How do you explain this?

[the_professor]

"During the last Ice Age, CO2 levels fell to less than half of the modern level. They had recovered to .028% by the late 1800s. All our fossil fuel burning has raised the CO2 to a whopping… .038%. But we still have a long way to go to get back to Jurassic levels. Back in the good ol’ days, when the ecosystem was really seething with life, the atmosphere was .3% CO2, about eight times greater than today.

These high CO2 levels made life very easy for plants with the original "C3" photosynthetic system. In addition to their direct CO2 fertilization effect, higher CO2 levels also help in droughts. With enough CO2, C3 plants can close their "stomata" (pores) more, and lose less water."


http://www.lewrockwell.com/walker/walker17.html

[sissyphus]

Science is like a person, if you torture it enough, you can get it to say anything.

[niss]

How do you explain people who argue that there is man made global warming cant cite the increase in temperature because "We only have been recording temperature for the past hundred years or so" but you argue against global warming citing CO2 levels from 10,000 years ago?

[the_professor]

How do you explain people who argue that there is man made global warming cant cite the increase in temperature because "We only have been recording temperature for the past hundred years or so" but you argue against global warming citing CO2 levels from 10,000 years ago?

Scientists themselves are not all in agreement regarding the role of CO2 content vs. atmospheric temperature. There are graphs showing both a correlation between the two, and there are graphs showing a divergence between the two.

That's only part of the reason why climate change science is far from concrete, and why we shouldn't be so worried about the alleged Next Big Crisis.

[swede]

CO2 gases are a product of global warming - not the cause. The evidence of this is more than abundant.

[AEROMONKEY]

Where's Al Gore when you need him?

[PARADISE]

professor you're a joke.

[the_professor]

professor you're a joke.

Well that added a lot to this thread....

Enjoying the stampede with all the lemmings you're surrounded by? Just wait until the government starts enacting legislation to appease the lemmings and your bank balance starts to shrivel, all while doing nothing to solve a "problem" that we didn't create.

Then you can point me towards who's the joke.

And once the legislation's in place, the media and special interest groups will waste no time in identifying the Next Big Crisis.

[corporate joe]

the "professor" and his sources... Lew Rockell... A libertarian, racist biggot...
The guy is an extremist defending a "white america" and associated with right wing extremist groups who think the US must be overthrown timothy mcveigh style. His topics include "how to build a whiter america", as well as being the editor to wonderful sites such as this one about US citizens needing to take America back into their own hands and defend it from socialist government trying to take god out of family and values out of America.
Ignorance likes ignorance. Notice all the "sources" claiming global warming is not man made how they all seem to have common denominator? I'll leave it at that.

http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/017109.php

"professor", instead of writing, you should be reading. Please do everyone including yourself a favor, and pick up a science book and read the basics, instead of trying to convince yourself and everyone with this crap.

Your arguments always come back to the same thing: worldwide conspiracy, or science can make mistakes, therefore we can not believe it. What exactly is your plan? Let's disregard all the information we have pointing towards man made global warming, let's just sit there and see what happens?

[the_professor]

the "professor" and his sources... Lew Rockell... A libertarian, racist biggot...
The guy is an extremist defending a "white america" and associated with right wing extremist groups who think the US must be overthrown timothy mcveigh style.

Are his numbers accurate? If his numbers are accurate, then his take on Tim McVeigh is irrelevant. And it so happens that he is making the same argument as many other scientists.

Ignorance likes ignorance. Notice all the "sources" claiming global warming is not man made how they all seem to have common denominator? I'll leave it at that.

The common denominator is that they disagree with your sources, so, according to you, they must be wrong.

Your arguments always come back to the same thing: worldwide conspiracy, or science can make mistakes, therefore we can not believe it.

I think I've accused scientists and the media of bandwagon jumping, not conspiracy. I don't recall identifying mistakes. I have however cited a multitude of sources that disagree with yours, which you then automatically dismiss as being the work of the devil. Get a grip.

[corporate joe]

You say you have given many sources that contradict man made global warming, however not one has been from an actual reputable scientist (all of them are opinion columnists), and the only ones that you have cited are from studies 4 or 5 years old.

It boils down to this. 90% chance according to all the world's best that global warming is man made, which leaves a 10% chance that it is not. You are standing here clumsily trying to cite the 10%, while completely ignoring the other 90%. Many including me have tried in many different ways to try and help you understand, that you can't stand here and say that the 90% is flawed because of the other 10%, especially when you do not have the credentials to understand or rebut the other 90%.

You are so full of yourself that you will even go as far as to call the rest of the world "lemmings", raising yourself above modern science, world leaders and major business organizations, as if you knew something and understood something that they don't. The world is blindly jumping on a band wagon, but not the "professor", because he knows better than everyone, he's not going to be duped by the largest scientific mistake of all times. Never in the history of man has such an amount of research been made, by such a large scientific group, with such a large amount of funds, with such a large amount of data gathered, for a problem with such a large consequence. Nonetheless, they are all wrong and you're not.

What really worries me is that you may be a pilot. A person who can rationalize not acting when he has so much evidence in front him, and a person who can completely ignore so much evidence put in front him, to desperately try to hang to his personal opinions, has no place in a cockpit. What are you going to do when 90% of your instruments tell you something is wrong, are you going to sit there and tell yourself your plane is wrong, and the plane manufacturer is wrong, as well as the other pilot, and justify acting on other 10%? Thinking you know better than everyone, including those more qualified than you is an annoying tendency in every day life, but in a cockpit it can be deadly.

Skepticism is a healthy exercise, denial is not. Clearly you are past skepticism and you have fallen into denial. Your political prejudices as well your pre-made categorizing and simplifying of reality have fogged your vision and understanding of the world. Add to that, an overblown ego, making you believe you are above modern science, and the "rest of the world's lemmings", and you've got someone calling themselves "the professor" on these boards. In the end your just another extremist with no regard of reality or reason. Just like extremists who think that any corporation who is making a profit is an exploiting capitalist, you think that anyone trying to preserve their environment is a socialist lefty.

For the last time, get out of your lefty vs righty mind set, trying to prevent global warming does not make you a hippy, and if you truly are pilot, be safe.

[the_professor]

You say you have given many sources that contradict man made global warming, however not one has been from an actual reputable scientist (all of them are opinion columnists), and the only ones that you have cited are from studies 4 or 5 years old.

I have provided many current sources from scientists, not opinion columnists.

Never in the history of man has such an amount of research been made, by such a large scientific group, with such a large amount of funds, with such a large amount of data gathered, for a problem with such a large consequence. Nonetheless, they are all wrong and you're not.

You want to stand by that statement? The research into climate change wouldn't hold a candle to something like the effort put in around the globe to solve the cancer riddle. And how many times have contradicting studies been published about cancer treatment and the way the disease progresses?

Science's conclusions are only valid until contradictory data is uncovered. 40 years ago "the earth was cooling". Then new data suggested "the earth is warming". We don't know the whole picture. It's that simple.

[ScudRunner]

I dont know to much reading involved, but something about green house gasses and dinasour farts. I bet they blamed it on Stephan Harper though.

My two cents

[the_professor]

You say you have given many sources that contradict man made global warming, however not one has been from an actual reputable scientist (all of them are opinion columnists), and the only ones that you have cited are from studies 4 or 5 years old.

I'm curious: Because one of my earlier references was to a speech or study (can't remember what the link was) from 2001, you have repeatedly said that all my sources are out of date. Based on your total dismissal of the studies from that time period, you'd think I'd provided you with something from the 1800s that was discovered on the wall of a cave somewhere.

What precisely has been revealed in the research since 2001 that has absolutely confirmed your beliefs? Surely it is not the fact that we have another 4 or 5 years of temperature data along a warming trend? 4 or 5 years of data along a continuum of hundreds of thousands of years is obviously totally meaningless, so I'm assuming there's something else that I'm missing.

Where's the quantum leap in climate science of the last four years that I'm missing?

[happily.retired]

Even if we get lucky and all this global warming stuff is a load of hooey what harm is to be done by taking measures to prevent the possibility of catastrophy? The big oil companies lose money yes. However plenty of smaller companies developing new technologymake money and at least we reduce smog and acid rain. (we can all agree that those exist right?)

If we go the other way and assume there's no global warming going on and we're wrong, there's no going back. How many people will die in that situation to save big oil some $$$?

Maybe it's just me but I'll chose the safest of all options when the outcome could cost lives. Personaaly I think that's a desirable trait for pilots.

[grimey]

You say you have given many sources that contradict man made global warming, however not one has been from an actual reputable scientist (all of them are opinion columnists), and the only ones that you have cited are from studies 4 or 5 years old.

I have provided many current sources from scientists, not opinion columnists.

Someone working in gene therapy may be a scientist, but it doesn't make him any more qualified than an opinion columnist on the subject of global warming. It's called argument from false authority, and it's a logical fallacy.

[Youngback]

Professor, we're all following the scientists and you're quoting a nobody who says he's an expert in HIV and gene therapy and wants to get rid of the FAA? You are really grasping at straws here. There are websites out there proclaiming the world to be flat. I would think you aren't naive enough to believe that crap although reading the links that you post, I'm not holding out much hope.

[the_professor]

disregard

[the_professor]

What precisely has been revealed in the research since 2001 that has absolutely confirmed your beliefs? Surely it is not the fact that we have another 4 or 5 years of temperature data along a warming trend? 4 or 5 years of data along a continuum of hundreds of thousands of years is obviously totally meaningless, so I'm assuming there's something else that I'm missing.

Where's the quantum leap in climate science of the last four years that I'm missing?

Still waiting to hear from joe on this one, to find out what great revelation was recently unearthed that makes studies from 2001 irrelevant.

[corporate joe]

Where's the quantum leap in climate science of the last four years that I'm missing?

There is no quantum leap in science.
If you really want to know mr. professor, I will out of good faith enlighten you, even though I know you do not function with rationality, and no matter what is said or what happens, the human mind is conceived in such a way that it can be oblivious to reality. Nonetheless, I offer you a complete answer, and even though this is quite a long read (you have been warned), it will clarify things for you or anyone else, and answer most of your questions on the whole history of the scientific process.

I suggest that you or anyone else still not clear on the how and why takes the time to read this. One more thing, I'd like to add is a quick disclaimer: I did not write the following so don't come bugging me about parts of the text you don't understand. I've done enough explaining already. Go to any science faculty at any university and they can refer you to all the data, and all the studies and what methodology they used. You can even take a course or two if you want to add to your credentials and lift some of the fog clouding your judgment.


Now to answer your questions, and to clarify your misconceptions (I say you, but that's not really fair because you're not the only one on these boards): scientists who labored to understand the Earth's climate discovered that many factors influence it (like you and some others have said). Everything from volcanoes to factories shape our winds and rains. The scientific research itself was shaped by many influences, from popular misconceptions to government funding, all happening at once. A traditional history would try to squeeze the story into a linear text, one event following another like beads on a string. Inevitably some parts are left out. Yet for this sort of subject we need total history, including all the players — mathematicians and biologists, lab technicians and government bureaucrats, industrialists and politicians, newspaper reporters and the ordinary citizen. Think of the following text as an object like a sculpture or a building. You walk around, looking from this angle and that. In your head you are putting together a rounded representation, even if you don't take the time to inspect every cranny. That is the way we usually learn about anything complex.

The history of global warming science in a nutshell: From ancient times people suspected that human activity could change the climate. For example, in the 19th century many Americans believed that cutting down forests brought more rainfall to a region. The discovery of ice ages in the distant past proved that climate could change all by itself, and radically. But what caused these changes — was it variations in the heat of the Sun? Volcanoes erupting clouds of smoke? The raising and lowering of mountain ranges, which diverted wind patterns and ocean currents? Or could it be changes in the composition of the air itself?

In 1896 a Swedish scientist published a new idea. As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which added carbon dioxide gas to the Earth's atmosphere, we would raise the planet's average temperature. This "greenhouse effect" was only one of many speculations about climate, and not the most plausible. Scientists found good reason to believe that our emissions could not change the climate. Any major change seemed impossible except over tens of thousands of years.

In the 1930s, people realized that the United States and North Atlantic region had warmed significantly during the previous half-century. Scientists supposed this was just a phase of some mild natural cycle, with unknown causes. Only one lone voice, the amateur G.S. Callendar, insisted that greenhouse warming was on the way. Whatever the cause of warming, everyone thought that if it happened to continue for the next few centuries, so much the better.

In the 1950s, Callendar's claims provoked a few scientists to look into the question with improved techniques and calculations. What made that possible was a sharp increase of government funding, especially from military agencies with Cold War concerns about the weather and the seas. The new studies showed that, contrary to earlier crude estimates, carbon dioxide could indeed build up in the atmosphere and should bring warming. Painstaking measurements drove home the point in 1961 by showing that the level of the gas was in fact rising, year by year.

Over the next decade a few scientists devised simple mathematical models of the climate, and turned up feedbacks that could make the system surprisingly variable. Others figured out ingenious ways to retrieve past temperatures by studying ancient pollens and fossil shells. It appeared that grave climate change could happen, and in the past had happened, within as little as a few centuries. This finding was reinforced by computer models of the general circulation of the atmosphere, the fruit of a long effort to learn how to predict (and perhaps even deliberately change) the weather. A 1967 calculation suggested that average temperatures might rise a few degrees within the next century. The next century seemed far off, however, and the calculations were plainly speculative. Groups of scientists that reviewed the issue saw no need for any policy actions, although they did draw official attention to the need for a greater research effort.

In the early 1970s, the rise of environmentalism raised public doubts about the benefits of human activity for the planet. Curiosity about climate turned into anxious concern. Alongside the greenhouse effect, some scientists pointed out that human activity was putting dust and smog particles into the atmosphere, where they could block sunlight and cool the world. Moreover, analysis of weather statistics showed that a cooling trend had begun in the 1940s (sound familiar? This was one of the points you raised). The mass media (to the limited extent they covered the issue) were confused, sometimes predicting a balmy globe with coastal areas flooded as the ice caps melted, sometimes warning of the prospect of a catastrophic new ice age. Study panels, first in the U.S. and then elsewhere, began to warn that one or another kind of future climate change might pose a severe threat. The only thing most scientists agreed on was that they scarcely understood the climate system, and much more research was needed. Research activity did accelerate, including huge data-gathering schemes that mobilized international fleets of oceanographic ships and orbiting satellites.

Earlier scientists had sought a single master-key to climate, but now they were coming to understand that climate is an intricate system responding to a great many influences. Volcanic eruptions and solar variations were still plausible causes of change, and some argued these would swamp any effects of human activities. Even subtle changes in the Earth's orbit could make a difference. To the surprise of many, studies of ancient climates showed that astronomical cycles had partly set the timing of the ice ages. Apparently the climate was so delicately balanced that almost any small perturbation might set off a great shift. According to the new "chaos" theories, in such a system a shift might even come all by itself — and suddenly. Support for the idea came from ice cores arduously drilled from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. They showed large and disconcertingly abrupt temperature jumps in the past.

Greatly improved computer models began to suggest how such jumps could happen, for example through a reorganization of ocean currents. Experts predicted droughts, storms, rising sea levels, and other disasters. A few politicians began to suspect there might be a public issue here. However, the modelers had to make many arbitrary assumptions about clouds and the like, and reputable scientists disputed the reliability of the results (this is the bulk of your arguments). Others pointed out how little was known about the way living ecosystems interact with climate and the atmosphere. They argued, for example, over the effects of agriculture and deforestation in adding or subtracting carbon dioxide from the air. One thing the scientists agreed on was the need for a more coherent research program. But the research remained disorganized, and funding grew only in irregular surges. The effort was dispersed among many different scientific fields, each with something different to say about climate change.

One unexpected discovery was that the level of certain other gases was rising, which would add seriously to global warming. Some of these gases also degraded the atmosphere's protective ozone layer, and the news inflamed public worries about the fragility of the atmosphere. Moreover, by the late 1970s global temperatures had evidently begun to rise again. International panels of scientists began to warn that the world should take active steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Public concern finally focused on scientists' claims about the Earth's warming in the summer of 1988, the hottest on record till then. (Ten years since then have been hotter). But the many scientific uncertainties, and the sheer complexity of climate, made for vehement political debate over what actions, if any, governments should take.

Scientists intensified their research, organizing programs on an international scale. The world’s governments created a panel to give them the best possible advice, negotiated among thousands of officials and climate experts. By 2001 this intergovernmental panel managed to establish a consensus, phrased so cautiously that scarcely any expert dissented. (are you reading only the bold stuff, cause if you are, this won't make sense). They announced that although the climate system was so complex that scientists would never reach complete certainty, it was much more likely than not that our civilization faced severe global warming. At that point the discovery of global warming was essentially completed. Research had told us the most important things we could know about what the climate would be like by the end of the 21st century. What the climate would actually be like, now depended chiefly on what policies the human race would choose.

Since 2001, scientific advances have confirmed that we are fast approaching one of the most serious challenges our civilization has ever faced. Improved computer models and an abundance of data have strengthened the intergovernmental panel's conclusion that several degrees of warming are likely within this century. The only expert views that have recently been thrown into doubt are beliefs that certain threats were distant. Stronger hurricanes and disintegrating ice sheets, for example, may bring harm sooner than most scientists had expected. In some regions, damage from climate change has already become grievously visible. Worse, there are hints that the warming is beginning to generate further warming, all by itself. The political news is a bit better. A large number of individuals, government units, and corporate entities have realized that there is much they can do, and must do. They have taken the first steps toward effective action.

Now it's time for your first step, including anyone else who was brave enough to read through all of this. For some, it will start by stopping their denial, for others it will be by pushing their already existing efforts a little further. We're all in this together, and even though I have a short fuse and a harsh tongue to all those who procrastinate in denial and excuses, and hide behind ignorance and misinformation, all because it's to inconvenient for them to accept the truth (inconvenient truth, get it?), the fact of the matter remains that all I say, I say in good faith, for a good reason.

[N2]

http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/8_1 ... _ite=Other

[F-16]

I think that we should all be good stewards of the environment, trying to minimize our impact on the earth by recycling, not littering, etc. Because everyone wants fresh air, clean water, etc.

However, the sad thing about this debate is the fact that both sides are arguing from extreme sides, when the actual facts point to the issue being somewhere in the middle. What i mean is that those preaching doom and gloom and global warming have to go to extremes with their message to obtain action from the general populus because moderated messages no longer seem to work in the present generations.

I saw an interesting episode of glenn beck on the weekend that discussed articles that appeared in the NY Times over the same weekend. The Times finally printed articles showing the other side of the global warming debate, global cooling. I find the global cooling from 2010 issue interesting because even if we are contributing to the overall effect with greenhouse gasses, IF a global cooling cycle begins could our greenhoue gasses dampen the effect of the overall cooling which could negatively impact our world just like global warming?

Not saying that would be a good thing, just musing.

Additionally, I'm not saying that I take Glenn Beck or what he says as gospel, on the contrary. I simply saw an episode a few interviews and read the articles portrayed in the episode.

I have to say, it's amazing that we blindly jump on board the global warming issue while there is still a lot of debate in the scientific community. But the reason the otherside is losing the battle has more to do with the political agendas of the governments that have jumped on the bandwagon, especially considering that the general populus now wants action on the environment.

A lot of action is stemming from papers/reseach/conclusions put forth by panels of scientists at the U.N. This is what bothers me. The U.N. over the years has failed parts of the world miserably, and has not been a source of consistent truth or correct action over the years. So why are we letting the U.N. take the lead on this issue now?

I will say that I find it absolutely "convenient" that Al Gore is leading this issue. I guarantee that Al has not lost his political ambitions over the years, and if anything, this issue is providing him the opportunity to have the political comeback of the year, decade, etc. whenever he gets back into the race for the presidency. I have not seen his movie yet, but I plan to, however, I cannot say that I trust the man or his ambitions/motives whatever they may be.

For all you conspiracy theorists, the issue of global warming/climate change is also an interesting one. Why? Because people tend to look to the governments for leadership and this time they are more willing to give things up (certain freedoms and liberties) for the sake of the "environment". This could potentially be a great tool for governments to further control and limit the general population. Look at how things have changed and are changing since 9-11.

I am not saying that I believe all this, HOWEVer, it is something that bears looking at, because there is the potential for a lot of abuse of power, with the ability to get away from it, again because of the environmental issue.

Look at positions and statements that came out of the U.K. last week where the opposition party wanted to limit people to one free air travel trip per year, and heavily tax further trips outside this limit. This prevents freedom of movement which is something we are all used to. This is also a funny issue because air travel puts 4% of emissions into the air. The target should be cars, but anyone who tries to argue this fact is labelled as someone against the environment and discredited....

Some musings on a monday morning.....

[Hedley]

people look to the governments for leadership

bahahahahahahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAAHAHAhahahahahahaaha

Wow, that's funny. Considered doing standup comedy in the evenings?

[Snowgoose]

The first hard evidence of global warming.

[JakeYYZ]

You want PROOF, professor.........
Thats my Uncle Jasper, to the left, in the pink leotard.........
he is voting NDP now, fishing accident got him....
which was caused by Global Warming, of course!
All death and calamity is caused by Global Warming!
Why is everyone looking at me funny?