jackson33

A good example for *appearance* and accepting, might be the African Elephant, which has given us a recent example... Up until the 1930-40's tusk less male AE, made up less than 1% of the total. They were possibly on the verge of extinction. Poaching for the tusk killed off many, making the tusk less more appealing to the female. Today or at least recently these tusk less males made up from 35-50% of the total. (depending on source). If poaching had continued its likely the once near extinct tusk less would have prevailed and those with tusk become extinct...This by the way a very short time period.

77% of the lower atmosphere is Nitrogen, 22% is Oxygen and of the remaining 1% CO2 is about .039%. Put another way 770,000 parts per million is Nitrogen, 220,000 parts oxygen and 385 ppm is CO2. Give or take 100 parts, its been about this ratio for longer than mankind has existed.

Think rigaden is referring to the 8/23/07 article in Space.Com, by Robert Britt, where a void said to be a billion light years across, was discovered. Voids or areas of space where no matter (galaxy/gas/matter) seem to exist are not that uncommon, however the size of this one is... Gizmo; The only honest answer is no one really knows. However under Big Bang Theory, its said Space, Time and all sprang from a singularity and this space continues today to expand into an apparent nothingness. You could say the idea, indicates nothing existed, other than that singularity, prior to the BB or our universe. Under most of the Steady State Theories, the Universe is probably finite (ends someplace) but exist in an endless space scenario. In this case there would have never been a "before". The current scientific consensus, does go with the BBT....

Humans breath out and the total CO2 is no more than 6% of that total, according to Britannica. Cows I am assuming may produce more poundage, but the rate probably not much more. As you indicate, Methane in the atmosphere is more efficient in heat retention, but does degrade at a much faster rate, than CO2. (8years vs 100year). Cars or anything using crude oil based fuels, produce 20 pounds of CO2 per gallon burned, under normal circumstances. Last Thursday, Jason Lewis (filling in for Limbaugh) read an article from some newspaper telling of an impending Global heat wave, as the North pole was melting, where snow was is now rock and dirt. On Friday Limbaugh read another article, much along the same line. Lewis's article was written in the late 1890's and Limbaugh's in 1929. El Nino, may well play a role in temporary conditions above the Arctic Circle, however there is probably more involved than the water temperatures off the west coast of North America. For instance early snow falls will still force temperatures down further south, even with a Nino condition, IMO. You might like reading some of Dr. Roy Spencer's work on moistures and the GW issue. His current thoughts, which I question, are on the lack of Hurricane/Cyclone activity which he feels will lead to "Super Cyclones", based on lack of circulation of warm waters, which these storms create. Water is naturally cooled from below as water temperatures drop off by depth. At least this is my opinion. Spencer is with the University of Alabama. With my cyclical view of weather and atmospheric conditions, I tend to lean toward natural causes. That is nature evolved to what are current conditions. These conditions have cycled to extremes in the past, from a total Ice planet 7-800 million years ago to a virtual tropical planet, some say during the Dino period 240-65 million years ago. With extremes or cycles much greater than today and up to about 55 million years ago. From there the extremes have decreased to what has allowed humans/animal/plant life to thrive. This should not IMO be totally based on Solar Activity, Electro magnetic fields or anything which the outer three atmospheres could handle.

Jon; Although I am not affiliated with this forum and an occasional poster at best, please accept my warm welcome to the forum...Your above site and your *profile site* are both good reading material, for both the pro and con, man caused GW campers. Water vapor, no doubt has played a large role in global weather cycles over time. As mentioned on other threads, the problem is factually justifying an argument with out some statistical record. There is none and even today its hard to express an opinion, where 70% of the planets weather activity is over oceans. Tree cores do offer some (growing seasons) indication, or should, but I have yet to find an analysis. Anyway hope you hang around awhile and give us few MMGW skeptics a little help on these issues...

Swan; Your second response came on, while completing my own. I really have nothing further to comment on. Your simply saying my comments are arbitrary, with out merit and some how have little to do with any GW issue. My post was intended to give some clarity to what IPCC actually said, according to the authors with Wikipedia and my opinions to their somewhat if not totally vague assertions. I would think however, the remedies suggested, suggest an apparent agreement the planet is in trouble or doomed, w/o direct intervention by the UN itself. This then in my mind an agenda... Am not sure, I have stated anything as fact. Even in researching any statistic, I find incomprehensible variations. This is why I do argue GW, as man caused and reason to alter life styles TODAY. When I was in school, a long time ago, we were taught as fact; The population of the US could never be sustained over 200 million people. We would be living in 50 story buildings, little food and destined to die from some unknown virus. Oh yes, if we lived to the 21 century, which was unlikely, the Earth would be deep in an ice age. These facts, to my knowledge have not materialized, nor IMO will the current rants of extremist groups. The fact is people with *doom and gloom* scenarios attract audiences which prefer living in that state. I simply prefer not to, feeling the planet and its people are going to be just fine.

Swan; In that case, what percentage of people on this or any forum are qualified or even have a right to express a view. People will and should judge from the materials available, which is for the most part is what science is all about. Extracting from the evidence to form that opinion....From your profile its obvious your more than qualified to offer authoritative comments and have specific beliefs, based in part on an educational background. My problem is with the apparent dismissal of any one else's opinion, based on your own background, where an earnest attempt to learn an issue may have been made... iNow; The average person produces 50 tons of CO2 annually (274 pounds per day). This taken from a pro-camp so may be exaggerated. The gallon of fuel, gasoline-diesel, which weights about 8 pounds produces about 20 pound of CO2, as it picks up the two parts -O-. The average truck today gets no more than 8 mpg or travels about 64 (8 gallons) miles producing 160 pounds of CO2. For the record a car getting 30mpg will travel 240 miles while producing that 160 pounds of CO2. On a 2500 mile produce truck trip, the truck fuel will produce 6240 pound of CO2, while the driver adds 800 pounds (3 days) or a total of 7,040. The Wagon train, the 100 men alone would require 6 months to travel, 1/2 year and produce 50,000 pounds each of CO2. You are welcome to add what ever you like for the "ox", include or not, the methane or the decaying by products of what the ox and men leave behind. Even a bus traveling with 50 persons, would produce less CO2, then the passengers themselves. The train with 100 cars, although burning gallons per mile has an efficiency level not often mentioned.

According to Wikipedia, IPCC; The stated goal was to extract relevant Scientific Information to.. 1-Human induced climate change. 2- Impacts of human-induced climate change and 3- Options for adaptation and mitigation. (I would suggest no.3 pre judges what 1 and 2 would have to determine or that those participating knew in advance what the program was designed to establish) Some conclusions; A- Warming of climate systems is unequivocal. (Pure nonsense; The planet has been much warmer and/or cooler over time.) B- 50% of the observed increases in Global Temperatures since the Mid 20th Century are (90% consensus) are very LIKELY due to man made concentrations. (Talk about double talk. Actually in modern times the mid 30's were warmer than anything current. Droughts, high temperatures were a world wide problem, not just the US dust bowl days) C- The probability that this is a natural process is less than 5%. (So much for Nature or the natural process seen which evolved to the point each living species could/does/did live.) D- Sea levels will PROBABLY rise by 18-23 inches in the 21st century and temperatures will rise 2-11.5 F. (Since this is based on the suggested .5 degree F from the end of the 19th Century, I find it an attempt to create hysteria in anyone who understand what that 11.5 in 90 years figure would truly mean.) E- 90% consensus there will be far more warm spells and heat waves with heavy rain falls. BUT with a 66% consensus there will be more droughts, cyclones and extreme high tides. (In one place or another, no doubt more or less some some weather pattern will happen. This goes to the idea "all the ills and problems in the world" are caused by man caused GW. As for the Moon causing Tidal Waves, well we are knew that was a joke, didn't we???) F- CO2 levels have increased markedly since 1750 and far EXCEED the values of the past 650k year. ( I am not sure any one who has ever looked at a chart of CO2, Methane, Solar Cycles, Sulfur with Temperature levels, would agree with that statement. In fact while researching this IPCC, I saw where in recent times PPM CO2 level were near 400 and in 1942 was over 400 PPM.) iNow; I know this is off topic and I understand you were addressing John. My only point in even offering this post, was to IMO demonstrate the extremes which the UN and their program have gone. John; Often in arguing GW, I have used the little heater (man) and his big heaters (home/work/auto/factories/mining/agriculture/ect) to demonstrate what should be if man could out pace nature's natural give/take of the environment/atmosphere. Virtually none of this with a billion people in the mid-19th century to 6.5 billion people and even more astronomical increases in the rest today, the figures for measuring mans influence should be obvious. They are not...IMO. On moisture/clouds/rain distribution, many agree this issue is instrumental in what causes temperature fluctuations. The problems are in measurements, which are not available today, much less over historic times. How much falls over the oceans (70% of the planet) in any given year, opposed to land fall (which includes cloud cover) should give a more accurate picture to what land dwellers have endured.

Swan; Most folks will never have an occasion to express their views on any topic of importance, much less than the one which could effect our very way of life. Additionally most of us, have read reports *pro/con*, probably many of which are or are from "Scientific Journals" no doubt having been reviewed. Our opinions are based on something, noting that most opponents (including myself) are skeptical rather than outright opposed to what has caused the LATEST WARM SPELL. Rather than adding to your frustration from posters, or formatting an argument, please feel free to google *Man Made Global Warming, opposition*, which I did prior to this post. Wikipedia has an impressive list of "skeptics", many of which have come from previous advocates. This just one of over a million listing, which after the first 20, reaffirmed my status as a skeptic. I nor John are alone with our thoughts. IMO; You will find nothing, not seen before, but suggest as you feel the skeptics are stubborn to accept, you and many advocates are just as stubborn to believe their may be other motivations behind these claims. iNow; "do the math"??.....All the activity mentioned, releases carbons into the atmosphere, which is restored in other forms, primarily plant life. I might add twice as much oxygen (than carbon) eventually gets back into that atmosphere. Since we are talking 385 parts per Million, I assume all that we are producing is very small to that tonnage which is atmosphere. Your actual argument must be totals, of breathing animal life on the planet. Obviously if we lived today, as our ancestors did a thousand years ago or two hundred years, we would have a problem, especially with the addition of 5.6 billion humans. I can just imagine that wagon train of fresh produce heading out from California, to NYC with say 100 ox and 200 men, to handle what one truck and one driver can easily handle today. Which would create the MOST CO2???

Darwin; Many folks engaged in the GW argument, feel there is an underlying ideology bordering a religious tone, when any argument opposing the idea is made. Much as Creation/Evolution....Consensus, by shear numbers believe a God of sorts created *Mankind*, but with a thousand plus versions on just when and how this could have happened. GW, likewise simply infers mankind is somehow responsible for ALL the problems or ills of society. Most in reality have nothing what so ever to do with GW or are the parties truly concerned with that issue. Many issues which folks (especially politicians) cannot attack as a single issue, CAN be attacked under the topic GW. I have found, in arguing *Natural Cycle* warming/cooling of the planet as a natural process, allowing mankind to become, that the opposing view is concerned with one or more of what mankind has done. Most appear IMO, to dislike Capitalism in general. Wealth which has been created, life styles which not everyone can achieve or the control over people, which some perceive Corporations maintain. Foodchain; The short answer is then, not to join the Military. In the US, today we have plenty of folks, which still believe in the American Dream, the culture and traditions which have made this Country, all that it is... My point however, was our system under the framers of our Country, via the Constitution, realized with a million or 300 million individuals had to have a system, where one person takes on the responsibility for certain actions with few restrictions. Truman, in ordering the Bombing of 2 Cities in Japan, which ended WWII, could not have concerned himself with his afterlife or that of the millions which that action affected. Right or wrong, he made that decision and the war ended. The Civil War, was just as tragic, with far more controversy than the current actions in Iraq. I call myself, agnostic as well, primarily since I still hope to believe in something someday. Personally, if there is an afterlife, there should have been a pre-life, which is what I could accept but is not a concept today. And I did join the military, for reasons of duty to country and my ancestry which goes back to the War for Independence.

Dissent/differ/disagree is very much part of the the intent and meaning of our system. As a right to do so, w/o being punished. The problem is when these expressed views are motivated to undermine other than the victim. In this case the House and much of the Senate, has an expressed desire to bring down the Bush administration. AG, IMO, has many faults other than a loyal administration advocate. I feel he may be or have been wrong on many domestic issues. However these issues and especially the ones the House has used, are not sufficient to discredit an otherwise honorable and productive career.

The shame of what *Inside the Beltway* mentality has become, is with the hundreds of qualified people who will never run for political office. Many well qualified, well meaning and comparatively moral folks will choose other fields for themselves and influence their family or friends to avoid, what our founders actually encouraged... Bush II, to his generation will never get credit due, for the jobs he has done to maintain some stability to both the security and economic systems during unprecedented events. All those that were and have been through his Texas and National tenures, many of which go back to Bush I and even Reagan, have paid there dues, ten fold to what any member of Congress has or could have endured. The fall of the US, will come from with in and possibly sooner than expected. The reasons will lay in the quality and intent of those we elect as a total. No system has or will ever be perfect, but the *Patriotism*, *Love and Loyalty to Country*, which has made being American to most of us something special has long been dropped from our teachings. We, as a Nation of individuals have chose to impose our individual right to free speech on all those who prefer the traditions, morality and legal systems which gave all of us a shot at the *American Dream*.

geoguy; One problem I have had with Bush II, is what religion may play in his decisions. The *New Tone* just get along theory with Congress and his reluctance to use his *Veto* power to serve his election platform, which has been trashed. However IMO his work ethics (Oil field to the Rangers), his management of Texas and his foreign policy has a *no nonsense* ora which I felt in Reagan and Thatcher. I honestly feel both Thatcher and Reagan, if in charge on 9-12-01, would have acted and followed up in very much the same manner, even to the policies of today. The Democrat Party of Truman/Reagan/Kennedy was in total a very different entity. Each believed in lower taxes, a strong military and limited government, especially along the line of social programs. Agent; Americans have long been ready for a lady leader. One major problem is we have few strong minded, thick skinned women who have chosen a political career. If Hillary has a problem its going to be in defense/security. So far she has stayed centered but the reality is what was/was not done, during Bill's 8 years. IMO, the voters will reject a return to the Pacifist/Isolationist notion or treating Terrorism as a problem for *Law Enforcement*.

Guess its irony, but I remember 92 to 96, you could hardly find a person who acknowledged voting for or intended to vote for Bill Clinton. Then I looked at the Red/Blue layout and realized just how few areas or concentration of voters it takes to win an election. Even California where Clinton won in a landslide, his voters were in 10% of the total states area. Hillary, IMO is the strategist in the family. Although again IMO she will be very bad for the Nation in general, she is competent, at least as a politician. She does offer those that liked the 90's, a chance to relive the glory days of the extreme elements in our society. She is no Thatcher and certainly not another Reagan, but the overall current sentiment would not NOW consider these folks as we did in their time. Frankly I think Bush Jr. is along the philosophy of them and that sentiment is nearly non-existent, today.

Mango; As little/common people, we will listen to the scientist, leaders and programmers of our societies. Sorry to say but for the most part people really do not care about most issues. In the US, today our biggest concern would seem to be lead in our toys and from where they came from. I would venture a guess and say no more than 10% will be returned by the customer or in fact thrown out. However the few that do care will take the brunt for any disagreement/skepticism to an accepted premise by what seem to be authoritative individuals. My personal theory when hearing some new cause for some new pending crisis, is to see who will benefit whether from money, power or some agenda. This usually leads you to legitimize being skeptical from the start and in most cases, a few years down the road the issue will be disproved or just dropped. There are many alternative theory to GW, aside from cycles. Magnetic Field Shifts, generally not one, but the said 8-10% decrease over a century would seem to indicate we will soon shift or as Mars did, just loose it altogether. It has been 730,000 years since the last shift, prior to this some 9 reversals over the previous 178 million years or about each 400k years. Your channel currently under water is thought to have resulted from melting glaciers from the last mini-ice age 12k years ago or so. Think they found a city in the Channel and grapes were an annual harvest both about 10k year ago. As for the plunging into an Ice Age, there will be no plunge. It may happen and IMO will happen, but hundreds of thousand or millions of years. iNow; Sorry if you couldn't pick out my points. I see five, one of which you responded to. Your everyday weather people, Accu Weather to the local broadcasters when cornered just don't agree with MM GW. Even the head of NASA, questioned the concern. Agenda is what The Weather Channel has done with the issue, mentioned series on GW every 10 minutes, just ahead of locals. Media in general (print/TV/Radio etc) does cater to an audience and having said this means some feel their audiences are divided, contrary to your argument.

Wikipidia claims there are 5000 Trillion Metric Tons of mass making up our atmosphere and Compton's said another way claims 5.5 quadrillion 55 followed by 14 zeros. Whats given has mans contribution, about 5% of the total CO2 emitted or that arguable 36% is trivial to these totals. Then consider mans total activity increases over those same years and logically we should have tripled or more that total. IMO the reason its reasonable stable is Natures reactions to conditions, even to the point of weather patterns. As a skeptic of MM cause for GW, never have I or have I read, where skeptics feel the issues should not be studied. We only ask that hysteria, gloom and doom philosophy be left out and rational actions be taken. There is no reason to remove Bush from office or shut down Dow Chemical or alter life as we know it on the current figures offered. Certainly someplace I must have read your opinion on needed actions to prevent Al Gores version of the near future, but do not recall. You and your offspring as myself and mine are paying taxes and additional cost for many products in the name of GW, which are not being spent on that cause. Personally I question just what portion of involved academia is in either camp, pro or con, man caused. Meteorologist seem to be skeptical or oppose the notion and those working under UN or government grants seem to go along with the idea. One thing for sure, NO ONE is totally agreeable with all of any particular overview.

Again, for the 2001st time and using your chart, 280 to 370 parts per MILLION cannot be classified a rapid increase. A rapid increase is 1 Billion people on the planet about 1800 to the current 6.3 Billion and all its taken to get there with the conveniences. Needless to say, I will question that chart on tonnage, since even a wood burning fire emits CO2... Whatever tonnage you want to give man credit for, plants have long since stored this or CO2 breaks down over about a century. Additionally the tonnages into the total atmosphere by man, equal to what size bucket of water added to the ocean, would desalt it... My post was directed to Pioneer, after a couple rather distasteful (IMO)replies by you to his/her rather well laid out arguments. I do wonder if you have an opinion of your own. All I see is you voicing others evidence which can be found anyplace.

Pioneer; Under the strict definition of pollutant, IMO you are correct. It is no more so, than oxygen which is the by product of plant life is to plants. The Justices, in their 5-4 decisions allowed the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions from burning of fossil fuels. That is make requirements to filter down what considered harmful or toxic to an area. Though advocates of Man made GW have latched onto it, their concerns were likely more aligned to health issues. The four dissenters, were agreeable with the need, but felt that it was a Congressional responsibly to clarify the Clean Air Act and not a legal or constitutional issue. You have mentioned CO2 to enhance plant health and growth. Farmers in many places, do not plow under previous dead growths, until time to plant new crops. This decaying material has a great deal of CO2. Additionally mulch from any organic source is developed and used for this purpose and gives a certain amount of moisture retention to the soil. For the record, having said it a couple thousand times and disregarding what ever year or century this is; CO2, man made or from natural sources is not increasing rapidly. If anything its increasing gradually allowing mankind to achieve the populations and food productions it currently has. 280 ppm to 370 ppm in the past 100 years. I also like your trump card idea, but feel Al Gore has played it. Life as we know it, will not change in 10 years for any reason created by man. The trump cards or doom and gloom scenarios from the past, have tried to blame mans existence for the problems. From population growths to food supplies to resource limitations all have been used to legitimize one group over another, whether for political purpose or giving cause to taxation and then to social engineering. What is never considered is all the achievements that mankind has made in the past or should be in the future to allow continued growths has been from mans hand. If CO2 or any particular element does in fact jeopardize existence, the technology exist today to alter this problem, w/o that much imagination.

Luke; Google *historic CO2 levels* and/or check out "globalwarming.org", which will give you another perspective. Levels at 1000 to 2000 259mya to 65mya, the Dino period and some have suggested 10 to 20 degree above our current mean. However I am familiar with what you suggest, but thought there was a 50-100 years delay... While most feel we are still increasing from the last or second to last Ice Age, your saying the results of this minor uptrend will lead to a PLUNGE into the next ice age. Actually I have argued we are headed for an ice age, maybe a couple hundred thousand years from now to a million, but have always mentioned this was a contrary opinion. W/O going into it here, its based on weather patterns, not CO2 or any anomaly of mans cause.

Yes, metropolitan areas have cleaner air today than in the 50-60's, by far. Certainly setting standards aided. According to Boone Pickens (oil tycoon), when back from a China visit, metropolitan China reminds him of LA, 40 years ago.

Luke; No doubt, I could phrase *Social Engineering* in other ways. To me its a major problem involving mandates/credits to achieve goals, not all related to GW. California, is and has been very active along these lines. Going back 20 years you were required to have solar units (in some areas) to build or buy a house (mandate) or you could just add them to your current house for tax credits. The Fed, with business in mind, for some time has given grants or large credits to modernize exhaust systems and so on. To the auto industry they have mandated requirements for various things including emissions. The public is then paying for these mandates. Generally speaking, with regards to cleaning up the local environment or to assist in solving the DEPENDENCY problems pertaining to oil based products, waste management or recycling of water or material...I have no problem and agree with what ever you call it. Again IMO; These actions are good and should continue, but to think we or these actions are solving some global environmental pending catastrophe, makes little sense and is misleading to the general public... Pangloss; Think my statement to Luke, addresses your first question. Your Box Scenario, infers a one way route where nothing is there to counter the actions of man. The real BOX, as has been suggested is the planet itself. My figures for atmospheric make up can be found anywhere and indicate a general reaction of nature to mans actions. To much CO2, then plants thrive and indications are more plant life exist today than ever before. By the way, those actions of man, by all Pro-GW articles I have read indicate we are responsible for 5% or so of the total CO2 and other said harmful elements, with nature or natural causes taking credit for 95%.

Pangloss; Please note this is opinion....If we had continued from what was in the 40's thru the 50's, w/o (non-mandated) actions and later to some social engineering by government, no doubt we would have some serious health and other problems today. I simply can't relate our involvement with nature as a problem or cause for global climate changes. All I mentioned that is or has been added to what should have been plenty of cause for disruption, has in fact disrupted nothing. My objections to GW by man is well documented and based on hysterical desires to undermine the rising worlds living and economical condition. The unsaid opposition to this is to let 3rd world economies stay 3rd world and reduce as many as possible to that status. This I can not support... Personally, I do not oppose any actions which do not punish achievement or the standards I refer to...We can and have reduced per/capita CO2 and other emissions in recent years and certainly we have cleaned up many rivers, streams, lakes and old mining/manufacturing sites. Of all the 3 million plus trucks in the US, create no more CO2 or other irritants of the 1 million in the 50's. The list is long and much is being done and will continue.

The worlds population in 1900 was about 1.5 billion, 1930 2 billion and is now about 6.3 billion. The total world auto/truck registration is said to be about 681 million. You can add A/C, Gas/Coal/Oil Heating, BBQ Pits, Lawn mowers and a number of items non-existent pre-1900. Now consider the make up of our atmosphere; 770,000 parts per million nitrogen and 220,000 parts per million Oxygen, both of which have been pretty steady since 1900. CO2, the culprit of man kind from 1900 to 2005 is said to have increased from 280 to 370 parts per million. It would seem to me, that the give and take of natural actions (Nature if you prefer) are rolling along just fine. The box scenario, assuming a rather large one, would have probably sprouted plant life, which I saw no referance to...

Alchemist to Modern Chemistry and now to Nanotech Chemist/Scientist have all worked on changing something to something else, with a great deal of success in alloy's, fabrics and other items. One thought in Nanotech reverses the idea, or taking anything making it into a particular item. Fuel for distant space flight from whatever materials found along the way, for instance. In my mind, I can see many years from now where production of a food from inorganic material to nourishing food, much like vitamins are today. We also can make many things from one food source to taste or look like another. Artificial crab meat, from white fish and stuffed crabs a couple of my favorites and about 1/10th the cost of the real item. Just a couple thoughts to maybe adjust the replicator idea to a practical level of potential....