered for? Ohh wait, Al Gore did not get the money, it does not count.

Carbon offsets are a complete scam man.

[Leilani57]

Originally posted by BeanAnimal
Good grief. I don't even know where to begin. Offsets? Ethanol?

I planted 50,000 trees this spring (honestly). All hardwood. How many years am I covered for? Ohh wait, Al Gore did not get the money, it does not count.

I think that's wonderful. Where did I ever say Al Gore had to get the money?

Originally posted by BeanAnimal

Carbon offsets are a complete scam man.

I'm actually a woman.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by BeanAnimal
Sorry man... but the earth's ecosystem does not "balance" to anything. It has evolved from day one. Organisms compete and outcompete each other daily. The climate changes and creatures adapt or die. This evolution has played out since the first amino acids combined to form cyanobacteria.

Wrong. Nature balances itself quite well when conditions are stable.

Originally posted by BeanAnimal
What gets so old about this is that somehow all of the creatures and phenomenon on the planet are to be viewed as "beautiful" and "natural" no matter how violent or life changing they are. Yet in the same breath, we as humans, are not counted as part of that beauty or natural part of the planet and instead we are to be viewed as evil and unnatural. The deluded romantic notions about nature and mans place in it are the source of half of this nonsense.

I think humans are beautiful, we're just not using our brains to their full potential.

Originally posted by BeanAnimal
Sk8r has it right for the most part, as do a large portion of the scientists that do not get any credit or airtime.

The "global warming" debate has turned into a way for governments and groups to control people. The facts are long lost and the subject is quickly turning into a dangerous religion with millions of zealots pushing it forward with little or no comprehension of the ramifications or long term effects that the global warming religion will have on humanity.

Billsreef: you said The climate scientists have never said we're causing global warming, only that our increasing greenhouse gas emissions will cause the natural warming cycles to amplify Some may be saying that, but they are lost in the sea of the uninformed masses that preach that MAN is the cause.

If you think GW is a global conspiracy, I can't help you. And, Bill is right, you just fail to understand why that doesn't change the severity of the problem.

[BeanAnimal]

Hippie, I suggest a cliff notes review of planetary evolution. The conditions on planet earth have never been stable. The romantic view is that THIS current set of conditions is the RIGHT set of conditions that we must strive to lock in place. It is a shallow understanding of the planet, let alone the universe. You view the entire universe through your romantic and jaded vision of what YOU think is right. Sadly that view does not coincide with science or history. It only matches a small snapshot that supports your position.

Bluntly, I have read many of your posts regarding this subject and firmly beleive that you know very little about the subject and instead push your agenda with emotion and hearsay. I don't think you are a bad person, rather I think you mean well. Meaning well and being correct are vastly different things.

Global Warming is not a conspiracy, it is a misguided movement that has turned into a religion. It is a reality that has been part of the Earth's evolution and will be with or without man's presence.

Thanks hippie, but I do not need your help. The kind of help you offer is exactly what is fueling the misinformation and allowing the dishonest to harness this topic and propel it into a global governance of humanity.

Did the dinosaurs prepare correctly for the ELE that removed them from the face of the planet? What was the severity of the problem? What about the shifting of the continents and the extinction of species that has occurred because of it?

What do we say about species that extinct and/or outcompete other species? What about species that take advantage of others species? What about species that kill others out of malice? It has happened since life was sparked.

Why not extinc us all and let the earth be at peace? Would that give you the conditions you desire? Should we just wipe out man or should it be all creatures?

I do not fail to understand (as you stated in your response). The sinking feeling that overcomes me is that well meaning folks such as yourself are mired in the minutia and politics and fail to see the big picture. It is you who does not understand. Your stuck with some romatic notion that mother nature is beautiful and man is evil and needs to change.

Look at this thread: We have a race car driver that wholly believes that carbon emissions are killing the planet but in the same breath excuses their own pollution by providing offsets. It is comical and just too convenient.. The truly moral and honest thing for that person to do (If they honestly believe what they preach) would be to partake in the offsets but not the damaging activity. That however is not convenient.

Look at your statements over time (here at RC) on this subject, you own a reef and use electricity to run that reef. You own a computer and other technology that YOU justify using. Yet you are a very outspoken person on the subject of carbon emissions and mans impact on the planet. Nothing like having the cake and eating too. "That is a good idea, but not in my backyard" permeates humanity. It gets harder and harder to swallow the nonsense when you look at the real BIG PICTURE.

The GW movement is chock full of such well meaning but misguided or hypocritical people. Each has their own excuses: Spreading the word, buying offsets, privilege, etc.

I mean I think murder is bad, so I limit myself to a few people a year. You guys that do a few a month... well we need to pass laws and taxes to stop it! I buy offsets to help the familes of those I hurt... what do you do?

Not a far leap at all. The logic is exactly the same. You may want to argue morality... but don't step into too deep because what youy advocate to fix the GW problem has huge ramifications to humanity as well.

Hell eco-terrorism is on the rise and fueled by the same logic. It too (eco-terrorism) wil lbecome epedimic soon.

Several of the posts in this thread fully illustrate the real problem. The man made GW movement is being pushed by misinformation and a lack of understanding by people who value opinion and feelings more than facts and science. The same logic (lack of) that forms the basis of liberal thinking is the vehicle that this phenomenon is riding. Those at the wheel are blindly speeding forward with little regard to reality or the ramifications of their proposed fixes and at the same time doing everything that they preach others should not do.

Mankind is doomed, but climate change is not what is going to kill us... group think will.

[BeanAnimal]

Originally posted by Leilani57
Consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic is rare in science.

~Donald Kennedy, editor in chief, Science Magazine (speaking of global warming being caused by human influence)

Cant argue with that.. I mean after all the guy IS the editor of a magazine. This is the exact nonsense that is driving this whole thing. He speaks of science but uses an utterly non scientific statement based on non scientific evidence to support his theory. startlingly convenient and ignorant.

Sadly, this moronic statement from a seemingly scientific source will be used to author more "evidence" and "scientific" fact to further the point of view. If the man said that the earth were flat and many sailors agreed, would it be true? Would it be worthy of basing even more assertions and science on?

We left the science long behind and are now witnessing the birth of a religion that is furthered by fanatics, misinformation and fear. One that has no point of reference other than skewed fact and the drivel such as that from the "scientific source" cited above.

Any scientist or person who disagrees is labeled as a non believer who needs help. Any person who shows evidence to the contrary is slandered or silenced.


Anywa... I am outa here.

Sk8r: Thanks for taking the scientific approach in trying to shed some lite on this topic. I would only hope that more people would spend the time to understand a fraction of what you said. The world would be a much better place. All of this collective energy could be used for good, not for redistribution of wealth and the supression of certain peoples and culctures.

[scottras]

Damn there are some angry people around here.

Carbon offsets can work to some extent. As long as they are monitored.

Many of the people that challenge AGW are not getting much air time anymore, this is because there science is found wanting when looked at to any great length.

I would gladly read more debate on AGW if someone can show me a scientist that has not been discredited some way. I really do maen this, can someone refer me to anyone?

All that I have read so far is pretty convincing. I am deeply concerened about AGW.

Anyone who uses "the world is always changing" argument should really do some more research.

I am here to learn, if anyone has anything to back their agrument up with real science then please help me out. If anyone has only propaganda to back their argument up, then I am happy to help you out.

Even Exxon are starting to quiten down on the topic.

[hankthetank]

There seems to be a pervasive attitude in this discussion that if something is the result of human activity that it is unnatural.This is a ridiculous idea.We as humans act according to our natures.As does every other living thing on this planet.It is our nature to act to achieve that which we perceive to be in our best interests.I don't feel there is anything wrong with this,although many on the other side apparently do.Why is it OK for other species to act according to their nature but when humans do it it is condemned as unnatural?Now I know that perceptions of what is in our best interests vary widely,and that makes for some very rousing debates.But to condemn human activity as unnatural simply for being human activity leaves no room for any meaningful debate.If you disagree with my views that is fine.After all I disagree with yours!But this continous babble about how man is the fount of all evil and is just destroying this perfect little world is just disgusting.The world is constantly changing.It always has.It always will.Until it ends.Many forces cause this change.We are just one of them.As natural as all the rest.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by hankthetank
There seems to be a pervasive attitude in this discussion that if something is the result of human activity that it is unnatural.This is a ridiculous idea.

Fine, how about we start calling certain human activities stupid, instead of unnatural. Better?

[scottras]

What worries me is that some people do not grasp that the changes that AGW will cause will be catastrophic. This isn't just a few species that were going to die anyway. We are talking about the breakdown of ecosystems, and the loss of millions of lives.