Global warming, global cooling, or sloppy science? - Page 3 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

proUSA · #31 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Can you expand on this, please? Examples? (This isn't rhetorical - I'm honestly curious)

Well, no answer from Viper so:
My guess is that Viper was referring to the ones that were dumb enough to build their "civilizations" around volcano bases.....Which was quite popular in it's day.

WildMan · #32 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by usmc7011

Global warming is a fact, global cooling is a fact. The two have been happening since the beginning of time. What is not fact is that humans are a direct cause. Especially when 90+% of all greenhouse gasses are water vapor which by the way is not exactly a pollutant.

Once again, I quote myself from another thread.

Quote:

The contribution of each gas to the effect depends on is ability to absorb infrared radiation, the quantity of the gas in the atmosphere and the dispersal of the gas in the atmosphere.

Water vapour molecules (not steam or clouds) are the greatest in quantity and each molecule has the highest ability to absorb IR. However localised concentrations in the atomosphere are changing over short time frames and the total amount of water vapour is unchanging. This means you might get local effects of temperature variation for brief time periods. However the total contribution due to water vapour alone will be unchanging over time.

Methane and nitrous oxides are present in large quantities and have a globally homogenous concentration dependant on production by nature and man. They also have a high capacity to absorb IR but the quantity is so low compared to other gases the net impact is minimal.

Carbon dioxide has everything about it which contributes to the greenhouse effect. It is the greenhouse gas with the second highest concentration. It's dispersal is homogeneous. It's capacity to absorb IR is second to water and way above the rest. The quantity can change through causes by man and nature.

Quote:

Where are the gases coming from? They're coming from all sources (except water) but most noticably from the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
A warming atmosphere also promotes more natural GHG's being released such as methane in the thawing tundra and liberation from the warmer oceans.

It is the increase that is of concern not the total percentage quantity. And the increase in human contribution is large at some 25% for carbon dioxide and 150% for methane over 200 yrs. When the total greenhouse contribution of methane exceeds carbon dioxide then we can make farting bovines a priority.

SMadsen · #33 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by ViPER

God commanded our responsibility to protect the Earth in the Covenant - Dismissing sound environmental science fact because of historical disputes between Darwinism and Evolution is tantamount to the ultimate sin based on ignorance.

The Bible -

"Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you and with every living creature that was with you ... Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth." And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth."" (Genesis 9:8-13)

I'm not gonna discuss this but I have to know if you are serious. Are you serious??

WildMan · #34 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by proUSA

Well, no answer from Viper so:
My guess is that Viper was referring to the ones that were dumb enough to build their "civilizations" around volcano bases.....Which was quite popular in it's day.

Viper has responded.

A civilization at the base of a volcano is a very good idea given the soil quality. And it remains a good idea as the Indonesians demonstrate, despite Mt St Helens and population growth about the environs of Vesuvius.

Man will continue to take on risk for the gains offered by building civilizations around valuable resources.

No ... demise of man through environmental degradation is a much less spectacular thing that slowly creeps under the shadow of our delusion until it is too late as Viper's examples demonstrate.

Andrewl · #35 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007

Its a nasty paradox - as your civilization grows in size you necessarily consume and weaken the abundant ecosytem surrounding it that made the civilization possible in the first place - at the same time you need more production to feed a dense and restless population. The end of civilization is always the same - a large population but not enough food to keep it going. This then leads to the associated problems of widespread war and disease.

This time civilization is global, as will the collapse be.

Andrew

Andrewl · #36 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by usmc7011

Global warming is a fact, global cooling is a fact. The two have been happening since the beginning of time. What is not fact is that humans are a direct cause. Especially when 90+% of all greenhouse gasses are water vapor which by the way is not exactly a pollutant.

We need to know what the threshold is. At what concentration of GHGs does the warming go over a cliff? Is it 450ppm of C02? 500 ppm? The fact that the vast majority of the greenhouse effect is entirely natural is besides the point.

Andrew

usmc7011 · #37 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

We need to know what the threshold is. At what concentration of GHGs does the warming go over a cliff? Is it 450ppm of C02? 500 ppm? The fact that the vast majority of the greenhouse effect is entirely natural is besides the point.

Andrew

That is the point. One could deduce that global warming is mostly natural do to the amount of natural GHGs. In fact I heard that one day's worth of volcanic activity sends out more GHGs than an entire years worth of man made GHG
Look I'm not against doing the research, in fact I hole heartedly support Global Warming research, but I am not willing to throw the worlds economy down the shitter over incomplete research and half assed theories.

Andrewl · #38 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by usmc7011

That is the point. One could deduce that global warming is mostly natural do to the amount of natural GHGs. In fact I heard that one day's worth of volcanic activity sends out more GHGs than an entire years worth of man made GHG
Look I'm not against doing the research, in fact I hole heartedly support Global Warming research, but I am not willing to through the worlds economy down the shitter over incomplete research and half assed theories.

I understand what you are saying, and if i cared about the economy i would probably agree.

Andrew

ViPER · #39 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by usmc7011

Global warming is a fact, global cooling is a fact. The two have been happening since the beginning of time. What is not fact is that humans are a direct cause. Especially when 90+% of all greenhouse gasses are water vapor which by the way is not exactly a pollutant.

Then you prescribe to the propaganda of the administration and object to the scientific consensus. good for you.

ViPER · #40 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by proUSA

Well, no answer from Viper so:
My guess is that Viper was referring to the ones that were dumb enough to build their "civilizations" around volcano bases.....Which was quite popular in it's day.

scroll back for my response

Global warming, global cooling, or sloppy science?

ViPER · #41 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildMan

Once again, I quote myself from another thread.

Not just natural - Man made Carbon Dioxide in Air = Gehenna

The Supreme court, in a 5-4 ruling in its first case on climate change, declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

High Court Rebukes Bush on Car Pollution

ViPER · #42 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMadsen

I'm not gonna discuss this but I have to know if you are serious. Are you serious??

An agreement is an agreement. Anyone who chooses to ignore God's covenant - that's thier choice.

ViPER · #43 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007

I agree, there are natural cycles of carbon dioxide production that wax and wane - they increase causing a natural change that counterbalances an opposite reaction and thus the cycle continues. Man's contribution (below) without consideration and without intent to reverse our practices will tip the scales in a massive cataclysmic event that will act as the natural counter to man's contribution.

If you insist that we fit in to a natural cycle then I give you that much and add, the end of that natural cycle is not favorable to man or God's creatures.

Quote:

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.

SMadsen · #44 (**permalink**) 08-28-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by ViPER

Not just natural - Man made Carbon Dioxide in Air = Gehenna

Quote:

Originally Posted by ViPER

An agreement is an agreement. Anyone who chooses to ignore God's covenant - that's thier choice.

Wow

Well, I thank you for confirming my notion that global warming is not only amazingly suited to become a religiously driven issue but also, obviously, has become precisely that. Not that there's anything wrong with kumbaya'ing till the cows come home but when the chants involve world economy, then it's a dangerous cocktail.

usmc7011 · #45 (**permalink**) 08-28-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by ViPER

Then you prescribe to the propaganda of the administration and object to the scientific consensus. good for you.

Would you care to show me what propaganda you are referring to that is coming out of the administration? Because I haven't seen any.

Here is a little news flash there Viper,
the scientific consensus that you speak of, its not real there is no consensus,
its a Al (hypocrite) Gore talking point and it appears that you have fallen to his propaganda.

As I said in previous posts, I am not against being environmentally friendly and proactive. But it must be weighed with economical issues. When the evidence of man made global warming is more conclusive then we can work more on the environment.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode