[nbfan]

I'm no huge fan of the article. But I'm no huge fan of the global warming theory. And his excellency, Mr. Al Gore, our hero for warning us about this so imminent danger, is the world's biggest hypocrite. It's hard to tell.

[nate95366]

If there were no more data than what is presented in this article, perhaps I'd share the same opinion as the author. The preponderance of studies done in the past 20 years, however, link atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration with average global temperature across large spans of time. I'm not a political fan of Al Gore by any means, but if he's saying that American lifestyle and economy are two very large sets of blinders to a very real problem, I think he might be onto something. I don't think it's necessary to get all doomsday about things, but those who would favor the economy over dealing with the issue aren't seeing the full extent of the connection between the climate and the economy IMO.

Nate

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by nbfan

I'm no huge fan of the article. But I'm no huge fan of the global warming theory. And his excellency, Mr. Al Gore, our hero for warning us about this so imminent danger, is the world's biggest hypocrite. It's hard to tell.

Oh yeah, it's not logically fallacious to dismiss an argument because you dispute an aspect of the arguer's lifestyle.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Hopeful

I have always wondered what the actual cycle of the earth's temperature range is. Is it a year, 2 years, 5 years, 25 years, 100 years?

There isn't an even cycle. Though there are cyclical events.

For example: Oxygen gets to a high level, creating a strong ozone layer and low carbon-dioxide level that results in global cooling. This cooling increases surface ice which reduces heal absorption by the Earth and cascades into a "snowball Earth" massive ice age. This kills off most of the plant life which generates oxygen. Over time (a hundred-million-years in at least one case) carbon dioxide from tectonic activity, unrestrained by plantlife absorbing it and countering with oxygen, makes a greenhouse that results in massive global heating.

This seems to start reversing after the water temperature hits around 100F (not sure how much of tha twater has to be that warm) as such a termperature introduces massive super-hurricanes which both lower the temperature and encourage oceanic plantlife.

Eventually, the effect of this plantlife, and the oxygen it puts out, starts a new cooling process.

Of course, there are a number of other factors involved. The shape of the continents... which is hitting which and how much coverage of the mantle exists in one place, effects the available space for plant life and vulcanism.

Then there's the fact that humanity has been doing it's best to release several hundred-million years of stored carbon into the aptmosphere....

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

There isn't an even cycle. Though there are cyclical events.

For example: Oxygen gets to a high level, creating a strong ozone layer and low carbon-dioxide level that results in global cooling. This cooling increases surface ice which reduces heal absorption by the Earth and cascades into a "snowball Earth" massive ice age. This kills off most of the plant life which generates oxygen. Over time (a hundred-million-years in at least one case) carbon dioxide from tectonic activity, unrestrained by plantlife absorbing it and countering with oxygen, makes a greenhouse that results in massive global heating.

This seems to start reversing after the water temperature hits around 100F (not sure how much of tha twater has to be that warm) as such a termperature introduces massive super-hurricanes which both lower the temperature and encourage oceanic plantlife.

Eventually, the effect of this plantlife, and the oxygen it puts out, starts a new cooling process.

From your example, it sounds like a regulating "mechanism" in which the earth manages itself and the temperature. So, there really is a cycle, though it's likely not consistent in terms of time. But, are we absolutely certain that any changes that are going on now have not been caused by earlier events or would have happened, even without the human factor? For instance, droughts have happened throughout history which would kill off a lot of plant life as well as other life forms. Wouldn't these be contributors to how the planet manages itself?

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Hopeful

From your example, it sounds like a regulating "mechanism" in which the earth manages itself and the temperature. So, there really is a cycle, though it's likely not consistent in terms of time. But, are we absolutely certain that any changes that are going on now have not been caused by earlier events or would have happened, even without the human factor? For instance, droughts have happened throughout history which would kill off a lot of plant life as well as other life forms. Wouldn't these be contributors to how the planet manages itself?

exactly what I would like to see research from from an independent source that has neither power nor money to gain.

[nbfan]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Oh yeah, it's not logically fallacious to dismiss an argument because you dispute an aspect of the arguer's lifestyle.

Well...if I told everyone that CFC's were destroying the ozone layer, but used them in my refrigerator, would you trust me?

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by nbfan

Well...if I told everyone that CFC's were destroying the ozone layer, but used them in my refrigerator, would you trust me?

Sure.

CFC's are destroying the ozone layer, and my fridge has them.

See?

[JerryLove]

[QUOTE=Hopeful;3097982]From your example, it sounds like a regulating "mechanism" in which the earth manages itself and the temperature. So, there really is a cycle, though it's likely not consistent in terms of time.[quote] There's a cycle much like the stock-market. There's more than a speed difference.

But, are we absolutely certain that any changes that are going on now have not been caused by earlier events or would have happened, even without the human factor?

As phrased that's a silly question. To acknwledge that warming is caused by aptmospheric carbon, and that we are releasing carbon into the aptmosphere invariably determines that we are having an effect.

The question might be "how much of one".

I think that asking that question early is an attempt to rationalize. It's not the first important question.

1. Is the Earth's temperature rising? Yes.
2. Is this good or bad? At least in the short-term very bad.
3. Can we do anything about it?

It's only in trying to answer "3" that the question "how much are we causing it" even matters... because the answer to that can help us understand what we are doing about it.

Process of elimination alone makes it very likely that we are the cause (that the rise is so rapid and so recent without another obviou event.. occam's razor leads to man).

Of course, having established that the two major factors are carbon emissions and plantlife, and realizing that we've spewed truely incredible amounts of carbon into the air whil e deforresting the planet would seem to make it "common sense"... but "common sense" isn't really an answer to your question.

Consensus is "humanity is a major factor", but the support for that is pretty hefty for this post.

For instance, droughts have happened throughout history which would kill off a lot of plant life as well as other life forms. Wouldn't these be contributors to how the planet manages itself?

Can you cite a draught on a scale comparable to the deforestation of Europe, Asia, India, and South Amercia?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by nbfan

Well...if I told everyone that CFC's were destroying the ozone layer, but used them in my refrigerator, would you trust me?

Sure. Paul told us to be blameless, but admitted he wasn't blameless. You're not holding Al Gore to a higher standard than you're holding the Apostle Paul, are you?

[nbfan]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Sure. Paul told us to be blameless, but admitted he wasn't blameless. You're not holding Al Gore to a higher standard than you're holding the Apostle Paul, are you?

Nice straw man. I'm not holding Gore up to a standard that high. I only think he should practice what he preaches. Is that too much to ask? And on a side note...I think it would be best if we either continued this in PM's or another thread. I'd hate to hijack this and get it closed.

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

As phrased that's a silly question. To acknwledge that warming is caused by aptmospheric carbon, and that we are releasing carbon into the aptmosphere invariably determines that we are having an effect.

The question might be "how much of one".

I think that asking that question early is an attempt to rationalize. It's not the first important question.

1. Is the Earth's temperature rising? Yes.
2. Is this good or bad? At least in the short-term very bad.
3. Can we do anything about it?

It's only in trying to answer "3" that the question "how much are we causing it" even matters... because the answer to that can help us understand what we are doing about it.

Process of elimination alone makes it very likely that we are the cause (that the rise is so rapid and so recent without another obviou event.. occam's razor leads to man).

Of course, having established that the two major factors are carbon emissions and plantlife, and realizing that we've spewed truely incredible amounts of carbon into the air whil e deforresting the planet would seem to make it "common sense"... but "common sense" isn't really an answer to your question.

Consensus is "humanity is a major factor", but the support for that is pretty hefty for this post.

Can you cite a draught on a scale comparable to the deforestation of Europe, Asia, India, and South Amercia?

Why is the question a silly one? Can't we discuss this without being condescending? I just ask it because I don't know and want to see who might have insight. Are you saying I cannot ask because it should be assumed we all know the answer? It's not rationalizing, it's asking honest questions. Let's just say I've read contradicting material and I wonder who and what to believe.

Do you know for a certainty how long it takes for any factor, be it human or nature, to have a measurable, significant effect on the planet? And how much of that factor must be present before any impact is found? Must any significant impact be caused only by catastrophic events as the deforestation as you mentioned? Is the heat emitted by the sun static? Or is it subject to change?

[JerryLove]

[QUOTE=Hopeful;3098862]Why is the question a silly one?[quote] I answered that question when I made that claim and I'm disappointed you glossed over it. I'll cut-n-paste:

To acknowledge that warming is caused by aptmospheric carbon, and that we are releasing carbon into the aptmosphere invariably determines that we are having an effect.

Can't we discuss this without being condescending?

I wasn't being condescending, but it's now becoming difficult to avoid.

I just ask it because I don't know and want to see who might have insight. Are you saying I cannot ask because it should be assumed we all know the answer?

Did I say you couldn't ask?

Since I didn't say you couldn't ask, why are you pretending to ask if I said you couldn't ask, assuming a false "yes" to your question, and then passively-agressively attacking me for the straw-man you propped up?

I gave an honest answer to what I thought was an honest (if silly) question. Your response has nothing to do with the topic, but seems intended to obstifucate the issue by creating a "poor me" victim image for yourself.

It's not rationalizing, it's asking honest questions. Let's just say I've read contradicting material and I wonder who and what to believe.

Contradicting to what? I put up information. You didn't question the information, but questioned whether humanity contributed.

Given the information I put up, that humanity is involved is inescapable. The only real question is the level of effect.

Do you know for a certainty how long it takes for any factor, be it human or nature, to have a measurable, significant effect on the planet? And how much of that factor must be present before any impact is found?

Which I addressed in my most recent post. You seem to have glossed over it in mock-offense.

Must any significant impact be caused only by catastrophic events as the deforestation as you mentioned?

Did I say it did?

Is the heat emitted by the sun static? Or is it subject to change?

It varies. Can you tell me how the existance of external factors even implies that human activity is not a factor?

That was, frankly, my point... and one you've not addressed.

[OliveShoot90]

Anyone ever read Michael Crichton's State of Fear?

[Andrew]

Whoa! OliveShoot sighting! Crazy stuff.