Posted on 07/07/2003 9:09:43 AM PDT by presidio9
Do you realize there's a difference between CO2 from manmade sources and global warming from natural sources? That's there's no causation? Why do you keep implying that they are the same thing?
I agree. And lets not do SOMETHING simply because it makes us all FEEL GOOD about ourselves (Kyoto). In another post today, one scientist calculated that even if all of Kyoto was put into place, it would result in a miniscule temperature decrease over what is predicted by GW. What the heck good is that? A conservative solution should give real results. I trust in the future, like you do, I think there will be solutions available that do not require an arm and a leg from every person in the developed world to implement.
The 1975 NAS panel claimed to have good reason for their fears: Global temperatures had been in steady decline since the 1940s. They considered the preceding period of warming, between 1860 and 1940, as "unusual," following as it did the "Little Ice Age," which had lasted from 1430 to 1850. -- S. Fred Singer, emeritus professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service.
As you can see from the latter, quotation, not only was the trend there, but the National Academy of Sciences was in a panic over the cooling trend from the 1940s to 1970s.
There is no such consensus in the scientific community and in fact any consensus that is evident is that man-made global warming is not occuring.
If you had gone to the site, you would have seen this;
---------------------------------------------------------
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
PO Box 1279
Cave Junction OR 97523Fax: 541-592-2597
Phone: 541-592-4142
Explanation Listed below are 19,200 of the initial signers
During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.
Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.
Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.
Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.
The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.
The signatures and the text of the petition stand alone and speak for themselves. These scientists have signed this specific document. They are not associated with any particular organization. Their signatures represent a strong statement about this important issue by many of the best scientific minds in the United States.
This project is titled "Petition Project" and uses a mailing address of its own because the organizers desired an independent, individual opinion from each scientist based on the scientific issues involved - without any implied endorsements of individuals, groups, or institutions.
The remainder of the initial signers and all new signers will be added to these lists as data entry is completed.
Our e-mail address, for the purposes of this project, is: info@oism.org
If you would like to mirror this site or download it to your hard drive, click here.
You may also view and print this entire web site in one easy step.
Copyright 2001 © OISM
------------------------------------------------------
Here is the text of the petition these scientists signed.
-------------------------------------------------------
Global Warming Petition
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
-------------------------------------------------------
Go to the site, read the peer-reviewed papers that discredit the entire theory of man-made global warming based on computer models. Actual measurments do not show warming and in fact show minor cooling over the last 60 years.
As I said, these are things that Dan Rather will never tell you and he will never mention the opinions of 17,000 + real scientists as opposed to the virtual handfull of UN Clepto-crats, international socialists and government research grant hustlers who are pushing this hoax down our throats.
So, you say "don't ignore the science," but you won't post "the science."
Poat 85 had heard of Vostok, --but you didn't respond to that post.
It's getting hard for me to waste my typing time on people that don't want to listen to reason. The last few times I've created or participated in threads addressing global warming, a Freeper named "ancient_geezer" has dumped megabytes of unsorted data on me in rebuttal, most of which was only marginally relevant.
But when I get a chance, I may be more active again.
SO2, not CO2. Volcanic CO2 emissions are negligible compared to human sources.
Also note that the "warming" is generally in urban areas, and that neither balloon, nor satellite data suggest the same warming is over the whole surface. Global warming people claim the ground-based measurements show that the satelite data has some unknown errors. Anti-global warming people point to the satellite data to show that the ground based measurements are a poor sample (being taken nearly entirely where local effects such as asphalt and buildings have an inordinate effect).
In short, not only is the statement that mans activities have contributed to global warming severely questioned, whether there is "global warming" at all is dependent on what definitions are used, and which data points from which sources are selected.
As for solutions, in an earlier post, I made a link to an article by Teller (Father of the Hydrogen Bomb), who refered to some ideas, the most intrusive of which was an estimated cost in the high millions per year. There have been some reports by global-warming enthusiasts that suggest that what little was done in regards Kyoto had the opposite of the intended effect: The reduction of atmospheric sulfur compounds appears to have made the atmosphere less reflective, allowing more sunlight to strike the earth's surface...though in truth, the data sample size has the same weaknesses as I referred to in the 1990s warming trend above.
PLEASE.... Go read the literature that Dr. Sitz has posted on the Oregon Project web site. NASA, NOAA, Harvard, MIT and other reputable peer-reviewed data, shows just that! All the data points agree, --- not some points, ALL POINTS! Again, there is not only no "consensus" among the scientific community that global warming is a fact. All of the "non-political data" would lead a reasonable, un-biased individual to conclude that it is not happening. 17,000 scientists did not sign this petition on a hunch.
Just read the other side before you make blanket statements that are not supported by the facts.
Theyahs a little toooo much diversion goin' on out dayah.
Conservatives need to start diverting attention to Al Sharpton as a viable democrat presidential candidate, too.
yitbos
Mount Pinatubo increased both, but yes, the SO2 release effects overshadowed the CO2 effects.
You are also correct to point out that I should have said "significantly", rather than "greatly" in regards CO2.
BTW, I found this in a quick search of Volcano info. It's an interesting article about a high CO2 producing volcano in Antarctica. This volcano releases three times the CO2 as it does SO2, and it releases 150 metric tons of CO2 per day, though a value of 1,850 metric tons per day is referred to as its total release from all sources. This places it as 9th in the world for known CO2 production.
I DO take the position that such warming is not incontrovertible. I believe there to be some warming within the last half-decade after a cooling in the early 1990s, and a warming in the decade preceeding that, but based on the evidence, even this is not certain to the point of being "incontrovertible". Again, the statement is subject to quite a number of definitional qualifications, such as picking the start and end dates to compare, which datasets are used, and severe questions as to which data sets actually are meaningful.
It is generally accepted that ground-based measurements show a warming trend within themselves, however, the methodology used to collect the data is subject to question, as the collection points are neither randomly placed, nor systematically placed from an atmospheric perspective. The overwhelming majority are placed in areas which are subject to urban "hot spots", for which it is generally agreed (to a greater or lesser extent) there is a distortion in results due to localized heating. So, though it is generally accepted that there is some warming over the last century, there's an asterisk.
Further, when one says "global warming" one needs be certain of what is actually being asserted. Is a one-year change "global warming"? Is "global warming" a continuous string in which each year is warmer than the year before? For how long? Is "global warming" a long-term effect to be assessed in units of decades, quarter-centuries, centuries, or epochs? Does "global warming" refer to full atmospheric effects, or ground-effects only? Using one or more of these can change whether one can say there is "global warming".
So, when you say "global warming", do you mean the more-or-less continual warming of the earth's atmosphere over the next 50 to 100 years compared to a long-term mean, or do you mean the warming of cities during night-time from one year to a point five years later without regard either to the mean or to temperature change trends before or after?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.