quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Is there ANYTHING... anything at all that you know of that is typically considered "Democrat Philosophy" that you disagree with? Anything at all... ? Todd

Well Todd (if I may..?), what about this Keystone oil pipeline..? I said that I wasn't "hard" against it. I'm really of two minds about it. Tomorrow (or one minute from now) I might even post that I am in favor of it.

I guess that I don't mind being pigeonholed (if I have to be pigeonholed by someone) as a "Democrat". I'm actually registered as a "Republican"--for whatever reasons I'd rather not go there. (Too personal for an Internet forum..)

I don't think that you can fairly label me as a far-left Democrat, though. More near the center, or slightly left of it.

Honestly, I think that I tend to align with whoever is President, because I see the difficulties that every choice or decision presents, on both sides of the question.

I used to post a lot on another Internet forum (political discussion died out on that one). One of the other frequent posters castigated me as "Bushie"--too aligned with George W. Bush. But he really was pretty solidly to the left, politically.

Mostly I post on foreign policy and energy/environment issues--I tend not to take that much of an interest in the other hot-button topics here.

How's this for a "statement"? Confused? Yes. It's a confusing world..

quote Originally posted by KidO: In before fierobear calls NASA a bunch of cheats and liars...

Didn't see anywhere in the report where cow farts and SUVs are to blame however. Try to understand this people, the planet goes through cycles. It freezes, it heats up, it freezes again. Been doing it for ohhhhh 4.5 Billion years (give or take). also try to understand this, heat rise historically PRECEEDS carbon increases. So how is CO2 to blame if it rises 400 years AFTER the tempurature starts to go up? I get it! This is truly the best scam anybody has ever come up with in the history of scams...it is global in it's impact, it is unparalled in its fear factor, it is horrendously expensive to try to change the climate (which we can't and will not do), AND the best part of all...it is unprovable. My scientific degree against yours...Oh BTW, YOUR conclusions exclude you from fat government grants while I get invited to all to cool kids cocktail parties because I say its real. More champers anybody?

Now if you want to talk about deforrestation and the impact that has on global climate and weather patterns I'm with you. it is GENUINE and PROVABLE and needs to be dealt with. but as long as earth has a CO2 content of 330 parts per MILLION in its atmosphere while Venus and Mars both have over 96% CO2 and are respectively 900 degrees and -80 degrees, the topic of CO2 impact on global temps is a joke! not to mention AGAIN that CO2 is a terrible heat retainer as far as tri-atomic structures go. SO2 and H2O are FAR greater heat retainers...shall we drain the oceans? Cap volcanoes? Can't wait to hear Al Gore's comments on that..

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Well Todd (if I may..?), what about this Keystone oil pipeline..? I said that I wasn't "hard" against it. I'm really of two minds about it. Tomorrow (or one minute from now) I might even post that I am in favor of it. I guess that I don't mind being pigeonholed (if I have to be pigeonholed by someone) as a "Democrat". I'm actually registered as a "Republican"--for whatever reasons I'd rather not go there. (Too personal for an Internet forum..) I don't think that you can fairly label me as a far-left Democrat, though. More near the center, or slightly left of it. Honestly, I think that I tend to align with whoever is President, because I see the difficulties that every choice or decision presents, on both sides of the question. I used to post a lot on another Internet forum (political discussion died out on that one). One of the other frequent posters castigated me as "Bushie"--too aligned with George W. Bush. But he really was pretty solidly to the left, politically. Mostly I post on foreign policy and energy/environment issues--I tend not to take that much of an interest in the other hot-button topics here. How's this for a "statement"? Confused? Yes. It's a confusing world..

Well, for the record, I didn't actually label you in this thread, and I don't remember if I had in the past either, but I was just curious. In my mind, you do appear to be 100% aligned with whatever seems to be the Democrat sticking point at that moment. I don't remember much the Bush discussions, it's been three years now and I've almost totally forgotten by now. But ok...

Again, not being a jerk, I just wanted to get a litmus...

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: I don't think that you can fairly label me as a far-left Democrat, though. More near the center, or slightly left of it. .

I think most people are more moderate than extremists, whether Democrat or Republican. The problem comes in when dealing with the parties as a whole, you end up with the agendas of the entire party, which includes the extremist views. (for both Democrat and Republican)

That doesn't help win elections, though. Too many moderates that could go either way, so you end up with everything being portrayed as 1 extreme or the other. Obama has used the "us vs them" tactic with virtually everything he's done in office. He's not the first, but much like his spending, he's gone to extremes never before seen. When you think your only option is extreme left wing or extreme right wing, and you lean slightly to the left - you're going to support left wing. (it's just as true for right wing)

I don't know what the fix is, or if one even exists, but the first step is recognizing the problem.

Jeez formula, you sound a bit bi partisan. I thnk that what happens is when a moderate feels that things have gone too far left or right, they think that they have to take the opposite tack in order to get it back to the middle. I know that I've fallen into that category more than once.

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic

From the same link:

Climate

The Triassic climate was generally hot and dry, forming typical red bed sandstones and evaporites. There is no evidence of glaciation at or near either pole; in fact, the polar regions were apparently moist and temperate, a climate suitable for reptile-like creatures. Pangaea's large size limited the moderating effect of the global ocean; its continental climate was highly seasonal, with very hot summers and cold winters.[10] It probably had strong, cross-equatorial monsoons.[10]

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Didn't see anywhere in the report where cow farts and SUVs are to blame however. Try to understand this people, the planet goes through cycles. It freezes, it heats up, it freezes again. Been doing it for ohhhhh 4.5 Billion years (give or take). also try to understand this, heat rise historically PRECEEDS carbon increases. So how is CO2 to blame if it rises 400 years AFTER the tempurature starts to go up? I get it! This is truly the best scam anybody has ever come up with in the history of scams...it is global in it's impact, it is unparalled in its fear factor, it is horrendously expensive to try to change the climate (which we can't and will not do), AND the best part of all...it is unprovable. My scientific degree against yours...Oh BTW, YOUR conclusions exclude you from fat government grants while I get invited to all to cool kids cocktail parties because I say its real. More champers anybody? Now if you want to talk about deforrestation and the impact that has on global climate and weather patterns I'm with you. it is GENUINE and PROVABLE and needs to be dealt with. but as long as earth has a CO2 content of 330 parts per MILLION in its atmosphere while Venus and Mars both have over 96% CO2 and are respectively 900 degrees and -80 degrees, the topic of CO2 impact on global temps is a joke! not to mention AGAIN that CO2 is a terrible heat retainer as far as tri-atomic structures go. SO2 and H2O are FAR greater heat retainers...shall we drain the oceans? Cap volcanoes? Can't wait to hear Al Gore's comments on that..

I agree with you 100 percent about deforestation, but we can surely exclude Venus and Mars from this discussion. Neither one is comparable to Earth. Venus has a much denser atmosphere than Earth's; Mars, almost no atmosphere at all.

As to the assertion, that historically--going as far back in the history of Earth as possible--carbon dioxide levels are always a consequence, rather than a cause of global warming:

First of all, I don't know how accurate that assertion is.

Even so, this doesn't in any way preclude the reverse mechanism that defines so many of us as "warmists"--our belief that relatively high carbon dioxide levels drive the global climate in the direction of warming. We're the first species to have global industries, transport and agriculture--and the first to subject the planet to carbon dioxide emissions on such a global and industrial scale.

And thirdly, even if something else is driving what so many see as the recent warming trend, high carbon dioxide levels are predicted to exacerbate the warming--to tilt the scales in favor of warming even further--making the difference between a small (and generally tolerable) global warming and a "runaway" warming that would turn the entire ecology of the planet upside down in just a matter of a few decades or half a century. I'm confident that paleoclimatologists would say that this has happened in the distant past--but I'm not going to break off this post just to look for links.

You referenced a carbon dioxide level of 330 ppm. I find a current figure of about 390 ppm. What will that number be in year 2100? How about 535 ppm (?)--and that's an optimistic scenario. Worst case--if present trends are not reversed at all--980 ppm. That's more than double the current level.

Reference: http://epa.gov/climatechang...ence/futureac.html

As far as volcanoes, a few months ago I posted here on how man-made carbon dioxide emissions far outweighs the cumulative amount from volcanoes:

Climate myth-busting: Carbon dioxide from volcanoes

Considering your reference to water (H₂O), I have this to say:

What goes into the atmosphere in the form of evaporation from lakes, rivers and the oceans comes back out fairly rapidly (very unlike carbon dioxide) as rain. I've never seen any reference to human activities being a cause of higher or lower levels of water vapor in the lower atmosphere. I don't know what would happen if we switched over in mass to fuel cell or hydrogen powered vehicles that would emit only water vapor into the atmosphere. I'm mostly about saying that we're facing the real possibility of anthropogenic, carbon dioxide-driven global warming. I'm not sure what the best solutions are--or what could be the unintended side effects if we were to change (for example) to a mostly hydrogen energy regime. Any human or natural process that puts gases into the atmosphere is suspect and needs to be scrutinized.

You also referred to sulfur dioxide (SO₂). I've seen that more commonly referenced as a cooling factor than a warming factor (Google on "global dimming".) Carbon dioxide isn't the only greenhouse gas of concern--there's also methane, various nitrogen compounds and even the new refrigerants that are replacing the bad old ozone-killing refrigerant--but judging by what I read and see on TV, it seems as though most climatologists think that carbon dioxide is the first and most important greenhouse gas to consider.

So have I made perfect and complete sense here?

No.

I'm not a climatolgist and not a scientist of any stripe.

But whose making more sense about carbon dioxide--you or me?

I leave it to all readers to decide.


"My name is R. Inselberg and I see CO₂ differently."

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-08-2012).]

quote Originally posted by tbone42: I thought THAT was Fierobear. j/k j/k We've had 2 days of snowing all winter... and VERY few days below freezing. It's over 70 degrees outside today, and two weeks ago it was in the end of February. Does that indicate Global Warming? Not sure, but it does indicate Ohio Warming because we have NEVER had a "winter" like this.. its been Spring since Autumn. I am basically gonna say this.. if you live in Florida or California (yeah, you know I am talking about you Bear, but listen) how do you know its any better or worse out there? California has mild weather almost all year round. I have lived in the upper Midwest my whole life, and now Ohio, and I have never even heard of winters like these until the last 10 years or so. I'm used to 8-12 inch snowfalls over 24 hour periods..we don't even get that in a whole season now. Same with cold temperatures, we have had only 1 or two really wintery-winters in the last decade, or at least in the places I have lived. Cold weather in winter has become the exception, not the rule. Thats crazy.

IF, the opposite were the case, every Gorite on the planet would be screaming "ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE! ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE!".

Ya see how that works? If it lends itself toward Global Warming/Climate Change [insert whatever they next decide to call it here], it's definitely settled science. If not, it's automatically anecdotal evidence.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-08-2012).]

Read Toddster's post again. He is bang on. CO2 is not a good heat sink. In fact it is not good at all.

When CO2 goes up it is as a result of increased organic plant and animal growth. Increased organic plant growth is as a result of increased nutrient and sun. Hense more CO2 is produced. CO2 does not cause the heat it is a product of more plant production, and, to a lesser extent more human/animal production. The oceans in fact produce most of the CO2.

And, if you look at the real records, the earth's mean temperature rises and falls. It has been falling in recent years and will, at some point increase again, before it falls again. Every time it goes into a cycle of increased temperature, Al Gore will try to make money from the phenomenon.

BTW, the polar regions were once lush and green. This is because the earth, at one time had a true hothouse system of cloud cover over the planet, much like our hot sister planet Venus. It mitigated temperature extremes. We no longer have that greenhouse system. This is the reason the poles are now frozen year round. Think about it. Why else would the poles have once supported life?

Arn

quote Originally posted by maryjane: IF, the opposite were the case, every Gorite on the planet would be screaming "ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE! ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE!". Ya see how that works? If it lends itself toward Global Warming/Climate Change [insert whatever they next decide to call it here], it's definitely settled science. If not, it's automatically anecdotal evidence.

That's a sword that cuts two ways.

We have posters on this forum that say that it's now settled science that the likelihood of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is "dead".

I think it's premature to "bury" AGW.

We're only at 390 ppm current concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere.

By 2100, anywhere from 585 to 980 ppm, as projected under a variety of scenarios in the 2007 report of the IPCC:
http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/futureac.html

I give my due to some of the posters here that are arrayed against me--against the likelihood of AGW.

Some of these posters have researched the topic in depth (albeit, reaching what I believe are erroneous conclusions.)

Others--not so much. I think they are just throwing "stuff" against a wall and hoping that some of it will stick: Ergo, my previous post--the one just before yours.

rinselberg, so shouldl we be talking about how humans are going to survive the heat?

quote Originally posted by 2.5: rinselberg, so shouldl we be talking about how humans are going to survive the heat?

I guess so.

(Really, let's give this little "sucker" a bump back up to the top of the forum page.. the more that chime in, the merrier..)

Hansen : Tampering With Data All Over The Planet

(Hansen is James Hansen, NASA's chief warmist/alarmist)

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: Antartica, however, wasn't located where it is now back in the Triassic period... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic

...but to add to the fact that there were no real polar ice caps either - according to the map Siberia was about as far north as you can go, yet they have evidence that it too had a tropical climate.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: You referenced a carbon dioxide level of 330 ppm. I find a current figure of about 390 ppm. What will that number be in year 2100? How about 535 ppm (?)--and that's an optimistic scenario. Worst case--if present trends are not reversed at all--980 ppm. That's more than double the current level.

330 is the current amount although several "scientists" are more than happy to take there measurements from the back of a bus rather than use the global average. Anyway, Earth has "about" 330 PPM....Mars has 970,000 PPM and it is -80 degrees. Am I really being unreasonable is asking someone to prove to me that even doubling our CO2 concentrations will increase global temps? If CO2 was SOOOOOO important then even at 40 million more miles from the sun wouldn't Mars, with its MASSIVE CO2 concentrations, be a sweat box? I'd settle for luke warm! I appreciate the Martian atmosphere is thinner and less dynamic than Earth's and I appreciate that it is a smaller body with no liquid water on the surface and hence retains less heat energy from the sun but 970,000 PPM!?!? And we're scare mongering over going from 330 PPM to 900? especially when Water Vapor is a far greater contributor to global temps even at those concentrations. I just don't see it and I have LOOKED for the proof. I live on this rock too.

I think that you (Toddster) answered your own question about Mars when you said:

quote the Martian atmosphere is thinner and less dynamic than Earth's and ... it is a smaller body with no liquid water on the surface and hence retains less heat energy from the sun

Earth has about 200 times as much atmosphere as Mars, in terms of total mass. I'd encourage you to put Mars aside when you consider this topic. I don't think it's a useful comparison.

Getting back to Earth, I haven't seen anyone projecting a significant increase in atmospheric water vapor, in contrast to the ever-rising CO₂ curve. Water vapor cycles out of the atmosphere very quickly as rain, whereas CO₂ accumulates over time. It takes the oceans a long time to absorb CO₂ from the atmosphere (and rising CO₂ in the oceans is another problem for us, in and of itself).

Reading between the lines of your posts, it seems to me that you are somewhat open to the possibility of AGW (anthropogenic global warming), but are also wary of what governments might start doing about it. Implementing well-intentioned but mistaken policies that don't help or only benefit the unscrupulous.

That's a perfectly reasonable position to have (in my view).

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-09-2012).]

The reason you don't see water vapour tied to Global temperature fluctuation is the exact same reason CO2 is not tied.

Both respond to radiation. They don't create it. The earth has been cooling for the past decade. It will likely start to heat again as the sun increases activity. The rise and fall of temperature has almost nothing to do with mankind or his acrivities.

What mankind is guilty of, however, is polluting his environment. Absolutely. Not heating it, but polluting it.

I'd much sooner talk about pollution instead of good old CO2 or H2O

Arn

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: The reason you don't see water vapour tied to Global temperature fluctuation is the exact same reason CO2 is not tied. Both respond to radiation. They don't create it. The earth has been cooling for the past decade. It will likely start to heat again as the sun increases activity. The rise and fall of temperature has almost nothing to do with mankind or his acrivities. . . .

Have you ever read about the positive feedback loops for CO₂ and H₂O that are central to the mechanisms of global warming?

It's summarized very nicely on this webpage:

CO₂ lags temperature--what does it mean?

Here's the bottom line:

quote The only conclusion that can be reached from the observed lag between CO2 and temperatures in the past 400,000 years is that CO2 did not initiate the shifts towards interglacials. To understand current climate change, scientists have looked at many factors, such as volcanic activity and solar variability, and concluded that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the most likely factor driving current climate change. This conclusion is not based on the analysis of past climate change, though this provides key insights into the way climate responds to different forcings and adds weight to the several lines of evidence that strongly support the role of greenhouse gases in recent warming.