h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

50% of ice gone? Where did it go? If that were true, then Los Angeles should be a bunch of spires sticking out of the water. Not that that would be a bad thing, especially after speaking with a new friend who writes for Hollywood. I cite my sources when I spout statistics, so I must insist you do the same.

And the research says the temperatures rose .6 degrees Celcius over the last *century.* You're reporting temperature swings in excess of 20 degrees Celcius in the last year. I think you fail to realize that the weather is a fickle thing, and sends warmth and coolness with complete randomness. Here in Southern California, we had a very warm September, but we've replaced it with a chilly October, complete with fog and rain. I'm writing this now dressed in a sweater and carrying my coat, and all is as it should be.

Well, maybe this is a touchy subject. I'm no envirnmental loony or anything; I don't think anyone can stop human 'progress'.
People will say you can't believe what you read in the papers which I also believe...yet still there are very disturbing findings lately.

For instance, an article in the la times on oct 26 by robert lee hotz tells about a draft issued by scientist sponsored by the United
Nations:

Global warming may boost world temperatures by up to 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the 21st century, a figure substantially higher than previous estimates...
..."there is now stronger evidence human influence on global climate,"

and heres an article about another iceburg breaking off antarctica:http://www.ens-news.com/ens/oct2000/2000L-10-04-15.html
(complete with photo)

heres an article about about longest drought in history of texas:http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_932000/932678.stm

I thought this article was rather interesting. An ohio state study about climate changed; drilled ice that was thousands years old
whick, by rapid melting shows that it hasn't been this hot on earth for at least the last thousand years.
http://news.excite.com/news/ap/000915/02/mountain-warming

But my arguement isn't really that mankind is affecting the climate (even if I agree with it), but that there is a change in general.
There is plenty of evidence sugesting that other influences are causing this increase in temp. For instance, just about a week or so ago it was reported the largest sun spot since they recorded them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_936000/936606.stm

Another thing I thought made more since then the climate change was an internal change in earth. Could the earth be warming up from its center? Tropical fish are showing up far north these days. I remember a story I read in the paper or maybe saw it on headline news but it said something to the effect that scientist are reporting a temp. increase within the earth. Now I was thinking along the same lines when I heard that story. I'm not going to say forsure.
Anyways, I won't rule out nothing. Maybe the new technology we have is just reporting things we could have before but did not have the know-how. Maybe all this talk is part of someone's politicle agenda. There are for more atrosities we could be worried about that are in are faces daily then what is happening to the earth in long run. If a group of people consentrated on taking out certain select
individuals and straightened out some of the more pressing isseus (like curruption at SO:26 broadway) we would find these other isseus already resolved.
That concludes my little debate on the climate which doesn't really concern me as much as it seems(I just read alittle too much). If you want to reply to this paticular posting...um, go ahead I guess. h2g2 is great.

"As for the volcano statistics, there are three kinds of lies... lies, damned lies, and statistics. I've shown you my source, would you care to show me yours?"

Sure. Most of the general information and data on carbon sources, sinks and reservoirs comes from a textbook for an upper-division meteorology course, called Atmospheric Chemistry, by Crutzen. Data on CO2 from power plants comes from a standard geology lab workbook call Investigations in Environmental Geology by Foley & McKenzie (I don't have the book here with me, but it has internal references for its numbers). Data on CO2 outputs from Mt. Pinatubo and other volcanoes can be found on the USGS website (specifically, the cascades observatory: http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov -- there are several papers that document measurements of various volatile products, but I don't have them bookmarked. You can do a search on the site for "gas emissions" but you'll need to click through some technical reports to find the actual data tables).

I encourage anyone who gets most or all of their information filtered through advocacy groups or the popular media -- this includes environmental organizations, industry groups, radio talk shows, newspapers, whatever -- to go to your local community college and take a class in meteorology, in environmental chemistry, in earth science, etc. I'm getting tired of arguing these points with people who (1) have no idea what the carbon cycle is; (2) don't understand the difference between temperate forests and tropical forests where oxygen production and carbon sequestration is concerned; (3) don't understand the difference between average global temperature increase (that 0.6 degrees is the global average increase, not the U.S.) and daily or seasonal temperature variations; (4) fill their posts with newspaper quotes so that they can agree with the paragraphs that support their POV and blame the "liberal media" for the paragraphs that don't...

Well, I was interested in pursuing this line of debate, until I saw the ad hominem rant that makes up the final paragraph. Such arrogance cannot be argued with, and I will not stand to be insulted any further, so I bid this once reasonable conversation adieu.

yeah...talkin about the earth, not each other. The earth is normal? Fine. Are things f***** up? Probably.
Don't think anyone of us could 'run' the planet. I have a bone to pick with oh-so few who 'think' they can...and try.
Really, its about human nature and rather than being nature, turns out more to be a sickness that, even if it has nothing to do with the climate, the earth needs to rid itself of as soon as posible. If there is a higher power, may it help us now.

'scuse me Colonel, I thought I was going with the flow. You "read somewhere" that Mt. Pinatubo exceeded anthropogenic CO2 output by a factor of 10. I replied, giving a detailed accounting of what is known about the global CO2 budget and showing that the volcanic contribution amounts to less than 1% of anthropogenic emissions. You accused me of making the numbers up.

It's a free country, and we're all entitled to our opinions, but I teach science. I don't make much money at it, but I like it and feel that it is my job to dispel ignorance (a loaded word, I know, but it simply refers to the condition of being unaware of some piece of information -- we are all ignorant of something, I'm sure I'm ignorant of many things of which you are an expert).

If we're discussing the possibility of life on other planets, who should be running the country, the existence of God, or why Joyce's characters sign the ledger with purple ink, we're discussing subjective issues. The long-term effects of the build-up of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is an open issue, inasmuch as climate models are primitive and return variable results. But stating (as you did previously) that you couldn't be bothered to do the research and then accusing me of lying when I did the research for you, well, that ticked me off a bit.

Environmental policy is set in a political environment. This doesn't mean that physical laws are open to debate.

Some poeple think possesing the right opinion is more important then the issue itself. Here were talking about a posible
breakdown of earth born life as we know it, and were bickering here about whos right and whos wrong. I agree with you. Are opinion is are opinion, right or wrong; But is it worth bashing one another over puny mental dialoge that unfortunatly goes on 24/7 between are ears?

No, you were not *going with the flow.* I merely asked for your sources, which is very appropriate, considering how detailed they are. Knowing the sources of statistics helps lend them credence... for example, when I debunked the apocalyptics by quoting research from Greenpeace way back, those statistics were very meaningful, since they come from a very environmentally conscious group. If their study had turned up the opinion in the scientific community that we were killing the earth, you can bet they would be crowing about them from every media outlet they could find.

Anyway, you said you're tired of arguing this with idiots, and then went on to call everyone who has participated in here one. So, since we're all idiots, go away and leave us to our gibbering drool session.

Ah..dibee..beda..bidee..ah beddi..bideep.....thats all folks............?

I called no one an "idiot." I suggested an ignorance of the topic, coupled with the same bias you accuse Greenpeace of showing (once again, I do not use the term "ignorance" in a perjorative sense). You paraphrased some story (unreferenced) suggesting that natural CO2 sources were much greater than human sources; You clearly chose to believe that, 'cuz it supported your contention that the global warming is some huge conspiracy being perpetrated by the Democrats, the Media, and the Environmentalists. When I provided data, you questioned its authenticity ("lies, damned lies, and statistics," I believe you said).

The Greenpeace research? I'm not familiar with it, but apparently they showed the intellectual honesty to report findings that disagreed with the bias you accuse them of harboring. Question is, are you aware of it because you read the original report, or did you read a shredded account of it on the Wall Street Journal's op/ed page?

Are human beings significantly increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere? An unqualified yes. Is the *global average* temperature increasing? Again, clearly yes (this site < http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html > gives as good a quantitative demonstration of this as I've seen). Are the two related? It's highly likely, though that can never be shown beyond any doubt. This is a forum, IIRC, on which participants discuss global warming. I signed on to present facts as I am aware of them. I am not a fan of Al Gore; politicians and lawyers I know are no more dishonest or greedy than anyone else I know; and I have met as many intelligent, unbiased journalists as I have sensationalist yellow journalists.

I deal with ignorant people all of the time. Like alcoholism, it is easy to cure if the person is motivated. I have never met an idiot, nor am I aquainted with any geniuses. The worst I could accuse you of, Colonel, is intellectual dishonesty. You seem to have a set of beliefs, and you pick and choose evidence that supports them, ignoring that which doesn't. This is not an insult, it is a human trait as common as right-handedness. I am often guilty of rationalization. Science is the process of adjusting our picture of the universe to fit the data.

That said, I will not darken your forum again...

Everywhere that I've known sources, I've quoted them. I did not know the source of that bit on Pinatubo, so I did not quote it as authoritative, and I quite clearly let it be known that it was questionable by introducing it as simply "I read somewhere." You came up with evidence to refute it, and it was all very well detailed. Fine. That's what debate is all about. Checking your sources seemed to be a reasonable request, since, as you may have noticed, everywhere I've quoted source material, I've named the source. Fail to do that, and the whole argument becomes blind conjecture, as you accuse me of.

You certainly have made a lot of generalizations about me based on the few postings I've made here. Quite astonishing. Your powers of extrapolation simply amaze me. You already know the full extent of my knowledge of ecology based on the 200 or so words I've posted here, and have further examined my entire psychological profile.

Well, Sherlock, let me turn that mirror around for you. You're an arrogant fool who believes that anyone who disagrees with you can only do so because they aren't possessed of your patented intellect. Your claims of "intellectual dishonesty" are absurd in the extreme, because at least I had the courage to post my sources from the very first. It would be extremely foolish of me to accept your numbers on faith, first because of the "damned lies" thing, but also because it is healthy to be skeptical when presented with new information. You chose to see healthy skepticism as a personal affront, which only affirms your egocentrism.

Further evidence of your gift for missing the point entirely: "... your contention that the global warming is some huge conspiracy..." Did I say that? Excuse me... did I ever f*****g say that? NO!! I said global warming is real, but at 0.6 degrees Celcius over the last century, with very little data about the normal atmospheric cycles to go on, the environmentalists are stirring up a scare where there doesn't need to be one. 25 years ago they said the same thing about global cooling... look it up!! Just 25 years ago we were all headed for an ice age, and the reason was CO2 sources from man, which were blanketing the sky and blocking out the sun. The only thing we know about the atmosphere and tempreature trends is that we don't know anything, as you just admitted yourself.

And please, avoid darkening any others in the future. All you've offered in this argument are a few statistics and a flurry of personal attacks. I am sure I can do without.

I think, and I know its just my opinion, that todays 'booming' industry can not suport 6 billion people, especially since half of them were just born in the last 2 decades. Could it? Perhaps, but not under man's present state of so-called 'modernation'.
So one has stong feelings about the CO2, natural or not; its costly to dump tons of algy into the ocean. Now some will argue 'hows giving him a paycheck?' or ' whos payroll is he on?' Thats alot of money to act stupid with.
No else seems to be talking about it so I might as well bring it up. Being an amature astronomer, I'm always looking up into the sky, perhaps alittle more passionatly then the next but there are strange things to witness lately. Com-trails.
Most people know how they form small temperary clouds which disapate within a couple hours.
The strange thing is that for a few years now they've been spraying the skys almost daily. The com-trails are forming complete cloud covers which last 12 to 16 hours. Now this could be taken many ways and thier has certainly been counter media about it. What is it? Some speculate that it is a desprate attempt from the global corprate to bounce sunlight off these cloud covers sugesting that if at least 10% could be deflected, it would greatly reduce the damage to thier 'investment' (earth). Others sugest that its an anti-toxin inoculation. Anthrax?
It has been admitted by the CIA that they put a virus in a New York subway to see how it would spread, they've sprayed over San Fransico. Remember the LA fruit-fly spraying. Saying,"Don't go out side tonight cause were spraying the city. Don't worry though, its not dangeruos in any way. By the way, park your car in the garage cause this stuff has a tendensy to eat the paint off the car..." you get the idea.

I'm sure I'm the 'typical' crazy people warn you about; listens to media programs, esentric. But I don't vote for anybody (there all crooks), I don't trust the social order in its entire as it resenates around a slave race.
I'm not bible thumper, but Could it not be the end times?

i think that there is nothing to be worrying about because nothing will happen till well most probley next centry.

what are u chattin luv stop txt about stupid pathetic things and get a life