Bush admits the global warming results from fossil fuels....

By the time there is full consensus, it will be too late....

How odd that neocons and regressives will invade a country like Iraq, spend billions with no science to support an unnecessary war...yet when it is suggested that we need to do something about the ozone and global warming, when it is suggested that they not treat mother earth like their own personal toilet, they freak out big time.

Quote from nitro:

The United States stance on the Kyoto Protocol is clear, even in the face of Global Warming being true - it will not adopt it and coming off as there is any real debate is a farce.

On the issue of Global Warming being debated, that is fine with me. Debate is good.

There is absolutely a scientific consensus on Global Warming. That there are scientists that disagree with the science is another matter.

Showing that there is some conference at some University is meaningless. Here is some more:

http://mfs.uchicago.edu/globalwarming.html

I can come up with hundreds of such "meetings."

nitro
More...
 
Quote from nitro:

You are not reading the links I gave you. If you read them, and you believe what they say, then your Russian Academy is incompetent.

nitro
More...

I've read them but for the most part they do not have much data to support the claim that humans cause GW and to what extent they do .

One of them mentions that oil is a fossil fuel and there is debate that it is. There is a well established theory that states oil is formed by tectonics deep in the mantle.
FACT: There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to human activities, not natural causes.

"Over millions of years, animals and plants lived, died and were compressed to form huge deposits of oil, gas and coal. In little more than 300 years, however, we have burned a large amount of this storehouse of carbon to supply energy. Today, the by-products of fossil fuel use - billions of tons of carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide), methane, and other greenhouse gases - form a blanket around the Earth, trapping heat form the sun, unnaturally raising temperatures on the ground, and steadily changing our climate. "

Also, how do you explain the south pole temp over the past 50 years not conforming with the theory?

DS
 
If you don't think that any of those links I gave you "do not have much data to support the claim" that humans cause global warming, you either have very low comprehension skills of what you read, or have not read them, and any further "proof" that I give you will be even more difficult to comprehend since IMO those links do a good job of presenting the data and giving a balanced view on the issues. I can not improve upon them.

You want to know what the proof that you do not comprehend is? That you keep asking about the temperature of the south pole over the last 50 years. You cannot have comprehended what is posted on those links and continue to ask that question as relevant.

Reread the part about the differences between climate and weather as it relates to Global Warming.

nitro
Quote from dougcs:

I've read them but for the most part they do not have much data to support the claim that humans cause GW and to what extent they do .

One of them mentions that oil is a fossil fuel and there is debate that it is. There is a well established theory that states oil is formed by tectonics deep in the mantle.
FACT: There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to human activities, not natural causes.

"Over millions of years, animals and plants lived, died and were compressed to form huge deposits of oil, gas and coal. In little more than 300 years, however, we have burned a large amount of this storehouse of carbon to supply energy. Today, the by-products of fossil fuel use - billions of tons of carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide), methane, and other greenhouse gases - form a blanket around the Earth, trapping heat form the sun, unnaturally raising temperatures on the ground, and steadily changing our climate. "

Also, how do you explain the south pole temp over the past 50 years not conforming with the theory?

DS
More...
 
The destruction of the ozone layer is a scientific fact.

http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/Students_Teachers/ozanim/ozoanim.shtml

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that destruction of the ozone layer via CFC has consequences to climate and other issues that effect human beings, i.e. the increase in skin cancer, jet streams influencing weather, movement of animals and destruction of oceanic vegetation and plankton in the sea, etc.

Quote from nitro:

If you don't think that any of those links I gave you "do not have much data to support the claim" that humans cause global warming, you either have very low comprehension skills of what you read, or have not read them.

You want to know what the proof of that is? That you keep asking about the temperature of the south pole over the last 50 years. You cannot have comprehended what is posted on those links and continue to ask that question as relevant.

Reread the part about the differences between climate and weather.

nitro
More...
 
Quote from nitro:

The argument that people have is that there is no question that there is Global Warming. It is whether it is attributable to humans and their love afair with CFCs and burning fuels that is the cause or whether it is a natural occurence of temperature differentials in Earth climatology....

nitro
More...


That's why we err on the side of prudence. There is already one planet in our system with a runaway greenhouse effect.
 
Right, you got it.

Especially because if we do contribute, the process takes decades if not centuries to reverse, no matter what you do.

nitro
Quote from Ricter:

That's why we err on the side of prudence. There is already one planet in our system with a runaway greenhouse effect.
More...
 
The old saying:

"An ounce of prevention......"

Quote from nitro:

Right, you got it.

Especially because if we do contribute, the process takes decades if not centuries to reverse, no matter what you do.

nitro
More...
 
Quote from Ricter:

I can tell you from my own experience living in the far north for the last 15 years (thank God it's over) that warming at the poles, north pole at least, is very real. Our winters have become comparatively mild, the ice is retreating rapidly, and the permafrost is melting.

Keep in mind too, when looking at the records for a single location like a park in NY, the difference between weather and climate.

To go back to the "is a fossil is not a fossil" debate about oil, well, I haven't collected or analysed the data myself, but I do know that organics are now being turned into oil by humans in a very inspiring way called "thermal depolymerization process, or TDP". The process essentially works in the same way that the "is a fossil" proponents describe. I'd put my money on the fossil side.
More...

You may be on to something in the nortern polar regions where to me there is clear evidence of warming trends. Whether it is within the normal very long term variation or not is a reasonable scientific question and whether it is caused by burning coal/gas/oil is also something that should be debated.

IMO, soot may be the culprit there and everyone seems focused on controlling oil/coal burning gas, CO2, which may not be the primary cause of what is observed in the frozen or not so frozen north.

You might be interested in this discussion by NASA scientists of the role of soot :

""This research offers additional evidence that black carbon may have a significant warming impact on the Arctic," Koch said. Warmer temperatures in the Arctic mean melting ice and snow, among other things. These temperature and ice changes also wind up affecting climate patterns around the world. "


http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/arctic_soot.html

DS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top