Global Warming Watch

[shawn]

They did an experiment decades ago.
I read about it some time back and have no idea any more about the specifics, but in any case they generated CO2 and over a long period of time (several years) they pumped a steady amount through a pipe system on the side of a mountain and they found that when they did so the trees and all vegetation just took off and became healthier and more vital, growing faster and more lush.
The trees also released much more oxygen.
They compared it with other sections of the same area where they had no piping and they moved around to see the variables.
CO2 is not a problem.
I would say the crap they run through jet engines these days is far worse.
Those contrails just do not dissipate anymore.
Some will linger for up to an hour, getting larger when a typical contrail should be gone in about 90 seconds.
They are also putting banned pesticides in jet fuel and calling them anti-explosion agents.
Thing is, they don't burn and so they just fall down everywhere poisoning the water systems even more.

 

[Avi]

Carbon dioxide generation is a real and serious issue. CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the most likely cause for global warming. If warming continues, melting of the ice shelf will result in rising of sea levels and land masses will be flooded. It is good that this issue has received more serious consideration during recent years.

Sequestration technologies are being investigated which will provide means to return the carbon back into the earth. These technologies will continue to be developed, as, in my opinion, they should be.

 

[shawn]

Carbon dioxide generation is a real and serious issue. CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the most likely cause for global warming. If warming continues, melting of the ice shelf will result in rising of sea levels and land masses will be flooded. It is good that this issue has received more serious consideration during recent years.

Sequestration technologies are being investigated which will provide means to return the carbon back into the earth. These technologies will continue to be developed, as, in my opinion, they should be.

That's crap, but you don't seem to know it.

 

[seattlegal]

Carbon dioxide generation is a real and serious issue. CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the most likely cause for global warming. If warming continues, melting of the ice shelf will result in rising of sea levels and land masses will be flooded. It is good that this issue has received more serious consideration during recent years.

Sequestration technologies are being investigated which will provide means to return the carbon back into the earth. These technologies will continue to be developed, as, in my opinion, they should be.

I would daresay that the Earth's CO2 levels and average temperatures are now among the lowest they have ever been in the Earth's history: where can the level of CO2 go but up?

 

[Avi]

I would daresay that the Earth's CO2 levels and average temperatures are now among the lowest they have ever been in the Earth's history: where can the level of CO2 go but up?

SG, I can pull data off the internet, as you have done, to justify my position. These data are shown below.

However, as you are aware, it is a peer-review process that the true story will emerge. I have looked at the peer-review data in the past, and will be glad to discuss further if you would like to do so.

That's crap, but you don't seem to know it.

Go ahead Shawn, lets hear your argument.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

 

[Avi]

A couple more data that shows proves global warming. The next picture will have to show the polar bear floating in the polar ice melt

And here are a couple of more quotes about this issue:

The broad agreement among climate scientists that global temperatures will continue to increase has led some nations, states, corporations and individuals to implement responses. These responses to global warming can be divided into mitigation of the causes and effects of global warming, and adaptation to the changing global environment.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the United States, determined that carbon dioxide, and five other greenhouse gases, "endanger public health and welfare" of the American people. These gases, they said, contribute to climate change, which is causing more heat waves, droughts and flooding, and is threatening food and water supplies. [85]

Refs:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/0EF7DF675805295D8525759B00566924

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

 

[seattlegal]

SG, I can pull data off the internet, as you have done, to justify my position. These data are shown below.

However, as you are aware, it is a peer-review process that the true story will emerge. I have looked at the peer-review data in the past, and will be glad to discuss further if you would like to do so.



Go ahead Shawn, lets hear your argument.

A couple more data that shows proves global warming. The next picture will have to show the polar bear floating in the polar ice melt

Avi, I'm not disputing that the climate is changing. I'm disputing your claim that it is caused by increased CO2.

Compare the CO2 levels and temperatures at the Ordovician/Silurian cusp, and then tell me with a straight face that high CO2 levels causes increased global temperature.

Instead, I would like to remind you of some basic chemistry: the ability of liquids to dissolve gases decreases when you increase temperature. (Heat up a bottle of soda or champagne if you want to test this.) Therefore, I would say that increased temperature is more likely to drive increased atmospheric CO2 levels, rather than increased atmospheric CO2 levels causing an increased global temperatures.

The Carboniferous levels of CO2 and temperature are most like today's. Widespread wildfires were pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet the CO2 levels remained at the low levels comparable to those we see today. (Would you rather have the widespread wildfires of the Carboniferous, or would you rather have the CO2 from industry of today's Tertiary to counteract these low CO2 levels?)

 

[Avi]

Avi, I'm not disputing that the climate is changing. I'm disputing your claim that it is caused by increased CO2.

Compare the CO2 levels and temperatures at the Ordovician/Silurian cusp, and then tell me with a straight face that high CO2 levels causes increased global temperature.

SG, you are right that CO2 by itself does not cause all of the warming. The link I referenced explains how the warming occurs and that it is due to six main greenhouse gases.

Instead, I would like to remind you of some basic chemistry: the ability of liquids to dissolve gases decreases when you increase temperature. (Heat up a bottle of soda or champagne if you want to test this.) Therefore, I would say that increased temperature is more likely to drive increased atmospheric CO2 levels, rather than increased atmospheric CO2 levels causing an increased global temperatures.

Sure, carbon dioxide solubility decreases with temperature. However, the reason that greenhouse gases leads to warming is because they trap the radiation in the atmosphere, in the same way that a greenhouse works.

The Carboniferous levels of CO2 and temperature are most like today's. Widespread wildfires were pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet the CO2 levels remained at the low levels comparable to those we see today. (Would you rather have the widespread wildfires of the Carboniferous, or would you rather have the CO2 from industry of today's Tertiary to counteract these low CO2 levels?)

Lets try to step back for a minute and take a look at the big picture. From my perspective, the only real opponents of the global warming issue are Shawn Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and a few well paid lobbyists for the petroleum industry. They have another agenda in mind. Please don't get me wrong here, I am not an enemy of Exxon-Mobile and company, I just know where they are coming from. They won't agree that global warming exists until they have no other choice. Do you remember how the tobacco industry dealt with the linkage of smoking to cancer. It is the same thing.

Please take a look at the EPA links I provided. The EPA under Bush was not exactly a left wing extremest organization If they are concerned about global warming we should all be very concerned.

Oh yes, perhaps lets discuss the Kyoto Protocol next. As a scientist / engineer, I am even more embarrased by my country's position on this than what we are doing in Iraq and Afganistan.

And even though I love to tease the Europeans, they are light years ahead of us in the US regarding Kyoto.

 

[seattlegal]

SG, you are right that CO2 by itself does not cause all of the warming. The link I referenced explains how the warming occurs and that it is due to six main greenhouse gases.



Sure, carbon dioxide solubility decreases with temperature. However, the reason that greenhouse gases leads to warming is because they trap the radiation in the atmosphere, in the same way that a greenhouse works.




Lets try to step back for a minute and take a look at the big picture. From my perspective, the only real opponents of the global warming issue are Shawn Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and a few well paid lobbyists for the petroleum industry. They have another agenda in mind. Please don't get me wrong here, I am not an enemy of Exxon-Mobile and company, I just know where they are coming from. They won't agree that global warming exists until they have no other choice. Do you remember how the tobacco industry dealt with the linkage of smoking to cancer. It is the same thing.

Please take a look at the EPA links I provided. The EPA under Bush was not exactly a left wing extremest organization If they are concerned about global warming we should all be very concerned.

Oh yes, perhaps lets discuss the Kyoto Protocol next. As a scientist / engineer, I am even more embarrased by my country's position on this than what we are doing in Iraq and Afganistan.

And even though I love to tease the Europeans, they are light years ahead of us in the US regarding Kyoto.

Avi, I'm looking at it from the scientific data, not from the political perspective. {I think we went around regarding this on the Zen threads you started, trying to mix politics with Zen. Like Zen, I think the examination of climate change doesn't mix well with politics, imo. (Polilticians are often very gassy, and seem to have an obsession with gasiness.) }

 

[Avi]

Avi, I'm looking at it from the scientific data, not from the political perspective. {I think we went around regarding this on the Zen threads you started, trying to mix politics with Zen. Like Zen, I think the examination of climate change doesn't mix well with politics, imo. (Polilticians are often very gassy, and seem to have an obsession with gasiness.) }

SG, you still haven't forgotten the Zen thread

Ok, you might be interested in this link. It is from the American Institute of Physics. As you can imagine this is the hardest headed group that you might come across. No politics here. When I first became interested in global warming I found this website and read it. It convinced me that global warming is not political, it is a well understood peer reviewed phenomenon:

The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

 

[Tao_Equus]

.
I would say the crap they run through jet engines these days is far worse.
Those contrails just do not dissipate anymore.
.
They are also putting banned pesticides in jet fuel and calling them anti-explosion agents.
Thing is, they don't burn and so they just fall down everywhere poisoning the water systems even more.

You have evidence for this?

 

[Tao_Equus]

I am with SG 100% on this. Looking through the palaeontological record the Earth is far more life productive at higher Co2 levels than we see today. The changes we see in Co2 levels will require massive adaptations but increased levels will make the biosphere more productive, it is not all bad news on that front.

Yet the real danger is the terrible cocktail of various chemicals, metals, plastics and exotic isomers that are rapidly reaching background levels that pose serious threat to all life. And as SG states it is almost like it has been deliberate policy to focus all talk of pollution on the least of our problems...an inert naturally occurring gas. Our oceans are now a soup of our waste products, our fresh water reservoirs contaminated with a mix of substances that do everything from make men grow breasts and decimate their sperm count to break down the integrity of cell membranes and reduce the effectiveness of our immune systems. It is the poisoning of the biosphere with unnatural substances that needs put at the top of the agenda.

 

[Bandit]

I have my doubts that much smog in Los Angeles & other areas is healthy for any living thing. I thought plant life shuts downs and slows down when they have too much smog, like they do during drought taking in too much ozone?

Why do we have holes in the ozone? Was it ever proven it was from humans?
Jets have dumped fuel out over the land and the oceans for decades. You can see the pit holes and dead areas from their path near airports. Dumping oil & toxics into the oceans killing off life cannot be helping.

 

[seattlegal]

I have my doubts that much smog in Los Angeles & other areas is healthy for any living thing. I thought plant life shuts downs and slows down when they have too much smog, like they do during drought taking in too much ozone?

Why do we have holes in the ozone? Was it ever proven it was from humans?
Jets have dumped fuel out over the land and the oceans for decades. You can see the pit holes and dead areas from their path near airports. Dumping oil & toxics into the oceans killing off life cannot be helping.

Yet the focus is directed towards CO2 and your "carbon footprint," rather than to these concerns. **shakes head**

 

[Bandit]

our fresh water reservoirs contaminated with a mix of substances

I was up at lake michigan the other day and there is this horrible sign that reads how dangerous & toxic the water is for your health to swim in it. That type of sign did not exist 30 years ago. We swam every summer in the lakes & rivers and never got sick from it.

 

[Bandit]

Yet the focus is directed towards CO2 and your "carbon footprint," rather than to these concerns. **shakes head**

DickheadCheney needs to do time for his childish & ignorant act in killing the salmon in the Klamath River. Upsetting the balance of nature in deliberate extinction to those extremes by poor leadership are not helping either. They 'upset' the river, so someone can come along later and 'recover' the river.

 

[shawn]

The problem was most severe at airports in very cold locations, like Alaska, where clouds of raw jet fuel vapor were released from cold engines during the engine-start procedure. In a number of cases people were able to obtain samples of jet fuel and have them analyzed.
The culprit was clearly pinpointed as the new additive, Ethylene Dibromide. Ethylene Dibromide is one of the most toxic chemical pesticides ever developed, and also the first to be banned for all uses that would bring it in contact with the environment or any human being.

 

[citizenzen]

Yet the focus is directed towards CO2 and your "carbon footprint," rather than to these concerns. **shakes head**

SG, if America were a more sophisticated society perhaps we could frame the discussion in another manner, but in order to communicate effectively with the masses the message needs to be simplified.

Take cigarette smoking for example. Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known cancer-causing compounds and 400 other toxins. But all the public hears about is nicotine. Are we doing a disservice by not focusing on the other 3999 chemicals? Would it help to reduce smoking if we publicly examined each component in detail? And isn't it interesting that after decades of study nobody's proved that cigarettes cause cancer? So it's no surprise nobody's proven greenhouse gases cause climate change. But let's not get lost in the message that is intended for public consumption. That message has to be simple and focused to have any impact.

Whether you think that information is based upon faulty science is another matter. As a graphic designer that question is beyond my limited scope of knowledge. But I do have to ask you on what basis do you dismiss the consensus of the scientific community? It seems almost as silly as being on the Intelligent Design side of evolution. Could you enlighten me as to why you think they are wrong?

 

[shawn]

There is no consensus in the scientific community concerning global warming.
For every respected member who says aye there is another who says nay.
Even a cursory survey of the available data will reveal that.

So I will put it this way:

Global warming is driven by the sun and our spatial relationship within the galaxy (there are zones within the galaxy and passing through them changes things for the planets as they pass through them).
Co2 and other greenhouse gases are then a symptom of a much larger cause.

Now, prove that wrong.

 

[citizenzen]

So I will put it this way:

Global warming is driven by the sun and our spatial relationship within the galaxy (there are zones within the galaxy and passing through them changes things for the planets as they pass through them).
Co2 and other greenhouse gases are then a symptom of a much larger cause.

Now, prove that wrong.

I think the scientific method is you proving your theory right... not asking others to prove it wrong.