Printable View
Well?
I am a complete sucker for sensationalist media. First of all I watched 'An Inconvenient Truth', and I was sure global warming was happening and it was going to be serious. But sometimes I see things like this and I'm not so sure. I just don't have the core knowledge to make a serious decision, and I suspect 99% of the population are the same.
But what do the fine, educated minds of the Backroom think?
There are reasons why this is the case, from Oceans absorbing CO2 to the temperature rise is being off-set by the ice-caps melting to things like colder winters in the south. (Remember, the global temperature is generally north+south, where is it opposite seasons).
There are lots of many factors, however, what is funny, the biggest contributor to global warming is infact, vocano's and the 2nd biggest factor is Cows (and domestic lifestock) who produce lots of methane. Man's factor has always been cutting down the trees (who absorb the carbon) and additional input into the atmosphere.
Anyway, there are always periods of warming and cooling, a temporary cooling is the equalivant of moving a cold bottle of water over your body. It is temporary and not the solution.
They should use this time as an opportunity.
I've read enough to be heavily, heavily skeptical of the whole thing. This does get annoying and/or amusing when I run into those mindless eco-nuts who preach it as gospel and refuse to believe otherwise.
That said, I am 100% for preserving the environment and drastically reducing humanity's impact on nature.
This is built on the fallacious assumption that global warming would be a constant trend. It is not.
This. Help preserve our environment, but don't base it on this. I hesitate to call it an outright lie, but toying with the truth would certainly be accurate, especially for the way it is being hyped up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
No it is not, not really a factor, and that is why I am often disgusted at the whole green movement, which I detest with passion, mainly due to their own blind pursuit of agenda, blind in the sense that their scientific foundation is resting on sand, metaphorically speaking. The impact of trees on the atmospheric levels of oxygen is comparatively very insignificant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
The vast, colossal majority of oxygen is produced by much more primitive and diminutive lifeforms, such as primarily the ocean phytoplankton, which is the chief factor in the CO2 reduction as well as O2 increase. There is a reason why serious climatologist and biologists as well as palaeontologists/palaeoclimatologist debate over iron seeding and not planting more trees, as the brainless sheep, a.k.a the Greens do. The reason is because those scientists realise what does what. Phytoplankton is the big issue, not trees. In addition, I believe the global warming is a positive thing, as do many scientists whose fields start with the "palaeo" prefix. This is why - Azolla event.
The chief problem with climate change is that it is destabilising and transition periods are always rough. For one, status quo is very much welcomed in geopolitical arena, as no one planned for such drastic changes that will surely follow. Then you will have the massive extinctions, with other species severely shrinking in population. Climate is swift to change, speaking as a palaeontologist, whereas flora and fauna will take millions of years to fully adapt.
Do you have a source for those claims. According to the EPA the bulk of the greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide and not methane. In addition the volclano claim is false:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
From the USGS:
Quote:
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)
Wouldn't the cow issue be related to our interference. Im fairly sure we made them bigger and beefier, combined with the fact we have made more than there were to being with....
Im pretty sure trees do actually take in some C02 (mostly in but occasionally they release some) and whilst planting trees may not be the most effective thing I don't think this too much harm planting a few, we have cut down counltess numbers over the years so I wouldn't say its a bad thing. Trees are quite nice also....
I am not certain about volcanoes, although I tend to lean on Beskar's side (volcanoes have always been the decisive factor in climate shifts), but I will have to point out that CH4 is precisely twenty times more potent grenhouse gas than CO2. In addition to CO2, volcanoes likewise produce a plethora of other gases. Which are generally more pivotal than the CO2, as carbon dioxide is a relatively light compound, quite weak as a "greenhouse gas".Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Winter
EDIT:
Plant as many as you wish, but you are wasting your time, effort, and funds, climatologically speaking. I repeat: while they take in some CO2, counting on them to lower the planet's temperature is akin to trusting a single maggot to digest a bull, isntead of letting a tiger loose. Dump ground iron in the oceans, and that is a quite sure bet to cool down the Earth as well as increase its oxygen supply. But that coupled with global dimming and the possibility of an impending natural Ice Age will turn our planet into a snowball one. I would rather let global warming do its job, if it is still in force.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
As for sources, it is standard science at a GCSE level (actually, even lower too) in Britain. In otherwords, common knowledge domain.
Also, Aemilius Paulus raised the other point. It isn't just CO2, there are many others such as methane, which as he said, are twenty times more potent.
The EPA figures were adjusted for the effect of the gas on global warming. While it's true Volcano's have been a factor in global climate change isn't it true that we're not experiencing the same level of volcanic activity that has occurred in the past? I've also heard from my geology teacher that CO2 levels are raising faster today then they were during those extinction events although I'm having trouble finding a source for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
EDIT: All the sources I'm seeing are conflicting with what your saying Beskar. You're going to need sources to back up your assertions. I've provided mine.
and whilst planting trees may not be the most effective thing
so I wouldn't say its a bad thing.
Two important parts of my post AP. I wasn't aruging that planting trees to combat CO2 is a good idea (although they take in small amounts) I was arguing that planting trees is a bad thing, thier pretty, do some small work towards converting CO2 to O, and are a good supply of wood....
But I do agree as a strategy for stopping global warming not great...
I wouldn't want something to drastic done about global warming as you said we could go to far the other way (or just mess up something else) I would rather we reduced (or somewhat nuetralised) our effect. Only if we are in serious trouble should we go to dratic measures (if were dead if we dont) otherwise we could just makes things worse...
One can try to replace an inductive method by a deductive method. That is, to try not to discover global warming from temperature recordings, but from simple principles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
The amount of CO2 in the atmposphere is a constituant of the earth's climate.
So any decrease or increase of CO2 has a climatological result.
Few scientists would dispute this.
From there, it is really simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so releasing it has an effect. And not just on earth, for really spectacular global warming effects, try Venus:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm
A hot year, or ten cold years, neither prove nor disprove global warming anymore than a particular cold day in July does. What matters is that one constituent of the earth's climate is drastically changed through human working, in a particularly short amount of time.
When a tree dies, the carbon that is stored in it is released again. Otherwise known as rotting. What would help, is dead trees sinking in the mud instead of rotting away. Then they can slowly turn themselves into oil and gas again.
However, I'd say that humanity's ability to burn the carbon locked in oil and gas is much greater than nature's capacity to form oil over millions of years again. So no, trees are not the solution.
Fascinating reads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Give me an unlimited budget and a few decades, and I'll give you any climate you want on earth. From tropical paradise or iceworld.
Bizzarly, it isn't all that expensive or difficult to remove any amount of CO2 from the atmosphere that we want. I think this ought to be the focus of climate change debate.
We are not victims of nature's wrath. We are in the process of becoming its master. The question is not how to stop climate change, but how to work towards the climate we desire.
ask yourself this, why is there doubt, in your heart? you are not invited to my party
the screamers here EVEN FASTER turned out to 'accidently' meassure higher temperatures much to the amazement of serious scientists who got different results. Faulty equipment, oops. Yeah that can happen, didn't the ipcc miss an icemass the size of texas. oops?
I kind of realized that when we were hit by a massive snow storm, and twenty degree weather all last week. I'm ready for warm again! and summer ended only a couple weeks ago... :wall:
Well the eco nutjobs didn't help their cause with the 'hockey stick', did they?
Then there's Lords Melchitt and Porrit who want to limit/reduce the human population to sustainable levels.
So I say, let's bring it on. Pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as you can manage. Paint the poles jet black. Get your electric fire outside and on full bore. Get that temperature up guys.
Then when the ice cap melts and releases all that water, drowning a significant amount of people, we can reduce our carbon footprint for those that are left. The greens will be happy and so will I. I live atop a mountain.
Jobs a good 'un.
The amount of anthropogenic warming has been overstated.
The amount of anthropogenic warming from CO2 has been greatly overstated.
This directly results from Louis's deductive method when applied to a complex system where the record is uncertain, and the model is poorly understood.
The computer model looks at x amount of past warming, along with y concentration of CO2, and extrapolates z amount of future warming, and yet people are surprised when the model doesn't work because they refuse to recognise the contribution of a, b, and c to natural climate variation.
none of which means that i do not believe their could be catastrophic climate change in our near future, but it does mean that i believe spending trillions worrying about CO2 is an utter waste.
Seems a bit drastic. Why not the russians, there's lots more of them?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Wrong, our population is falling too quickly, whereas the Poles are falling at a slower rate. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
As for the apparent growing scepticism of global warming in .Org, I will however have to point out that the Arctic icecap is melting, and that is highly abnormal, as it has never done so for millions of years, not since the time before the First Ice Age.
my skepticism has been on the IPCC4 'consensus' and it has remained pretty consistant.
the only firm opinion on polar icecaps, is that we've had one for 700,000 years, and maybe longer...............
whereas the number of glacial/interglacial periods is huge, even over the tiny period of 5.5m years as covered by the sediment record.
the graphs, charts and predictions regarding global warming are a farce. there are so many factors regarding the climate change that even if there was a .0001 change in one factor it would drastically change the graph.
or so says my calc professor.
Im sure we predict stuff with close to as many variable as global warming in other areas too... I bet the other one hasn't got a well funded campaign denying it either..
I think Louis put it quite well earlier....
The world is getting warmer...
more CO2 in the atmosphere makes it warmer (by letting less heat escape)
We pump loads of CO2 into the atmosphere...
Man made acceleration of global warming proven at grade school level ~;)
Screw graphs, they don't show anything tangible.
However, this does: http://www.spiegel.de/international/...434356,00.html
Global warming *is* happening.
As I see it, even if global warming is overstated there are still other benifits from fighting it besides a lower amount of CO2. Lowering emmissions will increase air quality, public transportation will also do the same as well as being a massive convienence to the population. I think everyone also agrees that we should move away from fossial fuels even if global warming wasn't happening. I don't see how one could argue against any of these as worthy goals.
@Hooah I wouldn't call a calc professor a reliable source on global warming. Complelty different subjects.
not necessarily about climate change, but on the validity of the predictions. the fact is, you cant predict these things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Winter
Well, friend, I live in Minnesota.
At this very moment, I am looking out a window and watching snow fall.
Which, by the way, is just WRONG because we shouldn't get snow for another month. :furious3: At least, I don't remember snow in early October happening very often. In fact, I remember the last couple years when you could see grass in January and February.
We're already hitting temps of 30 and 20 during daytime, no doubt quite a way below zero at night. (Last year we fell below -50F).
So suffice it to say that we are NOT suffering from global warming up here.
(By the way, if you have any, you're welcome to send it up here.)
the fact is, you cant predict these things.
Well time to stop watching the weather then... do you now how many variables there are even in short term forecasting ?
Are you saying we can't predict them to a good enough degree of accuracy or are you saying we cannot predict them at all...?
Edit: the ironic thing about global warming is us poor sods in Britian are actually going to get colder because of it. Stop global warming, save Britians summers!
youre right. i should. they predicted no rain today and whatya know. rain.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
you are obviously no geologist, climate is the archtype of the complex system.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
and most of the problems that have been identified thus far with the IPCC are precisely because mechanisms that have previously been not understood were understandably ignored when when using computers to model potential outputs from the known inputs.
that's the problem with the AGW fanbase, too many of them are obviously grade school.
frankly, at the rate in advancement of the understanding of climate science any news article from 2006 is going to get short shrift from me.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
youre right. i should. they predicted no rain today and whatya know. rain.
Yeah good thinking, also laugh at those fools paying attention to those silly hurricane warnings and other such nonsense. You should calmly stop someone rushing around panicing and tell them that the variables are far too many so it is pointless to prepare...
If you are really unhappy with the accuracy of short term forecasting then you are quite frankly impossible to please, no we cannot predict these things with complete accuracy but to a very high success rate, obviously with longer term the margin for error grows but they do not get these numbers from the lottery or some other random process, the models could be said to be our best possible educated guess...
you are obviously no geologist, climate is the archtype of the complex system.
and most of the problems that have been identified thus far with the IPCC are precisely because mechanisms that have previously been not understood were understandably ignored when when using computers to model potential outputs from the known inputs.
that's the problem with the AGW fanbase, too many of them are obviously grade school.
Im assuming you didn't disagree with the we pumps loads of CO2 part... so does CO2 in the atmosphere not help the Earth retain more of the sun's heat ? or is the world not getting warmer ?
Im not saying the Earth temprature rely's solely on CO2 or is some simplistic thing, what I am saying is if the world is getting warmer and CO2 helps make the world warmer and were pumping loads of extra CO2 into the atmosphere... maybe we should try to cut down....
short shrift or not, Greenland is rapidly warming up and its ice cap is melting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
not at all, CO2 has risen as a percentage of atmosphere, and that increase is largely anthropogenic.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
yes it is a greenhouse gas.
and yes, the earth did experience a significant warming trend in the second half of the 20th century.
i'm saying that climate science has been too poorly understood for scientists to start asking politicians to spend trillions on lowering CO2 emissions.
if it is anthropogenic, but not principally CO2 induced then we ware wasting money
if it is anthropogenic and CO2 induced, but not catastrophic then we are wasting our money
if it isn't principally anthropogenic, then we are wasting our money
if it isn't principally anthropogenic, but is catastrophic then we are wasting our money
if there is no catastrophic change for whatever reason we are wasting our money
the principle green aim i hold to is maintaining a biosphere that enables and advances the human condition, that includes:
> reducing pollution
> providing clean water
> providing housing
> providing storm protection
> providing electricity and non-poisonous heat sources
the list could include reducing CO2, but it won't until i'm convinced the AGW is both catastrophic (i.e bad for the human race), principally anthopogenic (i.e. we won't buck natural cycles), and principally caused by CO2 (i.e. how much money should we spend on each anthropogenic cause).
I'm not sure who to beilive. But I live 800 miles inland so it doesn't matter.
Global warming is not science, it is a political issue. General Relativity is accepted the world over, and yet it is tested constantly. That is how the scientific method works. Anyone with the same data can get the same result using science. So, I can question Al Einstein, but I can’t question Al Gore?
Global warming is presented as beyond question to hide its many faults. People create the so called science of environmentalism and then when they generate results, it can only be peer reviewed by, you guessed it, other environmentalist people of like mind. Hence, phrases like, “most scientists agree”. If you read the U.N.‘s work on Global Warming, they even officially tiptoe around this problem by calling the work in progress as “vanguard science”. All that is known with certainty is that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has increased over about a century by about 100 parts per million parts (from approximately 287 to 380). There is no proof that these results are the sole reason for any changing of the climate, or that the data from the nineteenth century can even be trusted.
How do environmentalist/leftists get the rest of us to use huge mass transit systems, solar and wind power and “save the world”? Why, by indoctrinating our youth to vote for their agenda and no one else's. That’s the only science Al Gore understands.
Im not going to get to into the science of it (out of my depth, why I try to avoid global warming topics...) but just to say I don't rule out that the earth is going through a natural warming trend atm and if it is that ins't great but theres not much we can do about it... what we can do however is remove our own acceleration of the process... CO2 undoubtedly has some effect on the atmosphere and considering at the very least we are in a natural warming atm and it takes a while for the effects of the CO2 we have released to fully take effect and with the rest of the world trying to catch our CO2 emitting levels...
Maybe just maybe we should try and cut down on it somewhat... TBH most money towards it is multi beneficial anyway the money doesn't just make us produce less CO2 it reduces pollution and the like...
Agent Miles yes those evil lefties just like they indocrinated the youth into believing we evolved from lower animals and other such nonsense ?
The reason there is a wide consesus is because alot of scientists who specialise in that field agree, make of that what you will but im convinced most scientists would love to trump someones theory with thier own... unfortunately they mostly agree be it some leftist conspiracy or based on scientific research... who knows...
LittleGrizzly, I wasn’t aware that Darwin, who studied to be an Anglican parson and quoted the Bible, would qualify as an “evil leftie”?
The reason for the wide consensus among environmentalists is that they all share the same political goal of creating issues to sway public opinion. Science is the brutal guardian of what we can prove, not what someone agrees on. People who can’t tell you what the climate is going to do in 24 hours are not magically going to be able to tell you what the climate will do in 24 years. What if they are totally wrong? Well, thanks kiddies for voting liberal for a generation. Like your post, environmentalists make an emotional appeal with a “what if” and then add something like, “it’s better to be safe than sorry!” Well it’s not better to waste resources disproving something that can’t even be proven to begin with. Everyone wants efficient cars/homes /industry. That doesn’t mean that my grandchildren should elect a government that wants to destroy our economy so they can pretend to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Miles
Exactly.
I'm all for moving in the direction of environmental friendliness. But not in such a way that we ruin ourselves to achieve it.
I'll buy a car that has good gas mileage. I couldn't care less if it emits less gas; I want to save money.
So, in short, I'm not exactly thrilled with hanicapping myself in order to save some trees.
I am not interested in conservation because I feel sorry for "mother earth." I'm interested in conservation because, if I act responsibly, I will be able to use nature longer. It's a purely logical, self-serving notion. If I (and we) don't waste it, we can use it longer. Nothing to do with sympathy for dirt and trees.
Already we've finished with the science and suddenly it's a left-right shootout that ends up talking about evolution and whether Darwin turned Christian or not.
This sums up people's understanding of the global warming issue from what I've seen in RL. Left-wingers say "omg stupid hillybilly christians can't accept basic facts because they just watch fox news", then right-wingers return "gah brainwashed marxists global warming must be a big-government conspiracy to tax us and fund the new world order".
How many on either side actually know enough to make a serious decision on this issue? It seems to me they can't (which is understandable since the scientists apparently can't either, or is this just one side's conspiracy???), so every left-winger automatically accepts global warming, and everyone on the right denies it (generally speaking).
In case you missed it, I gave you the facts. CO2 went from 287 to 380 parts per 1,000,000 parts, if the people in the nineteenth century can be trusted. No one has proven that this caused the climate to change. This is not science. Realising this, make your own serious decision.
For those too young to remember, we were told that a new ice age was on it's way back in the 70s. This is why some of us are pretty suspicious about the current clamoring of global warming. Newsweek's article about this in 1975. The boy has cried wolf already.
IMO, what we are seeing is the result of tons of data from more accurate modern global weather collection, collected and analyzed to death by people trying to assess and figure out why various isolated natural disasters happen. We don't have accurate/complete readings for a long enough timeframe to properly figure out what is going on, it's all guesswork at this point, combined with whatever political agenda people want to push. And all this work and fuss will mean nothing the next time some random volcano in the Pacific Rim blows it's top and spews enough ash and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to cool the planet down by a couple of degrees.
Now I'm all for clean air and water. I think we should attempt to live in harmony with nature as much as possible. Are human responsible for climate change? Most likely. Is it as far-reaching as people say? Probably not. What to do about it? Not much. When the planet wants us gone, we will be gone, and it will continue on happily without us (since it already has the plastic ~;)).
I'm sure people from both sides could throw a few facts around, it's getting the bigger picture that matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Miles
This is pretty much what bugs me about this issue; that what is a highly technical debate about the finer points of an extremely complex, chaotic system seems to split so neatly along party lines, with both sides claiming the issue is "easy" and the other side is "obviously" wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Either way, the political will is clearly not there to make anything more than cosmetic changes, so I guess we'll have the answer soon enough; and I can see a certain merit in settling the issue once and for all through direct experiment. Personally I feel it would be best if we can move to a more sustainable, low-carbon energy economy in our generation since it needs to be done eventually anyway; I certainly think it would be a better use of time, money and political will than further rearranging of the deckchairs in the Middle-East. However this has more to do with ensuring that the benefits of industrial society will outlast the supply of fossil fuels than with any effect it may have in curbing climate change.
Already we've finished with the science and suddenly it's a left-right shootout that ends up talking about evolution and whether Darwin turned Christian or not.
Okay I apologise, my fault. Agent Miles post reminded me of so many conspiracy video's I have watched though....
Yes im sure Darwin was referred as an evil leftie (probably more recently) at the time I think godless Atheist may have been a more popular term... (which is an interchangable 'insult' to some these days)
Ill leave it at this, I generally accept the idea as there is seems to be a consesus amongst those with the relevant scientific education and I don't accept the idea they are lefties trying to trick us into doing what they want by making up science (I don't completely rule out the idea though.... which is why I enjoy watching conspiracy viedos...) EDIT that and most of the inititatives are multi beneficial anyway...
I have got to learn to stay out of the GW topics....
Well, I do think I am done here, as Poor Bloody Infantry summed it up. None of us here are even close to being as much as slightly qualified to say anything about global warming as a general topic. Even the experts on the field are themselves lost. I myself posted a few responses on specific aspects of global warming, but to do anything more than quote singular statistics is beyond all my characteristics.Quote:
Originally Posted by PBI
...Which is why I dislike with passion the categorical and self-sure statement, often imbued with great zeal, debating for either side of global warming.
On a final note, I will add to LittleGrizzly's end statement by pointing out once again that I generally attempt to stay away from all online science-related debates because of the plethora of problems with such endeavours. Mainly, unlike in politics, we are not entitled to an opinion as we are almsot always not qualified to debate science, which is not relative or down-to-earth as politics are comparatively.
But I am sure I am not stating anything new here... Most of the time, I simply grow frsutrated and quit in such debates, which is what I will do now. Not that the behaviour of posters is bad, it is just that this is pointless. Even mere discussion of this is pointless. None of us can operate with the tetrabytes of the summaries of climate change. This is like five-year olds debating on the validity of US Supreme Court ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden.
Sydney basically had no Winter this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariovistus Maximus
Rather than conspire with the rest of you to insult everyone’s intelligence, I am of the opinion that we actually can understand this.
Science starts with observation. We watch apples fall and somebody sees a fundamental truth in what they observed. After much consideration and the stringent application of math, a hypothesis emerges. Not a law or theory yet, just a suggestion for consideration. People who might understand such things, called peers, check the data, do the math and see if they can get the same result. Now biologists don’t peer review physics, or vice verse, but someone objective with the necessary expertise has to get the same result or its back to the drawing board. If everything is good to go, then it gets chiseled in stone…just kidding. Laws and theories are sitting ducks. The Big Bang is the most tested theory in history according to NASA, but it is still alive and well because it continues to pass every test.
Environmentalists observed that since the late nineteenth century the amount of carbon dioxide has risen from 287 to 380 parts per 1,000,000 parts in the atmosphere. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. They also observed that the mean average temperature of the world rose by about one degree centigrade over that period. They then made a hypothesis that the two were connected. Other environmentalists reviewed this conclusion and agreed. Without waiting for the testing part, politicians took the ball and ran with it. This was the reason that the ice caps were melting, that it rained too much or not enough. Polar bears were dying out and the induction current of the Atlantic was going to grind to a halt. However, the testing is part of the scientific method and it continued in spite of the politicians.
I suppose this is the complex part that we are not qualified to think about, so fasten your seat belts.
Data collection from the 1800’s is not good. Data collection from right now is not much better. Who observed it? How was it collected? If the data is off by a few tenths of a degree, then there might be no increase in mean temperature at all. Besides, maybe the “mean temperature of the world” went down two hundred years ago or two thousand. The temperature of the world is a moving target. It’s bad science to intentionally show data that only supports your conclusion.
CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. Yessiree, there is no way around that fact. People make a lot of it, too. As do volcanoes and cows and natural forest fires… and we really should do something about it.
My apologies, but now we must discuss the math. (Stop booing!) The environmentalists had a lot of math, so much that they used computers to crunch all of the weather effects that come from rising CO2. The math is actually so complex that the computers they had access to couldn’t do all the calculations for a world-wide weather system. Very few computers can do such complex system calculations. So they have several partial systems. They get results that are then combined to get an approximate overall picture. Results like the effect of rising CO2 in one system and rising temperatures in another and then stronger hurricanes in another system caused by the rising CO2 and temperature. The problem was that environmentalists may not have really great computers, but physicists do. The physicist’s computers did the math and rising CO2 with rising temperatures actually cause milder hurricanes. So how many other calculations are in doubt? Math has been referred to as the language of the universe. By some unknown trick of fate, math can simulate anything from the actions of atoms to super galaxy clusters. For a science, if you get the math wrong, you are doomed.
Now, of course, the environmentalists who performed the honest peer review of this hypothesis pointed out these problems right from the start…just kidding again. Along with knowledge of the subject, true stolid objectivity is required for a peer review. It’s not good police work if the police conspire as to who should be guilty.
All of this came out in testing by people who just wanted the truth to be known. Truth belongs in science; the alternative all too often belongs in politics.
That's my point too but it's subject to individual interpretation. How important is biodiversity to the human condition? How do you track, maintain, and control all the influences? You experience the same problems as with global warming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I still say we migrate. The technological advances and lessons learned along the way will go a long way to improving life here on Earth. This petri dish is getting crowded.
Well I have been dead since 2000, acid rain finally did it.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
these silly apocalyptoloco's.
There are a lot of respected scientists who say global warming is a crockpot. i think the world goes through natural cycles and that twenty years fom now people (probably al gores son) will be preaching the imminent ice age. The problem is how this unproven THEORY is being used to indoctrinate children into eco-freaks and how in us schools at least it is treated as scientific dogma.
Gah, and al gore is an idiot. some of those scenes in an inconvenient truth of ice caps melting are from the day after tomorrow. That that man won the Nobel peace prize, it is empty for me........
Caring about environment isn't a bad idea. Just because there is no consensus among scientists about what's really happening doesn't mean we should pump as much CO2 in the atmosphere, leave plastic waste in forests and dump oil into the ocean.
We're rich enough to afford spending some money on environment.
I'm no expert on the issue but according to my knowledge, there have been significant variations in temperature in some periods even during recorded history.
i agree of course that environmental change is needed, i just do not think we are going to single-handedly destroy the earth and melt all the ice. simply humans unable to accept that the world doesn't need us to survive or destroy itself (not that that is going to happen)
I never really understood that argument. My geography teacher used to always say it was arrogant of ourselves to think we could destroy the planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
However, the thing is, we're not going to destroy it, but even a relatively small change in climatic conditions on the surface could leave us unable to inhabit it.
It won't make a big difference to the earth as a planet, but to us as a species it could.
Don't you recall that tiny matter of acid rain being reduced due to heavy regulation and is still requireing calcinations of lakes and causes the destruction of lime stone, that was mentioned last time you brought the subject up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Those side product streams of sulphuric acid isn't sold for profit you know.
Anyway cutting it fairly short.
Since oil depence is going to be needing a replacement fairly soon (the peak oil of cheap oil has already passed), a process that is going to take decades, would it be more prudent to start focusing on a replacement now instead of when the gasonline prices are cheap when they're twice as high as now? That this coincides with CO2 reductions and gives time to see the effects, instead of doing nothing, is just a boon. And in best case scenario, no man made increase in temperature. In worst, we have a developed system to counter it, without being forced to shut down the industry.
As for uncertain old data. Tree lines growing higher, melting polar ice, most glaciers shrinking, shorter winters and crops being able to grow further north are more physical signs of it becoming warmer. To add that it has been warmer before and that a warmer climate might actually support more biomass (exception is the sea and its critical 4 degree C zone), but a incread temperature means a weather shift. That in turns affect rainfall patterns that in turn affect agriculture negativly until proper adaption is done. Rapid changes makes it hard to adapt. That's not counting increasing water levels.
About uncertain models, in weather there's a difference between full accuracy and general trends that are much easier to predict. For example will 2010 be a warm year due to an El Nino forming. Warmer than this year for example (that will be a warm year).
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Sorry, you made a valid point, but in an exceedingly and humorously hypocritical manner. Remember, a theory is something that has been observed countless times, something that is backed up by immense amounts of data and general scientific consensus.
A theory is a couple of steps away from a natural law. The only distinction between a theory and a law is generally the fact that a law must be capable of being observed directly. If something is not capable of that, then it must forever remain branded as "theory" until it is observed directly.
Thus, to call something in science an "unproven theory" is no different from saying "pleasurable torture" or 'harmonious annoyance". Do not mix the popular definition of the noun "theory" with the proper scientific one. Otherwise you just made a serious miscalculation. Such as those people who dismiss evolution on the grounds "it is just a theory - the evolutionists themselves say so". How false. Evolution on a large scale has not been well-observed, but no serious scientist doubts for even a nanosecond the validity of the "theory" of evolution. A scientist regards a theory as equal to fact for all practical purposes.
Thus, the global warming is a hypothesis, meaning someone came up with a suggestion, a wild idea, it was already brought up in a community of scientists, then thoroughly researched, and only after that was a hypothesis formed, or a very well-educated guess. Now we are in the long period of experimentation, in hopes of proving or disproving the hypothesis. However, let no one tell you global warming is a "theory". No, it is a long way from that.
i understand the difference between a theory and law. I was typing this really quickly as i often do and wasn't really thinking. I do not have the luxury of time today to type long well thought out papers.
Of course thank you for your correction, you are indeed right.
Most importantly my point got across
Ahh, I see :beam:. Good thing you do know. Most do not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Sorry i was at school.
You do no AP that while you and i may not consider it a theory, many people do. I once heard a man on MSNBC claiming the layer of warming. Had me on the floor laughing.
So was I, at the Uni library :yes:, when I posted then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
:skull:Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Well, I have long lost the last vestiges of respect I had for those news corporations... Every day I see Internet videos highlighting the latest blunders. Especially CNN and Fox. I have never seen MSNBC. As a matter of fact, I never actually saw any of the news channels on the telly - I was just watching Internet videos of their farce.
Lol but i was in a class, supposed to be taking a political compass quiz for ap government (i thought it foolish to do what i have already done, twice....)
Nah MSNBC is simply the far left of the three with cnn sort of middle but leaning more towards left. and fox the only right wing network. Seen all together you get the full picture.....
and the worst part about this was one. The man had a phd and two the news anchor just nodded their head and said so true.
the data is about to get a whole lot better; they are in the process of recovering the archive of 350 years of royal navy ships logs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Miles
300 plus datapoints that involve worldwide scientific measurements three times a day for the previous three centuries!
Not really and I don’t mean to cast aspersions on the excellent men of the Royal Navy. However, the sailors who collected this data 350 years ago were expert meteorologists and went to exacting lengths to be absolutely precise in their measurements and had equipment that was above reproach, right? You see, if you ask an average person how long a given meter stick is, they will naturally answer that it is one meter long. A scientist will break out the laser and give you a response like “one meter plus or minus .1 mm”, or something like that. It’s the inexactness of ancient measuring devices and the level of experience of the person measuring that come into play in arriving at a scientific result. If the mean temperature of the world went up one degree, give or take one degree due to slipshod methods, then you can see that the results are worthless, Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO).
I do remember that it were in fact bugs that caused trees to lose leaves. I remember the hysteria, the doomsday scenario's, having to write a paper on it WE ARE SCREWED, 'how are you going to educate your parents about acid rain?' OMG DEAD LAKESQuote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
but that was then and things have changed.
Now we see hysteria, doomsday scenario's, kids being dragged to the cinema to watch Al Gore's lies, kids having to write a paper on it WE ARE SCREWED, 'how are you going to educate your parents about global warming?' SAVE THE POLAR BEARS
flyingspagettimonsterlolclever
Will a mere $250 million suffice to undo CO2's climate effect? A Microsoft funded science group thinks so, and at least one Nobel Prize winner agrees...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6879251.ece
Go geo-engineering! If CO2 is a problem, then remove it from the atmosphere and store it underground, back to where it came before it was burned as fossilised fuel. If warming is a problem, than cool the planet. Far more efficient than bankrupting the economy because alarmists fear the wrath of nature for man's sins.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
That sounds really awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
aha, a useful solution that won't bankrupt the western world to no useful effect.
at this rate there is a chance that copenhagen might produce a sensible result rather than the epic retardation that was kyoto.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Right. Global warming fears were born in 1994. Since then NO year has beaten the highs of 1994.
When you stat developing trends, I'm pretty sure there needs to be a trend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I don't believe in Human driven climate change, but 250 million is such a short price tag that I would support it just for kicks. And to shut people up about the issue.
I was tempted to send it to the Eco-stormtroopers on University campus, just to frill their feathers. I think we have one of the only Green led councils in Britain.
Oh great. We don't even fully understand all the factors that affect global warming and now we want to cool the planet down. What happens if we do too good of a job? On one end you have crop failures, on the other you have an ice age. Brilliant.
In 100 years global temperature has risen 0.6 degrees celcius, measured with 100 year old equipment. No serious scientist would ever take that seriously if this wasn't all fear and piety. Apocalyptoloco's, every generation has them, they need the notion that everything is going to hell, clever businessmen like Al Gore feed on their fear and grow fat. It's always good business to feed on fear.
Famous quote from Dutch Bishop to a feudal lord: 'Ýou keep them poor, I'll keep them stupid'.
:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I thought that was Blair to Brown...
~:smoking:
I think he has a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
This type of thing has happened before, although not in such a big way.
For instance, California's massive wildfires this year were in part attributed to the way that they have instantly extinguished fires in the past.
This meant that the forests never burned, which meant that the natural "cleaning" process never took place, which meant that lots of debris gathered on the forest floor, which built up kindling until they weren't able to stop the fires any more because they grew so fast!
I think perhaps that the unintended consequences of playing with nature on that scale may be very dangerous.
But then I'm no nobel-laureate expert. :D
nobel laureates are a devalued currency at present.
Releasing large quantities of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere is exactly what volcanoes do in large eruptions. So, like I said before:
Of course, the downside of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere is acid rain, but beggars can't be choosy. :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Exactly! You can't make this dumb :daisy: up. Who would of thought of polluting the upper atmosphere with this stuff 20 years ago?Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
I think an ice age might lead to some crop failures too. Probably a few more than warming would, actually. :yes;Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
According to new polling less people think there is strong evidence of warming and just over a third think any warming is man-made. Also, people who think it a serious problem have dropped by 9%, with people who think it's no problem at all gaining 6%.
Good thing for these lemmings that there's an ice age is comming up, they can be absolutely terrified again. How are you going to educate your parents about the ice age? AND DON'T YOU BUY THAT.
forgive me Gaia for I have consumed, god help us all.