Global Warming

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm...aclimate130.xml

 

I found this.

 

So even the scientists can't make up their minds. Thank God I don't have faith in them.

 

I'm a big fan of everyone being entitled to an opinion... Mine, in a condensed version, is that the whole global warming thing is crap. Nothing said here is going to change my mind on that. I do like to see what other people think though. I also think that viking hats are about to make a major fashion comeback! =)

 

Biggest Development = Memphis didn't bold her post.

rofl.... Memphis R speshul

From the article:

 

Writing in Nature, the scientists said: "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic [manmade]warming."

 

Also:

However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model.

 

So the scientists do agree with AGW, just that there will be about five years in which ocean currents will offset greenhouse gas emissions. So whereas the earth should be cooling, it'll just stop warming. For a few years. And then it will continue warming.

I am passionate about global warming, and environmental issues in general.

 

What's sad about this particular debate is that so many people in positions of authority are lying to us about it. People with a vested interest in fossil fuel emissions hire scientists to sell us misleading propaganda... And Greenpeace and co can be just as bad, if arguably more well-intentioned.

 

I have a simple challenge for anti "AGW" proponents (the No side) - Tell me what it would take for you to admit that man's emissions are causing global warming, and that it is dangerous?

 

Yes arguments are more familiar and obvious, so I'll leave them to others to post.

 

Some No arguments (from other forums where I've engaged in this same discussion):

- CO2 does have a warming effect, but it's negligible compared to other factors such as atmospheric water vapour concentration;

- "It's just a phase" (it's happened before).

- All of the planets in our solar system are also warming at the same time as Earth is, suggesting solar cycles as the culprit.

- We don't have the capacity to measure global temperature accurately enough to say if the globe is really warming.

- The cost of dramatic emission reductions is much more clear and immediate than the cost of global warming. (This argument can be ver compelling for some, especially in the developing world where the perception is that Western nations have profited from exploiting the planet, and are now telling those who are trying to emulate us that it isn't right. They see hypocricy, I see progress, I guess.)

 

Fact is, for some reason in a polarized debate like this people tend to go in with a bias, and then cling to that view and staunchly reject evidence from the other side.

 

My dream job would be working for an internationally recognized think tank that had access to all of the raw, unvarnished data about pretty much everything, and the clout to go to George Bush, the public, and whoever and say "No, we have proven that you are wrong. The people who told you otherwise are lying, or idiots."

 

Another unfortunate thing about human nature is that thinktanks like that actually exist, and governments do use them to answer tough questions - But then the same government filters the answers into pablum that the public will accept without tossing them out of office. Do you think gov'ts were ignorant of the health risks of cigarette smoking, say 20 years ago before there was any no-smoking legislation around? Of course not - They were just scared of being voted out by smokers (and still are!)... And of course they were on the take from tobacco company and farming lobbies.

 

If I were the supreme lord-high mucky-muck of all, there would definitely be one monolithic thinktank processing and answering all of the important questions facing us all - And with bias completely forbidden there would simply be no reason to debate anything they presented as fact, because it would simply be the best answer currently available to mankind.

Utopian? I dare to dream!

 

Oh, and in my world - Fossil fuel prices would be high! The skyrocketing price of gas is driving real, fast improvement in people's mindsets wrt the demand for SUVs and solar panels. *Cheers*

Edited May 30, 2008 by Fatherpeteus

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm...aclimate130.xml

 

I found this.

 

So even the scientists can't make up their minds. Thank God I don't have faith in them.

 

I'm a big fan of everyone being entitled to an opinion... Mine, in a condensed version, is that the whole global warming thing is crap. Nothing said here is going to change my mind on that. I do like to see what other people think though. I also think that viking hats are about to make a major fashion comeback! =)

As a scientist (by training), "Thank God I don't have faith in them" makes me sad for the human race (although I understand it!)

 

We humans are always casting about seeking answers to the big questions in life. Because a few scientists in the medical and environmental science fields are on the take and paid to deceive people for profit, science as a whole is discredited - And people turn to charismatic snake-oil salespeople who have no real answers, but plenty of skill in profiting off of people's ignorance.

less global warming. more viking hats. kthxbai

So.. I typed up a page long response.. and then deleted it because I couldn't edit it down enough to not come off as the turbo-bitch I'm feeling like at the moment. Differing opinion = automatic religious fanatic apparently. Also, this:

 

http://cast.off.net/images/vikinghat.jpg

 

I used bold this time, just for you Stang!

So.. I typed up a page long response.. and then deleted it because I couldn't edit it down enough to not come off as the turbo-bitch I'm feeling like at the moment. Differing opinion = automatic religious fanatic apparently.

I hope you didn't think I was implying that? I'm a religious fanatic damnit, so I'm very careful with that particular accusation!

 

I was refering in particular to naturopathic "cures" that cost gullible people like my senior mom thousands of dollars that she can't afford, because doctors and medical researchers despite their prodigous training don't have the public's trust. Those medical professionals may very well not deserve our trust as things stand, but if the human race were more trustworthy custodians of our knowledge they would be deserving, and we would be less vulnerable to every new fad diet claim or whatever.

 

Religion would need a whole 'nother thread, and honestly I don't think it has anything to do with this issue. <3

Edited May 30, 2008 by Fatherpeteus

When it comes to this issue. I find myself in the "I believe" camp. I have faith in scientists, it's what they do, and especially when such a huge consensus exists.

 

For me though the real selling point is explained through a punnet square (normally used to predict a genotype in biology), but basically, look at the issue, and then the consequences for each action, or inaction as the case may be.

 

 

Assume for the sake of simplicity that global warming is either real, or not real, and that as actions we can either act to stop it, or do nothing. Also assume that if it is real, it's going to have horrific consequences (like some worst case predictions).

 

 

 

4 possible scenarios(just samples, you can take/add from/to each of these as needed);

 

1- Global warming isn't real, and we do nothing: Win Win! Life goes on as normal, yay.

 

2- Global warming isn't real, but thinking it is, we act on it: Drastic action taken by the government to curb the impending doom. The economy suffers heavily due to government spending, people have to change their way of life, all for nothing.

 

3- Global warming is real, and we act on it: Drastic action taken by the government to curb the impending doom. Potentially millions of lives are saved, technology used effectively can generate revenue for the economy, healthier planet, impact on daily life minimal.

 

4- Global warming is real, and we don't act on it: Ice caps melt, oceans rise, mass displacement of millions, loss of life, the face of the earth is forever changed, as is our way of life.

 

 

As much as I would love for #1 to be true, I'm simply not enough of a risk taker to bet on it. It boils down to weighing #2 and #4. What's worse, acting on something and being wrong, and losing money.... or the potential loss of life on a massive scale?

 

 

I'd rather play it safe, and act on it, and either get #2 or #3, rather than hope for #1 and risk getting #4.

 

Scientific reasoning? No, but it's how I see it, and how it makes the most sense to me to look at it.

 

For me though the real selling point is explained through a punnet square (normally used to predict a genotype in biology), but basically, look at the issue, and then the consequences for each action, or inaction as the case may be.

 

---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

 

This is by no means conclusive, because to really effectively use the square we would want to be able to assign educated probabilities to the rows and columns, and spell out how big those implied costs are. Still food for thought though!

 

The No camp claims that taking action against carbon emissions would have catastrophic effects on the economy. I actually think they could be right - But probably not IF the developing world (China and India, and also Russia, Brazil, etc) can be convinced to participate fully.

Handicapping North American / European industry and food producers with excessively onerus emmission reduction requirements while letting 1/3 of the world's population in China and India off the hook would simply result in all of our industry moving to those industry-friendlier countries... Well, those who haven't already done so for the cheap labour, that is.

 

That's why I'm not a fan of the Kyoto Accord, even though I tend to be a global warming believer. David Suzuki would say "Hey, every little bit helps!", but artificially creating an uneven playing field would very likely have horrifying economic side-effects that could be avoided if it were better designed.

Edited May 30, 2008 by Fatherpeteus

---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

 

^ Yea he explains it better, go with that

I hope you didn't think I was implying that? I'm a religious fanatic damnit, so I'm very careful with that particular accusation!

 

I was refering in particular to naturopathic "cures" that cost gullible people like my senior mom thousands of dollars that she can't afford, because doctors and medical researchers despite their prodigous training don't have the public's trust. Those medical professionals may very well not deserve our trust as things stand, but if the human race were more trustworthy custodians of our knowledge they would be deserving, and we would be less vulnerable to every new fad diet claim or whatever.

 

Religion would need a whole 'nother thread, and honestly I don't think it has anything to do with this issue. <3

 

 

My bad. =P

 

Going with the scientific vs naturopathic.. I gotta say I'd be more inclined to go natural. I've had back issues ever since my son was born. I've gone to medical doctors that are more than willing to throw painkillers at me but never really fix the problem.. I'd gone to the ER the first time it happened.. the guy's pushing around on my lower back so much that I'm in tears and trying very hard not to punch him and then he has the gall to tell me I just pulled a muscle. I looked right at him and said "I've never heard a muscle SNAP before." .. according to him, they do. So, to home I go, with my bottle of vicodin..

 

I got smart the second time. I'd gone to move a tree branch (it was around 120 lbs or so) and didn't lift with my knees.. I felt a pull.. and within minutes I couldn't walk forward. Ez used to fix the computers at a local Chiropractor's office.. so on a Saturday afternoon she came in to her office to see me.. after getting me from the car to the office.. man, was THAT fun... She checked me over.. told me what to do.. and then said, "I want you back here everyday." For the next 6 months I went to see her every (other) day.. she was kind of testing this ARP thing.. the creator of it is a friend of hers, and I got to be a guinea pig.. 6 months of pain every single day was gone after one treatment with that thing. It doesn't go that way for everyone, but she kept up with me until she found something that DID work. What I find even more amazing than all of this.. is that she never charged me a dime.. not one.. for any of it. THAT is the kind of medical professional I trust. Someone that actually cares about their patients..

 

I don't have faith in people with agendas.. that have only gone into their field for monetary gain.. or political.. or for notoriety.

 

I have a whole different story about the OBGYN that ignored my blood test results that confirmed I have polycystic ovarian syndrome and actually said, "I'm sure the results would have a more significant change if we retest you in a year." So, he wanted to wait a year.. after I'd probably thrown myself in front of a bus for feeling so miserable.. just so some numbers were more of what he wanted to SEE to make a diagnosis.

 

I've become a fan of second opinions. The OB that I see now.. within half an hour being in her office and telling her what my other Dr. had said/done.. was irate. She actually told me, "I have had women go untreated for 6 months, and come to me with cancer. This is not something you wait around for." Another example of a medical pro that actually CARES about her patients.

 

I have my yearly check-ups. I see my Chiropractor when I need to. And I avoid going to the dr. unless I absolutely have to.

 

Yeah, that's about all I have to say about that. ... Maybe..

 

Also, as part of my proclamation in gchat earlier that every forum post I make for the next week will contain something Hello Kitty...

 

http://www.blogography.com/photos13/HelloKittyPopTarts1.jpg

at first i thought this was a soma is quitting post, then i realized it was about something i didnt really have much concern for, then i was hungry and ate something.

So it's been said that Global Warming is a myth or a hoax.

 

I think everyone in here said Global warming exists . . . so you are trying to prove that humans contribute to that? Okay, that makes sense we have a bi-product of C02 when we burn gas and there is a direct correlation between C02/Methane and difference in the temperature of the earth over a very long period of time. That brings me to my point. . .

 

On your first graph you are showing a scale using thousands and thousands of years going from 425,000 years ago to present day. On your second graph you only go back to 1880 (128 years ago) and the third graph you go back to 1960 (48 years ago). How can you put so much faith into data that only shows back to the 1800s? The earth is millions of years old. So the arguement becomes . . . How much of an affect do humans have on global climate change? (not just warming).

 

Lets look at your first graph again:

 

http://i32.tinypic.com/35jihl0.gif

 

Okay . . . what I see here at the right end at present day . . . it appears we haven't crested above the other maximums (the 3 points roughly 100,000 years apart) and it appears we are on an upward trend heading for that crest. You say we should be in a cooling period but that statement doesn't make sense based on the graph because there is no clear peak like there has been in the past. Are you are saying because of human C02/Methane emissions we are not going to experience the cooling and warming period over the next 100,000 years?

 

Lets look at a chart of the estimated human population since 10,000 BC, this should put us in the same time scale as your first graph. (which I just linked again)

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...ation_curve.svg

 

I hope you opened it up and are looking at it so this makes sense . . . take my 12,000 year chart and squeeze it down real tiny and where does it fit? Right at the end of the first graph in the expected upswing of of temperature change. It's already been close to 100,000 years and humans are barely beginning to populate the earth. It is unclear to me if they are affecting this warming because I can't see into the future. I can't see where the temperature peaks and I can't see a descent.

 

All we can really say with this data is, yes there is global climate change, yes we are in a warming stage, yes we should be seeing a peak within the next few hundred years BUT we don't know yet how significant our influence is on climate change yet. We must be influencing it because we produce C02 and Methane. There is no denying that. Should we be shaking in our boots running for high ground because of it? I think no. Some think yes.

 

Based on this data and the small time scales of your glacier charts I don't think we have enough data to support major funding and crisis status of this topic. We should focus on more immediate, life threatening situations such as war, famine and disease. Those are things we can control quickly and effectively, we waste too much time on this climate change topic. We are small and can do simple things in our own life to output less C02, however, it is naive of us to think we can have an extreme influence on climate change until more time passes and more data is collected.

 

PS You also said we are going out of the normal cycle of warming and cooling, did you have more data for me on that? From the first graph it doesn't seem that we are out of the cycle.

Edited May 30, 2008 by loofa

way to eat my cat ben, jeez :/

The human population graph you provide has a very interesting point to it - human growth is exponential. And the direct available data we have from the past two hundred years is that we are warming up exponentially.

 

Here is direct and reconstucted temperature data from the past two thousand years.

http://i25.tinypic.com/2u4ngpc.jpg

You can see with the burst of the industrial revolution, so did the aggregate change of global temperature.

 

Per the graph with the spikes in global temperature - the spike occured about 11,400 years ago as determined by the International Union of Geological Sciences. There's all this jazz about the Halocene period and interglacials, but that's starting to exceed my lay knowledge.

 

The earth is equipped to deal with gradual changes, but at the rate we are going, it is a rapid change. Probably not rapid to the span of a human, but to the span of an eco system.

 

Here's a graph of the past 20,000 years. We entered the newest interglacial 11,400 years ago, at which point global temp changes should trend downward.

http://i30.tinypic.com/k9axlh.jpg

 

You mention war, famine and disease as things we should fight now. What do famine and disease rely on? The weather. Global warming will change the weather by desalinating the ocean, increasing water vapor levels which produces more rainfall, make northernly climates more hospitable for infectious agents. We can barely provide for the victims of natural disasters now, and the trend shows that things are going to get worse, not better.

Three words: Buy Canadian farmland!

My bad. =P

 

Going with the scientific vs naturopathic.. I gotta say I'd be more inclined to go natural. I've had back issues ever since my son was born. I've gone to medical doctors that are more than willing to throw painkillers at me but never really fix the problem.. I'd gone to the ER the first time it happened.. the guy's pushing around on my lower back so much that I'm in tears and trying very hard not to punch him and then he has the gall to tell me I just pulled a muscle. I looked right at him and said "I've never heard a muscle SNAP before." .. according to him, they do. So, to home I go, with my bottle of vicodin..

 

I got smart the second time. I'd gone to move a tree branch (it was around 120 lbs or so) and didn't lift with my knees.. I felt a pull.. and within minutes I couldn't walk forward. Ez used to fix the computers at a local Chiropractor's office.. so on a Saturday afternoon she came in to her office to see me...

Chiropractors are kindof on the fringe of that "paramedical" stuff. At least they have (afik) a consistent training / certification standard and kindof agree amongst the chiropractic community on what works. I've had one very bad one (the guy was a frigging thief, and did more harm than good!) and some that I considered did help... Yet any changes are so gradual that it's just about impossible to tell if the adjustments actually made the difference.

 

My mother's naturopath - I have zero trust in. She told mom straight up that people with brown eyes are like that because their eyes are showing the toxic gunk their body is saturated with - Otherwise they would be blue. (Now please to be buying this lovely cleansing eye of newt imported from the Orient!) wtf?

They don't need any training / certification that I recognize or know of to practice their trade (crackerjack box diploma?) - Just the trust of their customers (marks?)

I strongly suspect that most of what they accomplish for their patients is through the power of suggestion more than the efficacy of the (expensive!) cures they sell. Not that the placebo effect makes an improvement in health less welcome - I just wish there were legitimate, unbiased, unassailable clinical trials being done to concretely prove what does and doesn't work.

...And the same goes for Global Warming.

 

Which brings me back to my beloved think tank. And of course, my benevolent dictatorship over the planet.

 

Free Dairy Queen Blizzards for all card-carrying FP members, at any store too! Vote me!!

the al gore movie is the most horricfic movie ive ever seen....

 

eveyone needs to watch it...

 

even if you dont like al,,,

 

you need to see it

lol sooo now its a religion/global warming talk...this is great hahahah

 

 

Belief in gloval warming IS a religion Shorty, as it requires faith to believe in.

 

It's a movement designed to do 2 things.

 

Take away freedom, and make certain companies lots of money by imposed regulation, all in the name of a vast hoax.

 

Gotta love it.

 

I already have a religion thanks though. ^_~

 

 

explains everything!

 

yes, sir... its offical thats how the world will end

 

 

The solution to global warming: reduce population via Warlock Genocide.

 

kthxbye

Belief in gloval warming IS a religion Shorty, as it requires faith to believe in.

 

It's a movement designed to do 2 things.

 

Take away freedom, and make certain companies lots of money by imposed regulation, all in the name of a vast hoax.

 

Gotta love it.

 

I already have a religion thanks though. ^_~

 

Faith is belief with no evidence, or even evidence to the contrary. My belief in AGW can be shaken by systematic evidence to the contrary. If my faith lays anywhere, it's that I have faith that the vast majority of scientists dedicated to the climate are not part of some vast left wing conspiracy.

 

Are we trying to take away freedom? If you mean the current freedom that we have to destroy the environment without recourse, then I suppose yes.