Anti-Global Warming Propaganda Goes Here

The definitions of pollution:

1) To make unfit for or harmful to living things, especially by the addition of waste matter. See synonyms at contaminate.

2) To make less suitable for an activity, especially by the introduction of unwanted factors: The stadium lights polluted the sky around the observatory.

3) To render impure or morally harmful; corrupt.

4) To make ceremonially impure; profane: “Churches and altars were polluted by atrocious murders” (Edward Gibbon).

The first definition is obviously the one of interest and the one that applies to CO2.

An example of how increased atmospheric CO2 does indeed fit the definition of pollution is in the process of ocean acidification. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing ocean acidification (this has been directly measured) and will continue to cause further acidification as CO2 continues to rise. Ocean acidification has been shown to reduce calcification in a variety of marine organisms. This reduces the suitability of the environment for those organisms as well as the other organisms that depend on the calcifiers, either directly or indirectly. An example would be reduced rates of reef-building by corals which ultimately causes the loss of habitat for reef organisms.

CO2 is is, without any doubt, a pollutant by definition. As is true with any pollutant, negative consequences are directly related to dose. A miniscule of aluminum is a necessary micronutrient while at high levels it is quite harmful and eventually becomes toxic. CO2 acts in the same way. At low levels it is a necessary nutrient, but at high levels it has harmful effects on living things. How could we NOT conclude that high levels of CO2 are indeed pollution?

Chris

 

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

i don't know anything about all this, but i thought to hand over another related article and let y'all bicker amongst yourselves some more.

 

As an engineer, I try not to get my scientific information from business journals.

 

^That's good. You should be equally skeptical with agenda-driven pseudoscientists who to are well-funded to come to desired conclusions.

 

yes, especially when it's the UN pushing for it. those people are not exactly in possesion of having an objective stance about this. last time i checked scientific research is supposed to be done in an unbiased manner.

 

and everyone knows that making money and scientific inquiry are mutually exclusive in every possible situation.

 

Not everyone agrees w/ the theory. I found an article (from a scholarly journal) that contradicts this claim. The name is "Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature" by Mike Lockwood1, 2, * & Claus Fröhlich3

Abstract: There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

The Earth's surface air temperature (figure 1e) does not respond to the solar cycle. Even a large amplitude modulation would be heavily damped in the global mean temperature record by the long thermal time constants associated with parts of the climate system, in particular the oceans (Wigley & Raper 1990). However, solar variations on time scales greater than a decade will not be smoothed to such an extent and if, via any of the proposed mechanisms discussed above, they give a sufficiently large amplitude modulation of the Earth's radiation budget, then they would leave a signature in the Earth's surface temperature record.


Conclusion: There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection-attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.

Basically, the evidence shows that these warming cycles are not correlated to the solar cycles as the first article claims.

If you want to know what the latest research is showing, go to www.webofknowledge.com and then click access ISI web of knowledge. If you go to data bases, choose web of science & you won't search unrelated data bases. If you want up-to-date medical information, choose medline. I really like this site b/c you can find the articles that are being summarized in journals (such as the one on the previous page). I will warn you that the language is very scientific and somewhat unaccessible. This is why we have business journals summarizing scholarly journals.

PS. If you want to read more about the article, enter the title into the web of knowledge search and it should come up.

Peace and love

 

Of course Earth's climate correlates well with variations is solar activity in the preindustrial and early industrial period. I don't know why anyone would ever find that surprising. It is within the last 30 years, when solar activity has been roughly stable (slight decrease in recent years) and we've had significant warming here on Earth that the two have not correlated. The trend line for the sun has been flat while the trend line for Earth's mean temperature is up (0.2 C per decade). We should certainly be studying the sun very carefully, but that doesn't change the fact that the solar signal and the climate signal diverged sharply starting 30 years ago.

Chris

 

Also, I found the study by Tapping that the article sites.

Here is the link: http://bert.lib.indiana.edu:2161/content/75h64417t6936077/fulltext.pdf

Read the research for yourself rather than be told what the research says. You may realize that what is presented as fact is rather a model, one of many. All of these models are rather simplistic and only focus on one issue (such as solar fluctuations). In the case of climate change, there are more than one factors involved and belief that one model can explain the entire phenomenon is rather naive.

Peace and love

 

totally don't care about global warming. i've yet to see scientists agree on freaking anything. and probably for the 100th time on this thread alone, i'll say again, it doesn't matter, shitting where you eat is a bad fucking idea.

 

What about the theory of universal gravitation, cell theory, germ theory, quantum theory (some of it at least), relativity, etc.?

Agreed, don't poop/pee where you eat. The premise here is not to ruin those things you need. Well, we certainly need a climate that can sustain our very existence, I would argue

 

In a 2007 report published by the a United Nations scientific panel on climate Change, reported that “evidence of a warming trend is ‘unequivocal,’ and that human activity has ‘very likely’ attributed to it”. Still not convinced? Ok, the Nobel Prize Committee was. So much so, that they gave Gore and his UN panel the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of their efforts to bring awareness to the growing climate change.

 

yeah, there's always SOMEONE who disagrees for a valid reason, which is why they're still "theories" instead of "laws." and all this bickering and garbage only does one thing...distract from the absolute necessity of not screwing up where we live any more than we already have. it's so aggravating when people go around and around on something REALLY simple.

 

Uh, no, folks that think gravitational theory, germ theory, atomic theory, etc. have any serious shortcomings have 'a few bolts loose,' to put it nicely

There are no valid reasons to doubt the basic tenenats of those and many other scientific theories--none.

I'll have to chalk this up to the inadequate communication of science from scientists to teachers and hence students.

In science, laws are subordinate to theories. Theories do not become laws, theories explain and unite multiple laws along with countless facts. It is a logical impossibility that a theory would become a law, just as it is a logical impossibility that "red means stop, green means go" could ever design a highway system. Supporting hypotheses of theories may transform to supporting laws, but theories do not and cannot become laws--they are an organization level above laws.

Agreed

 

so much for global warming



http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature%20Monitors%20Report%20Widescale%20Global%20Cooling/article10866.htm




Blog: Science
Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Michael Asher (Blog) - February 26, 2008 12:55 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.


Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

Update 2/27: The graph for HadCRUT (above), as well as the linked graphs for RSS and UAH are generated month-to-month; the temperature declines span a full 12 months of data. The linked GISS graph was graphed for the months of January only, due to a limitation in the plotting program. Anthony Watts, who kindly provided the graphics, otherwise has no connection with the column. The views and comments are those of the author only.

 

ah. my science teacher was awesome, i was a retard.

doesn't matter though. i'm still a skeptic on the manmade

global warming thing. scientists are always trying to get their name at the top of the grants.

 

Haha, not retarded, just mistaken. This is an exceedingly common misconception about science in the public, but it is a serious misconception nonetheless. Education fixes that though

There are 0 credible scientits that do not accept that our activities will lead to warming. Even the staunchest naysayer scientists (who maintain credibility) agree that indeed, we are causing and will cause warming. The tiny handful that comprises this group typically argues along the lines that the warming will not be as problematic as many agree it will be, or that, for reasons they rarely if ever define, the will just be less warming than most agree there will be.

The only "scientists" that argue that we are not causing any warming are fruitcakes and/or hacks. Simply put, the physics is clear. The position that there will be no warming is not even close to logically tenable. Suggesting that there our activities have not already caused warming and will not continue to do so is a pretty indefensable position given the weight of the evidence. That's a bit like arguing that shooting oneself in the foot will not cause bodily injury (pun intended )

Ha, well, let me just say that, as someone that has a bit of experience in writing grants (finishing MS in marine biology) there is no way better to guarantee that you will not get any more funding than to sensationalize your work beyond what you can demonstrate empirically. If you start saying things that you can't back up, not only will that grant get rejected, but you'll be pigeon-holing yourself for future grants. A person would have to be an utter bufoon to submit anything but their best to NSF (for example). Even so, only about 10% of proposals are funded.

You have to sell your research, there's no doubt about that but, you have to do this by demonstrating the feasibility, the originality, and the applicability of the research. If you venture even an inch away from being entirely rigorous about what is supported empirically vs. what is not, you will very quickly acquire a reputation of 'unworthy of funding.'

The way to get funding is to come up with good ideas (ask important questions), figure out feasible ways to get important results, and do a good job of explaining those ideas and methods to readers. Stretch the truth, even a little, and you're dead in the water.

 

Always a pleasure to read your well-informed posts Chris

It is a serious failure of science education and communication that leads to these confusions and the inability of many to evaluate such complex issues and to weigh different sources and types of evidence. To which conspiracy theory adds a whole new level of stupid - an entire mythology justifying belief without evidence...

 

Global warming is a theory, and like any theory, is only true because it has yet to be disproved. While there is evidence that global warming does exist, there are also studies that show that Earth may be just hitting the high point of a cycle. Should we reduce emissions? Maybe, but so far I haven't seen anything conclusive that demonstrates that buying a car with better gas mileage is going to save the environment.

 

Oh boy... A scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation that unites countless facts and observations. A theory is not a particular claim, but rather an explanatory framework.

Global warming is not a theory by any stretch of the imagination. Warming over the last century is demonstrable fact, just as a rock falls to the ground when dropped is a demonstrable fact.

No, there isn't. In fact, there are copious data that demonstrate that no natural cause (e.g., the sun) can possibly explain the warming over the last 30 years. The only plausible explanation is an enhanced greenhouse effect, and that explanation is extremely plausible given the data.

At the very least it will save your wallet a bit

The evidence that an enhanced greenhouse effect is causing our current warming and that we will experience ~3.5 C of warming by the end of the century if we do not substantially lower CO2 emissions is overwhelming. The latest IPCC report (AR4) gives an excellent summary of our current knowledge/data.

Climate warming of 3.5 C by the end of the century would be, to say the least, very bad As but one example, since this is where I work, is that the worldwide collapse of coral reefs would be essentially inevitable. High temperature anomalies of 1-2 C above normal now are plenty to kill most corals if prolonged. If the baseline moves up 3.5 C, there will be very, very few corals that survive to the end of the century. Coral reef ecosystems will not. It would be rather like clear-cutting a forest, but leaving a single tree. Even if that one tree does survive, the forest is gone.

There are countless other examples, but that's a reasonable one I think