home

How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warming?

by TChris

The president doesn’t think much of the prevailing science that warns of the threat of global warming, choosing to dismiss evidence that his own EPA found persuasive. But he may find it difficult to continue his recent studied silence on the issue in light of increasing hurricane activity and this ominous development:

The floating cap of sea ice on the Arctic Ocean shrank this summer to what is probably its smallest size in a century, continuing a trend toward less summer ice that is hard to explain without attributing it in part to human-caused global warming, various experts on the region said today.

The findings are consistent with recent computer simulations showing that a buildup of smokestack and tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases could lead to a profoundly transformed Arctic later this century in which much of the once ice-locked ocean is routinely open water in summers.

Even more disturbing:

It also appears that the change is becoming self sustaining, with the increased open water absorbing solar energy that would be reflected back into space by bright white ice, said Ted A. Scambos, a scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., which compiled the data along with NASA.

How often does reality need to kick the president in the teeth before he rethinks his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol?

< FEMA's Response to Rita Criticized | Contradicting Tom DeLay >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:25 PM EST
    I just love the CBS report. It moves me to say, "Fake but accurate." Quick. Someone tell me what happened to global cooling?

    5,000,000,000+ more or less industrialized humans, that's what.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    Bush can ignore anything as long as he wants to. He's shown that consistently. Arctic sea ice cap retreat is an ongoing phenomenon that has been long known and observed, in spite of what anyone chooses to "believe" or "ignore": Satellite data reveals rapid Arctic warming 13:16 24 October 2003 NewScientist.com news service Jeff Hecht
    A NASA satellite survey of the Arctic has revealed just how rapidly the region is warming. The overall trend of rising temperature over the past 20 years is eight times higher than that recorded by ground measurements over the past century.


    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, has also studied and reported in depth on this subject: e.g. Satellite-Observed Changes in the Arctic

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#5)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    The consensus of almost all climatologists is that global warming is a fact. There's a good chance that we are already past the tipping point. Chaotic systems, (see atmosphere), can be disrupted to the point of no return. Even if you believe the API, we can't afford to take a chance. As a model, think of bushco's response to iraq: 'we had to invade because the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud.' The consequences of global warming are so much worse than iraq having plans to have programs that might produce WMDs, and compared to the data for global warming the iraq data was mere conjecture. It's obvious which is the real danger to the world.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#6)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    The prez can't even spell "global warming", let alone understand it. Like in most things, he is just the ventriloquist's dummy. (And then there's the dummy's dummies).

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    Although global warming appears to be taking place it has not been conclusively tied to man-made CO2 emmissions. There have been cycles of cooling/warming happening forever on earth. In recent geographical history there has been an Ice Age that ended 12,000 years ago and other warm/cool cycles prior to that one. The Earth has been warming since the last ice age with the exception of a very cold streak in the early part of the second millenium AD. I find it hard to believe that this is nothing more than that cycle again. Recent analysis of the Mars probe has found evidence of global warming there. Go figure. Should the world cut down on emmissions? Sure. Would the Kyoto treaty have prevented Global warming by 2012? Nope. I would assume that that was one of the reasons the last administration didn't push the treaty and the Senate voted 98 to 0 against ratification. Contrary to Leftist dogma the Bushies weren't in power when the treaty was up for a vote. Great Britain, Germany and other signatories of Kyoto have already abandoned the standards. China and India weren't affected by it so they could pollute at will. It was a bad treaty, ill-conceived and rightly rejected. But then again as I said the Kyoto protocals are nothing more than sappy leftist dogma. Oh and that it is all Bush's fault too.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#10)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    I recall in the 80's some concern about aerosols scattering sunlight, and producing a net cooling effect. Because an atomic explosion has a similar effect, people were talking about the possibility of "nuclear winter". Carl Sagan in particular brought this to the attention of the public. I do recall one atmospheric scientist I knew who argued that the correct term was "climate change" rather than "global warming", because at the time the direction that the global temperature would take was still uncertain. But that was twenty years ago or so. The warming trend is very clear today. It's simple physics, really. As the concentration of greenhouse gases increases, they absorb more long wavelength radiation emitted from the ground. For the Earth to be in equilibrium with the Sun, it must radiate away energy at the same rate as it receives it. If more energy is prevented from radiating into space, the only way the Earth can restore equilibrium is by getting hotter, which increases the radiative output.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#11)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    jimcee, don't talk about "cycles of warming/cooling" unless you know what you're talking about - and judging by the fact that you seem to think this is a political issue, you probably don't. You can read the IPCC 2001 report's executive summary here. This is not "sappy leftist dogma". Nature knows nothing about political confrontation. The Earth merely reacts to change following the laws of physics, and scientists try to understand, as they always have and always will. What is political here is the consequences of what is happening to the climate for certain economic interests, strongly vested in carbon, and lacking in imagination to create new business opportunities in a changing world.

    Hmm, who to believe.
    Quick. Someone tell me what happened to global cooling?
    If your understanding of global climate boils down to "God's Thermostat" somewhere being set to hot or cold... congratulations, you're a Republican.

    I am not a scientist. I hear about global warming from people that I respect, and I believe that the threat is real. There's no way I can figure out for myself if the threat of global warming is real. It would take years of schooling. I'd have to run scientific tests. I'd have to travel all over the world. I have to trust the people who are telling me it is real that it is real. And then I turn on Fox News and watch them laughing at the mere mention of global warming. Boy did they get kick out of Barbra Streisand last week. How did our world come to such a state that scientific fact is determined by politicians?

    Hey TChris - the earth was much, much warner during the dinosaur era. Care to blame human activity for that? It was much, much coller during the the "little ice age" (late middle ages into the 18th century) than now (never mind the real ice ages) There's a term you might look up: cyclical. I'll wait while you consult a dictionary. Oh, and the ice caps on Mars are melting as well - almost as if solar activity had something to do with it. Curious, that.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    much of the once ice-locked ocean is routinely open water in summers.
    The removal or reduction of the North Polar ice will allow for a Great Northern Passage, creating a direct sea link between Europe and Asia. So global warming is in fact pro-business, and Bush is simply following established Republican policy. There was once in history a period where the environment was changed much as humans are changing it now. It resulted in a period of rapid warming. It occured 200,000,000 years ago and caused the Great Dying (I believe that's the name). 90% of all species became extinct.
    There's a term you might look up: cyclical. I'll wait while you consult a dictionary.
    The existence of cycles doesn't contradict global warming. Can you look up "red herring"?
    Oh, and the ice caps on Mars are melting as well
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last I heard the Martian atmosphere was being slowly stripped off. Mars lacks the magnetic field needed to deflect the solar wind. Given the significant differences between Earth and Mars atmospheres direct comparison is difficult at best, I suspect.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    et al: Before you sell your soul to those who use your fear against you, read this Link It is dense, difficult reading. Here are few choice words:
    The annual cycles in figure 1 are the result of seasonal variations in plant use of carbon dioxide. Solid horizontal lines show the levels that prevailed in 1900 and 1940 (2). The magnitude of this atmospheric increase during the 1980s was about 3 gigatons of carbon (Gt C) per year (3). Total human CO2 emissions primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement are currently about 5.5 GT C per year.To put these figures in perspective, it is estimated that the atmosphere contains 750 Gt C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 Gt C; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,200 Gt C; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C (3). Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 60 Gt C; marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 Gt C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 100 Gt C (3).
    So great are the magnitudes of these reservoirs, the rates of exchange between them, and the uncertainties with which these numbers are estimated that the source of the recent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide has not been determined with certainty (4). Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are reported to have varied widely over geological time, with peaks, according to some estimates, some 20-fold higher than at present and lows at approximately 18th-Century levels (5). The current increase in carbon dioxide follows a 300-year warming trend: Surface and atmospheric temperatures have been recovering from an unusually cold period known as the Little Ice Age. The observed increases are of a magnitude that can, for example, be explained by oceans giving off gases naturally as temperatures rise. Indeed, recent carbon dioxide rises have shown a tendency to follow rather than lead global temperature increases (6).
    Out of the total C of 41,950 gt tons, 750 gt tons is in the atmosphere. Of which, mankind is thought to currently contribute 5.5 gt tons, or .5594% Now. What you are being told is simply this. Mankinds contributation of about one half of 1% of the total atmospeheric C is causing a problem. Turn your BS filter on folks.

    I remember having classes on global weather change back in the early 70's at university. In one class, the lecturer discussed possible changes in ocean currents due to the heating of the ocean. One possibility was the shutting down of the Atlantic jet stream that carries warm water past Europe and cool further south forming a great circular movement carrying warm water to the Bahamas. The result could be an ice age, so to speak, for Western Europe and perhaps North America. Further, such changes can happen quite suddenly, somewhat like the boiling point, after which there's no return. Quitting emission technology now would not have any effect for 60-80 years or longer. The effects we are experiencing are the result of pollution emitted one hundred or more years ago. The effects are cumulative. That's what makes it difficult to understand. Mr. Robertson may have a point but it would only be true if humans had not decided to emit greenhouse gases, chemicals, etc; into the atmosphere. I always find it fascinating that conservatives loudly praise technology for its economic effects but never recognize any effects it may have on the planet we live on.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#20)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    JR, I teach solar system astrophysics. What cycle are you talking about? You mention the dinosaurs; refer me please to the literature on a 70 million year long global temperature cycle. We do not have anywhere near enough data on Mars' climate to say anything for certain about it at present. There is evidence for substantial interannual change, but the conditions on Mars are very different from Earth. In particular, the tilt of the rotation axis on Mars is a lot more variable because it does not have a massive Moon to stabilize it. This could lead to changes in the distribution of temperature across the planet that would not occur on Earth. Don't get sarcastic about a subject that you clearly know very little about.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#21)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    some info on PPJ's source
    The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
    No one at OISM has any experience in climate science. The "article" has never been submitted to a peer- review journal.
    The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming
    None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary (home-schooled by his dad), along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program
    LINK BTW my BS filter is always on when your name is attached to anything. Got any more crap, thats a stupid question. of course you do.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#22)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    Before you sell your soul to those who use your fear against you
    Wow, what an apt self description! Only reinforced by quoting a site that only has a PO address that says for more info contact a college that only has a PO address!
    Turn your BS filter on folks.
    Everytime a wrongwinger comments an angel turns it's BS filter on;-) (with apologies to Frank Capra;-)

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    Water is liquid, and stays in a liquid state, at temperatures between 32 f and 212 f. Lower the temperature to 32 f and it suddenly becomes a solid (it turns to ice). Raise the temperature to 212 f and it suddenly becomes a gas (turns to steam). These are called phase changes. This is simple high school physics. If you continue to pump more heat, even a little at a time, than you remove, into a closed system (the earth and it's gas envelope or atmosphere, for example), eventually a phase change will occur. Permafrost and Climate Change
    A pilot project was initiated to develop an approach to assessing the impact of climate change on permafrost in northern communities and the sensitivity of infrastructure to the associated ground temperature warming, active layer increase or permafrost degradation. The predicted thaw depths shown above, are plotted as a function of time for three climate change regimes, a linearly rising temperature change, an exponentially rising change, and a linear change with 10% more snowfall. The plots show the rate of increase in maximum annual thaw depth over the 50-year simulation period. In all simulations, the rate of change in thaw depth is very slow in the first 10 to 20 years of the simulations. This observation suggests that detection of the early impacts of warming by monitoring thaw depth may be difficult, particularly when allowing for seasonal variations and when dealing with permafrost temperatures near 0°C where heat associated with phase change plays an important role in the ground thermal regime.


    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    SD - I note you don't deny the numbers, you just don't like the source. Ho hum, typical of you. BTW - Speaking of reports we now find that the infamous "bristlecone" that led to the even more infamous "hockey stick" temperature curve has now found to be wrong. Of course that's what happens to consesus science. People start demanding proof and the next thing you know there is none. sailor - The problem is that the Left has none. They believe anything and everything bad.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    Al, it's been awhile since I was in a high school physics class, you understand? ;-) My post above was made from memory, except for the linked reference. Please comment on it for me would you?

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    edger writes:
    Lower the temperature to 32 f and it suddenly becomes a solid (it turns to ice). Raise the temperature to 212 f and it suddenly becomes a gas (turns to steam).
    Actually, air pressure has quite a bit to do with that. That too is high school science. You must have been absent that day. But forget that, you wrote:
    If you continue to pump more heat, even a little at a time, than you remove, into a closed system (the earth and it's gas envelope or atmosphere, for example), eventually a phase change will occur.
    But the facts show otherwise:
    The United States surface temperature record (see figure 4) gives 1996 and 1997 as the 38th and 56th coolest years in the 20th century. Biases and uncertainties, such as that shown in figure 13, account for this difference.
    In effect, an experiment has been performed on the Earth during the past half-century an experiment that includes all of the complex factors and feedback effects that determine the Earth's temperature and climate. Since 1940, atmospheric GHGs have risen substantially. Yet atmospheric temperatures have not risen. In fact, during the 19 years with the highest atmospheric levels of CO2 and other GHGs, temperatures have fallen.


    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    et al - Folks, that less than 1% that mankind's energy usuage is contributing to the atmosphere is not effecting anything. That big old bright looking thing that comes up in the east has control. Bet on it.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    Details. Misdirection and and simple diversion, Jim. I'll put more stock in a physicists comments, thanks.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    BTW - edger writes:
    ...into a closed system (the earth and it's gas envelope or atmosphere, for example),..
    It isn't a closed system. There is a continual and ongoing interchange with the ocean being the largest holder/mover.
    is estimated that the atmosphere contains 750 Gt C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 Gt C; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,200 Gt C; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C (3). Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 60 Gt C; marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 Gt C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 100 Gt C (3).


    Now. What you are being told is simply this. Mankinds contributation of about one half of 1% of the total atmospeheric C is causing a problem. Turn your BS filter on folks.
    It's your BS filter that's malfunctioning. There's far more pseudo-science on the web than science - lots of people with lots of agendas. Do you really believe the scientists working on global warming are corrupt or incompetent? Do you understand how science is done?
    we now find that the infamous "bristlecone" that led to the even more infamous "hockey stick" temperature curve has now found to be wrong.
    Yes, with such scientific criticisms as "I can't see the hockey sticks." Personally I could see more than one hockey stick - as if that meant anything. Get off the web. Go down to your university library. Read the journals. Or at least do a serious literature search. And stop using dubious web sites. Then you might know what the real significance of the hockey. If you aren't going to do the real research yourself then the only rational thing to do is accept the consensus opinion of the experts. Your personal opinion doesn't mean anything. Finding a bunch of web sites that agree with you also doesn't mean anything.
    et al - Folks, that less than 1% that mankind's energy usuage is contributing to the atmosphere is not effecting anything. That big old bright looking thing that comes up in the east has control. Bet on it.
    A scientist wouldn't bet on it. What appears to be intuitively obvious often turns out to be wrong. Assuming the facts are correct (and that web site is clearly not a valid source of information), you still need the physical and statistical models to demonstrate the result.

    ...into a closed system (the earth and it's gas envelope or atmosphere, for example),..
    It isn't a closed system. There is a continual and ongoing interchange with the ocean being the largest holder/mover.
    Oddly enough, you're right, but for the wrong reason. edger was referring to the entire planet. Ocean-air exchange stays within the planet. It's the energy being received from the sun versus the energy be shed out into space that matters.

    et al - Folks, that less than 1% that mankind's energy usuage is contributing to the atmosphere is not effecting anything. That big old bright looking thing that comes up in the east has control. Bet on it.
    PPJ...the only thing I will bet on is that you will find another lunatic fringe source to back up your politically prejudiced position on this issue. So here's where you can impress us all: find an article from a peer-reviewed scientific journal stating that the increase in C02 in the last century is 1.) non-anthropogenic and 2.) not significant to the earth's climate. And also find one that shows solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere is increasing at a rate to explain the latest 20 year temperature increase. Otherwise put a sock in it.

    How many ways can we find to destroy the Earth before we stop and take notice. Why are we focusing only on global warming? How many trees is it okay to cut down before our oxygen source disappears? How many toxins can we disperse into our air and water supply? How much mercury can we allow into our Star Kist Tuna? How many people need to die or become ill before we use our common sense and say, "Enough! Let's find another way!"

    How many trees is it okay to cut down before our oxygen source disappears?
    Some refer to forests as carbon sinks, as they remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Cutting down forests contributes to global warming.
    How many people need to die or become ill before we use our common sense and say, "Enough! Let's find another way!"
    There are those who speculate that the reason we have no evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence is because intelligent societies destroy themselves. Maybe we're just reaching the end of evolution.

    Allen, you gotta have hope. Yes, we are all going to die, but don't you think it might be worth the effort if we all tried to make our life expectancies last a couple of years longer? And can we please try to make our death experiences a little more pleasant? And if it's not asking too much, can we please try to allow life to exist on this planet a few generations longer after we're gone?

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#36)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    I see no reason to spend precious time examining in detail a report by people from an unknown research center who have no experience in climate science and are backed by a right-wing think tank. 3 strikes you're out. As Ernesto says bring something thats peer reviewed. As usual your talk bout the "hockey stick" is at best misleading. For a good discussion see here Last time I checked the laws of physics have not been repealed by the Rethugs.

    The question was "How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warming?" It is of course a good question, but irrelevant when it comes to solve the problem at hand; How do we avert the global catastrophe caused by Global Warming. Because what Bush and his administration says is not worth listening to. They have over and over proven themselves to: 1. Only being responsible towards big business and its interests at any costs to the US people and the world in general. 2. Lying to their own people and the rest of the world to justify their causes and actions. 3. Claiming to be ordered to do stuff by God (which qualifies for the loony house where I come from). The list goes on and on, but the point here is that any reasonable person in the world does not believe a single word the president of the United States says. No one. He is a clown. Not the nice "falls-on-his-head-into-a-bucket-of-water-clown", but more like a Stephen Kingish nightmare clown. The kind that walks around in the circus tent smashing in the heads of all the children and shoots the parents in the stomach if they don’t laugh. It does not matter what anyone says or does, Bush and his gang will do exactly what they want to do, whatever people say and whatever the consequences. The only thing that can avert it is that the US gets a president that is honest, intelligent and serves the people of the US and understands that the US is a part of a tiny world called Earth where everyone needs to work together if we are to have any hope of survival. So...it is obviously not an offence for impeachment to lie the nation into war of aggression, or to give close personal friends billions and billions of government money, or assist the Bin Laden family to escape the US in the hours after 9/11, or to play golf for 4 days after the largest national disaster ever to occur hits the US, etc..etc... But if I remember rightly, getting a blowjob in the oval office is! So, IF you people want a different direction for your nation than straight off the cliff, organize a national drive to find a good hearted woman that can be talked into taking care of that little detail.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    Adrazar:
    So, IF you people want a different direction for your nation than straight off the cliff, organize a national drive to find a good hearted woman that can be talked into taking care of that little detail.
    Very little detail, probably...

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    University of Maryland UM Newsdesk - Science & Technology May 28, 2003 Land Use May Be Causing Half of Earth's Surface Warming
    COLLEGE PARK, Md. -- Land use changes in the United States are responsible for a significant portion of the country's temperature increase over the past five decades, says a University of Maryland study published in this week's issue of the journal Nature. The findings suggest that land use changes are responsible for more of the rise in global temperatures than scientists previously had thought, say authors Eugenia Kalnay and Ming Cai, scientists in the university's department of meteorology.
    National Academy of Sciences Global Change at the National Academies Global Environmental Change: Understanding Human Dimensions Summary: Global environmental change often seems to be the most carefully examined issue of our time. Yet understanding the human side--human causes of and responses to environmental change--has not yet received sustained attention. Global Environmental Change offers a strategy for combining the efforts of natural and social scientists to better understand how our actions influence global change and how global change influences us. Global Carbon Cycle

    Search for information is all well and good Edgar, but this thread was not about IF global warming was threatening us all. It is a fact and it seems only that the right wing in US politics are the only ones not admitting it. So dont break down open doors, there is no need to argue this matter. What this thread started with was for how long Bush & co. could dodge reality.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:28 PM EST
    Adrazar - good point. You're right. Thanks.

    Interesting data there Jim. Got anything from a peer-reviewed Scientific Journal that agrees with it?

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:28 PM EST
    Allen writes:
    “Ocean-air exchange stays within the planet. It's the energy being received from the sun versus the energy be shed out into space that matters.”
    So the C stored in the ocean and other places contributes nothing to global warming. Okay. Allen writes:
    Do you really believe the scientists working on global warming are corrupt or incompetent? Do you understand how science is done?
    I believe they are human with all the attributes of humans. Those would be both good and bad, and a mixture thereof. I do not judge. And yes. I give you the following example:
    A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation: N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL …….. This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice.
    Link I agree that there is a lot of trash out there in the Internet. But can you tell me that the amount of C contained in various places is incorrect?
    Total human CO2 emissions primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement are currently about 5.5 GT C per year…….the atmosphere contains 750 Gt C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 Gt C; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,200 Gt C; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C (3) (That is 49,150 gt C.)
    And if so, what are the correct numbers and your source? I ask because the numbers aren’t a “study,” but are given as an amount. And with your background you must have these at your fingertips. You write:
    Ocean-air exchange stays within the planet. It's the energy being received from the sun versus the energy be shed out into space that matters.
    Okay. So what you are saying is that the C retained in the ocean, plants, etc, have no effect. It is the C in the atmosphere that we should be concerned about. How about other exchanges? Are these numbers wrong?
    Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 60 Gt C; marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 Gt C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 100 Gt C (3).
    This is a 300 Gt C exchange. Total manmade C is estimated at 5.5 Gt/year. Now, if the exchange is proportional then the manmade contribution to the atmosphere would be 3% (90/300) of 5.5 Gt c/year, or .16Gt C/year. Note the point16 Gt/year. That would be .022% Now that is a very small number. And I have a lot of trouble believing that Global Warming can be caused by that. Now, what if the interchange is non-proportional? I don’t know what the number would be, and neither do you, but it is assuredly not 100% to the atmosphere. And if plants, trees, etc., are part of the interchange, won’t the increased temperatures cause increased growth, which will act as a damper on the increase by providing more storage space, thus less released into the atmosphere? And would planting trees be a better strategy than ignoring the Third World and crippling the US’ economy? So you see, my skepticism is based on the lack of information, and it affects both sides of the argument. When you can tell me with a 99% certainty what the interchange is and what affects the rate of interchange, let me know. And another interesting question is, is the statement:
    In fact, during the 19 years with the highest atmospheric levels of CO2 and other GHGs, temperatures have fallen.
    Is this statement incorrect? And if it is, what is your source? I mean if carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the problem, why the decline? Is someone going to say that the decline is caused by global cooling , caused by dust in the atmosphere? And if so, can the amount of dust be correlated with the cooling? And then we come to the “hockey stick,” which, if I understand correctly, “proved” that temperature rise is like a hockey stick… starts slowly and then ramps up quickly. An excellent device to get attention with. I have seen it used to attempt to prove everything in the world, including that slow sales in the first nine months will fly through the ceiling as the “hockey stick” effect of some “sales action” takes effect. This link shows that the hockey stick doesn’t exist and says that the information used by the original is not correct. Can you tell me why this link is incorrect, since you claim to see the “hockey stick?” You see Allen, it is not that I don't "believe," it is that I see too many holes in the argument. And when I see the politics coupled to Global Warning then yes, my BS filter pops right up. You should oil yours so it works better. A good scientist, if you are one, should challenge beliefs, shouldn't they? Truth to power as the Left likes to say.

    PPJ- I take your lack of response means that no, you have no corroboration for this study from a Scientific Journal that actually follows the vital component of the Scientific Method...that of "peer review". The ID'ers don't like peer review either. Gee...I wonder why. Please, let me know if you actually have some peer reviewed corroboration for this study. I'm quite eager to read it, as I've not found a single one yet.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#45)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:28 PM EST
    Edger, you're quite right, as the temperature rises, ice melts. The permafrost is melting, glaciers are rapidly receding, the Arctic ice cap is melting. There is no doubt about this. PPJ's suggestion that the ice melting might be due to changes in atmospheric pressure is completely wrong. There's been mention of the "hockey stick". This topic is very well analyzed here. In general, realclimate.org is a very good resource, albeit pretty technical, maintained by actual climate scientists. To those people who maintain that there is a political agenda behind research on global warming, I would ask simply this: Who benefits from people understanding about climate change? Who benefits from people not understanding about climate change? It's pretty clear to me that there is a political agenda behind the people who deny the effect. You get pseudo-science from people who have never studied the subject, and with a generous helping of sarcastic put-downs, in the hope that they can intimidate the public into believing that global warming doesn't exist, that it's really part of some sinister left-wing agenda. The strategy is very similar to that of the "intelligent designers" who wish to deny the theory of evolution, or the tobacco industry in the days when they were still maintaining that there is no demonstrable link between smoking and lung cancer.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:29 PM EST
    Adept - Didn't know I was "on the clock" to answer you. Tell me how much you pay and I'll try and do better next time. My whole previous comment is an attempt to get Allen, who I think claims to be either a scientist or a teacher, to tell us if the base numbers are wrong, and if so, what they are and his source. That obviously isn't a "peer review" but at least gives us some information. And isn't that what a per review is? A critical look at the information? Perhaps you can show us a peer review of this paper? You know, one that says it is incorrect? If so, please let me know, as I would like to read it. adrzar writes:
    Search for information is all well and good Edgar, but this thread was not about IF global warming was threatening us all. It is a fact and it seems only that the right wing in US politics are the only ones not admitting it. So dont break down open doors, there is no need to argue this matter. What this thread started with was for how long Bush & co. could dodge reality.
    Typical leftist elitist statist position. Shut up and listen. How dare you challenge what we have told you. Where do you keep your "Censored" stamp? Sorry dude, that may play in your part of the world, but not in the US. et al - I find it amusing that many of you will attack anything that smacks of "faith and belief" and will laugh and poke fun at Christians and Jews. (I've not seen that done at the Moslems, wouldn't be PC i guess.) Yet you will believe anything someone pops up and claims to be "science." You are being hoodooed. Man made Global Warming is about political power and control, nothing else. If you choose to believe it do so at your own risk. But in the meantime quit attacking Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson... They are merely the flip side of the coin you love so well.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:29 PM EST
    al writes:
    There is no doubt about this. PPJ's suggestion that the ice melting might be due to changes in atmospheric pressure is completely wrong.
    That is not true. My comment addressed pressure re temperature, freezing, boiling, etc. It did not even mention permafrost.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:29 PM EST
    Let's see now, Jim. So far in this thread you've set yourself against the findings and opinions of NASA, the University of Maryland, the National Academy of Sciences, the Geological Survey of Canada, New Scientist Magazine, and a teacher of Solar System Astrophysics. And tried to make a case that you know better than all of them... You're on a roll, man. Well done. You've almost convinced me to become a Republican. Where do I sign???? How's the foot taste? ;-)

    Et Al.... over the past 20 years is eight times higher than that recorded by ground measurements over the past century. Over the past 20 year huh ? ....Humm let me see....was GW (or even his father) around then? Ok... I have a question... what did billy boy do about it the 8 years he was in charge? I've been hearing about global warming since I was in grade school...and let me tell you that was a looong time ago! How can you all point yet another finger at Bush for this? JR .... Oh, and the ice caps on Mars are melting as well - NO No it's not the sun ...this too is obviously Bush's fault

    Okay. So what you are saying is that the C retained in the ocean, plants, etc, have no effect. It is the C in the atmosphere that we should be concerned about.
    No, I'm not saying that. But that particular misunderstanding on your part shows how fundamentally ignorant you are of the science involved in global warming. Small changes can and do have big impacts, whether you can believe it or not. It's common knowledge among those of us who've studied mathematics. Assuming otherwise is at best ignorant and at worst dangerous. The bit about SETI and the Drake equation just shows ignorance about the field, and specifically the equation. In fact, the first sentence is a lie that's real value is solely in its propaganda effect. But there are good popular books on SETI and the Drake equation. You could become informed on this, at least, easily. But that's the real problem, isn't it? You don't actually want to be informed. You just want to find a group of people who will tell you what you already believe. So you'll search the web for sites that tell you what you want to hear and completely ignore the many other sources that might be more accurate. I've never known how to argue with people who are willfully ignorant. And I've never understood the choice.

    what did billy boy do about it the 8 years he was in charge?
    Didn't "billy boy" support the Kyoto Protocol, over the opposition of a Republican Congress? Oh, I get it. All the liberal stuff that doesn't get done by a Republican government is the Democrats' fault for not being in power.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    allen writes:
    Didn't "billy boy" support the Kyoto Protocol, over the opposition of a Republican Congress?
    Uh, allen. The vote was 98-2. I think that is called non-partisan. You write:
    but that particular misunderstanding on your part shows how fundamentally ignorant you are of the science involved in global warming.
    Well, I was hoping for a reasoned discussion, but, first thing out of your mouth is "ignorant." Nice. So enlighten me. If the C in the atmosphere is retaining heat, what does the C in sea water do? The Drake equation, as you evidently don’t know, had nothing to do with Global Warming, but was provided as an example of BS science using fake pontifications. You write:
    I've never known how to argue with people who are willfully ignorant. And I've never understood the choice
    Allen, I provided exact statements with exact information, and asked you to confirm or deny the information. Instead you come with insults. Know what? I think you are a fake. I don’t think you can challenge the information I provided. Instead you run and hide behind “elitist” positions. Let them eat cake didn’t work in France. It damn sure doesn’t work on the internet. Your problem is, you don’t know. And I am LOL.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#53)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    So much crap so little time. Once again breaking the promise to myself to stop arguing with moronic trolls. 1, Since the start of the industrial revolution, buring fossil fuels has generated 500 billion metric tons of CO2. It there were no other processes, the concentration of CO2 would have gone from 280 to 500 part per million in the atmosphere. It has gone only to 380 because the rest has been absorbed by the ocean which as a result has become more acidic. 2. The burning of fossil fuels releases certain isotopes that distinquish it from other sources of CO2. This data also suggest that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is due to fossil fuels. see J. Geophys. Res. 89, 1731–1748. Tellus 51B, 170–193 Science 256 (1992), 74-79 [note to PPJ your calculation of % contribution is as usual backwards and wrong] PPJ please get up to date with the hockey stick controversy, you are years behind. see link and link The latest modelling studies have proven robust and have been able to replicate the changes in surface temperature link For a discussion of changes in surface temperature see link Also the Global Cooling myth brought up by more than 1 troll is discussed here Follow the links for info from the real scientists

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    SD writes:
    1, Since the start of the industrial revolution, buring fossil fuels has generated 500 billion metric tons of CO2.
    SD, that is only .5 Gt (Giga Ton 10 x 12) the atmosphere it self has 750 Gt, or 1500 times that amount. Man made C is 5.5 Gt per year. The total C is 49,100 Gt. Do you see a disconnect?? I make you the same offer I made allen. Show me the numbers are wrong. Be specific and show the source. The Global Cooling "myth" is brought up only to demonstrate how consensus science has proven wrong time and again. No one believes it is real. Time to walk the walk, dude.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    edger writes:
    You're on a roll, man. Well done. You've almost convinced me to become a Republican. Where do I sign????
    Hmmmm. Not being a Repub I can't tell you. If you want to be an Independant, first you must demonstrate an ability to think for yourself. So far you haven't made the grade. Oh, you ask about "the foot?" You mean the one you stuck in your mouth when you wrote:
    Posted by edger at September 3, 2005 01:04 PM .”..might consider, though, that the real villian is a MSM and the Far Left...” This may get me kicked off this site, and I'll probably regret saying this later, but here goes... Jim... you know how to use a gun? Bullets are cheap, and plentiful, you can get lots of 'em almost anywhere if you are out of 'em... You only need one, though...


    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#56)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    PPJ - try and follow along, I know your reading skills are poor and your knowledge of science is pitiful but give it a try,
    Man made C is 5.5 Gt per year. The total C is 49,100 Gt
    Your line of reasoning assumes implicitly that the amount of CO2 present before Man made is zero. Thats the only way comparing the rate to the total makes sense. Obviously that is wrong. When the industrial revolution started there was already significant amounts in the ocean. You need to understand such concepts as time, amounts and rates. Don't worry I wont hold my breath. Now as CO2 emmisions goes up, that CO2 has to go somewhere. If there is significant increase in CO2 production one would expect part of that CO2 to go into the oceans as dissolved CO2 which would cause a decrease in pH, i.e acidification. Thats exactly what has happened.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    Not being a Repub I can't tell you. If you want to be an Independant, first you must demonstrate an ability to think for yourself. So far you haven't made the grade.
    That's my boy! Let those fly! Get it all out. Oh, and BTW, don't worry about the fact that, as you berated Allen for, "you come with insults". We all know you're just kidding, right? Got a bleeding hole through both feet by now, it looks like... my, my.. You're doing just fine Jim, keep at it, huh? I know it's hard work, but hey... no one promised you a "Rose Garden", and you can always start "comin' in saturdays"... Have a good time tonight, huh? :)

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:31 PM EST
    Here's a couple of links to keep you busy tonight, Jim: The Carbon Cycle Inquiry Game
    The oceans have buffered the effects of man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but at a potential cost to the organisms living in the oceans’ upper layers. Scientists at the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory on Sand Point Way are part of an international team who discovered that half of the carbon dioxide produced by human industry has ended up in the oceans instead of remaining in the air. They reported their findings last year in the journal Science. Their research represents the culmination of a 15-year effort to measure and interpret the role of the ocean in the global carbon cycle. Over the past two centuries, although the amount of man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has steadily increased, only about half of the expected increase was seen. Where the other half went was unknown. These studies represent “the first time we’ve taken direct measurements to show that the oceans take up man-made carbon dioxide,” says Dr. Chris Sabine, one of the primary authors on the reports. Move Over, Global Warming Sand Point scientists say a greenhouse gas is changing ocean ecosystems


    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:31 PM EST
    edger - You are working so hard to get away from that ill considered statement I almost feel sorry for you. Note the "almost." SD - It is hard to have a conversation with you, but I will try. My question was simple. Given that my source specified that man made C is 5.5 10 x 12 (Gt)@ year and you say the total is 500 10 x 9 (Bt) total, we have a serious difference in numbers. Your numbers are much, much, much, much smaller than mine. Mine, the person who doesn't believe in man casued Global Warming, is much higher than yours. Can you explain this? And yes, it has to go somewhere. The question is, how much goes to the atmosphere, how much to the sea and how much to plants/trees. How about other exchanges? Are these numbers wrong?
    Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 60 Gt C; marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 Gt C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 100 Gt C (3).
    This is a 300 Gt C exchange. Total manmade C is estimated at 5.5 Gt/year. Now, if the exchange is proportional then the manmade contribution to the atmosphere would be 3% (90/300) of 5.5 Gt c/year, or .16Gt C/year. Note the point16 Gt/year. That would be .022% Now that is a very small number.


    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:31 PM EST
    People can politicise weather. Mark Twain would be proud. Global warming? Lot's of dubious citations but no real conclusions so far. The Ice Age began, slowly, and ended the same. So what caused the world to get so cold? Obviously not modernity. Then the world got warm and the glaciations receeded, 12,000 years ago. Fossil fuels have been used in bulk for the last 200 years. We've been keeping track of this stuff for the last 100 years (sort of). If you are so hot on a political agenda that you are willing to put your credibility on the line above honest science then go ahead and hold on tight to that ouigee icon when you make your pedantic talking points. We should all eventually ween ourselves as best we can from fossil fuels but to play political games with such an economic necessity is a sad joke. As I said; political dogma trumps honest discourse. And the nation is less served by that dogma.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:31 PM EST
    to play political games with such an economic necessity is a sad joke. It sure is... follow those links, and study hard. There'll be a snap quiz tomorrow!

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#62)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:31 PM EST
    PPJ [insults deleted] The large number is a quantity, it is the amount in that part of the system. It may have taken hundres ot thousands of years to get to that amount depending on the RATE of the processes removing C from that part of the system. The small number is a RATE, the amount being added per year. You don't start with zero in the system every year.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#63)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:31 PM EST
    Wow.... Constant debate about if global warming is caused by civilization or not... Noone is debating the warming trend... not really. What scares me is the lack of people who offer any kind of a plan to cope with extensive extinctions when they occur. I can guarantee that human beings cannot survive a mass extinction. How do extinctions start? Catastrophic environmental events. The last major extinction on this planet occured only 12000 years ago, when the ice age was waning... Man, who is adaptable in his natural state (and by that I mean non-civilized) can survive a minor climate change like that one... Civilized people like you and I depend on a delicate, intricate, easy to destroy infrastructure to deliver the basic necessities of life. We will die by the hundreds of millions the first year no wheat grows in the US. Now this is the part of the trend that both political parties ignore. We blunder along dumping millions of toms of crap into the air, the water, and the soil and some people still shout atthe top of their lungs that we ain't causing change... Sorry guys, when we can destroy an entire ecological system by draining a swamp to build more houses for yuppies, we can destroy this planet as human habitat. Our civilization has terminal cancer, the best we can hope is that the chemo slows down our demise. Everyone spouts off about reducing dependance on oil, but it is always some undefined, vague point in the future. Never now. Everyone talks about developing workable methods of birth control to slow down popualtion growth, but the truth of the matter is that a growing population is as necassary to our world economy as burning oil is. Everyone spouts off about "reducing emissions by such and such a date". Useless treatment to a terminal disease. PIL, PPJ, numbers matter nothing. It is done. The balance of life can absorb vast changes before reaching the point of extinction where the domino effect kicks in, the $10,000 is, how close are we to that point? How long are you willing to play russian roulette with the balance? Are you prepared to live without grocery stores and running water and internet and central air and furnaces and electricity on tap to power your toys..? We as a species are pretty much screwed, blued, and tattooed.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#64)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:31 PM EST
    ...point of extinction where the domino effect kicks in, the $10,000 is, how close are we to that point? How long are you willing to play russian roulette with the balance?
    You're right, of course Johnny. And the saddest part is that the ones with the power and control of remaining resources think that they can survive it... and when it happens you can be sure they'll fall all over themselves leaving everyone else hanging out to dry (die) to save themselves, including the pawns who support them. (Take note here Jim...)

    This explains PPJs' problem with science, and his apparent innumeracy, amoung other problems........

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:32 PM EST
    SD – Your ability to shift and slide is wonderful. But, you either don’t understand or don’t want to. SD – I wrote:
    My question was simple. Given that my source specified that man made C is 5.5 10 x 12 (Gt )@ year and you say the total is 500 10 x 9 (Bt) total, we have a serious difference in numbers. Your numbers are much, much, much, much smaller than mine..
    What don’t you understand about 5.5 Gt @ year? That is a rate. Did you read my comment? Now, you did NOT specify a rate. What you wrote was:
    1, Since the start of the industrial revolution, burning fossil fuels has generated 500 billion metric tons of CO2.
    Now if you want to change your comment, fine. Let’s agree that you meant 500 billion tons each year. A billion is 1000 million. A Giga is a 1000 billion. You say that a half a Giga (500 billion) is being added, my source says it is 11 times GREATER, or 5.5 Giga. That should make you happy, instead you rant and insult. What a sweetie you are. From my link:
    The atmosphere contains 750 Gt C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 Gt C; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,200 Gt C; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C (3). (Total 41955 GT)
    So what we have is a man made addition of 5.5 Gt a year to a gross number of 41,955 Gt From my link:
    Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C (30%); vegetation and the atmosphere, 60 Gt C(20%); marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 Gt C(16%); and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 100 Gt C (33%).
    That is 300 Gt total exchange per year. That is less than 1% of the gross total. The actual is .72%. Now, of the 300 Gt, what did man contribute? 5.5 Gt, or 1.83% In other words, if you got rid of 100% of man made CO2, you would still have an exchange of 294.5 Gt, created by sunlight, volcanoes (?), etc. So what we are being asked to completely destroy our economy for is a theory that says that a 1.83% increase of a .72% yearly increase is causing a problem that China and India ignore. As Col. Potter said, “Horse hockey.”

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#67)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:32 PM EST
    So what we have is a man made addition of 5.5 Gt a year to a gross number of 41,955 Gt
    This is meaningless information. The total amount is a result of hundreds of years of processes.
    Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C (30%); vegetation and the atmosphere, 60 Gt C(20%); marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 Gt C(16%); and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 100 Gt C (33%).
    You just cant add these up. You have to consider the directions and seperate out sources and sinks. Your way purposely obscures what the true contribution is. The CO2 exchange is a cycle and you must analyze it with regards to direction of exchange and the amount in that direction. Lets see CO2 production is up and the temp is up and the pH of the ocean has changed as one would expect. There has been a net flow of CO2 into the ocean to cause the pH to change. Of course you didn't read my sources, you would like to do battle with your data obtained froma couple of quacks with no experience in climate science and then you blindly accept their incorrect analysis.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#69)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:32 PM EST
    Let me ask you one question Is your money that good Will it buy you forgiveness Do you think that it could I think you will find When your death takes its toll All the money you made Will never buy back your soul... Masters of War


    From PPJ-
    Perhaps you can show us a peer review of this paper? You know, one that says it is incorrect? If so, please let me know, as I would like to read it.
    Gee PPJ, you are slipping in your advanced years. That's twice in a row when I've asked for corraboration on something you've posted, and twice I've gotten the brilliant response "prove it's not". As I said the last time, take a logic course. One cannot prove a negative. Once again, you made an allegation, based on a "scientific" article from a so-called "scientific" journal that ignores the fundamental part of science known as peer-review. I believe peer-review is an absolutely vital part of science, and asked if you had corroberation. As you seem to believe this so strongly, I find it curious you are so unwilling to (and I've been unable to) find a single corrobaration from any scientific procedure that conducts "peer review". I would think this would concern you, as it seriously undermines the credibility of your "proof".
    Peer Review v : evaluate professionally a colleague's work
    What you are doing here is not peer review, unless you are claiming that you and the others you are throwing numbers around with are qualified professional colleague's of the individual who wrote the paper you are citing. For me, there are two words I attribute to "science" that is not subjected to a peer review: "Junk Science". I also consider many (but far from all) Global warming and cooling models to fit this two word term. "ID" also fits the bill. Now, this is the part where you try to make it what you assume someone else believes, as opposed to what you've stated.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:32 PM EST
    adept - Throwing numbers around? Nope. I have specified that the numbers come from the paper, and have asked someone to tell me the numbers are wrong. So far, none have, which tells me that no one has any specific information. And yes, I know what a peer review is, and I just say, show me one that says this paper is wrong. "You" don't have to prove anything. edger - I am of such an age that I do not buy green bannanas. My concern truly is for future generations, and foolishly adopting the Kyoto treaty based on fake science would be a terrible mistake. But I do appreciate your concern. With friends such as you I need no enemies. SD writes:
    Lets see CO2 production is up and the temp is up and the pH of the ocean has changed as one would expect. There has been a net flow of CO2 into the ocean to cause the pH to change.
    You state the obvious. That isn't the question. The question is, is man's contribution large enough to have an effect that would be negative on the world. When you look at the contribution by natural actions as compared to man's input, the answer is a resounding no. You seem to be hung up on the 42,995,000,000,000,000 tons of C that exists today. I posit that this number has been about the same for millions of years, increasing with increased energy from the sun, and decreasing with less. The total remaining in balance. As I said above, mankind's contribution is just too small to have an effect.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#73)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:32 PM EST
    I just say, show me one that says this paper is wrong
    If you'd go back and (actually) read the papers on the sites for which you've been given links all thru this thread, you'll see that virtually all of them will show you that "the numbers are wrong". But of course, you won't read or even look at them. They don't allow you to "easily play into the denial and rosy pictures put forward by government, corporations, and the media." And even if you did read them, you'd claim to be wiser than the scientists who did the research and wrote the papers. As I posted earlier: So far in this thread you've set yourself against the findings and opinions of NASA, the University of Maryland, the National Academy of Sciences, the Geological Survey of Canada, New Scientist Magazine, and a teacher of Solar System Astrophysics. And tried to make a case that you know better than all of them... by repeatedly quoting one easily discredited junk science "paper" (as though it deserves even that designation - "toilet paper" would be a better description ). Sad...

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#74)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:32 PM EST
    by repeatedly quoting one easily discredited junk science "paper"
    Ooops... Can we now expect quotes from 5 or 10 easily discredited junk science "papers"?

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#75)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:32 PM EST
    [name calling deleted] Bottom line the concentration in the atmosphere has gone up. Using radioisotpes this increase can be attributed to the same period as the burning of fossil fuels. The earth is warming, the predicted problems will be serious. You rethugs will handle global warming the same way you handled 9/11 and Katrina. Sit around ignoring all the warnings and when it finally happens blame someone else. You are the party of personal responsibility after all. Clearly you will never understand the complexities of studying a system with multiple sinks, sources and flows. But the sadest part is you don't want to understand. Just go ahead and keep believing what you want to believe. You have found your source that supports what you believe and you will never let go. as you once said you have a closed mind.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#76)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:32 PM EST
    PPJ I give up. You are indeed a complete idiot.
    I'm wondering what took you so long.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#77)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:32 PM EST
    mankind's contribution is just too small to have an effect
    Absolutely misguided, in denial, wrongheaded, and untrue statement. As a society, we've been crapping in our own backyard for far too long. Mankind's contribution is not only NOT too small to have an effect, it is enormous, and global warming is only one of mankinds effects, among many. For example:
    A stock market crash will pale by comparison to an ecological crash on an oceanic scale... Great Pacific Garbage Patch Plastic Turning Vast Area of Ocean into Ecological Nightmare CHARLES MOORE / Santa Barbara News-Press 27oct02


    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#78)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:33 PM EST
    My concern truly is for future generations
    I hope so...
    and foolishly adopting the Kyoto treaty based on fake science would be a terrible mistake.
    It would be, I agree. The science, however, is not fake. It is real, honest, and the evidence is overwhelming. The Kyoto treaty has many shortcomings, probably, as most treaties do. But rejecting it, or some type of treaty or approach to the problem, based on "junk science", would be a worse mistake. I hope you'd agree.

    Re: How Long Can Bush Ignore (or Deny) Global Warm (none / 0) (#79)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:33 PM EST
    History is replete with examples of social organizations, whether a business or a nation, that failed to perceive the realities of a changing environment and didn't adapt in time to prevent calamity. Hubris and a self-reinforced dynamic of mass delusion characterize the waning phases of these once powerful groups. In hindsight we ask, "What were they thinking? Wasn't the situation obvious to everyone? The evidence is so clear!" Here's the question we should ask next: "Is history now repeating itself? ..."


    Global Warming is real, Anthropogenic, it's not (none / 0) (#80)
    by physicist on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:52:00 PM EST
    It's now firmly established that CO2 follows warming, not precedes it.  Thus, all the research is valid concerning temperature and CO2 correlations, except that the conclusions are incorrect.

    Not that anyone cares, but CO2 is a relatively insignificant greenhouse gas at any rate.

    See http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

    You can debate the subject until the cows come home, but you can't change the laws of physics one whit.