Global Warming vs. Terrorism

Who is threatening anyone, plainoldme? What is with you? By the way, you may wish to check your last sentence. I am not absolutely sure, but I do not judge it to be grammatically correct. I think there are too many commas. Also, your second sentence contains a redundancy, plus the "yours" should read without the "s."

Her ignorance concerning writing, English Grammar, and Literature generally is evident in her idiotic appraisal of the race carder, Toni Morrison's garbage as being superior to the greatest writer in all of English Literature....Shakespeare.
'

Furthermore, it is evident that no one ever taught her that she must use citations which refer to scientific studies when she writes on a topic like Global Warming. She cannot merely say-"John Jones said---" without giving a link in which it can be checked.

I really like informations - otherwise I hadn't subscribed to so many newspapers and magazines.

But I'm more then cautious with anonymous sites. Especially, when even the links on it lead to other anonymous sites.

It is most certain that my behaviour has to do with the academical work I did long time ago, namely reading and marking BA and MA thesises.

Sorry, of course you can believe whatever you like and what suits you and your argumentation best.

okie wrote:

Who is threatening anyone, plainoldme? What is with you? By the way, you may wish to check your last sentence. I am not absolutely sure, but I do not judge it to be grammatically correct. I think there are too many commas. Also, your second sentence contains a redundancy, plus the "yours" should read without the "s."

Of course, you are not absolutely sure. You're wrong. The number of commas is correct. There is no redundancy in the second sentence, although the final sentence has a missing word, but, that is due to my typing speed. Finally, read the sentence for meaning and you will discover that "yours" is correct.

When I was working on my graduate degree in English in Detroit, while employed first as an English teacher and later as a journalist, professors read my papers to classes as examples of the sort work expected from graduate students. While studying at Harvard, a professor who holds an endowed chair in Classics asked me to make myself available to others as a writing coach.

Please, if you think in any way that you are threatening or correcting me, you are sadly mistaken. I have listened patiently to you and yours attempt to insult me and it is laughable. Try to point out errors, but, is beyond your ability.

Global Warming: An Amazing Graph, and Muzzling Science at NASA
From: Misc. Politics TableBy toppa | bio

UPDATE: the Editor of Technology Review contacted me (apparently they're watching their incoming links), saying that there was enough demand for the "scary chart" that they've now posted it to their site as a PDF (it's much nicer than my scan).

Technology Review's laterst issue contains an excellent set of articles on global warming. Unfortunately, the online version is lacking "the scariest graph in climate science, a 420,000-year record of carbon dioxide and temperature, inferred from a 3.6-kilometer ice core recovered at Russia's Vostok station in Antarctica." It's the clearest illustration I've ever seen of the relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels, temperature, and sea level. While the article says that "atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased 32 percent since 1850," you don't get a gut-level feel for what that means until you see the CO2 level going way off the top of the chart at the end of the graph. Here's the key portion of the inset text that accompanies the graph:

Quote:

...Geological records show that in the past 400,000 years, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, average Earth temperature, and sea levels have risen and fallen roughly in tandem, in 100,000-year cycles paced by slight oscillations in Earth's orbit. These oscillations affect the distribution of sunlight, hardly affecting the total amount reaching Earth; yet, scientists believe, this has been enough to set in motion chains of events that raise and lower temperatures, launch and end ice ages, and trigger vast changes in sea level.

What's coming next? Carbon dioxide -- the number one greenhouse gas -- has much more power to affect Earth's temperature than the orbital changes do. And in just the past 150 years, humankind has boosted carbon dioxide concentrations by 32 percent. NASA planetary scientist Jim Hansen says that if we continue to increase greenhouse-gas emissions, temperatures will rise between 2 and 3 ºC this century, making Earth as warm as it was three million years ago, when seas were between 15 and 35 meters higher than they are today...

The article that goes with the graph - The Messenger - is highly worth reading. It covers the career of leading climatologist Jim Hansen, and among other things, describes the censorship of his work by the Bush Administration:

Quote:

According to NASA memorandums provided by Hansen, senior political appointees at NASA headquarters in Washington quickly called career public-affairs officers at the agency and directed them to give headquarters advance notice of Hansen's speaking schedule, his "data releases," and his attendance at scientific meetings. The career officers also understood from the phone calls that the posting of all content on the GISS website, including scientific data sets, would now require headquarters approval; that no NASA employees or contractors could grant media interviews without approval; and that public-affairs officers had the right to stand in for scientists in all interviews. Hansen emphasizes that the political appointees made sure to leave no paper trail...He says he's been muzzled before -- during the Reagan and first Bush administrations -- but that in more than three decades as a government employee, he has seen nothing to equal the recent clampdown.

What makes Hansen's work compelling is that he uses multiple sources to check the accuracy of his models. You'll need to read the article for a detailed explanation, but the bottom line is this:

Quote:

Global-warming deniers like to complain that scientists base their predictions on faulty computer models. But Hansen's calculations show that we don't need a computer to know how temperature will respond to a given change in the greenhouse -- or a change in dustiness, or forest cover, or the amount of ice on the Arctic Ocean. Solid geological field data give us everything we need -- and provide a check for computer models. And lend credibility to Hansen's predictions.

Then cite the parallel information you believe to be correct that refutes mine, Walter, otherwise you contribute nothing.

I have no clue who Monte Hieb and Harrison Hieb are. I do not know what their background is in the field of climate science.

Why does it link to whole bunch of fossil fuel info sites? I don't know, perhaps they may think fossil fuel people are credible. You do not?

Why are his/their arguments the most valid? I did not say they were, Walter.

I simply liked the site because it provides some nice graphs, pie charts, and statistics.

I think the statistics are in the ballpark of what I've seen before, so I thought they were nicely presented and easily understood on this site.

Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm.

Your figures are off because you are comparing apples to oranges.

But oe posted his impressive graphics later

okie wrote:

I simply liked the site because it provides some nice graphs, pie charts, and statistics.

Bloody f*cking hell, okie, that must be the most stupid argument I've ever heard! Really, you're smarter than that! Come on! You like the site because it has some nice graphs???

okie,

Perhaps you should use your head. Without any greenhouse effect the temperature of the earth would be that of the moon. 230 degrees F in the sun -290 in the shade. Now get out your calculator.

The green house effect gives us 290 plus degrees. Of that greenhouse effect .28% of it is from man made origins. Now a simple exercise. Take .0028 times 290 degrees. Suprise - you get .8 degrees. of warming caused by man's activity so far. .8 degrees Fahrenheit. That comes pretty close to the .6 degrees Celsius warming we have seen since your source appears to be using 2000 figures.

I have not been able to confirm your sources claim for what is man made of CO2. There is no such table in the US Dept of Energy website. I suspect it only includes fossil fuels CO2 and doesn't include all the other human activities so it is ignoring the real contributions.


I did find this...

Quote:

Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

So, lets start with a false assumption then do some math. Looks like that is what this person did. Then you jumped on his false assumptions and did some more math. Now compare the Kyoto proposal to the way CO2 was figured in your article. Kyoto is not restricted to fossil fuels alone. Your figures are off because you are comparing apples to oranges.

And OE you might recall I also said the numbers were in the ballpark of what I had seen before. Come on guys, post your numbers if you don't like these instead of making fun of the source.