Political Crossfire Forums

[AllAmericanMan]

I typed out this paragraph from a national geographic magazine article by hand. The article is titled "A Deeper Shade of Green" and it's written by Bill McKibben.

Very interesting paragraph and the rest of the article is as well. How long can we continue to ignore scientists warnings? Because they are becoming more severe.

Quote: British scientist James Lovelock, who invented the instrument that allowed us to detect our eroding atmosphere, published an essay predicting that we've already added too much CO2 to the atmosphere and that runaway global warming is inevitable. He predicted that billions will die this century. A few days later came the less dramatic but equally disturbing announcement. The steady and long-serving NASA climatolgist James Hansen defied federal attempts to gag him and told reporters that new calculations about, among other things, the instability of Greenland's ice shelf showed "we can't let it go on another 10 years like this. If we did? Over time, the build up of CO2 emissions would "imply changes that constitute practically a different planet." Less than 10 years to reverse course. Not our kids' lifetimes, or our grandkids'. Ours.

[Babylon_Horuv]

AllAmericanMan wrote: I typed out this paragraph from a national geographic magazine article by hand. The article is titled "A Deeper Shade of Green" and it's written by Bill McKibben.

Very interesting paragraph and the rest of the article is as well. How long can we continue to ignore scientists warnings? Because they are becoming more severe.

Quote: British scientist James Lovelock, who invented the instrument that allowed us to detect our eroding atmosphere, published an essay predicting that we've already added too much CO2 to the atmosphere and that runaway global warming is inevitable. He predicted that billions will die this century. A few days later came the less dramatic but equally disturbing announcement. The steady and long-serving NASA climatolgist James Hansen defied federal attempts to gag him and told reporters that new calculations about, among other things, the instability of Greenland's ice shelf showed "we can't let it go on another 10 years like this. If we did? Over time, the build up of CO2 emissions would "imply changes that constitute practically a different planet." Less than 10 years to reverse course. Not our kids' lifetimes, or our grandkids'. Ours.

Unfortunately people are still arguing over whether or not the earth is getting warmer (admittedly only those uneducated on the issue, but they still vote) and even among the educated the debate is not on what we should do but rather wether or not it is our fault. At least it will be an interesting century.

[perdidochas]

AllAmericanMan wrote: I typed out this paragraph from a national geographic magazine article by hand. The article is titled "A Deeper Shade of Green" and it's written by Bill McKibben.

Very interesting paragraph and the rest of the article is as well. How long can we continue to ignore scientists warnings? Because they are becoming more severe.

In the 1970s, they predicted that the world's food supply would collapse if the world population got to 6 billion. We are at 6.8 billion, and the proportion of starving people in the world is lower than it was when the population was at 4 billion. Scientists are predictably bad at forecasting the future.

[AllAmericanMan]

perdidochas wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: I typed out this paragraph from a national geographic magazine article by hand. The article is titled "A Deeper Shade of Green" and it's written by Bill McKibben.

Very interesting paragraph and the rest of the article is as well. How long can we continue to ignore scientists warnings? Because they are becoming more severe.

In the 1970s, they predicted that the world's food supply would collapse if the world population got to 6 billion. We are at 6.8 billion, and the proportion of starving people in the world is lower than it was when the population was at 4 billion. Scientists are predictably bad at forecasting the future.

I don't know the they you're talking about in the 70's but I don't think the consensus today on global warming compares to any such predictions. The evidence is truly overwhelming.

[perdidochas]

AllAmericanMan wrote: perdidochas wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: I typed out this paragraph from a national geographic magazine article by hand. The article is titled "A Deeper Shade of Green" and it's written by Bill McKibben.

Very interesting paragraph and the rest of the article is as well. How long can we continue to ignore scientists warnings? Because they are becoming more severe.

In the 1970s, they predicted that the world's food supply would collapse if the world population got to 6 billion. We are at 6.8 billion, and the proportion of starving people in the world is lower than it was when the population was at 4 billion. Scientists are predictably bad at forecasting the future.




I don't know the they you're talking about in the 70's but I don't think the consensus today on global warming compares to any such predictions. The evidence is truly overwhelming.

Well, they being, the environmental movement, namely Paul Ehrlich.

Well, actually, they thought the same. Also, I used to believe that anthropogenic global warming was going to ruin the planet myself. If the estimates I had heard in the late 1980s were true, we'd currently be in mid-disaster. Sea level by 2010 was supposed to be up by anywhere from 10 cm to a meter. It's up only 3 or 4cm. As I said, scientists are terrible predictors of the future. They just don't have the data that they need to predict the future. Think about hurricane forecasting, which is a MUCH simpler thing to model than global warming. The forecasters have already downgraded their forecast for the rest of the season. Why? Because predicting the future is almost impossible to do correctly.

[AllAmericanMan]

perdidochas wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: perdidochas wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: I typed out this paragraph from a national geographic magazine article by hand. The article is titled "A Deeper Shade of Green" and it's written by Bill McKibben.

Very interesting paragraph and the rest of the article is as well. How long can we continue to ignore scientists warnings? Because they are becoming more severe.

In the 1970s, they predicted that the world's food supply would collapse if the world population got to 6 billion. We are at 6.8 billion, and the proportion of starving people in the world is lower than it was when the population was at 4 billion. Scientists are predictably bad at forecasting the future.




I don't know the they you're talking about in the 70's but I don't think the consensus today on global warming compares to any such predictions. The evidence is truly overwhelming.

Well, they being, the environmental movement, namely Paul Ehrlich.

Well, actually, they thought the same. Also, I used to believe that anthropogenic global warming was going to ruin the planet myself. If the estimates I had heard in the late 1980s were true, we'd currently be in mid-disaster. Sea level by 2010 was supposed to be up by anywhere from 10 cm to a meter. It's up only 3 or 4cm. As I said, scientists are terrible predictors of the future. They just don't have the data that they need to predict the future. Think about hurricane forecasting, which is a MUCH simpler thing to model than global warming. The forecasters have already downgraded their forecast for the rest of the season. Why? Because predicting the future is almost impossible to do correctly.

The number I have heard on the sea level rise was 6 inches, and that was on the discovery channel. Lets see what google brings up.



http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar%5Cglobalwarming.nsf/content/ImpactsCoastalZonesChesapeakeBay.html

Quote: scientists believe global warming accounts for about 2 to 6 inches of the 12 inch sea level rise that has occurred during the past 100 years

The 6 inch mark for GW was mentioned on the first link I went to.

There is also a small island nation that has declared that the "rising sea has won" and are evacuating their entire country. Tuvaluva (spelling?) I believe it is called.

Scientists have learned a lot in the past 10 years. Climate change computer models have evolved a lot and predictions are getting better, but the climate is still such a complex monster they get different results every time they run the model. So no we don't know exactly what is going to happen, but we are learning more all the time, and the news is getting worse.

[emt3197]

Babylon_Horuv wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: I typed out this paragraph from a national geographic magazine article by hand. The article is titled "A Deeper Shade of Green" and it's written by Bill McKibben.

Very interesting paragraph and the rest of the article is as well. How long can we continue to ignore scientists warnings? Because they are becoming more severe.

Quote: British scientist James Lovelock, who invented the instrument that allowed us to detect our eroding atmosphere, published an essay predicting that we've already added too much CO2 to the atmosphere and that runaway global warming is inevitable. He predicted that billions will die this century. A few days later came the less dramatic but equally disturbing announcement. The steady and long-serving NASA climatolgist James Hansen defied federal attempts to gag him and told reporters that new calculations about, among other things, the instability of Greenland's ice shelf showed "we can't let it go on another 10 years like this. If we did? Over time, the build up of CO2 emissions would "imply changes that constitute practically a different planet." Less than 10 years to reverse course. Not our kids' lifetimes, or our grandkids'. Ours.

Unfortunately people are still arguing over whether or not the earth is getting warmer (admittedly only those uneducated on the issue, but they still vote) and even among the educated the debate is not on what we should do but rather wether or not it is our fault. At least it will be an interesting century.

The debate on what we should do depends on what the cause is. That is the reason for the debate on the cause. I have not personally seen any evidence that the changes are caused by man, which means that natural cycles are to blame. If natural cycles are to blame, then there is nothing that we can do. We can not block out all light from the sun, we can not change the gravitational spin of the Earth, and we can not stop natural disasters such as volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. We can stop deforestation, which would help some, but stopping deforestation would not make a significant change in any global data.

[AllAmericanMan]

emt3197 wrote: Babylon_Horuv wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: I typed out this paragraph from a national geographic magazine article by hand. The article is titled "A Deeper Shade of Green" and it's written by Bill McKibben.

Very interesting paragraph and the rest of the article is as well. How long can we continue to ignore scientists warnings? Because they are becoming more severe.

Quote: British scientist James Lovelock, who invented the instrument that allowed us to detect our eroding atmosphere, published an essay predicting that we've already added too much CO2 to the atmosphere and that runaway global warming is inevitable. He predicted that billions will die this century. A few days later came the less dramatic but equally disturbing announcement. The steady and long-serving NASA climatolgist James Hansen defied federal attempts to gag him and told reporters that new calculations about, among other things, the instability of Greenland's ice shelf showed "we can't let it go on another 10 years like this. If we did? Over time, the build up of CO2 emissions would "imply changes that constitute practically a different planet." Less than 10 years to reverse course. Not our kids' lifetimes, or our grandkids'. Ours.

Unfortunately people are still arguing over whether or not the earth is getting warmer (admittedly only those uneducated on the issue, but they still vote) and even among the educated the debate is not on what we should do but rather wether or not it is our fault. At least it will be an interesting century.

The debate on what we should do depends on what the cause is. That is the reason for the debate on the cause. I have not personally seen any evidence that the changes are caused by man, which means that natural cycles are to blame. If natural cycles are to blame, then there is nothing that we can do. We can not block out all light from the sun, we can not change the gravitational spin of the Earth, and we can not stop natural disasters such as volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. We can stop deforestation, which would help some, but stopping deforestation would not make a significant change in any global data.

Dear God how do you come to this forum without seeing any evidence that GW is man made?

First lets address the volcanos are the cause of GW theory.

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

Quote: Volcanoes and other natural processes release approximately 24 Tg of sulfur to the atmosphere each year. Thus, volcanoes are responsible for 43% of the total natural S flux each year. Man's activities add about 79 Tg sulfur to the atmosphere each year. In an average year, volcanoes release only 13% of the sulfur added to the atmosphere compared to anthropogenic sources.

Quote: Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. 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.


Then take into account that in no time during the past 600,000 years of the Earth's atmospheric history has the CO2 levels been as high as they are today. We know this by ice core analysis. Do you really think that is a coincidence so soon after the industrial revolution? Hint:

The Earth has a natural ability to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, and for a long time it has held it at a balance relatively speaking. Today we are taking carbon that took thousands of years to be stored by the carbon cycle and we are releasing it back into the air in a matter of decades. It doesn't take a genius to guess the consequences of what we are witnessing. Especially when we can look at ice cores and see that CO2 levels directly match global temperatures.

Quote: Since 1751 roughly 305 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 2003 global fossil-fuel CO2 emission estimate, 7303 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 4.5% increase from 2002.


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

There is no reason to assume that number has gone anywhere but up the past couple years. Is it a coincidence that glaciers all around the world have accelerated melting the past decade? Is it a coincidence that polar bears have lost 15% of their average body weight and may soon be unable to reproduce? NO IT ISNT.


Many scientific organizations have banded together and recognized the problem, it's time for the people to do so too.

[Free Thinkr]

People that believe this doom mongering are hopelessly stupid, IMO.

[toddytodd]

AllAmericanMan wrote: I typed out this paragraph from a national geographic magazine article by hand. The article is titled "A Deeper Shade of Green" and it's written by Bill McKibben.

Very interesting paragraph and the rest of the article is as well. How long can we continue to ignore scientists warnings? Because they are becoming more severe.

Quote: British scientist James Lovelock, who invented the instrument that allowed us to detect our eroding atmosphere, published an essay predicting that we've already added too much CO2 to the atmosphere and that runaway global warming is inevitable. He predicted that billions will die this century. A few days later came the less dramatic but equally disturbing announcement. The steady and long-serving NASA climatolgist James Hansen defied federal attempts to gag him and told reporters that new calculations about, among other things, the instability of Greenland's ice shelf showed "we can't let it go on another 10 years like this. If we did? Over time, the build up of CO2 emissions would "imply changes that constitute practically a different planet." Less than 10 years to reverse course. Not our kids' lifetimes, or our grandkids'. Ours.

Nature has a 'funny way' of healing itself.
Climate change has happened over and over again throughout the history of the earth. It continues to happen and will continue until the sun grows to the size that it destroys the planet.
Did man cause climate change?
No.
Does he contribute to it?
Yes.
Should we take efforts to slow our contribution?
Yes.
Will it stop any warming trend?
No.

Man has not control over nature. That being said, we shuld do what we can to lessen or negative contribution to the planet.

[emt3197]

Here is the problem: No one can prove that rising CO2 causes an increase in global temperature. The ones that think they can cannot explain why from 1940 to 1970 the average global temperature fell while CO2 levels rose.

Also, no one knows what effects rising CO2 levels have on clouds. Some scientists say clouds will increase while other scientists say that the clouds will decrease. Until some definitive research is brought forward, the biggest contributor to our temperature is unknown.

I read in one of the posts that the greenhouse effect is a theory. Let me correct that now. The greenhouse effect is real, although it being likened to the effects of a greenhouse is a little off. However, global warming is a theory. Global warming is the increase in the average mean temperature of the Earth due to increasing greenhouse gases due to man's consumption of fossil fuels. This has not been proven, yet so many people still seem to want to talk of it as a proven fact. Not a single scientist anywhere in the world has been able to conclusively prove or disprove this theory. I choose not to buy into it until irrefutable proof is offered.

[emt3197]

toddytodd wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: I typed out this paragraph from a national geographic magazine article by hand. The article is titled "A Deeper Shade of Green" and it's written by Bill McKibben.

Very interesting paragraph and the rest of the article is as well. How long can we continue to ignore scientists warnings? Because they are becoming more severe.

Quote: British scientist James Lovelock, who invented the instrument that allowed us to detect our eroding atmosphere, published an essay predicting that we've already added too much CO2 to the atmosphere and that runaway global warming is inevitable. He predicted that billions will die this century. A few days later came the less dramatic but equally disturbing announcement. The steady and long-serving NASA climatolgist James Hansen defied federal attempts to gag him and told reporters that new calculations about, among other things, the instability of Greenland's ice shelf showed "we can't let it go on another 10 years like this. If we did? Over time, the build up of CO2 emissions would "imply changes that constitute practically a different planet." Less than 10 years to reverse course. Not our kids' lifetimes, or our grandkids'. Ours.

Nature has a 'funny way' of healing itself.
Climate change has happened over and over again throughout the history of the earth. It continues to happen and will continue until the sun grows to the size that it destroys the planet.
Did man cause climate change?
No.
Does he contribute to it?
Yes.
Should we take efforts to slow our contribution?
Yes.
Will it stop any warming trend?
No.

Man has not control over nature. That being said, we shuld do what we can to lessen or negative contribution to the planet.

You seem to look at this situation very similar to the way that I do.

[eynon]

dead from what? famine, drought?

[John Galt]

wannabe wrote: dead from what? famine, drought?

Billions will be dead from old age by then.

[Babylon_Horuv]

emt3197 wrote: Here is the problem: No one can prove that rising CO2 causes an increase in global temperature. The ones that think they can cannot explain why from 1940 to 1970 the average global temperature fell while CO2 levels rose.

Also, no one knows what effects rising CO2 levels have on clouds. Some scientists say clouds will increase while other scientists say that the clouds will decrease. Until some definitive research is brought forward, the biggest contributor to our temperature is unknown.

I read in one of the posts that the greenhouse effect is a theory. Let me correct that now. The greenhouse effect is real, although it being likened to the effects of a greenhouse is a little off. However, global warming is a theory. Global warming is the increase in the average mean temperature of the Earth due to increasing greenhouse gases due to man's consumption of fossil fuels. This has not been proven, yet so many people still seem to want to talk of it as a proven fact. Not a single scientist anywhere in the world has been able to conclusively prove or disprove this theory. I choose not to buy into it until irrefutable proof is offered.

irrefutable proof will only be available when it is too late. And even then you can claim it was not our fault. However we should still try to limit our impact on the planet when there is a distinct possibility that our impact includes global wrming.

[eynon]

John Galt wrote: wannabe wrote: dead from what? famine, drought?

Billions will be dead from old age by then.

and snakes......on a plane......****

[jaxtell671]

so maybe we have not reached the point of no return for the entire earth but there are many places that are seeing the effects of pollution from CO2, SOx, and NOx. many port cities in the US, europe, and asia have residents suffering from asthma, autism, lung problems and cancers that are well above national averages, so this is a problem. although all that pollution does make for wonderful sunsets outside of LA. i have no doubt that many scientists have made some bad predictions but even if they are wrong about how bad its going to be almost all of them agree that it is bad. so i don't think that the best course of action would be to wait for absolute irrefutable proof to change our polluting ways. that would be like waiting in the middle of the freeway thinking its safe until a car actually hits you.

[Stevv]

toddytodd wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: I typed out this paragraph from a national geographic magazine article by hand. The article is titled "A Deeper Shade of Green" and it's written by Bill McKibben.

Very interesting paragraph and the rest of the article is as well. How long can we continue to ignore scientists warnings? Because they are becoming more severe.

Quote: British scientist James Lovelock, who invented the instrument that allowed us to detect our eroding atmosphere, published an essay predicting that we've already added too much CO2 to the atmosphere and that runaway global warming is inevitable. He predicted that billions will die this century. A few days later came the less dramatic but equally disturbing announcement. The steady and long-serving NASA climatolgist James Hansen defied federal attempts to gag him and told reporters that new calculations about, among other things, the instability of Greenland's ice shelf showed "we can't let it go on another 10 years like this. If we did? Over time, the build up of CO2 emissions would "imply changes that constitute practically a different planet." Less than 10 years to reverse course. Not our kids' lifetimes, or our grandkids'. Ours.

Nature has a 'funny way' of healing itself.
Climate change has happened over and over again throughout the history of the earth. It continues to happen and will continue until the sun grows to the size that it destroys the planet.
Did man cause climate change?
No.
Does he contribute to it?
Yes.
Should we take efforts to slow our contribution?
Yes.
Will it stop any warming trend?
No.

Man has not control over nature. That being said, we shuld do what we can to lessen or negative contribution to the planet.


The planet will continue to get warmer, and most likely cool down again, because as the magazine says, greenland's ice shelf, like some others around the world, will melt. But then they will slow down the gulf stream (or whatever that current is) and possibly cause an ice age in northern europe, although there will still be carbon emmitions churning out of factories. 600 Million years ago, a theory says, that the whole Earth, even the most tropical regions, froze under a sheet of ice. Most of the sun's energy was returned into space, and couldn't kill the ice. But around the equator it was thin enough for life to survive. Then, carbon dioxide buildup from volcanoes over 10 million years finally melted the sheet of ice because the average temperature was 120 degrees. 10 million years is a long time, but as said in an erliar post, volcanoes only do 13% of the emissions. And the ozone is already killed. Our transatlantic currents are slowing, bringing less warm water to northern europe and newfoundland. If the ice keeps spreading downward, it may go too far to stop. The freshwater is the main concern. It will raise the ocean levels, meaning great cities like Washington DC, New York, New Orleans, philadelphia?, and a significant part of florida, at least, will uninhabitable. The article is right. Our sheets are melting now. We will be alive in 10 years. As you said before, toddydod, this will most likely not be an end to the earth itself, or all the life on it, but maybe a collapse of human civilization. If we don't significantly lessen our carbon outtakes immediately, and build more trees to take away the co2, then we may as well be too late and accept human failure of the planet.

[Citizendave]

Free Thinkr!

Quote: People that believe this doom mongering are hopelessly stupid, IMO.

What a relief to see that you will still debate GW. Below is a link to a whole bunch of questions I had for you. Hopefully you will buck up and answer them! I'd be ever so pleased!

[url] http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=53338&start=100[ /url]

Gratefully yours,

Citizendave.

[eynon]

Stevv wrote: It will raise the ocean levels, meaning great cities like Washington DC, New York, New Orleans, philadelphia?, and a significant part of florida, at least, will uninhabitable.

meaning, a real-estate boom in Denver.......WOO-HOO! (better start looking for property :think: )