50,000 Physicists don't agree with Al Gore

[roofeditor]

Originally Posted by drcampbell

The real irony is that the American Physical Society didn't say that.

Many are now taking a different position! Has anyone thought how much CO-2 and particulate emissions are/have been taking place in California fires? One million hybrids could not offset this. I'm strongly in the camp of drastically reducing our DEPENDENCE on carbon based fuels but CO-2 doesn't factor into my equation.

[roofeditor]

Originally Posted by NBhunter80

haha, I'll jump in on a totally non-truck related debate.
First off, I will say that I am an environmental biologist and I am currently working in the nuclear health-physics field. I will also add another vote to the group of scientists that don't agree with Al Gore's global warming theory. Before I start my rant, I want to make it clear that in NO WAY am I saying that human activity has no negative impact on the environment. I believe that we humans will totally ruin any chance of sustainability of the earth if there is not a complete overhaul of the way things are currently being done in the very near future. With that being said, let me begin with a few statements that reflect my somewhat educated opinion on the subject:

1st: Global warming IS happening at this moment; however, it is not primarily caused to human activity. In case Al Gore didn't realize, we are coming out of an ICE AGE! Obviously it is alot warmer than 50,000 years ago, because back then, most of the planet was covered by ice. This is nothing new. As said before, the earth has had been going through cycles in global temperature for billions of years. Temperatures are currently on the rise; however, they will fall and we will plunge back into another ice age again in the future. Just look back to the times of the dinosaurs if you want to see how temperatures will cycle. Global temperatures were far warmer when dinosaurs ruled the earth than they are now. In fact, are current temperatures are sitting below the average temperature of the earth since the beginning of time. Al Gore and many other scientists are so anthropocentric that they only take into account the trends in temperature since humans have been around. We have arguably only been around for 50k-200k years, which is only at most 10% of the average lifespan of a species. My point being, yes, the earth is getting warmer right now. Is this anything new? No. Is this anything to worry about, No...it is inevitable.

The main thing in Al Gore's global warming theory (which is also shared by many other so-called "scientists") that I do not agree with is the statement that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of global warming. That is total B.S. in my opinion. First, CO2 is by far the LEAST abundant major compound in the earth's atmosphere (making up less that 0.04% of the earth's atmosphere). Second, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that actually has a net COOLING effect on the earth. This cooling effect occurs because atmospheric and aqueous CO2 undergo an endothermic reaction (requires the input of heat from the surroundings) with Calcareous rocks to produce Calcium Carbonate. This Calcium Carbonate is quite insoluble and therefor weathering of these rocks causes the CaCO3 to sink to the bottom of the ocean. Proof of this can easily be found by examining the layers of CaCO3 that are accumulating at the bottom of the ocean. This means that the available CO2 on earth (not only atmospheric) is actually decreasing over time. So what? you might ask. Well, for every mole (100.09g) of CaCO3 that is produced by this reaction, 61.99 kJ of energy is soaked up from the surroundings. The point is to show that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas"; however, due to the endothermic reactions that occur between CO2 and other materials, the net warming effect of CO2 is MUCH less than that of other greenhouse gasses such as Methane and even Water vapor. Global warming will happen at a GREATER rate if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is reduced. An even more scary scenario is presented if the pCO2 in the atmosphere becomes too low: the death of all plants. Since plants are the major suppliers of free Oxygen in the atmosphere, if plants die, so does everything else. This is the most likely scenario of the end of the earth as we know it: CO2 levels decline due to the loss of free CO2 to the oceans in the form of Calcium Carbonate. Plants begin to die off because not enough CO2 available to support photosynthesis. Oxygen levels drop due to less O2 produced by plants. We suffocate and die, along with all Oxygen breathing organisms. The death of O2 breathing organisms stops the production of CO2 by cellular respiration, leading to even greater decline in CO2. Eventually, the earth is scorched and become uninhabitable and the extreme temperatures cause the photolysis of all free water on the earth. The hydrogen escapes and the earth remains a dry desert with no life for the remaining ~2billion years until the sun burns out and our whole solar system dies. Sounds like an pretty brutal end. Also, since we humans love to clearcut rainforests and destroy the vast majority of plants on earth, much less filtering of the air by plants is occurring today than ever before, and this only accelerates our problem of a polluted atmosphere.

Well, to end my rant I will say this. There are far greater problems in this world than global warming. Population density, pollution, and nuclear war are just a few of the factors which pose a far greater danger to the earth than increasing CO2. I just wish people wouldn't hear something and immediately jump on the band wagon and promote a cause before they first research whether their cause is legitimate or not. Just my $.02 I guess.

There are far greater problems in this world than global warming. Population density, pollution, and nuclear war are just a few of the factors which pose a far greater danger to the earth than increasing CO2.

How many politicians will even talk about that elephant in the room. Population growth is a major if not THE major factor of energy problems, pollution and even CO-2 if you happen to believe in CO-2 as a pollutant!

Two produces Two will still double the population because there are 3 generations living at one time and one will not die off faster than the other is born. Statistically two produces two will eventually stabilize after a while.

TWO produces ONE like in China is really the only solution but you won't hear that one on the Couric/Gibson/Williams hour, even the Fox guys are scared to touch that hot potato.

[checkthisout]

It's completely irrelevant if you believe in Global Warming or not in the same spirit as your religious beliefs being totally irrelevant in the face of science and how we got here.

If you are a scientists and you don't believe in god you can tell religious people that you are just figuring out how god made us and scientific people can agree that science can still not yet tell us how we got here.

If you don't believe in Global Warming you can certainly agree that we need to become energy independent and doing so means an automatic reduction commissions.

It's win win for both "sides" if you buy into this mentality.

We just don't want to buy into some lame "Cap and Trade" scheme that will only hinder, not assist us on our journey to freedom from energy imports.

[NBhunter80]

haha, I like what has been started. Some excellent points have been made here.

Many are now taking a different position! Has anyone thought how much CO-2 and particulate emissions are/have been taking place in California fires? One million hybrids could not offset this. I'm strongly in the camp of drastically reducing our DEPENDENCE on carbon based fuels but CO-2 doesn't factor into my equation.

Great point. Here's some added strength to that statement: Has anyone heard of the Siberian Traps? The Siberian Traps is a vast accumulation of basalt lavas some 3 million cubic kilometres in volume and covering 3.9 million square kilometres of what is now eastern Russia. Eruptions from these massive "volcanos" have been associated with mass extinctions throughout the past several hundred million years. Each time they erupt, they instantaneously release more methane, CO2, and other greenhouse gasses than humans could produce if every person on earth drove an F-350 diesel 24 hours a day for 1000 years!!! If the earth can deal with the amount of greenhouse gasses instantly released during an eruption of the Siberian Traps, it should have no problem dealing with an extremely slight increase in pCO2 in the atmosphere over time (especially since CO2 has a net cooling effect on the earth, not warming). Now I know some people would argue "it's the straw that breaks the camel's back", but I think that is rediculous. What's infinity plus one?? Still infinity. There are already rediculous releases happening on a regular basis (every few million years) and the planet still manages to plunge into an ice age quite often, so what does it matter if we let another little fart of CO2 out there, our Carbon emissions are extremely small compared to the emissions of natural phenomena.

Another great point:

Population density, pollution, and nuclear war are just a few of the factors which pose a far greater danger to the earth than increasing CO2.

How many politicians will even talk about that elephant in the room. Population growth is a major if not THE major factor of energy problems, pollution and even CO-2 if you happen to believe in CO-2 as a pollutant!

Two produces Two will still double the population because there are 3 generations living at one time and one will not die off faster than the other is born. Statistically two produces two will eventually stabilize after a while.

TWO produces ONE like in China is really the only solution but you won't hear that one on the Couric/Gibson/Williams hour, even the Fox guys are scared to touch that hot potato.

Well, there are really two solutions to our population problem, but you wont hear either of them being discussed on the mainstream news. The solutions are:

1) Reduced Birth rate solution. Decreasing birth rate will reduce a population eventually. Like what you said... 2 produces 1 will eventually bring down the population to a managable level. The only problems with this are that increases the average age of the population and then you have to ask "if there are two parents for every one kid, will the next generations be able to support all the elderly baby boomers once they cant take care of themselves given there are two dependents for every one provider (at best). Also, will limiting birth rate bring the population down fast enough to save us before we rape the earth to the point of no return.

Solution #2 (the bad but more effective one)
2)Increased Death Rate solution. A morbidly simple and effective solution. Apparently this has been proposed by the US gov't as early as the 1960's and they hope to eventually reduce the global population to less than 500 million (this means killing over 90% of the current population!!). The only real problem is as soon as you start talking about how this can be done you sound like Hitler.

Anyway, It has been said, and I will say it again. We should not be worried about global warming...it is natural and invevitable. Population, yes, Pollution, yes, War, yes. These things we do need to worry about and they will directly affect us in the short term, and the long term. I would be much more worried about what happens when Asia runs out of room to live and put their garbage, and the billion man Chinese army comes marching over here to North America to make us share our land and resources. I know that I'd rather see a death rate solution happen than surrender my livelyhood to them. The shocking truth is that the we have exceeded the carrying capacity of the earth MANY years ago. There is no way the earth can sustain a human population greater than 1 billion people. Like it or not, that is the reality of it. People try to mask the truth by saying that we could all live in harmony if we were all just a little "greener". IMHO, that is a steaming hunk of B.S. The planet is full, and there is no way around it. Remove the population problem, and you will have removed about 95% of the earth's problems with one quick fix. One thing I do know is that I will fight to my dying breath to ensure that it is my offspring that survives, and I will never conform to the 2 makes 1 chinese solution. I am quite confident that during our children's lifetime we will see some of these drastic action plans being implimented, and when they are, I will be hiding up here in the Canadian wilderness, still driving my diesel truck, with guns in hand ready to protect what belongs to me and my family. Cheers!

[roofeditor]

Originally Posted by NBhunter80

haha, I like what has been started. Some excellent points have been made here.


Great point. Here's some added strength to that statement: Has anyone heard of the Siberian Traps? The Siberian Traps is a vast accumulation of basalt lavas some 3 million cubic kilometres in volume and covering 3.9 million square kilometres of what is now eastern Russia. Eruptions from these massive "volcanos" have been associated with mass extinctions throughout the past several hundred million years. Each time they erupt, they instantaneously release more methane, CO2, and other greenhouse gasses than humans could produce if every person on earth drove an F-350 diesel 24 hours a day for 1000 years!!! If the earth can deal with the amount of greenhouse gasses instantly released during an eruption of the Siberian Traps, it should have no problem dealing with an extremely slight increase in pCO2 in the atmosphere over time (especially since CO2 has a net cooling effect on the earth, not warming). Now I know some people would argue "it's the straw that breaks the camel's back", but I think that is ridiculous. What's infinity plus one?? Still infinity. There are already ridiculous releases happening on a regular basis (every few million years) and the planet still manages to plunge into an ice age quite often, so what does it matter if we let another little fart of CO2 out there, our Carbon emissions are extremely small compared to the emissions of natural phenomena.

Another great point:


Well, there are really two solutions to our population problem, but you wont hear either of them being discussed on the mainstream news. The solutions are:

1) Reduced Birth rate solution. Decreasing birth rate will reduce a population eventually. Like what you said... 2 produces 1 will eventually bring down the population to a manageable level. The only problems with this are that increases the average age of the population and then you have to ask "if there are two parents for every one kid, will the next generations be able to support all the elderly baby boomer's once they cant take care of themselves given there are two dependents for every one provider (at best). Also, will limiting birth rate bring the population down fast enough to save us before we rape the earth to the point of no return.

Solution #2 (the bad but more effective one)
2)Increased Death Rate solution. A morbidly simple and effective solution. Apparently this has been proposed by the US govt as early as the 1960's and they hope to eventually reduce the global population to less than 500 million (this means killing over 90% of the current population!!). The only real problem is as soon as you start talking about how this can be done you sound like Hitler.

Anyway, It has been said, and I will say it again. We should not be worried about global warming...it is natural and inevitable. Population, yes, Pollution, yes, War, yes. These things we do need to worry about and they will directly affect us in the short term, and the long term. I would be much more worried about what happens when Asia runs out of room to live and put their garbage, and the billion man Chinese army comes marching over here to North America to make us share our land and resources. I know that I'd rather see a death rate solution happen than surrender my livelihood to them. The shocking truth is that the we have exceeded the carrying capacity of the earth MANY years ago. There is no way the earth can sustain a human population greater than 1 billion people. Like it or not, that is the reality of it. People try to mask the truth by saying that we could all live in harmony if we were all just a little "greener". IMHO, that is a steaming hunk of B.S. The planet is full, and there is no way around it. Remove the population problem, and you will have removed about 95% of the earth's problems with one quick fix. One thing I do know is that I will fight to my dying breath to ensure that it is my offspring that survives, and I will never conform to the 2 makes 1 Chinese solution. I am quite confident that during our children's lifetime we will see some of these drastic action plans being implemented, and when they are, I will be hiding up here in the Canadian wilderness, still driving my diesel truck, with guns in hand ready to protect what belongs to me and my family. Cheers!

With a humorous ending!!!

[action4478]

I don't intend to get into a pissin match with a man standing on a balcony ,But....

Eruptions from these massive "volcanos" have been associated with mass extinctions throughout the past several hundred million years. Each time they erupt, they instantaneously release more methane, CO2, and other greenhouse gasses than humans could produce if every person on earth drove an F-350 diesel 24 hours a day for 1000 years!!! If the earth can deal with the amount of greenhouse gasses instantly released during an eruption of the Siberian Traps, it should have no problem dealing with an extremely slight increase in pCO2 in the atmosphere over time

no disrepect intended here ,,but doesn't this ,contradict ...

this ?

The planet is full, and there is no way around it.

I know we are talking about different things here ,,but

Its a very big planet ....

Most have what they need to live well (if they want to ,or try to) ..countries that don't aren't educated well enough to take care of themselves (not our fault)

(is it due to overpopulation)? Or has it always been this way?

I would be much more worried about what happens when Asia runs out of room to live and put their garbage,

I also think ,if it weren't for environmental concern's garbage wouldn't be such an issue either..

I still belive that people ,(scientists or tree huggers ) are using what is happening in a very short period of time ,to their advantage

I'm missing something here , Help me out ....

[checkthisout]

Originally Posted by action4478

I don't intend to get into a pissin match with a man standing on a balcony ,But....

no disrepect intended here ,,but doesn't this ,contradict ...

this ?

I know we are talking about different things here ,,but

Its a very big planet ....

Most have what they need to live well (if they want to ,or try to) ..countries that don't aren't educated well enough to take care of themselves (not our fault)

(is it due to overpopulation)? Or has it always been this way?



I also think ,if it weren't for environmental concern's garbage wouldn't be such an issue either..

I still belive that people ,(scientists or tree huggers ) are using what is happening in a very short period of time ,to their advantage

I'm missing something here , Help me out ....

Nope, science has peaked and mankind has reached his productive capacity.

Technology has always worked against man and made it harder for him to live. That is why there are so many more people on this earth today than their was during the Dark Ages.

Gimme a break!

Societies perish due to a lack of vision. Gore and Company comes from the same framework as Prince Harry who said that he hoped to be reincarnated as a virus so that he could kill off most of mankind because of the harm we bring Animal and Plant life.....he was also an avid hunter....go figure.

[Greasy_Dually]

NBHunter80 I would like your opinion on something. Seems everything on earth is dependant on something else and nature always has a way of finding a relative balance. Is is possible that as temperatures rise, it causes the release of more CO2 inturn cooling the earth, and as temperatures fall the decrease in CO2 released slows the earths cooling? Basically CO2 would be a global thermostat.

[NBhunter80]

NBHunter80 I would like your opinion on something. Seems everything on earth is dependant on something else and nature always has a way of finding a relative balance. Is is possible that as temperatures rise, it causes the release of more CO2 inturn cooling the earth, and as temperatures fall the decrease in CO2 released slows the earths cooling? Basically CO2 would be a global thermostat.

In a way you are absolutely right. CO2 is like a heat buffer. However, the accumulation of CaCO3 at the bottom of the ocean is like a CO2 sink because the huge heat capacity of the ocean prevents the heat required to reverse the reaction and release CO2 from ever reaching it. Therefor the more CO2 we lose to the ocean, the less buffering effect we get. It is a buffering cycle in which the oscillations gradually diminish until there is no more buffer, and that's when the planet will fry. We as a species will be long dead by then anyway...I'm talking ~2 billion years from now. This will occur naturally even if humans release zero CO2 into the atmosphere at all. In fact, releasing CO2 will help slow this problem.

don't intend to get into a pissin match with a man standing on a balcony ,But....


Quote:
Eruptions from these massive "volcanos" have been associated with mass extinctions throughout the past several hundred million years. Each time they erupt, they instantaneously release more methane, CO2, and other greenhouse gasses than humans could produce if every person on earth drove an F-350 diesel 24 hours a day for 1000 years!!! If the earth can deal with the amount of greenhouse gasses instantly released during an eruption of the Siberian Traps, it should have no problem dealing with an extremely slight increase in pCO2 in the atmosphere over time
no disrepect intended here ,,but doesn't this ,contradict ...

this ?


Quote:
The planet is full, and there is no way around it.
I know we are talking about different things here ,,but

Just to clarify I will quote my first post:

Before I start my rant, I want to make it clear that in NO WAY am I saying that human activity has no negative impact on the environmnent. I believe that we humans will totally ruin any chance of sustainability of the earth if there is not a complete overhaul of the way things are currently being done in the very near future.

I am totally referring to our negligible effect of CO2 from emissions into the atmosphere when I talk about the Siberian Traps. Geological phenomena has nothing to do with the population problem. I was simply pointing towards the negative hype about CO2 from vehicle emissions and how minute of a role it plays in the grand scheme of things. In no way was I saying that the earth can recover from anything we put it through. Humans are clearcut deforesting, mass harvesting animals, mining huge expanses of the earth's crust, and concentrating in a matter of hours dangerous substances that take billions of years to accumulate naturally. The population problem is the reason why we are doing these things at such a fast rate. Reduce the rate at which we do these things, and we will increase the chances that the earth will be able to cope with it.

[kude]

Why waste the few short years we have on the face of the Earth worrying about the future. Let whoever ends up there figure it out.

I was reading about the bottleneck theory. Basically every 70,000 years or so, a super volcano erupts that results in a significant decrease in the human population or bottlenecking. The last one reduced the population to 2000 families by one account. We have floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes and wars that kill thousands every year. In a twisted logic kind of way if you're pro abortion why would you be anti war? It's weird I know.

Nature takes care of a lot this stuff and it's not pretty when it happens.

[clamgulch]

Yeah, when the plagues hit, man made or otherwise, the population reduction is significant. The next batch of them will likely kill 4 BILLION.

Pro abortion / anti-war? Interesting thought. Since Roe vs. Wade, we've managed to eliminate over 40 million taxpayers- yet the perspective is ultimately one of "there's still too many people." Responsibly managed, the earth's resources and the human race can co-exist at population levels MUCH higher that 6 billion- short of some event that's simply out of our control- collision with a comet, plagues (the ones that worry me are man-made), or a huge solar belch.

[THEBUNDO]

We can be grateful for global warming. Otherwise we'd live under a mile of ice

[CoolAqua]

I agree with Nasa's James Hansen, Head of the Goddard Space Center. Goddard beleives that Global Warming is a critical problem and that it is exacerbated by both soot and Co2.

The Bush Administration has continually edited Nasa's public document in this area. Pentagon documents on this area have been withheld from public release. We also know that oil companies have paid many "professors" to throw up kitchen sink type barrage of missinformation in this area.

Instead of attacking anything having to do with ecology as bad for business, consider all the Chinese and European solar companies that are raking in big bucks making solar panels, wind turbines, etc. European countries are increasingly less dependent on oil than the US. US efforts to reduce our dependence on oil, put into law by Jimmy Carter and the US Congress, were stopped by Republicans under Ronald Reagan.

Environmentally friendly power is big business. But our oil companies, just like General Motors, aren't will to make the investment to compete. Instead the oil companies have engaged in a missinformation campaign to try to delay any investment in alternative energy.

Putting you name on a petition doesn't make you an expert on Global Warming. Right Wing radio and TV hosts that continually attack Al Gore as a figurehead doesn't change the fact that artic ice sheets are dissapearing. Making science a partisan political fooball isn't a good idea.

Higher temperatures are already causing more lightening strikes resulting in more forest fires. Bark dwelling insects are now moving north, destroying large amount of fir forests. Tropical diseases are now starting to move into some portions of the souther US. This is a real problem. Right wing pundits who ply us with anti enviromental messages get paid big bucks to do so by industries that don't want the competition. Are you being their puppet?

[checkthisout]

Originally Posted by CoolAqua

I agree with Nasa's James Hansen, Head of the Goddard Space Center. Goddard beleives that Global Warming is a critical problem and that it is exacerbated by both soot and Co2.

The Bush Administration has continually edited Nasa's public document in this area. Pentagon documents on this area have been withheld from public release. We also know that oil companies have paid many "professors" to throw up kitchen sink type barrage of missinformation in this area.

Instead of attacking anything having to do with ecology as bad for business, consider all the Chinese and European solar companies that are raking in big bucks making s