Clean air

[CPL.Luke]

well for arguments sake you could say that the higher levels of water will lead to more rain which will thusly remove the CO2 and other pollutants from the atmosphere faster then they would otherwise have been removed, thus it would be like having a filter in the box that got bigger the more pollution there was in the atmosphere.

 

However these points are made moot when you look at previous cycles in the earths climate that show tha these effects cannot negate the increased levels of CO2 fast enough, the temperature rises, and then hits a turning point where the temperature suddenly and quite dramatically falls to an ice age level.

 

the current climate models also demonstrate that GW is real and will continue with the rise in CO2 levels, without sudden and rapid change we are going to have to deal with large scale famines, and refugees from places which are going to be underwater, or will lack sufficient resources to feed people.

[jackson33]

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]

No, you still haven't answered my question. Do you feel that the air quality standards set in the 1970s made a difference? Did they, or did they not, improve the air? If I go to Los Angeles or New York City today, for example, am I breathing cleaner air than I was 35 years ago, or am I not, and is the difference due to clean air standards?

[jackson33]

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.

[waitforufo]

CO2 is not a polutant. It is a natural output of animals.

 

Many substances that are natural are also considered pollutants based on concentration. Arsenic is a good example. Arsenic naturally occurs in ground water. It is quite likely that the water you drink every day includes measurable levels of arsenic. If the concentration is below a level known to cause harm, the water is not considered polluted.

 

Does this mean people will be comfortable drinking water known to have measurable levels of arsenic? If they are scientists, the answer should be yes. I’m sure most scientists however would choose water without detectable levels of arsenic over those with, given the choice.

 

CO2 can therefore be considered a pollutant based on concentration.

 

In addition, the concentration level differs based on species. That is why miners use to put canaries in mine shafts. So, if you are concerned about nature and not just humans, the safe concentration level will consider entire ecosystems. Since ecosystems are complex, and we keep making new substances, pollutant research should be always ongoing.

 

People who doubt if global warming is man made or not. I don't know either.

 

Would it not make sense if air poluting would be minimized anyway fore the sake of people and nature. [?]

 

would that make sense?

 

This is really a question of how do you spend your money. Let’s say science has determined the concentration of arsenic in drinking water below which no harm is detected in humans or the environment. The EPA sets the acceptable level at one tenth that level to be on the safe side. At the time of such setting, this ‘safe level’ is near the level of reasonable detection accuracy. Because the level set is near the level of reasonable detection accuracy, many municipal water systems are considered arsenic free. After 10 years however, detection systems become 1000 times better. This means many once arsenic free municipal water systems now have detectable levels of arsenic. The media picks up on this and reports “Dramatic drop in arsenic free municipal water systems.” Should municipalities spend money to reduce the level of arsenic in their drinking water, or should they spend it on improving their schools? Perhaps if they spend it on schools, the populous will learn to trust the scientific research that determined the safe concentration level.

 

My guess is however, that they will spend the money on reducing the level of arsenic. Everyone knows that those scientists who say it’s a waste of money to further reduce the concentration o arsenic are just shills for Big Water. Those fat cats at Big Water drink bottled water and don’t care if the rest of us die.

[iNow]

Do you feel that the air quality standards set in the 1970s made a difference? Did they, or did they not, improve the air? If I go to Los Angeles or New York City today, for example, am I breathing cleaner air than I was 35 years ago, or am I not, and is the difference due to clean air standards?

 

It's important to look at the answer to this question controlling for population and sources of "dirty air."

 

The standards were set to improve the air, but there were fewer cars back then.

The standards helped improve the per car output of each vehicle.

Today, there are many more cars (and other non-automotive pollution sources).

 

So, yes, the per car contribution to "dirty air" is less than in the 1970s, but due to the greater number of cars on the road today, the air may, in fact, be less clean than it was then.

 

However, without these standards in place, the air would be EVEN dirtier than it is now.

[CPL.Luke]

the problem jackson is that if you look at the geologic record you will see that the co2 level has spiked fairly egularly over the past few million years, the temperature rapidly rises in response, then the world plunges ino an ice age.

 

that is concrete evidence that the earth's compensatory mechanisms are insuficient.

[jackson33]

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.

[pioneer]

Carbon dioxide is not a polutant. If we made a enclosed eco-system, with plants, bacteria, bugs, birds, animals and humans, and increased the CO2 to the level, to what we anticipate 30 years down the road, and put this into the eco-system it would better off not worse. The plants would grow better and will make more O2. The extra veg would then trickle its affect into the eco-system.

 

Extra CO2 is often used in greenhouses to assist expensive crops, like orchids, to make them grow better. It is not always used, because it is not always cost effective. With wheat it would cost too much for the results. There is plenty of evidence to show CO2 helps vegative growth.

 

If we next add, a real polutant to our eco-system, the affects would be the opposite. The eco-system in full or part will get worse with increasing concentration. With CO2 things don't get worse but better with increasing concentration (at the limits of global warming concern). If we could filter out all the CO2 from the eco-system, the plants would get stunted and the eco-system would suffer. A real polutant should cause the eco-system to improve if we totally reduced it. CO2 does not fit into the logic line of any other things that are usually associated with toxins and polutants.

 

Obviously, one could create artifically high CO2 to cause harmful affects. The same can also be done with H2O. So CO2 is as much of a polutant as H2O. In other words, neither fit into the polutant category since they both do good within a wide range. They both have a required baseline before an eco-system is able to achieve optimum results.

 

If anyone pitches CO2 as a polutant they are feeding you a line of bull. If the global warming people don't retract the label of CO2 as a polutant, then this demonstrates either lack of reason or deliberate deception. If global warming is true one should not be afraid to set the record straight since it won't really matter, either way. If it is part of a used car saleman's pitch, to make you afraid, so it is easier slide other things past.

 

Putting aside CO2 not being a polutant, but something good for nature, this does not discount the fact that extra CO2 can cause other affects. The science does indicate a greenhouse affect, where we can grow crops out of season and in places they normally don't grow. I don't see a problem so far.

 

The rest of the extrapolation into hotter summers, bigger storms, melting polar caps, flooding, changing of the ocean currents etc., if these were to happen it could lead to many problems for humans. There might be some truth to this. But it could also be a little exaggerated to make everything seem more imperative, i.e., drama for the motivating fear factor.

 

One of the things that made me believe that it is being exagerated for the needs of a fear game, was connected to the carbon offset credits. On the one hand, I am told the boogey man is about to get us. But on the other hand, I can ignor the boogey man by trading trade cards. It sort of gives conflicting signals. The people telling me to run are telling me they are exempt from the boogey man. If the boogey was really coming I would expect them running with me and not sitting back and letting me run. I am going stop and watch to see if the herd is being funneled into some type of meat processing plant.

[iNow]

If anyone pitches CO2 as a polutant they are feeding you a line of bull. If the global warming people don't retract the label of CO2 as a polutant, then this demonstrates either lack of reason or deliberate deception. If global warming is true one should not be afraid to set the record straight since it won't really matter, either way.

So, the Supreme Court of the United States, when they ruled on April 2, 2007 that carbon dioxide was to be treated as a pollutant per the guidelines under §202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, were feeding us a line of bull? Wow. Thanks, Pioneer, for bringing this blaring irrationality and deception to my attention.

 

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf

 

 

Upton Sinclairian...

[pioneer]

The justices are not scientists. They know how to deal with the laws of culture but not the laws of science. That were not qualified to make that decision anymore than Einstein was qualified to argue constitutional law. What the justices had to do was weigh the evidence presented. But since the R&D money is stacked on one side of the scale and does not reflect balanced research, the result of applying their wisdom to this biased data ends up becoming bull.

 

One has to get outside the irrational debate and think with calm logic. Too much of anything is not good for you, but at the levels of concern, the CO2 will not have any direct negative impact on the living state. CO2 does not act the same way on the living state that harmful things do. The CO2 may pose secondary problems, such as global warming, but it as of itself is one of the raw materials that life on earth depends upon to function. If we took it all away, the affect on life on earth would be more devastating than if we increased to the levels of global warming concern. It is no more of a polutant than is water. If we took away water, life would also die.

 

If the amount of water was to increase in the atmosphere we would also have bigger storms. If we used nuke power to make steam to pump into the atmosphere we could make bigger storms. By the standards of polution, now created, water would now be a polutant. We need to tell everyone that water is very dangerous to life. Anyone making soup is now contributing to dangerous weather. If you water your lawn and that evaporates, get ready for a fine. We need to cover all lakes since this water polutant can cause all types of problems.

 

I am being silly, but there are two affects overlapping. The first is the nature of the actual molecules either CO2 or water; both are necessary to life. The second is what happens if we go way overboard with either one. The first should create a sense of rational calm since it is part of life. But the second might create fear. But the fear from the second affect has spilled over onto the rational calm of the first affect, making people afraid of something natural. To help justify that fear we needed to change the label to polutant to help cater to the fear. We could do the same thing with water if someone convinced the herd that irrigation is adding more water to the air causing storms. The fearful of the land would use that as an excuse to bully so they can spread irrational fear throughout the land. If one will not do it the easy way (just go along with the frightened herd) then we will makes laws that will make you afraid the hard way (the long arm of law can now beat you into the collective fear).

 

One needs to separate these two things in their mind. The merchants of doom and gloom will not allow this to happen because the rational calm might flow over and cause their panic trump card to lose some power. That is why my gut tells me that this is a game with a hidden agenda. Everyone can make better decision when they are calm. But the movement is stirring up fear so everyone makes a quick fix decision. It is like the herd is being funneled down some cattle chute using fear. One has to follow the money trail to see who benefits most by the fear.

[iNow]

The justices are not scientists. They know how to deal with the laws of culture but not the laws of science.

So, all of those scientists they brought in to discuss the issue prior to making their decision, were they merchants of doom and gloom too?

 

One has to get outside the irrational debate and think with calm logic. Too much of anything is not good for you, but at the levels of concern, the CO2 will not have any direct negative impact on the living state. CO2 does not act the same way on the living state that harmful things do. The CO2 may pose secondary problems, such as global warming, but it as of itself is one of the raw materials that life on earth depends upon to function. If we took it all away, the affect on life on earth would be more devastating than if we increased to the levels of global warming concern. It is no more of a polutant than is water. If we took away water, life would also die.

This is a blatant strawman. Who said ANYTHING about taking away all CO2? The point is that we are increasing it's concentration at such a rate that we are harming ourselves and other life on the planet. Come on, dude. How is it now 2007 and we're still arguing the extent of human impact on the climate and ecosystems effected by it?

 

 

Don't mind the pink elephant in the room, there's a pterodactyl over there!

[jackson33]

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.

[iNow]

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.

 

Sorry Jackson, but this is just wrong. There is nothing steady about the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, unless you consider exponential growth "steady."

 

I tell you what. Here's some data to back-up my claim that the growth is far from linear. Where's yours?

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are naturally regulated by numerous processes collectively known as the “carbon cycle” (Figure 2). The movement (“flux”) of carbon between the atmosphere and the land and oceans is dominated by natural processes, such as plant photosynthesis. While these natural processes can absorb some of the net 6.1 billion metric tons of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions produced each year (measured in carbon equivalent terms), an estimated 3.2 billion metric tons is added to the atmosphere annually. The Earth’s positive imbalance between emissions and absorption results in the continuing growth in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

(emphasis mine)

 

 

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979JGR....84.5011M

The long-term trend of the baseline CO2 concentration in these urban data is not monotonic but shows a time-integrated increase of ~0.6 ppm/yr. consistent with the range and pattern of concentration gradients observed at global background sites.

 

 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2.html

Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700’s, human activities, such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, and deforestation, have increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution.

 

 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html

Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 382 ppm in 2006 according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Earth Systems Research Laboratory, a 36 percent increase. Almost all of the increase is due to human activities (IPCC, 2007). The current rate of increase in CO2 concentrations is about 1.9 ppmv/year. Present CO2 concentrations are higher than any time in at least the last 650,000 years (IPCC, 2007). See Figure 1 for a record of CO2 concentrations from about 420,000 years ago to present.

(emphasis mine)

 

 

 

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm

Since 1751 roughly 315 billion tons of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the mid 1970s. The 2004 global fossil-fuel CO2 emission estimate, 7910 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 5.4% increase from 2003.

(emphasis mine)

 

 

So, I ask again... I've shown you evidence in support of my claim, where's yours?

[jackson33]

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.

[iNow]

280 to 370 parts per MILLION cannot be classified a rapid increase.

If you look again at the data I shared, you will see that the vast majority of the increase was not evenly spread out over the past century, but has occurred since the 1970s. I am forced to wonder what you consider "rapid increase," as 370 is 90 more than 280, and 90 equals 32% of 280. So, can you please confirm that you are here arguing that a 32% increase is not rapid?

 

Again, for the 2001st time and using your chart...

<...>

I do wonder if you have an opinion of your own. All I see is you voicing others evidence which can be found anyplace.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it Jackson, you're still wrong.

 

I find it curious that you are trying to disparage my opinion because it's shared by the experts on the topic, as well as the evidence at hand. If having my opinion rooted in fact is a bad thing, well... then I'm guilty as charged.

 

 

Me and my offspring shouldn't have to die out due to someone else's failure in understanding.

[jackson33]

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.

[iNow]

Did you have a point somewhere in there? I'm rather confident that my posts stated facts, and did so with multiple sources showing consistent trends. Why the need to paint my approach as "doom and gloom" and try switching the topic to taxes? No facts of your own which disprove what I've shared?

 

Per your random statement on "academia," you'll find in any university climate science or meteorology department, as well as in all of the true science journals, little to no uncertainty or disagreement regarding human's impact on the CO2 and global climate change issues. The only people who aren't sure are the media or people with an agenda. The experts on the topic are all pretty clearly aligned.

 

So, I ask again, where's your data which shows me wrong, and do you have a point?

[MangoChutney]

I agree with much of what you say, Jackson

 

I am not against investigating the phenomena and do believe that man may be partially responsible, as well as believing we should take care of our environment regardless of whether or not it is us.

 

What irks me is Al Gore making a fortune through MMGW through his company Generation Investment Management, while preaching the MMGW message. I think a man making millions of dollars per annum out of MMGW is a little biased.

 

There is so much we don't know about the climate such as does the 6% decrease in the earths electromagnetism over the last 100 years, account for any of the global warming we are experiencing, what caused the North Sea to flood 8000 years ago?

 

I think it was in 2005 that the North Atlantic Drift was reported as slowing down by 30% and this could plunge Europe into an ice-age, but now the same people who did the original survey are saying that their "evidence" was based on a single survey in 2003 and the Drift happens naturally and is VERY variable

 

If these scientists can get it so wrong, what about the rest of us

 

JHMO

[iNow]

If these scientists can get it so wrong, what about the rest of us.

 

Hi MangoChutney,

 

Can you please provide some citations on the events and numbers you've listed? This would really be useful, and also appreciated.

 

I understand that mistakes happen, but I'd like to read the actual articles to put the numbers and mistakes into context. This is especially important if you are using them to negate the plethora of consistent and repeated evidence available regarding the impact of human activity on global climate post industrial revolution. Thanks.

[jackson33]

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.

[MangoChutney]

Hi MangoChutney,

 

Can you please provide some citations on the events and numbers you've listed? This would really be useful, and also appreciated.

 

I understand that mistakes happen, but I'd like to read the actual articles to put the numbers and mistakes into context. This is especially important if you are using them to negate the plethora of consistent and repeated evidence available regarding the impact of human activity on global climate post industrial revolution. Thanks.

 

Sorry, still new to this type of thing

 

Generation Investment Management - http://www.generationim.com/

 

Magnetic field - http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm

 

Doggerland - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(prehistoric) (type 1 flood - "Very flat land being steadily flooded over a long time as the sea rises, sometimes fast enough to be easily noticed in a human's lifetime." )

 

North Atlantic Driftv - http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn12494&feedId=climate-change_rss20

[iNow]

Okay. Unfortunately, the links you've provided do not discuss at all the mistakes you referenced in post #44, so I'll have to address them for what they are.

 

 

Generation Investment Management - http://www.generationim.com/

I find it curious that your assumption is since he and his partners are making money that he COULDN'T POSSIBLY be genuine in his motivations. Regardless, this isn't about Al Gore.

 

I've presented very meaningful and replicable facts and figures which state the true nature of this issue, yet you counter that someone who is making money in their efforts to get people to pay attention to the issue "must be biased?"

 

Look again at my posts. I've simply shared information. Your response about this company run in part by Al Gore is rather telling of your true knowledge of the topic.

 

Magnetic field - http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm

Thanks for the link. I'm already somewhat familiar with the fact that we have a magnetic field surrounding the Earth, that it's intensity changes, and that we are due for a polarity shift. My question was, how does this have anything to do with global climate change? I closely read the link you provided, and there was no information regarding climate change there either.

 

So I again call into question your contention that the decrease in geomagnetic field intensity could be the responsible factor for current changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the shifts in climate we are experiencing. I am open to correction on this issue if I'm mistaken.

 

 

Doggerland - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(prehistoric) (type 1 flood - "Very flat land being steadily flooded over a long time as the sea rises, sometimes fast enough to be easily noticed in a human's lifetime." )

 

By the way, the link you gave did not work. I believe you meant this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_%28prehistoric%29

 

Upon reading this article, I found that it gives zero indication of what caused the flood. What I did find extremely interesting is the clear discussion about how scientists debate whether or not the flood even took place. You are basically using an event (who calls it a "deluge" anyway?), the existence/occurence of which is not even agreed to by archeologists specializing in the topic... to argue against the facts I shared? Let me ask again, how does this point factor into current changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the shifts in climate we are experiencing?

 

 

North Atlantic Driftv - http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn12494&feedId=climate-change_rss20

Okay, another neat article, but all it discusses is that there was this model describing ocean currents that needed to be updated. The model originally predicted a change in North Atlantic "meridional overturning circulation," but it predicted this should occur more quickly than what is actually observed. This is something they are now adjusting in the model as new information comes in. So what?

 

The only reference to global climate change here is that fluctuations in global climate will impact this Atlantic "stirring," but that it's difficult to pin down the specifics on how it does and to what extent, primarily since there is such short-term variability in these Atlantic currents.

 

If you want to see the actual study that your New Scientist link references, please look here:

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5840/935

 

 

Again, how does any of this counter the information I've shared? I swear... All too often the people who disagree don't understand the data, and rely on the bait and switch technique to convince others. This disgusts me, and I put it on par with creationism.

 

 

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

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.

The audience to which they cater are not the experts, which is why there is such disagreement. The viewing audience is being asked to rely on the inconsistent and biased bits of information shared with them on the weather channel and news stations. Also, AccuWeather news people are broadcasters, much like news anchors, not doing actual research in the field.

 

It is not my intent to bash the weather person on your local television channel, but I'd suggest you look more closely at the data itself if you want to understand these issues. What you get on television is a spun version of the information, and it tends to be dumbed down so they can share it with the laymen/general viewer.

 

If you want information that is reliable, visit the Climatology/Meteorology departments at your local university or college, or pick up the journals which specialize in the same.

 

Per NASA Administrator Michael Griffin's comments, he has since stated that his intent was severely misrepresented and politicized. He stated that his personal opinion on this should be separated from the work of his organization and the experts working on climatology research. His actual comments (so you know I am being authentic), which originally aired on NPR, are as follows:

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10571499

"I have no doubt that ... a trend of global warming exists," Griffin said on NPR. "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2007-06-06-griffin-regrets-warming-comments_N.htm

NASA administrator Michael Griffin said in the closed-door meeting Monday at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena that "unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political than technical and it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it."

 

 

I'd like to point out that instead of countering my facts, you've disparaged my abilities. It's reciprocity time. What a horseshit piece of garbage this statement within your post was (not that the other parts weren't horse poo):

 

iNow; Sorry if you couldn't pick out my points. I see five

 

Instead of apologizing that someone couldn't pick out your points, how about you start making some that are coherent and supported with citations?

[Pangloss]

Keep it polite, folks.

[MangoChutney]

I find it curious that your assumption is since he and his partners are making money that he COULDN'T POSSIBLY be genuine in his motivations. Regardless, this isn't about Al Gore.

 

We may have to disagree on Al Gores motives, but when nearly everybody is holding up Al Gores movie as the last word in climate change, personally I think he should declare his financial interests in advance of releasing the movie

 

I've presented very meaningful and replicable facts and figures which state the true nature of this issue

 

I haven't questioned your facts, I think that may have been somebody else. I think there is no denying facts from reputable sources, but even the most pro-mmgw believer must accept that facts are open to agendas from either the scientists involved or more likely the politician who presents them.

 

I am sceptical of MMGW, although I do think we must be partly responsible - pumping pollution into the air for decades and not causing problems can only last so long before mother nature says "enough already", but I read many things that makes me think there is more to this than just CO2 being pumped into the air.

 

I accept that I am no expert in this field and have to rely on media reports, which are generally based on which ever way the wind happens to be blowing that day - much the same as any politician nearing election day, and reports that I can find on the internet. I try to check out these reports, but it's not easy for a layman

 

I think I am open minded enough to be persueded into believing GW is man made, but I have many questions and is the reason I joined SFN, because I thought there would be answers to these questions

 

 

I'm already somewhat familiar with the fact that we have a magnetic field surrounding the Earth, that it's intensity changes, and that we are due for a polarity shift. My question was, how does this have anything to do with global climate change?

 

We agree the earths electromagnetism has decreased significantly over the last century at the same time that the earths temperature rises and the climate changes. Could there be a link?

 

We know the electromagnetism helps deflect cosmic rays, so the decrease in the earths field must allow more through. We also know cosmic rays help cause the formation of cloud cover (Edward Ney, 1959, Marsh and Svensmark, 2000), which helps to keep the earth warm. I believe CERN are currently doing an experiment to see if the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation, which should test this idea.

 

By the way, the link you gave did not work. I believe you meant this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_%28prehistoric%29

 

Upon reading this article, I found that it gives zero indication of what caused the flood. What I did find extremely interesting is the clear discussion about how scientists debate whether or not the flood even took place. You are basically using an event (who calls it a "deluge" anyway?), the existence/occurence of which is not even agreed to by archeologists specializing in the topic... to argue against the facts I shared? Let me ask again, how does this point factor into current changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the shifts in climate we are experiencing?

 

Apologies if the link didn't work, not sure why, must have been a typo

 

Again, I am not arguing against the facts you shared, what I am saying is many archeologists believe the North Sea flooded very quickly (the same that many scientists believe GW is MM). The water likely came from melting ice caps. For the ice caps to melt so quickly, there must have been a rapid temperature rise. Whether or not this was caused by sun activity, CO2 or a change in the earths magnetism, I don't know, but I can't see how it could be MMGW

 

Natural events can cause very rapid changes in temperature

 

Okay, another neat article, but all it discusses is that there was this model describing ocean currents that needed to be updated.

 

My point here is the scientists release data that is used to convince others that global warming has reached a tipping point sparking the usual headlines from the media. This data was based on a single survey that proves to be totally wrong only a few years later.

 

Facts can sometimes be wrong

 

Finally, INow, I accept that I am no expert in these things and I am grateful for peoples time on this forum to point out where I am going wrong or have my facts / ideas wrong.

 

I have a genuine desire to understand and a genuine need not to see my tax money spent on everything "green", especially when I hear about millions of people dying throughout the world, because they don't have clean water - something we could fix now at minimal cost, if we had the political will. I drive a small 2 seater, economical car, started recycling before it became fashionable and I don't waste water, electricity or heating.

 

I don't think I am the typical sceptic, but I accept I could be wrong