See link in post 36 and diagrams below.
The "preindustrial" fluxes are in black, "anthropogenic" fluxes are in red. Red numbers indicate the change in the reservoir (such as atmospheric CO2) since the beginning of the industrial age.
Posted on 02/10/2006 9:43:29 AM PST by CreativeRandom
I would like to hear "The Other Side" of the argument on Greenhouse gases and global warming. I've heard the normal liberal rant, and have taken a few classes on the subject as well.
So, do greenhouse gases exist because of humans? I have heard faintly that animals and bonfires cause more gas, but I'm unknowledgeable on the exacts. Also, I would appreciate numeric info on US contribution to global warming / greenhouse gas compared to other countries - France, Former Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, third world countries like Zimbabwe....
And of global warming. Is it caused by industrialization? Should we be worried? Is it a risk? Is the artic circle going to be gone by 2070 like the UK newspaper stated?
All input appreciated.
That would include yours..
You haven't stated an opinion, just asked a question..
You said you have "taken a few classes on the subject"..
You should be informed enough to form an opinion then, shouldn't you?
Basically, you need to go and look at the science. Go and read the IPCC reports (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), see what the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, etc have to say.
If you listen to the pseudo-scientific groups (be they sponsored by the right or left) you're not going to get good science. Avoid Michael Chricton like the plague. Don't read things sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute or anything by any other "think tank"
Basically, you need to go and look at the science. Go and read the IPCC reports (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), see what the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, etc have to say.
If you listen to the pseudo-scientific groups (be they sponsored by the right or left) you're not going to get good science. Avoid Michael Chricton like the plague. Don't read things sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute or anything by any other "think tank"
Thats a pretty slim article, and then they pick a very slow erupting volcano, Kilauea, for a direct comparrison. Why not Mt. St. Helens 1980 eruption, the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, or other Plinian class and above eruptions?
The primary Little Ice Age occurred between about the mid-1400s to the mid-1800s, and the main cause was reduced solar activity (indicated by a very low number of sunspots observed on the Sun). The episode in 1816 of which you speak was caused by the huge eruption of Mt. Tambora, which caused a strong cooling effect in the next 2-3 subsequent years. This compounded the cooler temperatures of the Little Ice Age.
Regardless, the temperatures started rising in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, decades BEFORE everyone owned a car and more than 100 years AFTER the start of the Industrial Revolution hit Western Europe and North America and more than 50 years after trains started crossing Europe and North America.
Climate and global temperature do not necessarily respond linearly and immediately to changes in radiative forcing. Also, the oceans have taken up some of the excess heat produced in the Earth system over the past 150 years or so, postponing some of the temperature rise.
But it is important to remember that a) we have only been the US for 230 years, b) 100+ of those years were during that mini Ice Age and c) that records 230+ years ago were not exactly as accurate as they are now.
The "instrumental period" is generally considered to start about 1890.
"Avoid Michael Chricton like the plague. Don't read things sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute or anything by any other "think tank""
Michael Chricton is no conservative and he admits that he never set out to write a book about the environment. In several interviews he said that he stumbled in to some of the conflicting data and started researching his confusion. He never wrote the book he was doing research for and instead wrote his envro-whacko hit peice.
Eggzactly. "They'll have to pry my greenhouse from my cold dead hands..."
Still, he's a novelist. Don't get science from Novels, and I won't Steven Hawking if I want fiction. Seems a fair deal
Look up Dr. Patrick Moore. He was one of the founders of Greenpeace and he's blown the whistle on the 'environmental movement' and how they use junk science to raise money and buy off studies in their favor.
Also, there are many other things that make the IPCC not exactly a source that is 100% trustworthy.
Still, he's a novelist. Don't get science from Novels, and I won't read Steven Hawking if I want fiction. Seems a fair deal
Agreed.
As I said, I don't see the value in reading biased sources. I'd still take IPCC, NAS, AAAS over organisations that receive funding from oil companies any day
See link in post 36 and diagrams below.
The "preindustrial" fluxes are in black, "anthropogenic" fluxes are in red. Red numbers indicate the change in the reservoir (such as atmospheric CO2) since the beginning of the industrial age.
I can't even spell Gnosticism let alone learn from Dan Brown.
I think it's important for conservatives to tell the difference between science and stuff that looks like science because it's got a lot of graphs in it. On the GW stuff, 95% of what we see in the MSM can be discarded as the latter
Don't ask me. I am still trying to figure how all the glaciers that covered Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Illinios and Wisconsin 20,000 years ago went. Seems there must have been a lot of global warming going on, but no sign of man.
What do you want to know?
Besides, I thought CO2 was the most damaging chemical to our precious ozone layer.
The primary damage to the ozone layer is done by breakdown products from CFCs (short for chlorofluorocarbons, "Freons"). CFCs are very inert, allowing them to slowly diffuse up into the stratosphere. In the stratosphere, they are broken down into chlorinated compounds by high-energy radiation (partly the same UV that ozone absorbs). The chlorinated species react with ozone, and the reactions are accelerated catalytically by ice surfaces in high-altitude clouds.
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.