Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » “Global Cooling” Link on Ornery.org Revealed As Fraud – Detailed Pr (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: “Global Cooling” Link on Ornery.org Revealed As Fraud – Detailed Pr
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is my take.

30 years ago when I was still in grade shool, when we went over climate, the #1 problem was "GLOBAL COOLING"and by the time Sagan came up with the Nuclear Winter senario, everyone was convinced that we would freeze to death either slowly, or in a fast manner after the nuclear war between the east and west. One reason why Sagan's view on nuclear winter was so shocking was, that prior to his theory that a nuclear event could signifigantly cool the climate, several scientists were actually proposing that Global Cooling could be corrected by setting off nuclear bombs in stategic eco-zones that would also allow for sudden flowering of regons like Antartica and the African Sahara.

That was 30 years ago. Back when all the data seemed to indicate that we were headed into a new mini Ice Age.

Fact is we may, and possibly do have an effect on global climate. But when a single volcanic erruption releases more sulfates and complex carbon compounds in 1 minute than all the automobiles on Earth do in an entire year, you have to begin wondering exactly how important we are to the equation.We should behave as boyscouts, tread as lightly as possible, and leave the land as we came upon it originally. But having spent the first 30 years of my life being told by the most informed scientists that we faced Global Cooling, pardon me if I am just a bit skepticle that they now believe we face Global Warming.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd thought that the volcano aspect was debunked long ago.

quote:
Volcanic activity has the ability to affect global climate on still longer time scales. Over periods of millions or even tens of millions of
years, increased volcanic activity can emit enormous volumes of greenhouse gases, with the potential of substantial global warming (Pickering & Owen, 1994; Rampino & Volk, 1988). However, the global cooling effects of sulphur dioxide emissions (Officer & Drake, 1983) will act to counter the greenhouse warming, and the resultant climate changes remain uncertain.

http://www.gaspig.com/volcano.htm
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by flydye45:
Ev, at what point does the selection of the forcings input into the model to "predict" past conditions leave the realm of purely predictive and go into "creating" the results you already know?

For example, we know (reasonably well) what the weather was in the Fifties. I assume the programing used to predict the future are fine tuned to determine how well it predicted the past. But with a near infinite number of variables, or forcings (I assume), how do we know that we are no longer selecting variables by their predictive nature and just trying to get the right results from the Fifties?

Any half-way competent modeller would calibrate their model on one set of data (say the fifties), and then test its validity by comparing the same model on other sets of data (the sixties and seventies). Just 'cos the past is known, does't mean you use all the data to calibrate the model. Obviously if you do that you have no way to check whether the model actually has any predictive power, without waiting for another few decades.

quote:
Everard wrote:

We know very specifically what a lot of different forcings do. Models are generally created using the factors that we know exist, not based on past results, but on what we know about how those factors interact within the climate system. For example, some of the good models have volcanic erruptions in them, because we know that an erruption of sufficient size creates a cooling effect by reflecting solar energy that would otherwise enter the system. We more or less know how this works, so when volcanic erruptions appear in models, we can accurately predict what the effect will be.

If you can model volcanoes accurately (note the conditional) then you have several options for making predictions about the future. One is to put in a random, historically reasonable rate of volcanic activity. Another is to fix volcanic activity at various levels and test out different scenarios. The aim isn't always to predict the future exactly (obviously not possible with random events like volcanoes anyway), but to see which ranges of possibilities are acceptable and which aren't.

To take a completely fictional and hopelessly-unrepresentative-of-reality example, suppose that chemical X in concentration C1 in the atmosphere in simulations shows that while everything is stable and happy in normal conditions, one eruption is enough to kick the system into a new and rather fatal equilibrium. Meanwhile simulations with concentration C2 (lower than C1) show that the system is stable no matter the level of volcanic activity (at least until way past the point where avoiding death by pyroclastic flow and lava is more of a problem than climate change). You can use that as a tool to determine what concentrations of X are safe given various levels of volcanic activity, and make policy accordingly. Nothing in this actually requires you to know the future of volcanoes with any reliability.

Now I imagine that the state of climate modelling bears almost no resemblance to that, but the point is that even when there are random events we can't predict, we can still use models to determine the sensitivity of the system to a number of factors given a range of possible scenarios, which can (in theory) allow you to determine the level of risk for a given policy. Which would be useful.

Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Proving my comment's validity. 30 years ago, volcanic emissions were seen as being not very important to causing Global Cooling, yet the sulpher dioxide emissions from all our automobiles was going to cause the entire Canadian forrests to turn into dead twigs. Now of course we "know" that volcanic emissions can do nothing to the climate patterns, but we also "know" that even though the annual total emissions from our vehicles, though drawfed by even a single volcanic event, are the single most important cause of Global Warming.

Odd isn't it that current research debunks the ammounts of volcanic emissions because they are balanced out in the long term by the sulpher based emissions. Yet now we operate vehicles without sulpher additives to prevent sulpher dioxide getting into the atmosphere.

WAIT!

To have the same net effect as a volcano, all we need do is restore sulpher additives to our fossil fueled automobiles and switch all our coal powered plants back to high sulpher coals.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
...the annual total emissions from our vehicles, though drawfed by even a single volcanic event...
Source?

quote:
Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times.
quote:
In an average year, volcanoes release only 13% of the sulfur added to the atmosphere compared to anthropogenic sources. Andres and Kasgnoc (1997) noted that the bulk of the anthropogenic flux is located in the northern hemisphere while volcanic fluxes occur in much more focused belts around the world.
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That is my point Matt. Depending on what you choose to source, can make the volcanic activity responsibile for 99% of all greenhouse gas emissions, or only responsible for 1%. And the same gets bandied about by human causality estimates. According to some scientists and studdieds, man accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse gases. While others state it only accounts for 1%.

In the time I have been on Ornery I have seen so many referenced sources by the opposing views to have left me with the rather clear perception that neither side has anywhere near the data needed to even begin supporting their theories, yet neither side wants to give an inch. Someone will cite a study that says solar activity is to blame, and immediately the other side has just as conclusive a study to reference that solar activity has absolutely nothing to do with anyhing climate related at all.

I used to get real into this argument. Back when Kyoto was being ratified and or debated, I suddenly realized that the issue cannot be debated. Common sense tells you we imact the environment. Common sense tells me we cannot control solar radiation and geologic activity that also must have some sort of climatic effect. Common sense tells me, we should be as environmentally neutral as possible simply because we don't yet have a clue as to how little or how much we impact the climatic process. Both tsides of the argument either absolutely hold that we have no impact at all that can be negated or that we have such an impact even if we act to negate it our fate is already sealed.

Fact is both sides have maybe 20% of the data needed and never bother to attempt to correlate the data or actually conduct studies designed to simply get unbiased data so that some clear cut answers can come about.

My personal perspective is that in 40 years we have gone from;

A. thinking we had no impact,
B. to we need to pass all the environmental laws we can or else we all die by Y2K,
C. Further troubled by Skylab providing proof that solar output is crashing and we are going to all feeze in 20 years,
D. to let's set off strategicly placed nuclear explosives in deserts and seabeds to counter-act Global Cooling,
E. to Gee the environment is already quatitatively and qualitatively better after 20 years of clean air and water acts,
F. to if we detonate a single above ground nuclear device we would possibly create Global Warming,
G. to my god the sun is going to essentially evaporate everything but the oceans during the next Solar Max,
H. The climate is doomed to become so wet that Holland will disappear,
I. to My god all the evidence seems to indicate all of Africa will be a dessert by 2010,
J. to my god it must be Global Warming caused by CFC's depleting the Ozone and causing all the glacial ices to melt,
K. to gee we cut all the gases we thought produced climate change and see no result,
L. to ah its not the gasses we emitted but El Nino that has caused the problem which we have indirectly caused by altering global wind patterns due to massive cities creating their own micro climates,
M. to Oh wait the water isn't going to rise sinking holland, rather more H2O is being trapped above the troposhpere which results in La Nina'
N. to OMG if the industrialized would doesnt cut all its greenhouse gasses by 75% to compensate for the developing world, the globalen vironment will raise by 1 degree average temperature per year until we all die of heat exposure by 2020.

ETC

And I have seen these arguments played out over and over until I get to the point that I want to go to my windo, open it and shout as loud as I can "I'm MAD as Hell and I'm not going totake it anymore!"

Common sense we have to have an impact. Common sense we should do as much as we can to minimize our impact. Common sense also states that we shouldn't cut off our noses to spite our face to eliminate every conceivable impact we might have. The evidence seems to be completely inconclusive because current data can either seem to point to humans having no/negligable/absolute total impact on the climate.

Do so real, unbaised study. Look at solar activity in depth. Look as Mars and Venus as predictors. Measure emissions, study local micro climates. Get better tools out into the feild. Study the problem enough so that it can become clear enough to define in a predictive manner and see if what it predicts will happen does happen.

That is my point. 40 years of data and no one, has yet to state the argument well enough to have been even proven right in the short term. Remeber, according to the best scientists of my day, right now I should be either roasting to death, drowning in melted glacial water, freezing to death in an atmosphere devoid of humidity, or stricken with total body skin cancer due to a vanished ozone layer. Everyone of those things was championed as absoultely factual as the current Global warming theory is, and some of them were thought to be totally proven as factual for decades. Now according to Al Gore by the turn of the century everything predicted by each of the climate models of the past 4 deacades will come true at the same time unless we suddenly stop using any fuels of any type at all.

So frankly this thread's mountains of citations for either side, as well as the 20 odd threads from the last 4 years on Ornery pretty much coninces me of one thing.

ABSOLUTELY NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!

So providing citations that meet an argument's criterea is pointless because someone else will surely provide the exact opposite data with just as many scientific dedentials as your source had.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I love you Red! (In a very brotherly way of course.) You make me want to read all your posts.
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"That is my point Matt. Depending on what you choose to source, can make the volcanic activity responsibile for 99% of all greenhouse gas emissions, or only responsible for 1%"

Again, can you please source your claim here?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red, I don't disagree with your philosophy, I just took issue with the volcano statement and asked for clarification which you have not provided. If you believe the effect of volcanos is ambiguous, you certainly didn't give that impression in your first post.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And since when did the fact that authorities disagree become an excuse for not providing sources? That seems more like an excuse for not HAVING sources.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Paul

dont get so trite. go look at old threads if you want. I have seen it argued both ways by people here on this fourum. And again that is my point. How the heck do you expect your audience to have a clue as to what side is even being scientific if both of them seem to be providing equally valid proof.

Eg last thread this came up had one side attributing solar output was a cyclic process that accounts for the observable rise and fall of average historical temperatures, meaning all currently observed temerature rises was due to solar activity not mhuman activity. The source cited was a NASA solar flare and solar max study. The other side countered that the same exact data from the same exact frigging web page at NASA also could be used to prove that solar output had absoulely nothing to do with historical temperature trends, meaning the currently observed historical temperature trends must be the result of human activity.

And that was one source with the same data simultaneously proving and disproving human causality in global warming.

So I as a read of these stupid global climate change threads get people essentially being parisan hacks, and when I question them on it I am automaticlly some sort of sourcesless idiot.

I am not the one with the problem of sourcing data here. Its the rest of you people who have spent the last 4 years sourcing and counter sourcing the same data, often from the same authors and the same reports and studies, and NOT ONE OF YOU HAS EVER STOPPED AND SAID "GEE THIS SCIENTIST SEEMS TO BE TALKING OUT BOTH SIDES OF HIS MOUTH"

I am telling you as a simple reader, and non-participant in this debate for 4 years, none of you have ever stopped to look and see why it is all your data seems to point to wildly different conclusions. N ormally hen that happens someone asks the question why does all the data conflict? Instead evryone is debating via source vs counter-source my data is better than your data. But none of you has come to any relization that the data doesn't support any of you whether it comes from a polar weather station or a Nasa probe in the solar wind.

It is not I who have argued that volcanoes do or dont have an effect. I have seen many of you on this site argue with complete certitudet that your sources conclusively prove volcano emmissions to be either 1005 causal or 100% non-causal with the same data and often the same researchers. That cannot logically be valid.

The data may be 100% correct. But none of you seem to notice that the conclusions have been really ambiguous every time you cite and counter cite different reports using the same data.

Frankly neither side has offered a shred of believable proof of concept either way. Four years ago I was pretty much someone who thought gobal warming wasn't a true climatic issue. Then I saw no one could offer any reasonable and logical proof either way/ What's more each poster seemed to depend upon citing data from friendly intermediaries. And not a single one of you could even convince me what the issue is or what the theory of environmental change/stasis could be developed to even test it on a computer model.

I have a baby hanging off my hip right now.

All I am saying is that for 40 years the theory has pretty much changed each decade, like a scientific fashion show. And in the nearly 6 years I have been here each time this debate pops up, I become even less convinced anyone has a clue as to how to even identify if there is a problem.

I guess what I was trying to point at at the top of this thread is that whether it is solar output, human action, butterfly migration, or the priice of tea in China, the argument over global warming has gone nowhere because the dataset availible simply sucks, yet you all seem to think it completely proves your personal point of veiw. Thats not science, or even scientific debate.

anyway I get to change a diaper and wonder if infant sourced methan is dooming me to either global cooling or warming. And yes someone, Cedrios I think , onnce posted a source providing data that the largest single component of human produced greenhouse gases was infant rectums and degrading diapers.

I remain unconvinced and will continue allowing my kid to fart and use a diaper.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red,

1) I don't believe I've participated in any previous climate-related threads on Ornery.

2) You did, in fact, state "a single volcanic erruption releases more sulfates and complex carbon compounds in 1 minute than all the automobiles on Earth do in an entire year"

3) Believing that the preponderance of scientific evidence contradicts this claim, I asked for a source.

4) You... um, I don't know what you did. Went off on a tangent about what really matters, or something.

If you made an error in your initial post, just say so. I don't see how all this handwaving about past threads and such is relevant.

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"dont get so trite. go look at old threads if you want."

I haven't seen the data you are talking about, red. That doesn't mean it wasn't, but with my memory and the quantity of these threads, I may have missed it.

"Eg last thread this came up had one side attributing solar output was a cyclic process that accounts for the observable rise and fall of average historical temperatures, meaning all currently observed temerature rises was due to solar activity not mhuman activity."

Yes, and then links were provided demonstrating that this process can't account for the last 50 years or so ( I forget the exact number of years).

"And that was one source with the same data simultaneously proving and disproving human causality in global warming."

Nope. That data conclusively demonstrated that solar output couldn't account for the global temperature change in recent years, although it was a strong predictor for the previous 1000.

"and when I question them on it I am automaticlly some sort of sourcesless idiot."

Well, when you make a numerical claim, and someone asks you to source it, it does help to have the source handy or be able to find it quickly. That isn't to say your argument is less valid, but that its less persuassive.

"I am not the one with the problem of sourcing data here. Its the rest of you people who have spent the last 4 years sourcing and counter sourcing the same data, often from the same authors and the same reports and studies, and NOT ONE OF YOU HAS EVER STOPPED AND SAID "GEE THIS SCIENTIST SEEMS TO BE TALKING OUT BOTH SIDES OF HIS MOUTH""

Because they aren't. Some scientists have changed their position over the last decade, but they aren't saying two contradictory things in the same time frame. Again, can you please provide an example?

"I am telling you as a simple reader, and non-participant in this debate for 4 years, none of you have ever stopped to look and see why it is all your data seems to point to wildly different conclusions."

You've been participating. Mostly making this same claim over and over again, and its a claim that I find to be problematic because it rests on the assumption that our understanding of data, 30 years ago, is as good as our understanding of hundreds of times more data, with 30 years more experience.

I also disagree that the data points to wildly different conclusions. Taken aggregetely, there is only one scientific conclusion. Thats why you don't see scientific articles published in peer reviewed journals by people in the relevent fields claiming that humans don't have an impact.

Thats a highly qualified statement, but relevent... if you don't have all the data in front of you, your analysis is not as good as someone who has all the data in front of him.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Paul
The point is that the datat cannot support both ends of the idea at once. I got out of threads pretty quick when I realized that the nature of these threads took a doctorate often to even understand. My point is that when there is a discrepency and its so obvious even I can see it, neither side even questions it.

Thats the point.

What the heck are you guys even debating about? It should be a foregone conclusion we develop our economies, cultures, and technologies to be as productive and environmentally freindly/neutral as possible. If there is indeed global warming, then we would be best served to behave in this sane manner. If there isn't global warming, it would still be the fundamentally sne way to conduct our business as well.

I just dont get the argument, or rather any reason for an argument either way as to global warming, global nothing, or global cooling. It seems to make sense to me to act like sane humans and use resources as efficiently as possible. Kyoto sucks in my oppinion because it basiclly says to America "You do all the counter polution stuff, while the rest of us keep behaving like we always have" But certainly i wouldnt be too hard to convince the world more efficient is better even if the earth never changes a single degree in temperature?

I knew this would be a tar baby thread for me.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The point is that the datat cannot support both ends of the idea at once."

Yup. It doesn't. But a lot of republicans would have you believe it does, and they pay people a lot of money to write that the data supports non-scientific conclusions.

"What the heck are you guys even debating about?"

Well, a lot of scientists see a tipping point coming. That if we dont do something really soon, there'll be too much damage coming that we can't do anything to prevent.

" Kyoto sucks in my oppinion because it basiclly says to America "You do all the counter polution stuff, while the rest of us keep behaving like we always have""

Didn't say that. Kyoto was flawed, but it wasnt targeted at just the US. Also hit all of europe, for example.

[ August 25, 2006, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
And since when did the fact that authorities disagree become an excuse for not providing sources? That seems more like an excuse for not HAVING sources.

I'm with you Matt. Red generally, however, doesn't provide sources.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jav
because most of the time I am either expressing my own viewpoint, or offering a viewpoint based upon my expertise as an historian or anthropologist. I dont post brief blurbs about a link or source saying "neato look what I found" Moreover, when I do say something like say "Stalingrad was a crucible for the Gs links. We simply were more interested in what you thought personally or what you thought should be debated.

To be honest, if you really want to check facts there is more than enough ersorces for anyone to do it. It is simply understood by me that when people make what appears to be a factual statement anyone can dispute it if they want. And if hey feel so compelled to demand a source they can. But read the fourm rules prety carefully, this site was never intended to see who could link the most sources. Rather it was intended to be a place where we discussour own unique oppinions and support those oppinions with logical, valid and as informed an argument as was needed to get the point accross so that others could either agree, disagree, or offer counter arguments.

I'll be real honest if your idea is simply links to someone elses works, it really isn't that interesting. And if the facs of an issue are really unclear an appeal to Letterip's search expertise is usually all that is needed to provide multile unbiased sources.

You really did not get my original post so let me rephrase it.

"You all seem to post conflicting data and sources, seemingly talk over each other, and simply obscure what is even being debated or why. So badly that those of us reading these Global Warming threads can pick and choose dozens of conflicting datsets from the same sources, and support or disprove your point of view at the same time. It reduces even the participants in these threads to claiming that any data descrepencies are directly attributable to evil republicans and evil democrats who want to hoodwink science and common community alike for political gain. That leaves those of us in the middle of the argument without a single shred of logical basis upon which to even make an educated guess as to what is or is not happening"

That I think reduces my point of view to a degree of clarity originally not obtained by me simply because my kid was cutting teeth at almost 1 in the morning and I was too distracted to even review my post.

Or shoud I send you a photograph of his new teeth proving my distraction?

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"a single volcanic erruption releases more sulfates and complex carbon compounds in 1 minute than all the automobiles on Earth do in an entire year" is not presented as a statement of opinion.

I just want to understand where that sentence came from. You heard it somewhere? Read it somewhere? Made it up? What?

Why are you dodging this very simple question?

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Matt

Look a couple of years back, maybe longer and quite possibly on the one of the first threads on this topic, the debate raged over whether volcanos were even a factor; whether they were the primary natural cause of greenhouse gasses; whether they were to be discounted because they were simply natural background events that had always occurred meaning that their emissions should be baseline data; whether even a volcano would even have an impact; and what some modern data suggests between a volcanic eruption and automobile emissions.

After the debate you could have factually supported the argument that they had absolutely zero causality for greenhouse gasses.

You could have also supported that aside from animals like cattle fartting, volcanic emission was the number one green house gas source.

You could have also supported with data the view that although they can cause temporary greenhouse emissions, since much of it went into the highest reaches of the atmosphere it could only have a temporary effect, if any at all, even though an eruption might expel the equivalent of an entire years worth of man made automobile emissions.

You could also have supported with the data the idea that volcanic eruptions accounted for not even 1% of all green house gasses because natural agents almost immediately neutralize the danger, and that automobiles accounted for the main sources of all greenhouse gasses.

And you even could have supported with the data presented that almost the entire greenhouse gas sourcing was the result of man made activities and of those activities, automobiles accounted for 90% of the gasses.

To which I posed the question that if that were true, then how could volcanic eruptions account for only 1% of all greenhouse gasses, yet automobiles account for 90% of not only all greenhouse gases but also 90% of all man made sources, and still have room for the agribusiness sourcing of all greenhouse gases at at least 25% of all known sources man made or otherwise.

To which everyone suddenly stuck to their favorite theory and re adjusted the percentages of source origins for the gases.

To which I quipped the situation that according to half of you, volcanos contribute 1% of gasses vs 90% from cars. Half of you claim a single volcano emits an entire years worth of all the automobile emissions and as such completely dwarfs any impact we might have on green house gases. And half of the rest of the people claimed not only was the issue that volcanos and automobiles were a problem, but that farming practices were going to send us past the tipping point because so many animals were sitting around farting.

Thats right, 3 halves, three theories, and every single party thought the data backed their view up exclusively.

And it lead to my changing of my view that global warming wasn't happening. It changed to not only is global warming a complete crack-pot question, but also absolutely no one knows what the sources are, may be, or even if anything can possibly be done. If a single volcano can erupt and pump a years worth of automobile emissions into the air, what frigging difference would driving exclusively solar cars make? That is right people nothing. So since we apparently could not do anything to even control the natural sources, I personally decided the best thing to do is act like a responsible human and reduce, re-use, recycle, buy the most efficient mechanical appliances and cars, seek out technologies that reduce my personal impact on the planet, and hope for the best. Mostly because when even a bunch of very skilled Ornery posters can't agree on even the basic data, the issue is probably so complex even most scientists couldn't understand it.

So the first post on page 3 made by me was an oblique reference to a thread that didn't survive the first switch, is probably remembered by only a few currently active posters, and was this poster's way of alluding to the thread and the fact that even though a few years have gone by, absolutely nothing is even agreed upon where this topic is concerned and that maybe my attitude of "You can't do a damn thing about the macro system anyway" was possibly still the best answer to everything that has been discussed. As had been pointed out by someone long ago, <and possibly in error>, if mother nature can spew out more greenhouse gasses in a single volcanic eruption, what difference would it make if all we used was solar powered cars instead of gasoline power cars?

Ultimately nothing.

AND NOW I AM GOING INTO THE BRIAR PATCH---DO NOT FOLLOW.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red,

I'd typed quite a bit of response and then canned it. You've repeated claims about the data supporting any claim, that various concerns have been trumpeted by the scientific community over the past 40 years and that those claims have been cries of wolf.

I don't think you have the knowledge to claim anything about what scientists believed, were concerned about or reported over the past 40 years. At best you have a collection of memories about what newspapers or environmentalists claimed scientists said.

quote:
That is my point. 40 years of data and no one, has yet to state the argument well enough to have been even proven right in the short term. Remeber, according to the best scientists of my day, right now I should be either roasting to death, drowning in melted glacial water, freezing to death in an atmosphere devoid of humidity, or stricken with total body skin cancer due to a vanished ozone layer.
Your memories mislead you, even the nonhyperbolic version is a false representation. The only one that appears to have actually been supported by the 'best scientists of the day' in the nonhyperbolic form is the concern over ozone depletion which, had CFCs not been regulated out of usage would have had a drastic increase.

quote:

After the debate you could have factually supported the argument that they had absolutely zero causality for greenhouse gasses.

There has never been any support of a claim that volcanoes have no climatic impact on this website, and it certainly could not have been 'factually supported'. Heck I don't even think you could find a cracked pot theory web page to make a claim such as that.

quote:
o which I posed the question that if that were true, then how could volcanic eruptions account for only 1% of all greenhouse gasses, yet automobiles account for 90% of not only all greenhouse gases but also 90% of all man made sources, and still have room for the agribusiness sourcing of all greenhouse gases at at least 25% of all known sources man made or otherwise.
Unless you actually link to a thread that has that, I'm going to have to go with the theory you are confusing your imagination with reality. I certainly have never seen a thread on Ornery with utterly bizarre claims about the environmental contributions.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lr thats my point I remeber what was talked about at the time. When I was really little it was global cooling. Then the CFC crap and all the rest. My point is that this is one debate topic where I pretty much had to bow out because the argument went beyond the ecsoteric resulting in a lot of posters over the year being able to make so many counter claims AND seemingly support them with scientific data that I frankly came to the conclusion that either I can't read or am simply to stupid to see the obvious arguments all of you have collectively made.

All I can compare it to is being in grade school and having Skylab astronauts come to my science class and explain how skylab's experiments had supported the theory that the earth was in danger of Global Cooling. That was maybe 25 years ago, so maybe you can understand my sketicism.

And you know the actual specifc % points may be off LR but thats the central point of why these damn threads have moved beyond the ridiculous. I remeber people making those very arguments and reading them and saying WTF?

So of course it was probably some contrarian like GlobalD/Cedrios posting such stuff but the issue remains that aside form being commonsensical and acting like a good boyscout camper, the data in these threads has been all over the place. Hell this very thread alone great place to start in the debnk department. I can firmly say I am convinced both sides of the argument are a hoax.

Somehow I think I am really not making myself clear.

its pointless. Anyone have a block by block extractor for a damaged hardrive they can let me borrow for a couple of weeks so I can get some really old threads off a dead drive?

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Fact is both sides have maybe 20% of the data needed and never bother to attempt to correlate the data or actually conduct studies designed to simply get unbiased data so that some clear cut answers can come about.
Except there is a side that does this: they're called the working scientists.

It seems that your problem, Red, is that you've been listening to secondary sources. The primary sources in the scientific journals are the ones which analyze the data and try to make good predictions. Sure, there is some disagreement, but when a majority of those studying a subject agree on results, it is fairly certain that the current data backs up those conclusions.

So ignore the politicos on the left and right. Find out what the working climatologists actually say, and what they are actually arguing about/studying/gathering more data on. Those are the people you are looking for, Red.

And ignore the partisan sites, because they will only tend to twist the data to confuse you.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
"a single volcanic erruption releases more sulfates and complex carbon compounds in 1 minute than all the automobiles on Earth do in an entire year" is not presented as a statement of opinion.

I just want to understand where that sentence came from. You heard it somewhere? Read it somewhere? Made it up? What?

I googled volcano global warming and this is what I came up with:

Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year [CO2], whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year. I think the 10 billion is all other sources combined but other sites claim this is from only man made sources. source


The 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines shot 14-26 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere which led to a global surface cooling of 0.5°C a year after the eruption. The climatic impact of the Pinatubo aerosol was stronger than the warming effects of either El Niño or human-induced greenhouse gas changes during 1991-93. To paraphrase, Pinatubo, in one instant, had more effect than all human activity for a 2 year period after the eruption. Source

In April of 1815 we had the cataclysmic eruption of Tambora Volcano in Indonesia, the most powerful eruption in recorded history. Tambora's volcanic cloud lowered global temperatures by as much as 3 degrees C. Even a year after the eruption, most of the northern hemisphere experienced sharply cooler temperatures during the summer months. In parts of Europe and in North America, 1816 was known as "the year without a summer." In New England, for example, frost occurred during each of the summer months in 1816. source

I don't know about the comparison to autombile exhaust although I do recall that somehere myself just as Red does. however, it is quite obvious that volcanic eruptions can cause sigificant, dramatic effects for a few years after the eruption. I think the jury is still out on those long term effects though.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
See realclimates paper on the climatic impact of volcanic eruptions, and what determines whether they will have significant impact on climate.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/current-volcanic-activity-and-climate/

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey, OSC's going off against global warming again in his latest review column. It speaks for itself:
quote:
Ann Coulter's new book (which I haven't read) has a grossly inaccurate title: Godless: The Church of Liberalism. It may be true that liberalism does not accept the same God as religious conservatives. But they are certainly not godless.

How can you tell who someone's god is? You look to see whose name they invoke as the cause of all things, good or bad. By that standard, the god of the devout Left is Global Warming; here is the Psalm of Al, from which the faithful constantly quote (King James Version):

1. Great storms ravage our cities, and the wise man saith: Global Warming hath done this.

2. Drought keepeth all storms at bay, and the wise man saith: This also hath Global Warming done.

3. Global Warming maketh the oceans rise; it maketh deep snow to fall;

4. Flood and fire, feast and famine, typhoon and tornado, hail and lightning, all things good and bad that come from sky or sea, Global Warming hath made them all.

5. And when our homes are beneath the waves, we shall know that Global Warming in its wrath hath seen our sins.

6. For our vehicles that glut themselves on oil, for the trees we cut and land we clear,

7. For the cooling and heating of our houses, for the plowing and harvesting of our fields, we are punished.

8. Whenever we burn carbon and release it into the air, we shall know that Global Warming seeth it, and is wroth.

9. O man! Thou hast flouted the great god of the sky, and by three degrees of temperature we shall be burned,

10. For Global Warming is a jealous god, and small and annoying is man.

I wonder if he even saw Al Gore's movie.
Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know, that article of his commits pretty much every sin in the Ornery charter. And I'm not just talking about the global warming bit; even his review of Step Up indulges in the same nasty speculation.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, I'm sure the Mods would send him a nasty little email if he posted without following the rules here on Ornery. Maybe that's why he never visits his living room? [Wink]

[ August 30, 2006, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perhaps he is taking his cue from our Commander-in-Chief. He gladly agrees to the rules and laws; he just quietly adds a short paragraph exempting himself from them. [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
joelaarhus
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for joelaarhus   Email joelaarhus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My thought is that if there is global warming. "which unfortunately not everyone agrees" what exactly can we do about it [url = http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html]water vapor[/url] even if it is possible to fix it basic nothing that we are currently doing will have much of an effect tell me if you know anything wrong with this article

headline of the article

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

Posts: 9 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Water vapor tends to amplify the effects of increases in other greenhouse gases, as small increases in heat cause the formation of more water vapor, causing a greater increase in heat.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Joel, from memory, without the natural greenhouse effect, the average global temperature would be around -15 degrees centigrade. Even the tropics would have the warm sunny climate of Greenland. So the 1 or 2 degree effect of human caused green house is only a small percentage of the total green house effect. BUT, that 1 or 2 degrees has a major, certainly harmfull and potentially disastrous, effect on climate. Afterall, the global temperature difference between rainforest at the south pole (which has happened) and sea level glaciers at the equator (which has also happened) is in the order of 10 to 20 degrees.

In the meantime, thinking we can ignore human caused greenhouse because its cumulative effect is small relative to the natural green house effect is as sensible as not turning of a heater in a small room in the tropics because its cumulative effect of 5 degrees on temperatures is pitifull compared to the cumulative natural effect of 300 degrees at the same location. (And believe me from experience, on a 35 degree centigrade day, you don't want to be 5 degrees warmer.)

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
veritasnoctis
New Member
Member # 3298

 - posted      Profile for veritasnoctis   Email veritasnoctis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Omega M.:
I wonder if he even saw Al Gore's movie.

Note that it's labelled a movie, not a documentary. I once had a fellow grad student defend Al Gore's exaggeration with the following: "Can't you at least appreciate Al Gore's flare for the dramatic? He has to get in the news somehow!"

[ December 07, 2006, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: veritasnoctis ]

Posts: 2 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Note that it's labelled a movie, not a documentary.
Um, yeah, because it can't be a movie and a documentary, or a movie and a comedy, or a movie and a drama...
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
veritasnoctis
New Member
Member # 3298

 - posted      Profile for veritasnoctis   Email veritasnoctis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah but documentary would be wildly inaccurate according to this definition of the term:


Movies, Television. based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements: a documentary life of Gandhi. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=documentary)

Much of the "documentary" is irresponsible hyperbole masquerading as sound science.

Posts: 2 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A documentary can be wrong and even contain hyperbolic language and still be a documentary just as a movie can be a comedy but not be very funny or a drama that does not evoke any emotion. You might say it's not a very good documentary, but it's still a documentary.

The distinction you originally made between "movie" and "documentary" is a false one.

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By the way, veritas--welcome to ornery, where you are (as Matt has so obligingly pointed out) wrong.
Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, welcome to OA truth. What's noctis?

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It means "of the night," Knight. As in nocturnal.
Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Zombie Thread!

One pitchfork and one torch each, please. No shoving, there are plenty for everyone.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Veritas, would you care to list the inaccuraccies in Al Gore's lecture?

Or is it just an item of faith with you that it is inaccurate?

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1