Comments on: CO2 Emissions Are Rising. Or Falling. Actually, It's Both.

By: bonsai king

bonsai king — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:18:17 +0000

We believe too much in ourselves, that we believe that we are big enough to cause planetary changes. We have just risen from ice age and we are now going through the usual global warming process. The earth will continue to warm as it has done so for millions of years, then it will gradually cool down to another ice age. And the cycle goes on. If not for the very extreme hot conditions, large dinosaurs will not be able to exist. Global forest fires and volcanic eruptions are still the largest contributor to CO2 emissions as it has been for millions of years. We are still very small. If humans stop logging, all the forest on the earth can be grown back in 50 years. We have not made any damage on the earth that can not be recovered in a few years.

Yes, It is still best to start controlling ourselves now. The earlier the better.

By: Bob Driscoll

Bob Driscoll — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:53:01 +0000

It’s hard for a man to believe something, when his job depends on him not believing something.
In this case its not so much the job as the restriction of consumerist tendencies.

Do you know what the yeast cells said as they slowly drowned in their excrement?
“If only I had the vision and brains to identify and preclude future catastrophes”
no wait that’s not right.
they said
“sugar yum sugar yum …”

By: Eamon

Eamon — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:02:45 +0000

Michael@8

OK, looky here—the earth has been cooling off since the hot year of 1998

1998 was an exceptional El Nino year, so what you’re saying is akin to claiming winter’s come early if you experience a cool day in summer.

The temperature trend is still up.

For more info check http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/embarrassing-questions/

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:46:32 +0000

OK, looky here—the earth has been cooling off since the hot year of 1998, despite the ever-increasing amount of greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere, including a significant rise in methane, which is a far more ‘powerful’ greenhouse gas than CO2. That is a significant and measurable fact, and impossible of you believe the vaunted IPCC reports.

Of course, measurable facts have never stopped politically motivated scientists and true-believers from expounding the dire warnings of doom and gloom. These folks sadly remind me of the religious fundamentalists who always ignore any facts in order to remain attached to their bigotted dogmas.

The monumental tragedy here is like the fable of the boy who cried ‘wolf’ — his credibility was so erroded that when the real wolf arrived no one believed him. The alarmists who predict flooding, hurricanes, massive death, etc. are crying wolf, and demeaning the already suspicious public’s faith in science in general. So how can we expect citizens to embrace science when their own everyday experiences and valid common sense tell them that the scientific ‘concensus’ is simply wrong? We can’t.

Indeed, as I like to point out, when did a show of hands determine science fact? ‘Concensus’ is a politcal concept, and certainly not a scientific one. Again, observe one of the coldest and wetest winters in many decades, where new cold records will be set, and try to convince folks about global warming. Note that these cooler falls, colder winters, and cooler springs are a continuing trend, and not some localized weather anomalies.

I really hate to see this happening, as it just gives fodder to the anti-science religious groups that have always attacked science as an atheistic plot to destroy faith. But a lot of so-called free thinkers are showing themselves to be nothing more than political lemmings, following their pathetic leaders off the cliff of unfounded scientific theory.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:21:37 +0000

Back in the 70′s we had a different name for what’s “wrong with this picture.” It was “pollution”. Simple as that. Whether the changes in CO2 levels are raising or lowering global temperatures has become a ridiculous and pointless side show. Excessive CO2 is only one of hundreds of contaminates bringing an ever increasing decay to far more than ancient glaciers. We’ve forgotten the big picture here. Global temperatures, water levels, and ice caps have waxed and waned since the Earth formed. It’s been part of nature’s cycle and will continue to be and we’ve made it through a good many millennia so far. But there’s no natural changes that will undo the toxic contamination that’s increasing in our atmosphere, our seas and oceans, and our soil. Nature doesn’t have a cycle that will fix or change that. Nature dies from too much poison, and as nature dies, so will we. There is no high ground or cooler climate to go to. I don’t understand how global warming got to be scarier or more important that that. But if that’s what it takes for people to take our impact on our planet seriously again, it’s better than nothing. But please, don’t stop there.

By: Eamon

Eamon — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:28:01 +0000

@Patrick

If you’d paid a bit more attention you’d have seen that Spectroscope’s quote includes the words geological time. Is the Roman Empire millions of years in the past?

As for your factoids:

Roman Empire – so? There have always been regional variations in temperature. You might also want to note that the temperatures usually quoted are from dendrochronology, the study of tree ring growth, which is less accurate when you go back more than a thousand years.

Greenland being green – rubbish. It was slightly more clement though, before local cimate changes made the colony unviable.

The Sun – We live on the outer edges of the sun’s atmosphere? Really? Has the Earth suddenly shifted to the orbit of Mercury?

The ‘It’s the sun!’ claims of climate denialists is the most stupid of their pseudo science: Mercury recieves six times more energy from the sun than the earth (ten times more at it’s closest approach), Venus recieves twice as much energy. It is unconcievable that we would not have noticed the effects of such a solar energy increase on those planets.

A good layman’s reference on Greenland is Jared Diamond’s Collapse

For the solar energy figures check Table 2 on this page: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/standards/am0/newam0.html

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:35:10 +0000

‘comparatively recent’ The period of the Roman Empire, ending at the approach of the ‘Dark Ages’ Temperatures were about 3 degrees F warmer. Greenland really was green. The climatologists pass this off to buffalo farts in North America. ( Really this isn’t a Joke) ( well it is, but this was put forth a valid reason for the warmer period (1500 years)

Come on people! We live on the outer edges of the atmosphere of a star. What do you THINK will be the greatest reason for warming or cooling……….THE SUN?

We are causing the acidification and “dead zones” of the Oceans. But even with this the Earth will endure ( No need to save it) We on the other hand might not make it Ü

By: Eamon

Eamon — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:55:45 +0000

Spectroscope@1 sez:

In comparatively recent geological times Co2 levels have been *much* higher than now

Define ‘comparatively recent’ would you?

By: Christina Viering

Christina Viering — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:58:58 +0000

Another global warming issue.

By: Chrysoprase

Chrysoprase — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:40:36 +0000

@1 – So I suppose the increase in ocean acidity due to dissolved co2 causing mass extinctions in coral reefs is a non-issue? Even if climate change isn’t driven by humans it’s hard to deny that we’re making the oceans more acidic.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/16-ocean-acidification-a-global-case-of-osteoporosis/?searchterm=ocean acidity

It would be nice if you had credible citations, or in fact any citations, to back up your talking points.