My wife has yet been totally unsuccessful to ween me off my carnivorous behaviors. A Jewish friend of mine asked why when I said I could never convert to Judism, he laughed when I said, “I’ll never give up bacon” 
Ralph Berg said:mike omalley said:Ralph Berg said:
We are very likely to have a major volcanic erruption long before the rising temperatures create serious problems. Yellowstone has had a series of quakes, including one day recently with three 3.0 or higher tremors. If the Caldera at Yellowstone blows, everyone within hundreds of miles will be dead. The winter to follow would kill almost everyone else. There are larger active volcanos in the world.Mike,
You didn’t address the question of what we did to cause the temperature between 1860 and 1940 to be below normal, by the same amount we are now above normal.
And quoting carbon dioxide levels from an active volcano is misleading, to say the least.
Mauna Lao is monitored for carbon dioxide because of the volcano. All your chart tells us is that Mauna Lao may be closer to a major erruption then it was 40 years ago.
Ralph
Ralph, I keep saying this, but no one seems to hear it. It is very true that global temperatures fluctuate on their own, and would do so if there were no people on the planet. This would include both long term changes–“ice ages” and shorter changes within longer overall trends, like the dip in temperatures in the 1950s. I hav no idea what caused the dip between 1860 and 1940–I’m not a climatologist.I do know that the late 19th century marks the real explosion of the industrial revolution, which leads to much much larger scale burning of coal and oil, and to massive population increases. That seems to correlate to a very sharp spike in temperatures. Could be purely a coincidence, though as you note carbon dioxide in the air does cause a rise in temperatures, as in the case of volcano. Do you really think there has NOT been a major increase in carbon dioxide emissions since 1900?
In 1960 there were 180 million people in the US and 74 million cars. In 2003 there were 291 million people and 196 million cars. The number of cars has more than doubled. That does not include other nations of the world.
I assume, because you mention the volcano, that you think this is meaningless?
Meaningless?
Could be.
You are not a climatologist so you can not explain the below average temperatures for an 80 year period.
Yet you seem to have all the answers as to why we are now in a 70 year period of above average temperatures.I never said carbon dioxide causes a rise in air temperatures. They monitor volcanos for carbon dioxide as it is an indicator of volcanic activity.
I don’t think we have conclusive evidence that we are the cause of global warming. At best, a case might be made that we contribute.
Since you believe otherwise, what are you doing about it? What creature comforts are you sacrificing? Have you stopped running your trains?
Turned off your air conditioning in the summer? Going to bed at nightfall? Parked your cars?
Ralph
The explanation for the graph is contained in the caption that Mike failed to include: “Global mean surface temperature anomaly relative to 1961–1990”
What this means is that all temperatures on the chart are related to the average temperature from 1961 to 1990. Before this period, the Earth’s temperatures were generally lower. This does not mean 1920 was colder than a universal average, just the average of 1961 to 1990. If the author of the graph had chosen the period from 1900 to 1930, for example, the overall upward trend would look far more pronounced.
The 20th century saw many changes. Yes there was a huge increase in industrial activity, but the staggering change has been in population. The world population reached 2 billion around 1930, and that took millions of years (depending on just when you consider the human race “started”). In the almost 80 years since 1930, we’ve added another 5 billion souls. That’s a billion every 20 years or so.
I not only believe that global warming is anthropogenic, but I also fervently hope it is. If we are causing it then we can do something about it. If it’s beyond our ability to cause then it’s beyond our ability to cure, and the result could be devestating.
Ric Golding said:What are you trying to say here? There's meat in a hotdog???
Dude, no wonder you are always so irritable. Sneak out and get a hot dog with relish and mustard. I won't tell and you'll feel a lot better.
I take my lessons from history. Winston Churchill was overweight, chain smoking alcoholic and lived into his 90s. Adolf Hitler was a non-smoking, non-drinking vegetarian and died in his 50s!
Deleted
I understand that the polar icecaps on Mars are shrinking, too.
I guess that somebody should tell the Martians to give up their SUV’s before their climate goes to hell too.
I vote that we send Mike and Tony. :lol:
It has been proven that a rise in CO2 follows a rise in temperature, not the other way 'round.
Sorry, anthro-whatevers. It don’t happen how you think.
I could use a little global warming right about now. I’ve got 4 feet of snow on the roof of the pole barn. I hope it holds together. That is where I store my rolling stock during the winter.
mike omalley said:Mike,
You don't get out much, do you ric?
They drag me out of here, far more than I want. Do what you like, like what you do, Life is good! 
Ric Golding said:On this we agree
Do what you like, like what you do, Life is good! ;-)
mike omalley said:;-)Ric Golding said:On this we agree
Do what you like, like what you do, Life is good! ;-)
Steve Featherkile said:
It has been proven that a rise in CO2 follows a rise in temperature, not the other way 'round.Sorry, anthro-whatevers. It don’t happen how you think.
I could use a little global warming right about now. I’ve got 4 feet of snow on the roof of the pole barn. I hope it holds together. That is where I store my rolling stock during the winter.
Proven by whom? Reference please.
Scientists rarely, if ever, use the word “proven”.
Kevin,
You said - “Scientists rarely, if ever, use the word “proven”.”
I thought the current idea for “scientists” was to get their name in print, especially if it helps to win more grant money from the poor llittle people that need to be saved from themselves.
I guess this also enforces the fact that people that support Gorebal Warming are not really scientists, but just alarmists with an agenda, because I’ve heard and read them use the word “proven” many times.
Ric Golding said:This is something you seem to strongly believe--that science is just some kind of elaborate scam to get grants and win publicity. Do you actually believe this, or does it only apply to scientific work that reaches conclusions you don't like? Is there legitimate science, and can you tell me how to recognize it? Or is it only modern science that's a scam--if that's the case, can you let me know the cut off date?
I thought the current idea for "scientists" was to get their name in print, especially if it helps to win more grant money from the poor llittle people that need to be saved from themselves.
If I may, the crux of this argument may be settled by the old axiom, “Follow the money.”
If one is convinced that Global Warming may be the eventual cause of human destruction, then like-minded folks will likely be willing to contribute large amounts of money to use to educate, evaluate, elucidate, castigate the offenders.
On the other hand if any measured ticks up or down of the average temperature of the Earth was determined to be simply a natural cycle related to the Sun’s activity, there is no “cause” to fund since it is a normal climatic occurrence.
Follow The Money!
David Hill said:
If I may, the crux of this argument may be settled by the old axiom, "Follow the money."If one is convinced that Global Warming may be the eventual cause of human destruction, then like-minded folks will likely be willing to contribute large amounts of money to use to educate, evaluate, elucidate, castigate the offenders.
On the other hand if any measured ticks up or down of the average temperature of the Earth was determined to be simply a natural cycle related to the Sun’s activity, there is no “cause” to fund since it is a normal climatic occurrence.
Follow The Money!
Yes, and you can follow it to oil companies who pay people to argue against global warming. For example:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/18/exxon-global-warming-2/
It’s always a good idea to look at who is funding anything
mike omalley said:David Hill said:
If I may, the crux of this argument may be settled by the old axiom, "Follow the money."If one is convinced that Global Warming may be the eventual cause of human destruction, then like-minded folks will likely be willing to contribute large amounts of money to use to educate, evaluate, elucidate, castigate the offenders.
On the other hand if any measured ticks up or down of the average temperature of the Earth was determined to be simply a natural cycle related to the Sun’s activity, there is no “cause” to fund since it is a normal climatic occurrence.
Follow The Money!
Yes, and you can follow it to oil companies who pay people to argue against global warming. For example:http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/18/exxon-global-warming-2/
It’s always a good idea to look at who is funding anything
Do you believe meteorologist John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel along with thousands of other top scientists and NASA are shills for the oil companies?
I don’t know if Coleman gets money from oil companies, but I do know he’s not a scientist—he just read the weather report on TV. He has a strong animus against academic science, like many of the people here, and when I read his blog on global warming, there was no actual evidence about global warming, just attacks on scientists as faker and grant hounds. If I’m going to accept his argument that they are wrong, I’d like to see more than personal attacks, I’d like to see the objective evidence
What thousands of top NASA scientists are you referring to? I assume you are talking about Michael Griffin, who was appointed by Bush to head NASA. Griffin is an aerospace engineer, not a climatologist. He said on NPR "“I have no doubt that global – that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change.” So he agrees global warming is happening, he’s just not sure we should do anything about it. Is he funded by oil companies? I don’t think so, I haven’t seen any evidence for it.
If you want to follow the money trail, think about it a little. Who has more money to spend to fund scientists–the Sierra club, or Exxon Mobil? Haliburton, or Greenpeace? Exxon Mobil had 40 billion in profits last year. The Sierra club has an annual budget of 80 million. LIke you suggested, follow the money.
mike omalley said:Mike,Ric Golding said:This is something you seem to strongly believe--that science is just some kind of elaborate scam to get grants and win publicity. Do you actually believe this, or does it only apply to scientific work that reaches conclusions you don't like? Is there legitimate science, and can you tell me how to recognize it? Or is it only modern science that's a scam--if that's the case, can you let me know the cut off date?
I thought the current idea for "scientists" was to get their name in print, especially if it helps to win more grant money from the poor llittle people that need to be saved from themselves.
You asked -
“This is something you seem to strongly believe–that science is just some kind of elaborate scam to get grants and win publicity. Do you actually believe this, or does it only apply to scientific work that reaches conclusions you don’t like?”
Since the 90’s I believe all science has become extremely corrupt and has become nothing more than a source of money for individuals and universitys.
“Is there legitimate science, and can you tell me how to recognize it?”
I don’t know, I can’t find where any of it should be trusted, because it is tainted by liars and thieves
“Or is it only modern science that’s a scam–if that’s the case, can you let me know the cut off date?”
I have to answer with a question - When did the money for research, become more important than the research? When did scientists start living in big houses and driving nice cars?
Ric Golding said:
Kevin,You said - “Scientists rarely, if ever, use the word “proven”.”
That’s right. That’s what I said.
Have you ever read a paper from the scientific journals? That’s a rhetorical question because it seems you have not. They are extremely dry, extremely detailed, extremely technical, and extremely cautious in their claims. That’s why scientists rarely, if ever, use the word “proven”. They tend to say things like, “The data suggest …” or, if they are very confident, “The data strongly suggest …”
When I refer to the scientific press, I don’t mean the “Science” column in the local newspaper. I don’t mean an article in “People” magazine. I don’t mean the talking suits on the TV “news”. I don’t mean a Rush Limbaugh talk-back radio show and I don’t mean a blog, no matter how well written it is. I don’t even mean the OK, but heavily dumbed down articles in National Geographic. What I mean is the scientific press where any research study submitted is reviewed by other scientists/experts before it is published.
Ric Golding said:You thought wrong. I agree that there is strong pressure on university scientists to have their research published. Doing research and making their findings known to the world is why they are employed. The taxpayers are paying their salary and need to see results. It alsoi adds to the prestige of the university and thereby helps to attract other experts. But there are many other scientists other than those employed in universities.
I thought the current idea for "scientists" was to get their name in print, especially if it helps to win more grant money from the poor llittle people that need to be saved from themselves.
Ric Golding said:What is this "fact" that you are talking about? You just made that up, didn't you? There is a difference between a scientist claiming something and a newspapaer reporter claiming that a scientists claimed something.
I guess this also enforces the fact that people that support Gorebal Warming are not really scientists, but just alarmists with an agenda, because I've heard and read them use the word "proven" many times.
Ric Golding said:That is not a question. It is a conclusion. You've already concluded that the money is more important than the research by the way you phrased the question.
I have to answer with a question - When did the money for research, become more important than the research? When did scientists start living in big houses and driving nice cars?
What if I rephrased your questions:
“did the money for research, become more important than the research?”
“did scientists start living in big houses and driving nice cars?”
I have 4 old friends from university that I’ve kept in touch with over the years and are now working in the scientific field. I can’t answer question 1 because I can’t look inside their hearts, but the answer to question 2 is a definite “NO” in all four cases. They all live very modest lives and seem to work at relatively low rates of pay. That none of them are rich is perhaps an answer to question 1.
It’s not easy to get a grant, at least in my experience. You need to write the application, you need to get letters of support–grant writing is really tough. I’ve sat on grant review panels–typically they will bring in 6-eight experts in the subject and each one goes over a bunch of applications. I’ve spent eight hour days reviewing grant applications. It’s not like they are just handing them out. I’ve written grants, Ive had them acceptd, and 've had them tuened down. Its a huge undertaking, even in history, where the money is very low.
And you can’t get rich from grants–they usually cover only professional salary–that is, what you would be making in your regular job. Applications with lavish salary budgets get turned down–the granting agency has limited funds and it doesn’t want to waste time and money.
I also know a lot of scientists and none of them are rich. They usually do specialized research and they tend to be, as Kevin said, extremely careful in their conclusions. Scientists who get rich don’t work for universities, typically, they work for private companies, and they get rich from that. Invent a new way for Exxon to drill oil, and you’ll get rich.
There may be granting agencies that WANT to prove that humans cause global warming, but they are financially WAY outgunned by commercial interests that don’t want anything changed–like, say Exxon
Can someone tell me what large, multinational corporation, on the scale of Haliburton or Exxon, has a vested interest in provng that people cause global warming?