PDA

View Full Version : To The Global Warming Crowd


MdKnightR
11-16-2007, 01:39 AM
Please relax!

http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif

Samuel Dravis
11-16-2007, 03:05 AM
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/8108/gtemps1lz6.gif

Hey guys! My sweet looking chart proves that the current temperature is 588 degrees!



While I don't disagree that temperature fluctuations like the present one have occurred in the past, a little more info on your chart's sources might be in order...

Ray Jones
11-16-2007, 08:45 AM
While I support MdKnightR, I say (again) a little care about how we treat our environment and deal with our resources and such cannot be wrong or useless, regardless whether we're actually causing a global warming, cooling, or nothing.

Darth InSidious
11-16-2007, 10:15 AM
Interesting that even this chart has to admit that the fluctuations are much more rapid at the moment.

Let me try and put this simply: pumping vast amounts of Carbon dioxide, monoxide, NOx and misc sulphur compounds into the atmosphere is not good for the environment.

Why is this questionably scientific?

EDIT: Having read Ray's post, I agree wholeheartedly with it.

mimartin
11-16-2007, 11:00 AM
Let me try and put this simply: pumping vast amounts of Carbon dioxide, monoxide, NOx and misc sulphur compounds into the atmosphere is not good for the environment. I agree with Darth InSidious and even if it does not matter to the environment, it cannot be good for us to breathe the crap we are pumping into the atmosphere.
While I support MdKnightR, I say (again) a little care about how we treat our environment and deal with our resources and such cannot be wrong or useless, regardless whether we're actually causing a global warming, cooling, or nothing.I too agree with Ray Jones. We are shown evidence from both sides saying that there is global warming or there is not global warming. While I do believe in global warming, I think both sides go to the extreme. A little common sense could make all the differences. There is no need to wreck the world economy, but at the same time a few preventive measures could make all of us healthier and safer.

Corinthian
11-16-2007, 01:20 PM
Meh. The toxins are good for us. Toughens our lungs.

Prime
11-16-2007, 01:43 PM
This chart is awesome beyond words.

Here are some of the things I like best:

This graph plots "data" going back to 2500 BC, yet they only show three actual temperatures. One now, one 1998, and one in 1607 that has a question mark next to it. What are the values for all the other points?
Where did this data come from? What methods were used? Can they care to give any references? Just one? What scientific peer review forum was this examined in?
How on earth are they plotting this curve with data points (with no values mind you) that are in some cases half a millennia apart.
They use lots of quantitative terms like "a few eruptions" and "very cold".
The graph tries to show the timing of eruptions to temperature change. Then in the conclusion box there is a comment about solar irradiation that is completely unrelated to anything on the chart.
But my biggest question is why the hell are there Christian references on a supposedly scientific chart???


This graph is, to put it mildly, ass. :D

And who are these guys? All I could find was that Cliff Harris is an insurance law graduate and devout Christian (thus the Bible references on the chart) who believes the Bible provides lots of clues for predicting the weather. And Randy Mann started on an internship at the KCRA-TV weather department in Sacramento at the age of 15. Since then, he's provided on-air weather forecasts. He is educated as a geographer. Their joint business helps others profit during times of extreme weather.

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/tools/story_pf.asp?ID=176325

Also some interesting quotes:

"I do believe in a period of extreme global warming. That will be in the tribulation period. That's when the real global warming will come in," Harris said. "Those of us who are believers, we're looking forward to it."

"I believe this planet is a breathing entity, made by God, to clean itself, adjust itself," Harris said.

For those interested in actual research...

IPCC: The Physical Science Basis (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:AOvEBZw-glwJ:www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf+Intergovernmental+Panel+on+Climate+C hange+The+Physical+Science+Basis&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca)

Wiki version with a summary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report)

Corinthian
11-16-2007, 02:30 PM
All the Christian events on that chart are documented to have occurred, no matter whether you're a Christian, Hindu, Atheist, or a freaking Pastafarian. However, I have to agree with your wondering where this data came from - the National Weather Service didn't exactly exist back in 2500 B.C.

Prime
11-16-2007, 09:54 PM
Are you including the Exodus? And the birth year of Jesus?

Fish.Stapler
11-16-2007, 10:57 PM
Are you including the Exodus? And the birth year of Jesus?

Can you think of better ones? They're easily recognizable historical landmarks in the sense that they are stories that a lot of people are familiar with. A lot of the things we take as history are based on shaky archaeological evidence, biblical or not...while it's resonably certain we're right in a lot of cases there's no way to be entirely sure. The first reliably recorded battle didn't even take place until 1457 B.C., so historical evidence for those times is shaky no matter where you look.

Prime
11-16-2007, 11:33 PM
Can you think of better ones? They're easily recognizable historical landmarks in the sense that they are stories that a lot of people are familiar with.But they aren't historical landmarks. In the case of the exodus, currently there is little historical evidence for it apart from the Bible. In the case of Jesus, the date they give is conjecture since the accounts of the event are at odds.

Totenkopf
11-17-2007, 01:09 AM
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/14/nasa-debunks-part-global-warming-myth-will-media-report-it

Darth InSidious
11-17-2007, 04:56 AM
But they aren't historical landmarks. In the case of the exodus, currently there is little historical evidence for it apart from the Bible. In the case of Jesus, the date they give is conjecture since the accounts of the event are at odds.
There are minor disagreements among the four canonical gospels. Nevertheless, the birth of Christ is the basis of our year-counting system, so is as good a point as any to give as a point of reference. That said, putting it on when you've got numbers alongside is a little redundant.

As for the Exodus, not only is it difficult to prove at present, 1100 BC is woefully late. Given that one of the later dates for the Exodus from Egypt tends to be the reign of Baenre Merynetjeru Merenptah Hetephermaat, who died in around 1203 BC...Let's not even go into the First Intermediate Period/Old Kingdom dates some give.

In any case, a stela carved in his reign (known as the 'Israel stela') marks the first mention of a nation of Israel (and its destruction by Merenptah in a campaign in the Levant)...Presumably one of the periodic razing that the Promised Land went through.

Also, the New Kingdom would be coming to a close in Egypt, and her power would be waning. David's life is further given by those who bother to work out the dates of Biblical figures as 1037-967 BC, so to conclude...this guy is wackily, crazily off about the Exodus. (It's irrelevance to a chart about global warming aside. :) )

In any case this guy is clearly...a rather special case.

SilentScope001
11-17-2007, 12:00 PM
Dude, it's just random events to let fellow people get a prespective for time. It doesn't mean that just because he believes in religion that the graph is totally wrong. That just seems ad homein. His graph may still be correct.

The fact that it may have lots of inaccuraies not be is unrelated to the events on the timetline.

Eiganjo
11-17-2007, 01:45 PM
There are many factors to be considered for (no-)Global-warming. We have fires, like vulcanos or forest fires(which also occure naturaly from time to time), the current distance to the sun...and of course also us humans with all the carbon dioxide we produce with cars, breathing, etc.
I don't want to say the Earth is not warming up right now, because it obviously is, but the point the chart is making, is that, like most things, the earth's temperature is not a constant, and that there will evbentually be a time of global cooling again.

Dagobahn Eagle
11-17-2007, 09:49 PM
[Chart]I love your Paint skills. OK, strike that, I right-clicked the image and it actually came from what appears to be some sort of pseudo-meteorology site (http://www.longrangeweather.com/Long-Range-Weather-Trends.htm). Who'd have known.

Please relax!Why, exactly, am I to relax? It's one thing to use a non-sequitur reasoning in stating that climate change has happened before, and as such humans can't have any impact on it. That I understand, and a lot of people even buy into it. It almost sounds logical on the surface, as if the first person convicted of hacking into a bank account and stealing a million dollars from it saying that 'oh, c'mon, we've had untold sums of money stolen from banks before, and never, in the history of banks, has it been the fault of anyone sitting behind a computer. Yet now all of a sudden it's my fault?' Really, it is cute reasoning, and you have to admire people who are bold enough to actually use it.

However, I honestly do not understand it when people say, with a totally straight face, that since global warming is part of a natural cycle, it's not as dangerous as the fearmongers will have us believe. I totally do not understand the logic behind the statement 'Please Relax' next to a chart stating that climate change has happened before. It's as nonsensical as a relief worker telling a civilian in Rwanda that he needn't worry because after all, wars are a natural part of humanity, which has survived thousands of them already (this complete with hand-drawn chart from nonsensical source, showing the armed conflicts from 2500 BCE up to now). Would she be comforted?

Landslides are but one example. Global warming causes an increase in precipitation. An increase in precipitation causes an increase in the number of landslides. We guys in the Norwegian Red Cross are currently working on a project to help internally displaced in Colombia, many of which have built makeshift towns in hills around the cities. These hills are dangerous enough as they are, but with increasing precipitation, landslides are becoming far more common, and you can imagine the death toll this causes. I'm glad I can now tell them not to worry, because it's happenend before:). Likewise with my municipality here at home - never mind they are spending hundreds of millions of crowns securing roads against landslides, and repairing the damage they cause, now that they're becoming more frequent, as predicted by scientists. Forget that they have taken lives. Doesn't matter - it's happened before.

There are many factors to be considered for (no-)Global-warming.True. You're wrong to say humans have no part, but many forget that we are equally wrong in saying humans are the sole cause of global warming. But you have to be careful with which factors you blame.

We have fires, like vulcanos or forest fires(which also occure naturaly from time to time), the current distance to the sun...and of course also us humans with all the carbon dioxide we produce with cars, breathing, etc.
I don't want to say the Earth is not warming up right now, because it obviously is, but [quote]the point the chart is making, is that, like most things, the earth's temperature is not a constant, and that there will evbentually be a time of global cooling again.And as I said above, that should not comfort anyone the slightest. Rapid global cooling would be just as damaging as it, too, brings with it all sorts of unwanted consequences. The problem isn't just that the Earth is warming - it's that it's doing it very quickly. At least I live in a first world country that can afford to cut some funding to other fields to keep us safe. It's worse for the Colombians, North Koreans, and Indians.

Whenever solar irradiation has decreased and volcanic eruptions have increased, global temperature suddenly plummet, often within weeks or months.I'm waiting for a chart that actually proves this. A chart with some generic volcano eruption icons and no hints of effort at showing solar activity... is not enough.

This chart is awesome beyond words.Agreed:).

Why the hell are there Christian references on a supposedly scientific chart???Many global warming sceptics and deniers are right-wing. Many right-wingers are active Christians. It's called catering to the audience;).

Come to think of it, I'd actually almost like a chart that shows a clear Co2-global warming correlation, complete with such references as 'Darwin's theory of evolution published', 'Pope admits evolution is true', and 'Galileo proves world is round'. Would make the whole chart appear less serious and credible, but would be so sweet:p .

Edit

Oh, and:"I believe this planet is a breathing entity, made by God, to clean itself, adjust itself," Harris said.The Bible tells humans to be stewards of the Earth. He can't even get his own mythology straight.

Corinthian
11-17-2007, 10:47 PM
The Bible tells humans to be stewards of the Earth. He can't even get his own mythology straight.

They aren't mutually exclusive.

Tommycat
11-17-2007, 11:36 PM
Humans play a part in global warming, though the extent of our part is still very largely conjecture. Many people who's research has been used to show global warming actually have come out against "human caused" global climate change. The effects of our cars belching out CO emissions don't equate to ONE volcanic eruption. Is global climate change a big deal? Absolutely, Global climate change(I hate the term "global warming" as it is too easy to prove that it isn't actually getting warmer) does occur. Whether human caused or not, preparations for it are essential. Just as polar reversals are an important aspect of the earth's life cycle, so too are the changes in our climate. We should be aware of them, but not waste our efforts in areas that have little to no effect on the global climate. An example of this is the "Save the rainforest" movements. While old growth trees do produce more oxygen than new trees, they do not however produce more oxygen than the same area of grass. To be fair, the same area of grass however does not do as much to prevent erosion as the trees.

It is fair to say that we should not pollute our environment. I love to head out to a lake and fish. I'll eat what I catch... Many of the so called right wingers like to be out in the woods hunting/fishing/camping etc. Be careful about painting with that wide brush. A lot of the right wingers are the ones out there cleaning up the trash left by left wingers.

There are several references on the chart that have NOTHING to do with the bible. Basically it was an easy as hominem for you... They could have used something along the lines of Julius Cesar becomes emperor of Rome. Fewer people have an idea of when that is... well maybe fewer in the US.

And no, I'm not a right wing religious nut(in fact I'm an Agnostic formerly athiest, but leaning more towards Budhism.... guess I'm just confused).

Darth InSidious
11-18-2007, 08:44 AM
Oh, and:The Bible tells humans to be stewards of the Earth. He can't even get his own mythology straight.
He certainly hasn't got his ancient history straight.

I often wonder how many bible-bashers actually read the thing...

Ctrl Alt Del
11-18-2007, 08:53 AM
However, I honestly do not understand it when people say, with a totally straight face, that since global warming is part of a natural cycle, it's not as dangerous as the fearmongers will have us believe. I totally do not understand the logic behind the statement 'Please Relax' next to a chart stating that climate change has happened before. It's as nonsensical as a relief worker telling a civilian in Rwanda that he needn't worry because after all, wars are a natural part of humanity, which has survived thousands of them already (this complete with hand-drawn chart from nonsensical source, showing the armed conflicts from 2500 BCE up to now). Would she be comforted?.

Agreed. So we should relax because the global warming is anatural process that'll keep happening independently of our actions? Call me an optimistic, but I won't.

Eiganjo
11-18-2007, 04:33 PM
The effects of our cars belching out CO emissions don't equate to ONE volcanic eruption.
That is true, humans don't even compare nature's natural CO2 emission. That doesn't mean though, that we should go on like we did. Even though I am kind of a global warming sceptic, I am happy to see , that a lot of progress was made in alternate energy/fuels, energy saving buildings, recycling, filtering of poluted ground-water, etc... over the last few years. Even if we are not the biggest impact on global climate change, I don't see any reason why it would be positiv to keep poluting the planet.


There are many factors to be considered for (no-)Global-warming.True. You're wrong to say humans have no part, but ...
I didn't say humans have no part. I'll quote myself real quick:
...and of course also us humans with all the carbon dioxide we produce with cars, breathing, etc.

Prime
11-18-2007, 11:32 PM
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/14/nasa-debunks-part-global-warming-myth-will-media-report-it
You are quoting a site whose tagline is "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias" as a reliable source?

Dude, it's just random events to let fellow people get a prespective for time. They why not use actual events and can be marked accurately? :)

It doesn't mean that just because he believes in religion that the graph is totally wrong.No, the lack of actual verifiable data makes it "wrong." :p

Totenkopf
11-19-2007, 12:36 AM
C'mon, Prime. That doesn't negate what they have to say. Afterall, you've heard of the saying "even a paranoid has enemies". Just b/c they identify themselves as combating what they see as unchallenged information from the "mainstream" doesn't mean they lack credibility. At least they are more honest than the mainstream media which is demonstrably liberal/left wing but loathe to admit to it. Even the BBC's own internal investigator's pronounced their news reportage as left leaning (thus hardly unbiased).

Tommycat
11-19-2007, 01:38 AM
Actually Totenkopf, he kinda has a point. I mean would you trust Michael Moore to give credible evidence? Or more directly related would you trust Al Gore's site to provide unbiassed information on this subject?

The problem with many of the credible sources though is this: How do you get more funding for researching human caused global climate change after you prove that humans have little to no effect on it?

Totenkopf
11-19-2007, 03:16 AM
The problem, though, is determining who is truly credible. Everyone has some degree of bias, even if we aren't aware of it. Some bias is very transparent (Michael Moore) and others seemingly less so (pick your favorite news outlet: Fox/BBC/etc..). I think that Reagan had a saying: trust, but verify. It's not really enough to say "oh, he's fighting liberal/conservative bias in the media, must just be bs". Ultimately, though, who we choose to see as credible will probably expose some of our own biases.

Quanon
11-19-2007, 05:49 AM
Nice weird graph :

My 2 cents :

The warming is a natural event that appears in cycles , but temperture takes a long time to go up .

If you look at the beginning of the graph , one of the first peaks takes its time to go up and down again .

Look more at the end with lots of human activity and you see that goes rapiditly .

That's what is wrong , not the warming persé , but the speed at wich we're pushing it .

If it goes to fast , animals don't have time to adapt , they die .
If it goes to fast , most people will die of the effects of the warming .

Its just up to us to try and cut down our fumes and toxis , to let the warming go more at a natural pase .

Sure volcanos make the warming go faster at times , but humies didn't make vulcanos ... we don't controle volcanos , they go off as nature demands .

True_Avery
11-19-2007, 06:01 AM
The warming is a natural event that appears in cycles , but temperture takes a long time to go up .
If you look at the beginning of the graph , one of the first peaks takes its time to go up and down again .
Look more at the end with lots of human activity and you see that goes rapiditly .
That's what is wrong , not the warming persé , but the speed at wich we're pushing it .

If it goes to fast , animals don't have time to adapt , they die.
If it goes to fast , most people will die of the effects of the warming.

Its just up to us to try and cut down our fumes and toxis , to let the warming go more at a natural pase.

Sure volcanos make the warming go faster at times , but humies didn't make vulcanos ... we don't controle volcanos , they go off as nature demands .
QFE

I was going to post a long post, but I saw this. Took the words right out of my mouth. Bravo.

Tommycat
11-19-2007, 06:14 AM
Keep in mind this only covers about 4000 years... Also keep in mind that the increase in variation does not have an appreciable link to the human population. If you look at the graph itself(assuming that it is not ficticious) the variation has been increasing at a relatively steady rate(well possibly an exponential rate) for the full 4000 years. This would indicate that the increase has little to do with the fumes and toxins as that is a very new development.

If you have a grudge against vehicle emissions take it up with the line of reasoning following air quality and ground water toxins. Temperature variance as we see did not start with CFC usage, and it did not stop(or even slow down) with us instituting harsh vehicle emission regulations in the country with the most vehicle usage(not per capita, maybe, but we do have more vehicles on the road than any country). Air quality has improved(slightly) in places like LA(VERY slightly). And that is a very good thing. We need to clean up our air. Just not for global climate change purposes.

Also the site so easily dismissed by others on this board, used as it's reference NASA(JPL to be exact). I have a hard time calling that organization biassed on the matter.

Jvstice
11-19-2007, 09:24 AM
There being so few data points does make me question how they know to fill in the shape of the rest of the chart. How do they have enough data to tell that it's truly representative of the world as a whole at those times?

Even overlooking that, there is a pretty drastically steepening in the last century or so.

Darth Insidious: The predicted time for the birth of Christ could vary by as much as 7 years, depending on what sources you consider to be credible. They don't really even know the time of year. The Bible doesn't normally date things by year, but by events going on in the world at the time, many of which we've lost the references to their reference event.

And the exodus, there are people that think they know which Pharaoh it was, but limiting it to within one lifetime, isn't the same as limiting it to a year. Those are some pretty inexact dates even if you place full faith in people's ability to guess which pharaoh it was.

Darth InSidious
11-19-2007, 09:41 AM
Let me put the bottom-line on this:

- This guy is talking outside his field. This = zilch authority, and questionable supportability of his argument.

- This graph is not scientifically questionable, it's scientific pig's testes.

- Global warming is happening.

- We are pumping vast amounts of toxin into the air.

- These may be related, or may not. Regardless,

- This is not good.

Quanon
11-19-2007, 09:50 AM
Yeah the graph is a bit short on time :)

If you go back to dinosaurs and pre-dinosaur times , our earth was pretty hot .

Scientist still say where in a mild peroid of a longer Cold Ice time . Still , doesn't mean we have to pump the temperture in just a few decades , where it should take 1000's of years .

Most natural events seem to have cycles . Danger is that we humiez tend to disrubt these cycles , that mostly means BAD BAD BAD things will happen .

Even though I find hard that people don't believe our activitys do bad things and can have great effects on our Earth .

There's enough proof that MEN has made toxin hazourdess enviroments , by accident , greed and plain lazzyness to do something about it .

Besides , I don't see people hanging behind buses and cars just to breath the healthy fumes coming out .

Prime
11-19-2007, 11:47 AM
C'mon, Prime. That doesn't negate what they have to say. Afterall, you've heard of the saying "even a paranoid has enemies". Just b/c they identify themselves as combating what they see as unchallenged information from the "mainstream" doesn't mean they lack credibility. It doesn't. But why would I bother with an organization whose goal is not first and foremost to present the facts and allow the audience to judge for itself, but to counterattack other organizations. Why shouldn't I just go straight to the source? The article posted is so ridiculously biased that it should be disregarded out of hand. I would say the same thing if it was just as grossly left.

At least they are more honest than the mainstream media which is demonstrably liberal/left wing but loathe to admit to it. They are no more honest than any source that attempts to forward leftist views.

The problem, though, is determining who is truly credible. Everyone has some degree of bias, even if we aren't aware of it. In some cases it is. But in some cases, like this article and site, where their tagline advertises the fact that their goal is to forward right wing views, it is pretty damn obvious. :D

I think that Reagan had a saying: trust, but verify. It's not really enough to say "oh, he's fighting liberal/conservative bias in the media, must just be bs".The first sentence is the important part. Instead of posting the article that has an obvious slant, why not go directly to the source of the information?

Keep in mind this only covers about 4000 years...It doesn't. The only data it presents goes back to 1998.

Also the site so easily dismissed by others on this board, used as it's reference NASA(JPL to be exact). I have a hard time calling that organization biassed on the matter.They why not go to the original source and cut out the obviously biased middleman and read what they are actually saying? :)

Totenkopf
11-19-2007, 04:03 PM
It doesn't. But why would I bother with an organization whose goal is not first and foremost to present the facts and allow the audience to judge for itself, but to counterattack other organizations. Why shouldn't I just go straight to the source? The article posted is so ridiculously biased that it should be disregarded out of hand. I would say the same thing if it was just as grossly left.

They are no more honest than any source that attempts to forward leftist views.

In some cases it is. But in some cases, like this article and site, where their tagline advertises the fact that their goal is to forward right wing views, it is pretty damn obvious. :D

The first sentence is the important part. Instead of posting the article that has an obvious slant, why not go directly to the source of the information?


Well, you're a little guilty of imposing your bias on them. Their tag line only claims to combat liberal media bias. It nowhere states that they wish to impose conservative/neo-con/facist/communist/liberatarian/ad nauseum views on anyone. That can only be inferred by a reader. Fact is, though, that we often have to read both the biased as well as the supposedly neutral to get a clearer picture of what's going on. Someone else's bias may force us to think about what we're reading in a different light (nevermind our own natural biases). So long as we don't restrict ourselves to just one slant when attempting to analyze what's before us (assuming we can suss the content of the original article out on our own), we can perhaps get a grip on what we're reading. Don't know about you, but most scientific/financial/etc literature can be so dry and cumbersome as to leave the layman with his head spinning. This then forces most of us to rely on a secondary source for the purposes of interpreting what we consume. Can you truly say that those people won't (consciuosly or otherwise) try to export their bias to us?

Tommycat
11-19-2007, 09:11 PM
It doesn't. The only data it presents goes back to 1998.
Ok soooo from 2500 BC to 2007 AS THE TITLE OF THE GRAPH STATES, is not ABOUT 4000 years(ok ABOUT 4500 years, feel better?) Now are you done picking nits? Or do you wish to continue the strawman defense. Just because all of the points are not labeled does not mean that the data is not REPRESENTED. Admittedly I would prefer to have more data be present in the graph, but you cannot dismiss it outright. To me the scale of the graph looks like + or - 4º f

They why not go to the original source and cut out the obviously biased middleman and read what they are actually saying? :)
They summarized and QUOTED the original text, but you probably didn't even read enough of it to see. And judging by the fact that you didn't even know about the originating NASA link within, you just used the typical ad hominem attack that because it has right wing bias, it cannot be credible in any way. Well the BBC has left wing bias, CNN has left wing bias(if you don't believe me on that look at the Democratic presidential debate and their "Undecided" voters with pre approved questions), and I don't tell people not to trust them for information, I just tell them to ignore the bias, and go on the FACTS AS PRESENTED. To get a clear picture you should enlist left wing, centrist, and right wing sites, and somewhere in between you get a true picture.

Ray Jones
11-20-2007, 05:07 AM
I think the problem isn't really any "global warming". I mean, this last summer here in Germany was rather cold with only 2 weeks of normal summer temperatures.

The problem is a climatic change, causing warmer winters, and colder summers, or vice versa somewhere else. Basically said: the local weather is changing. It does that all the time, it did million years ago, and still will do in a million years. Snow falls where it doesn't really before, and somewhere else it's missing out etc.

I'm not saying a climatic change is good for us, nor that we don't have anything to do with it, just that people should stop crying about global warming when it's not the whole truth, and moreover, not the problem.

How is the global temperature measured anyway? You put a temperature sensor at a lot of places and "tie" them together to get an average value. And basically you must spread them equally over the whole planet, to get a *real* average value.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/GHCN_Temperature_Stations.png/800px-GHCN_Temperature_Stations.png

However, that picture above shows the global network of temperature measuring stations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GHCN_Temperature_Stations.png) and how long they are recording already, and to me that doesn't look very equally spread, especially seen over the past 150 years, it seems rather we have a concentration of sensors in certain areas, some with cities around containing tons of humans and human stuff that produces heat and passes it to the environment. Regarding the fact that 70% of Earth's surface is covered with water, but most temperature sensors are *not* located over water, how do they want to create a valid, reliable, and representative measuring of Earth's overall "near surface temperature"? Plus, one cannot say the global temperature increased by 3°C in the past XXX years when you base that statement on values that come from a time when there were like only 3 stations recording temperature. At maximum they could say at these 3 places the average temperature increased by 3°C. That might sound like a big number, but what does that mean when we cannot say for sure that there weren't like 10 other places in that time where the average temperature decreased by 1°C. In the end that would mean that the overall temperature of all 13 spots even decreased by a 13th of 1°C.

The point is that under these circumstances given we cannot make a reliable and representative statement like "the Earth is warming up". What we can say is, "where we live, it's getting warmer".

And I personally do not wonder too much why the areas around our cities might heat up with the time, there are cars, and houses with heatings, millions of breathing humans, animals, huge areas of concrete and asphalt roads taking all the heat from the sun, we have wars or huge fireworks with big explosions, solar energy fields and wind power plants, or create huge lakes and thus water surfaces for hydro-power plants. And the list goes on.

I think it's not requiring much to conclude that this also might add to changes in the local climate (which happen anyway), and after all that must have an effect to the whole climatic system of this planet.

Prime
11-20-2007, 05:23 PM
Well, you're a little guilty of imposing your bias on them. Their tag line only claims to combat liberal media bias. It nowhere states that they wish to impose conservative/neo-con/facist/communist/liberatarian/ad nauseum views on anyone. But they are claiming that they are only combating one type of bias. Leftist bias. If they were attempting to filter all biases to get to the basics of the information, I would be more interested in what they have to say. To only go after one form of bias and not both sides sets alarm bells off for me. Thus my point that it is better to go to the source, which is easy enough to do.

That can only be inferred by a reader. But aren't they telling me this? They are exposing leftist bias. So that excludes the left and the center (which also has some left bias by definition). Doesn't that only leave the right?

But this is getting away from the topic of this thread. My only point was that it is better to go to the source, which was in fact provided in that article.

Don't know about you, but most scientific/financial/etc literature can be so dry and cumbersome as to leave the layman with his head spinning. I guess I am different, perhaps because I do have a physics degree. But when it comes to science matters (probably more that some other topics) I always attempt to look at the original information/data or at least summaries from the original authors/researchers, because that is how I was educated. Typically it is "safer" to view the data yourself or get conclusions from the researcher.

If you and others find such topics boring, then that is unfortunate. I agree that things can seem dry. But I found the NASA article quite interesting.

This then forces most of us to rely on a secondary source for the purposes of interpreting what we consume. Can you truly say that those people won't (consciuosly or otherwise) try to export their bias to us?To me, conscious and otherwise is important. As I think you said earlier personal biases are going to come into play in any article, and that is a fact of life that has to be taken into consideration. But that is different that actively trying to promote a particular bias and/or attack a specific bias (and we agree it happens on both sides). IMO I think people need to be aware and careful of the latter. I think the Newsbusters.org article is the latter, which is why I ignored it and went to the original NASA article.

Ok soooo from 2500 BC to 2007 AS THE TITLE OF THE GRAPH STATES, is not ABOUT 4000 years(ok ABOUT 4500 years, feel better?) Now are you done picking nits?No! Because presenting the actual data and how it was collected is the whole point and critical to the scientific analysis of what is being presented! How can any of what has been proposed here be scientifically peer reviewed (which is critical to the scientific process) when there is nothing to be reviewed? Nowhere that I have seen do they state why there are only 2-3 data values represented or what the full data set is or how the data was gathered. This information is critical because without it there is to way to verify or refute the claims they are making. For that reason, the chart is utterly useless.

Or do you wish to continue the strawman defense.Can you explain how demanding actual data to be presented is a strawman? Or are what are you referring to exactly? I'm happy to be more specific on anything.

Just because all of the points are not labeled does not mean that the data is not REPRESENTED.That is exactly what it means. And by labeled, I mean presented in some way, either as a part of the graph or separately through some other means.

The point is, if we are going to have the (valuable) debate on the causes/existence of climate change, lets at least get all of the data on the table so everyone can see it. If they have evidence that shows what they claim, great! That would be valuable information to include in the debate.

Admittedly I would prefer to have more data be present in the graph, but you cannot dismiss it outright. I can, and so should you! There is nothing to back up what is being presented here. How can I, you, or anyone else show that this graph hasn't been pulled out of their collective asses? Isn't everyone taught this in science class? :confused:

To me, it is the same thing as if I presented this graph:

http://warpedproductions.echonetwork.net/screens/sweetchart.bmp

I have now provided just as much evidence as they have. I have created a chart (granted nowhere near as pretty) and put it on the Internet. That's it. You can't refute my data, because there is no data to refute. I can't confirm their data, because there is no data to confirm.

I hate to belabor the point, but that's Science 101. The Scientific Method requires that the data be presented so that it can be peer reviewed.

They summarized and QUOTED the original text, but you probably didn't even read enough of it to see.I read the whole thing actually. And then the NASA article.

And judging by the fact that you didn't even know about the originating NASA link within I misread what the referred NASA article was relating to. I thought that I had missed a NASA link on the original Global Temperatures chart's site. For that, I apologize.

you just used the typical ad hominem attack that because it has right wing bias, it cannot be credible in any way.But the article misrepresents what the NASA article is talking about by taking specific snippets out and implies that climate change is bunk. For example, the Newsbusters article makes comments like "Is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration filled with climate change deniers?" There is nothing in the article that says that NASA is denying climate change. I feel they misrepresented what the NASA article was saying, thus my original comment.

Again, why not just read the NASA article and decide for yourself?

I don't tell people not to trust them for information, I just tell them to ignore the bias, and go on the FACTS AS PRESENTED.Isn't that what I said? Go to the facts as presented! It's all right there in NASA's interesting article. :)

Tommycat
11-20-2007, 08:40 PM
Well considering it has more points represented than the original "Hockey stick" graph(which is marvelously outdated and exceptionally misrepresentative by the way), I cannot understand the issue. Granted the data collected that is represented in the graph however is what is generally peer reviewed(and the hockey stick is one that failed peer review by the way, BUT it doesn't stop global warming sites from pointing to that as fact).

To those that look solely at the global warming sites, check out http://www.junkscience.com for another perspective. The bias is obvious, but then again, it's no more biassed than the global warming sites. Granted it's a bit like getting information on the DNC from the GOP(or for those across the pond, Labor party from the Conservative party), but at least you get a different point of view.

Actually if you look at a lot of the data from multiple sources it almost looks like a calibration phase. Basically instrumentation is way off at first, but after it's settled in, it seems to be leveling off. Honestly would you trust a thermometer from the 1800's? Then again the sites(physical sites not web sites) collecting data for global surface temperature are taking data from places that refused to follow the guidelines set forth for placing temperature gathering equipment. Placing temperature sensors near burn barrels, next to exhaust vents, right next to large slabs of asphalt, etc. It's like checking someone's temperature in a jacuzzi. If the initial data is incorrect, any extrapolations based on that data should be re-evaluated.

And yes the original NASA article was a much more interesting and definately was trying to cater to the GW croud.

Totenkopf
11-20-2007, 08:56 PM
.....Thus my point that it is better to go to the source, which is easy enough to do.

But aren't they telling me this? They are exposing leftist bias. So that excludes the left and the center (which also has some left bias by definition). Doesn't that only leave the right?

But this is getting away from the topic of this thread. My only point was that it is better to go to the source, which was in fact provided in that article.

I guess I am different, perhaps because I do have a physics degree. But when it comes to science matters (probably more that some other topics) I always attempt to look at the original information/data or at least summaries from the original authors/researchers, because that is how I was educated. Typically it is "safer" to view the data yourself or get conclusions from the researcher.

If you and others find such topics boring, then that is unfortunate. I agree that things can seem dry. But I found the NASA article quite interesting.

To me, conscious and otherwise is important. As I think you said earlier personal biases are going to come into play in any article, and that is a fact of life that has to be taken into consideration. But that is different that actively trying to promote a particular bias and/or attack a specific bias (and we agree it happens on both sides). IMO I think people need to be aware and careful of the latter. I think the Newsbusters.org article is the latter, which is why I ignored it and went to the original NASA article.

I don't think we're too far apart here. I disagree that fighting leftist bias axiomatically make one a right winger (and vice versa), but agree that going to the source material is a good policy. Then, if you have problems there (outside your background/etc..), you can do further research elsewhere. My point about technical literature was just that many people have a hard time wading through it b/c they lack the education or interest. Like you, I'm capable of dealing with dry and even abstract material but recognize that it's not true of everyone.

Tommycat
11-20-2007, 10:35 PM
No! Because presenting the actual data and how it was collected is the whole point and critical to the scientific analysis of what is being presented! How can any of what has been proposed here be scientifically peer reviewed (which is critical to the scientific process) when there is nothing to be reviewed? Nowhere that I have seen do they state why there are only 2-3 data values represented or what the full data set is or how the data was gathered. This information is critical because without it there is to way to verify or refute the claims they are making. For that reason, the chart is utterly useless.

As a definative scientific chart, and without the accompanying research possibly.

Can you explain how demanding actual data to be presented is a strawman? Or are what are you referring to exactly? I'm happy to be more specific on anything..
Primarily I was thinking you were picking nits on the years represented by the graph. And for reference the graph actually DOES go farther back than 1998. 1607. Though we cannot be certain of that. I am not denying that the chart in and of itself is in any way definative, just that it cannot be dismissed outright.

That is exactly what it means. And by labeled, I mean presented in some way, either as a part of the graph or separately through some other means..

Well considering the source it may only be for demonstration purposes. and not any form of definative this is how it goes. There are other sites that have a much better argument than this site. Even a few on the Discovery Channel which showed similar trends. :D

The point is, if we are going to have the (valuable) debate on the causes/existence of climate change, lets at least get all of the data on the table so everyone can see it. If they have evidence that shows what they claim, great! That would be valuable information to include in the debate..
Agreed, ask the site for the original sources. The original data. Of course again the site itself appears to be little more than a "This is how it works" kinda thing rather than "Lets debunk myths about global warming" type of site. I mean the second graph on the page of images, shows a rather interesting plateau after 1998.

I can, and so should you! There is nothing to back up what is being presented here. How can I, you, or anyone else show that this graph hasn't been pulled out of their collective asses? Isn't everyone taught this in science class? :confused: .
No, It is not enough to say that since all of the data is not presented we should ignore it. If that's the case then lets ignore about 90% of the global warming data. I mean I could create a labeled graph and plot random points on it and have a scale on it. It doesn't make it right either.
To me, it is the same thing as if I presented this graph:

http://warpedproductions.echonetwork.net/screens/sweetchart.bmp

I have now provided just as much evidence as they have. I have created a chart (granted nowhere near as pretty) and put it on the Internet. That's it. You can't refute my data, because there is no data to refute. I can't confirm their data, because there is no data to confirm.

I hate to belabor the point, but that's Science 101. The Scientific Method requires that the data be presented so that it can be peer reviewed..
Not if the intend is to provide a general overview to the non-scientific public. Yes, you and I would probably agree that we need the backing data, extrapolation methodology, and all the how-to's to repeat the test exactly to verify it, but then again, we aren't exactly the same as the general public now are we.
I read the whole thing actually. And then the NASA article.

I misread what the referred NASA article was relating to. I thought that I had missed a NASA link on the original Global Temperatures chart's site. For that, I apologize.

But the article misrepresents what the NASA article is talking about by taking specific snippets out and implies that climate change is bunk. For example, the Newsbusters article makes comments like "Is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration filled with climate change deniers?" There is nothing in the article that says that NASA is denying climate change. I feel they misrepresented what the NASA article was saying, thus my original comment.

Again, why not just read the NASA article and decide for yourself?

Isn't that what I said? Go to the facts as presented! It's all right there in NASA's interesting article. :)
Yes and from what I read, the article can be interpreted in just about any way you wanted. BUT it really put a damper on the Global warming causing Global cooling arguments(whether intentional or not)

Of course I think my main problem with a majority of the global warming debate stems from the most important aspect of the scientific method. Repeatability. A single coincidence does not imply causality(hmm basic science class anyone?). I can say that this year when I turned my lights on more, my house got cooler. It must mean that when I turn my lights on it cools my house, right? And its true, If the time when I turn my lights on for more than 5 hours my house gets colder by at least 5 degrees, does that mean that somehow my lights are causing my house to get colder? Absolutely not. In fact it is because the level of light in my house is lower that I turn my lights on, however it coincides with the time of year that it naturally gets colder.

MdKnightR
11-21-2007, 01:03 AM
Well, I see that no one took my advice. :lol:

Darth InSidious
11-21-2007, 09:16 AM
"General overview" = "lies-to-thick-people" = "bunkum".

"General overview" is a term used by second-raters who hypersimplify.

Prime
11-21-2007, 02:03 PM
My point about technical literature was just that many people have a hard time wading through it b/c they lack the education or interest. Fair enough. Unfortunately, that leads to misconceptions on all sides. Fact of life i guess...

As a definative scientific chart, and without the accompanying research possibly. How is it a definitive scientific chart?

I am not denying that the chart in and of itself is in any way definative, just that it cannot be dismissed outright. But why shouldn't it be? What makes the data presented in it any more reliable that the one I created? They are both backed up by the same amount of evidence.

Well considering the source it may only be for demonstration purposes. and not any form of definative this is how it goes.But even if that is the case they should reference the data they used or at least how it was obtained so that for those interested can confirm what they are saying. It doesn't have to be on the chart and thus complicating the explanation. I mean, look at the NASA article. They give some summary information about how they gathered their data.

There are other sites that have a much better argument than this site. Even a few on the Discovery Channel which showed similar trends.I have doubt there are!

Agreed, ask the site for the original sources. The original data.Email sent to ContactUs@LongRangeWeather.com. :)

No, It is not enough to say that since all of the data is not presented we should ignore it. If that's the case then lets ignore about 90% of the global warming data. I mean I could create a labeled graph and plot random points on it and have a scale on it. It doesn't make it right either.Correct. It is not right that I did it, nor should it be right when they do it. As for other data, what are you referring to specifically? Is there some thing from the link I posted earlier that has been disproven? Or are you talking about something else?

Yes and from what I read, the article can be interpreted in just about any way you wanted. BUT it really put a damper on the Global warming causing Global cooling arguments(whether intentional or not)The point is that at least at that point we can both look at the data and come up with whatever conclusions we think are correct. If we disagree, at least we have some data in order to make our cases. Then the debate is much more meaningful and we can do so from a common point.

Tommycat
11-21-2007, 10:09 PM
Well you could for one check out this BBC show which featured prominent scientists
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

Strangely enough it hasn't received ANY play in the US media.... So much for no media bias....

Sorry, I was saying that the chart presented was not for scientific purposes. Instead it was probably for the layman. Though I have seen similar charts with proper documentation showing the relationship between volcanic activity, solar activity, and global temperature.

And sorry, I can't point out where they were, it was simply one of the random meteorology sites I hit while trying to show proof of global warming:D

Arcesious
11-30-2007, 09:29 PM
Global wamring people- calm down.

There is now a new car that has absolutwely no carbon emmissions, and solar power technolgoy has gotten soem major improvemenets in the last few years. all technology is becomign very nature friendly, along with the garbage plasma recysling invention that recyclyes pure garbage into clean, efficeitn power, global wamring is actually natural. THE ICE CAPS ARE SUPPOSED TO MELT! they melt away quite a bit each year, and then they come right back to normal and maybe a little above normal at times. Did you know that the ice cap in the north isn't a land form? There's an ocena up there called the Arctic Ocean, and every summer, the earth tilts it's northern hemisphere and pole more towards the sun more tham any other place on earth, and it natually melts, cause it's an ocean that was frozen! also, becasue the earth spins, it spins fast at the poles, and anything near the center of where something spins is pushed outwards. that's why the earth is not perfectly round, but it is bulged at the equator, the same effect causes the ice to drift outwards fromt he cente rof the north pole. The ice drift is prefectly natural and is actually good for the earth in order to keep the climates in check. The hurricanes may be bad but all you can really do is blame the cold fronts beign bounced off of africa and hittign the warm central amrerica/south north amercia warm fronts. besides, the hurricanes technically aren't caused by global warming completely, maybe a little though, and now, there are soem pretty good new anti-hurricane flood damage defenses that have been invented that are being implemented as we speak. and before you get mad at me and stuff, i admit, i believe there is some global warming that is our fault! i do repect the enviroment and nature, and i do support the plan of trying to keep our green/blue planet majestic and beautiful.

mur'phon
12-01-2007, 12:50 PM
There is now a new car that has absolutwely no carbon emmissions, and solar power technolgoy has gotten soem major improvemenets in the last few years. all technology is becomign very nature friendly, along with the garbage plasma recysling invention that recyclyes pure garbage into clean, efficeitn power,

Yes, the technology is coming, the problem is that so far, it's more expensive than the alternatives.

global wamring is actually natural

Yes, some warming is, trouble is, if we first knock it off balance, we can get into a circle where some warming causes some warming which causes some warming etc.

THE ICE CAPS ARE SUPPOSED TO MELT

Just not as fast as they are now.......

they melt away quite a bit each year, and then they come right back to normal and maybe a little above normal at times

You seem to be talking about seasonal change in the size of the ice caps, in which case you are wrong, they are shrinking year after year.

Did you know that the ice cap in the north isn't a land form?

Yup, it's why the melting of the north pole won't cause the sea level to rise too much.

There's an ocena up there called the Arctic Ocean, and every summer, the earth tilts it's northern hemisphere and pole more towards the sun more tham any other place on earth, and it natually melts, cause it's an ocean that was frozen! also, becasue the earth spins, it spins fast at the poles, and anything near the center of where something spins is pushed outwards. that's why the earth is not perfectly round, but it is bulged at the equator, the same effect causes the ice to drift outwards fromt he cente rof the north pole. The ice drift is prefectly natural and is actually good for the earth in order to keep the climates in check.

And what does this have to do with climate change?

The hurricanes may be bad but all you can really do is blame the cold fronts beign bounced off of africa and hittign the warm central amrerica/south north amercia warm fronts. besides, the hurricanes technically aren't caused by global warming completely, maybe a little though, and now, there are soem pretty good new anti-hurricane flood damage defenses that have been invented that are being implemented as we speak.

I'm not that worried about hurricanes, and even if I where, I wouldn't be calmed by theese new defences unless they are cheap enough for poor countries to afford them. I am more concerned about: rising sea level, dessert expansion, drying up of farmland etc.

and before you get mad at me and stuff, i admit, i believe there is some global warming that is our fault!

No need to be afraid, if someone gets mad at you for stating what you believe, they clearly don't belong in kavars:)

And if you bump into those sites again, please let me know

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 01:37 AM
everyone's entitled to there own opinion over this i guess. I guess i'm sorta 50/50 in between both sides about global warming. with part about the earth burging, here's waht i meant.

The bulged at the equator part doesn't matter, but it was meant to support my point in certain sense.
Here's to put it simply.

Grab a jumprope and sloly start spinning it aroudn you while you turn with it. start to go faster and faster, and you'll notice the other end of the jumprope, th ehandle will go outwards spinnign farther and farther. Now imagine that you are earth. you are the core and the poles. imagine that the matter aroudn you is liek the jumprope. as you spin faster, you become bulged at the equator. This is a simpelw ay to explain the physics i was tryign to explain here. The lose ice in the north pole and south pole that is not actually land but is just frozen ice floatign on the water float's outwards towards the equator as the earth spins, and as it drifts outwards clser to the equator, it melts. see my point?

All i want to knwo is what would really happen if all the ice on earth completeyl melted. what woudl be the flood damge's extent?

mur'phon
12-02-2007, 05:00 AM
All i want to knwo is what would really happen if all the ice on earth completeyl melted. what woudl be the flood damge's extent?

Kinda hard to predict, the north pole melting is not such a big deal as it is floating, the south pole and the ice/frost in alaska, canada, russia, greenland etc, are on solid ground, meaning they will cause quite a rise. The reason why it's dificult to predict is that water expands when heated. But the damage would be imense, low lying countries like Bangladesh would be mostly below sea level. Add to that drying up of farm land, and you can see that everyone would get affected.

Ray Jones
12-02-2007, 11:41 AM
Grab a jumprope and sloly start spinning it aroudn you while you turn with it. start to go faster and faster, and you'll notice the other end of the jumprope, th ehandle will go outwards spinnign farther and farther. Now imagine that you are earth. you are the core and the poles. imagine that the matter aroudn you is liek the jumprope. as you spin faster, you become bulged at the equator. This is a simpelw ay to explain the physics i was tryign to explain here.Congrats for finding out about centrifugal forces. Besides, the earth doesn't spin faster at the poles, the angular velocity is everywhere the same, what you might mean is the circumferential velocity, but that becomes larger (and thus causing larger centrifugal forces) towards the equator.

The lose ice in the north pole and south pole that is not actually land but is just frozen ice floatign on the water float's outwards towards the equator as the earth spins, and as it drifts outwards clser to the equator, it melts. see my point?And where else should ice from the poles go if not towards the equator? And, the ice drifts mainly because of the big streams, not because it is "pressed" towards the equator due to earth rotation.

Also, the point is, it's not just the lose pole ice that's melting while it's drifting away from the poles. No one is wondering while ice is melting when it floats into warm water. Some studies say that there is *more* ice breaking off from the "eternal" ice, and thus more ice drifting off and melting. Of course some of the ice is "coming back" during winter, but it's getting less year by year (at least currently).


All i want to knwo is what would really happen if all the ice on earth completeyl melted. what woudl be the flood damge's extent?With the current continental setup it would mean an about 200 feet higher sea level.



The reason why it's dificult to predict is that water expands when heated.That is not quite correct. Water has it's highest density at 4°C, that means it expands when you chill it below or heat it above 4°C. However, when you warm up frozen water it will contract until it hits 4°C.

mur'phon
12-02-2007, 12:04 PM
That is not quite correct. Water has it's highest density at 4°C, that means it expands when you chill it below or heat it above 4°C. However, when you warm up frozen water it will contract until it hits 4°C.

Thank you, I learnt something today

Ray Jones
12-02-2007, 12:12 PM
No problem. It's also the reason why ice floats, because else it would sink. ;)

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 12:34 PM
Centrifugal forces! yeah, i just couldn't rember the right word for it. i see your point. if it was completely as a said it was with centrifugal forc eonly at the poles, the earth would be more disk shaped thna round. amazing how much you can learn just from chattign ont he internet...

John Galt
12-11-2007, 11:04 AM
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c

I don't really care much about the issue, but I thought this was interesting.

Dagobahn Eagle
12-11-2007, 12:22 PM
All i want to knwo is what would really happen if all the ice on earth completeyl melted. what woudl be the flood damge's extent?Won't happen in the next thousand years or so, according to scientists (Gore 'forgot' to mention this in his documentary). But when/if it does happen, sea levels worldwide will rise enough to cover some pretty big areas, displacing a hundred million people.

But again, won't happen in our lifetime, nor in that of our grandchildren.

tk102
01-12-2008, 04:18 AM
Thought I'd bump this one after watching a couple simple, straightforward videos.
http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/244/high-school-teacher-spreads-the-word-on-climate-change.html

The gist:
Instead of focusing on whether global climate destabilization is occurring (which we can't know a with certainty), we should focus instead on what actions we will take in the area of risk management. When set side-by-side, the risk of non-action outweighs the risk of action.

Enjoy.

Aeroldoth
01-12-2008, 11:53 AM
I'm glad to see he posted an update. I had seen the first video and thought "Pascal's Wager", even though I agreed with him.

Achilles
01-12-2008, 12:24 PM
Not exactly, although I can see where you're coming from. :D

Dagobahn Eagle
01-13-2008, 06:40 AM
Fantastic video, except from the fact that his face was an inch from the camera at the end.

tk102
04-10-2008, 01:38 AM
Bump again.

I was looking at some of the history regarding the U.S. policy on climate change and learned about a report that was funded during the 1990s called "Climate Change Impacts on the United States". (http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/foundation.htm) This $10 million study, published the U.S. National Assessment of Climate Science Program, had begun its research in 1990 and looks at what climate change would mean to agriculture, health, water, forests, and coastlines. (It contains lots of graphs, pictures, and models for over the next 50 years by U.S. region.)

In June 2001, George Bush did an about face on his promises to address greenhouse gases (when he trying to out-green Gore during the presidential campaign) and pulled out of the Kyoto treaty. The White House cut funding to the program and removed all links from the EPA's website and removed from the index of government documents.

Enjoy.

Bee Hoon
04-10-2008, 09:31 AM
I'm not that worried about hurricanes, and even if I where, I wouldn't be calmed by theese new defences unless they are cheap enough for poor countries to afford them. I am more concerned about: rising sea level, dessert expansion, drying up of farmland etc.
QFE.

If it does come to the mass flooding, it's more of the consequences that will kill you, rather than the flooding itself. The mass displacement and effects on crops and world food production could be devastating:/

In June 2001, George Bush did an about face on his promises to address greenhouse gases (when he trying to out-green Gore during the presidential campaign) and pulled out of the Kyoto treaty. The White House cut funding to the program and removed all links from the EPA's website and removed from the index of government documents.Tsk tsk. Somehow, I'm hardly surprised.

mimartin
04-10-2008, 11:51 AM
The White House cut funding to the program and removed all links from the EPA's website and removed from the index of government documents.
tk102 surely you are not implying that the president of the United States would suppress scientific data that does not support the president’s policy.

Thanks for the link, I may be blown off the face of the earth by a hurricane, but at least now I know I will continue to have food to eat, maybe no water, but cheap food.

ForeverNight
04-10-2008, 06:03 PM
Well, if I recall correctly, President Clinton was approached for Kyoto. However, it seems that nobody remembers what he did in regards to it... In fact, he just didn't sign it. And later Congress (Believe it was the Senate, but it might have been the House) voted almost unanimously against signing any such treaty.

But, on another note, I read a book in November of last year entitled "Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1500 Years." It uses some Ice Cores that this group of scientists had dug up in Iceland as evidence that this has happened before. I frankly agree with what most of this book laid out, because England was a wine producing country in the Early, Early Middle Ages, and wine grapes don't grow naturally in cold climates.

That and we know that the Roman Empire was in a period of climatic History that was much warmer than it is now. (It shouldn't be snowing on April 10th! But I have a Winter Storm Warning until Saturday Morning!) So, it can be assumed that the world cooled down between then and now.

Anyway, what's to be feared about warming? I personally don't see the dangers, but then maybe I'm just ignorant.

JCarter426
04-10-2008, 06:20 PM
Anyway, what's to be feared about warming? I personally don't see the dangers, but then maybe I'm just ignorant.

It's the cooling I'm worried about. The ice caps melt, the ocean levels rise, the gulf stream shifts, and suddenly it's 40 degrees in June, at least where I am. It's already started to happen--one of the biggest blizzards was in April ten years ago, and we had snow last May.

And where I am is on the lighter side of the consequences.

mur'phon
04-10-2008, 06:47 PM
Anyway, what's to be feared about warming? I personally don't see the dangers, but then maybe I'm just ignorant.

Short list to give you a basic idea, I recomend you do some research on your own though, ignorance is not a good trait :xp:
Rising sea level: So what is the danger of the sea rising a few meters? For one cities tend to be concentrated along the coast, so for rich countries it means investing in costly barriers, for poor ones it means less cities and milions displaced/dead. Also a lot of the worlds food production happens to occur in low lying areas. Flood it, and people will be displaced, and the world will find itself short of food.

Dessertification and droughts: Desserts expanding/droughts means lots of people displaced/killed, and lots of good soil ruined.

Needless to say, together this means: an economic disaster, lots of dead people, lots of starving people, lots of extinct animals, and lots of really, really pissed people knocking at the door of the rich demanding compensation.

True_Avery
04-11-2008, 02:58 AM
If it is happening, little will be done about it and time will tell. When the deserts expand, the coasts flood, and it starts snowing at times it shouldn't, we'll know who was right and who was wrong. By then it will be too late. Then we'll simply adapt like we have for thousands of years and continue life. Sure, the earth may act differently for awhile, but that is a simple matter of humans migrating to different areas.

The beauty and curse of humanity is that the environment is not really a factor, considering we can make our own and live just about anywhere.

If it isn't happening, then no harm. Some minor things may happen, but nothing like whats been said. Humans will continue on their normal track.

The argument can go on for years. I highly, highly doubt anything will be done to stop try and stop/prevent it. In my opinion, this is truly a case of "time will tell". I hate arguments like that, but in this case I have to support it.

If it happens as fast as many assume, they we will know in the 20-50 years.

If it happens slow, then humans will put it off until we finally have to do something.

Needless to say, together this means: an economic disaster, lots of dead people, lots of starving people, lots of extinct animals, and lots of really, really pissed people knocking at the door of the rich demanding compensation.
I see no difference between that future and the present day. Someones economy is always in trouble, millions die a day, countries are starving, and we put animals into the endangered and extinct category every time we touch a forest. Rich are always getting richer, and that will always be the case as long as humans exist the way they do.

Regardless, this is a human problem. Meteors have hit the planet and coated the entire atmosphere with dust for thousands of years, killing nearly all life on the surface. Volcanoes can go off and blackout an entire continent for hundreds of years.

The Earth has absolutely nothing to fear from us unless we discover a way to hit it with a Death Star.

In my lifetime, I'm more worried about economic collapse or another World War then the climate. Humans can adapt to the climate. Humans cannot, however, adapt to an atom bomb.

It gets colder/hotter? Turn the heat/cold up. The coasts flood? Guess you have to move a few miles inland. Deserts grow? Stay away from the deserts. Farmland dies? Find an area with new farmland that used to be a desert.

Humans survived an ice age. We survived with huts, sticks, and stones. We, to this day, still live in hard environments with bows and spears, running around killing animals naked. Give humans a little credit where credit is due.

If it does come to the mass flooding, it's more of the consequences that will kill you, rather than the flooding itself. The mass displacement and effects on crops and world food production could be devastating.
For a limited amount of time, yes. Besides, in that scenario, we are far more likely to breed ourselves to death than have our crops die. Maybe the world food problems stems from... I dunno... the fact we have 6-7 billion people and growing? Not to sound "evil", but I think we are overdue for something to control our population growth.

12 billion is the estimate for the point at which we start dying out en mass due to our own population size. We are also estimated to hit that in less than 100 years. Which means that will hit us sooner than environmental problems will.

Our medications are causing bacteria and virus' to mutate/adapt at faster rates to survive, which means it is probably only a matter of time before we have another plague. We keep increasing our military sizes, so we are closer to MAD than climate problems. We keep breeding like rabbits, so we may simply run out of the required resources.

We have larger, more morally questionable things at hand than climate change.

Ray Jones
04-11-2008, 05:05 AM
Anyway, what's to be feared about warming? I personally don't see the dangers, but then maybe I'm just ignorant.
Dangers? Hm.


The climate changes anyway. It changes all day. It changes since the beginning of time. Without that, we wouldn't be here in the first place. And every single organism on this planet adds to that process. Plants, animals, micro-organisms. There are also other events having effects on the climate. Objects from space coming down, volcanoes erupt, changes in the sun, wood fires, methane coming from the bottom of the oceans, earthquakes, deserts, ocean streams, winds, rain, fireworks, solar fields, butterflies. We had periods of drastic change, and more or less stable periods with only small differences. It makes no sense to deny that. It just is like that.

As a result, it makes also no sense to deny that any emission made by any human machinery or device has an effect on the climate, because when any "natural" emission has an effect, why not "artificial" as well? Also, any change to our environment influences the climate, because when the rainforest's emission of O2 influences the climate, why should there be no effect, when we take those emission away by taking away rainforest.

It simply is like that, because that is how the climate works.

So, at the end of the day, it's not so much about the dangers. Because due to the chaotic nature of earth's climatic system, we currently have little chance to determine what's gonna happen because of our technology, or would happen anyway. We also have no influence on events of the bigger scheme, like earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.

But the point is, there are questions you should ask yourself:

Why is that, that you don't attach yourself to some car's exhaust and breathe that stuff all the time?
Why is that, that you don't drink petroleum when you're thirsty?
Why is that, that you don't take a bath in wee and poo?
Why is that, that you plant trees and flowers in your garden, and not tin and plasic foil?
Why is that, that you don't empty your waste bin in your bed?


So who cares about dangers of climatic changes? I don't. I tend to care about what I do to my environment instead.

Tommycat
04-13-2008, 10:56 PM
But the point is, there are questions you should ask yourself:

1. Why is that, that you don't attach yourself to some car's exhaust and breathe that stuff all the time?
2. Why is that, that you don't drink petroleum when you're thirsty?
3. Why is that, that you don't take a bath in wee and poo?
4. Why is that, that you plant trees and flowers in your garden, and not tin and plasic foil?
5. Why is that, that you don't empty your waste bin in your bed?


So who cares about dangers of climatic changes? I don't. I tend to care about what I do to my environment instead.
ennumerated to make answering easier.

1. Same reason I don't put a snorkel into the ocean and attempt to breathe that.
2. Same reason I don't drink snake venom.
3. Same reason I don't bathe in mud.
4. Funny, Some people do and it's called art. So are you opposed to art? maybe you should ask why people buy fake plants all the time.
5. Why would I put it in a waste bin if I was going to put it in my bed?

Believe me I'm all for keeping the environment clean. Nothing makes me more angry than reeling in what I think is a fish, only to get the remnants of some odd trash someone threw out. However our trash can be useful in producing methane(aka renewable energy). Lets check your habits and see if you pass the test.

a. Do you use a computer?
b. Do you use a car?
c. Do you travel by air.
d. Do you use a cell phone?
e. Would you rather plant a tree or plant some grass?

Computers use all kinds of chemicals in their creation that are harmful to the environment. Then in their disposal, they deposit even more chemicals into the ground.

Cars produce less emissions than the empty busses roaming around the city. Plus considering that the diesel engine is not nearly as controlled as far as emissions standards are concerned, I think a regular automobile that drives one way, and sits for 8+ hours is less harmful.

Air travel: Lets see, an aircraft uses 4000 lbs of fuel to travel from Phoenix, to LA. A SUBURBAN WITH A FULLY LOADED TRAILER uses about 90 lbs and seats 8(9 with a front bench seat). So in order for that aircraft to reach the same efficiency, it must be carrying around 350-400 people. A car with 4 in it does the same for about 30 pounds of fuel(Doing these calculations based on my last few trips to LA from here).

Cell phones: Kinda the same story as computers, only the chemicals also lead to factional warring in some areas of the world where the minerals are gathered.

The same acreage as a forest when covered as a field of grass produces MORE O2 than than the trees. Sure it comes at the cost of greater erosion, but hey we're talking MORE OXYGEN here. So the reality would be that large areas covered with grass with a few trees sprinkled about would be better for the environment(theoretically) than the rainforest(though less appealing to the eyes). New growth trees produce far more O2 than old growth, so technically, we should encourage logging the old growth trees out of existence and the planting of new trees in their place. So what if it isn't as pretty. It's good for the environment.

And that's my reason for disliking the environmentalists. Forget progress, forget logic, it's all about what they like more. I keep hearing about all these animals we have hunted to extinction. NAME ONE.

Ray Jones
04-14-2008, 06:13 AM
ennumerated to make answering easier.

1. Same reason I don't put a snorkel into the ocean and attempt to breathe that.
2. Same reason I don't drink snake venom.
3. Same reason I don't bathe in mud.
4. Funny, Some people do and it's called art. So are you opposed to art? maybe you should ask why people buy fake plants all the time.
5. Why would I put it in a waste bin if I was going to put it in my bed?
:confused: You seem to fail to abstract these question's aspect in a disturbing manner, but while we're at it:

1. But there're millions of lifeforms doing so.
2. Snake venom. U-hu. It think I don't even want to bother talking about the difference to petroleum, or it's effects when shed into the environment. Not to forget carcinogenic attributes, or the countless snake venoms which do not effect you at all. Etc.
3. Good for the skin.
4. Yes, I am opposed to art when it's polluting my environment.
5. I rephrase, why do you use a waste bin, and not your bed?


I'm all for keeping the environment clean.Good. That's where it begins.


Nothing makes me more angry than reeling in what I think is a fish, only to get the remnants of some odd trash someone threw out.Isn't it, on another thought, *great*, that in those moments you've just helped to clean our environment by eliminating somebody else's "mistake"?

I mean, I'm really sure since you're "all for keeping the environment clean" you don't just throw this "odd trash" back into the water in order to keep the boat's environment clean, or for the next one to get angry about it. Am I right?

Because that's where it proceeds.


However our trash can be useful in producing methane(aka renewable energy).Some of it, or organic waste to be precise. Not plastic, or tinfoil. And in case it doesn't end up somewhere else but those methane producing thingeries.


Lets check your habits and see if you pass the test.

a. Do you use a computer?
b. Do you use a car?
c. Do you travel by air.
d. Do you use a cell phone?
e. Would you rather plant a tree or plant some grass?

a. Haha. :dozey: No.
b. I don't own a car. However, if I must not, I don't use one.
c. Nope.
d. Yap.
e. Both, of course. Nothing is more relaxing than smoking some bad ass grass while sitting in a big cherry tree with all those juicy cherries, and the dogs can't reach me.


Computers use all kinds of chemicals in their creation that are harmful to the environment.And *that* is exactamundo *the* reason why I don't hose around those chemicals anywhere where they don't belong.


Then in their disposal, they deposit even more chemicals into the ground. That is why I don't dispose any electronic devices in the garden, or with the normal waste, etc.


Cars produce less emissions than the empty busses roaming around the city. Plus considering that the diesel engine is not nearly as controlled as far as emissions standards are concerned, I think a regular automobile that drives one way, and sits for 8+ hours is less harmful.Beside the fact that I don't drive by bus, or that "empty buses" aren't a problem of the bus itself, we have fuel cell driven buses, and hybrid buses driving around in my city. And to my experience, these are hopelessly crowded at least around rush hour times.

What's you point anyway? That 50 cars with driving around one or two persons are more effective energy-wise, resource-wise, take up less space and produce less emissions than one bus driving around 50 persons?


Air travel: Lets see, an aircraft uses 4000 lbs of fuel to travel from Phoenix, to LA. A SUBURBAN WITH A FULLY LOADED TRAILER uses about 90 lbs and seats 8(9 with a front bench seat). So in order for that aircraft to reach the same efficiency, it must be carrying around 350-400 people. A car with 4 in it does the same for about 30 pounds of fuel(Doing these calculations based on my last few trips to LA from here). A horse carriage would use nada lbs of fuel. It would not even need a complete road made of asphalt made of petroleum, built using diesel driven machines. It won't need a whole infrastructure of gas stations needing diesel driven trucks again.

Also, for your maths to do the trick, can you guarantee that every car driving from Phoenix to LA has 4 person in it. Or that every SUBURBAN has 8/9 persons in it? Just 4 cars with only 1 person driving that route render your "fuel example" useless. And in reality it's way more cars "driving around empty". Granted they would need 5lbs lees fuel because of the lower weight, but according to my book it's still 100lbs for 4 persons. Compared to 4000lbs, we're at 160 persons.


Cell phones: Kinda the same story as computers, only the chemicals also lead to factional warring in some areas of the world where the minerals are gathered.Kinda same answer as for computers or any electronics. Plus I don't go and buy a new cell phone every two weeks. I tend to use them for years.


The same acreage as a forest when covered as a field of grass produces MORE O2 than than the trees. Sure it comes at the cost of greater erosion, but hey we're talking MORE OXYGEN here.Oxygen.

:dozey:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaahahaahaaaa - O K. ... More oxygen.

And here I am, talking about effects of monoculture, and precious habitats for animal life needing more than "grasslands".

Or replacing rainforest with oil facilities:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/RayJones/lucasforums/OilPipesTnksRdToTgno-s.jpg

But OK. More oxygen is what we need. It'll be a real help in burning all those hundreds of lakes full of waste oil over in Ecuador:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/RayJones/lucasforums/OilPool-s.jpg


We could also wait until some grass has grown over it, because that is err...oil resistant.


So the reality would be that large areas covered with grass with a few trees sprinkled about would be better for the environment(theoretically) than the rainforest(though less appealing to the eyes).This is really, really a comment where I can only hope you have not thought about it the least.

I mean, what?? Do you think this is about "what is more appealing to the eye"?
Do you really think grasslands are "better" for the environment? And may I ask, why you think are there countless other types of ecosystems, if the "best" one is "grass and sprinkled trees"? And why there is rainforest in that particular area and not grass when grass would out rule rainforest on that place on earth?


New growth trees produce far more O2 than old growth, so technically, we should encourage logging the old growth trees out of existence and the planting of new trees in their place. So what if it isn't as pretty. It's good for the environment.Seriously, you should go see a doctor with that oxygen addiction thing.


And that's my reason for disliking the environmentalists. Forget progress, forget logic, it's all about what they like more.I don't like them either. Welcome to the club. However, I like them more than, say, those who throw that stuff into the water where it doesn't appeal to you because you actually like to fish fish there and not some odd trash.

At least it's not about that you like it more to have fish on your hook.


I keep hearing about all these animals we have hunted to extinction. NAME ONE.It's all lies and propaganda, I swear. Every species these liars list us as "having disappeared from earth due to mankind" has at least a couple of them still creeping around somewhere.

Tommycat
04-14-2008, 08:10 AM
Oh to be sure, I'm exaggerating on several points. But then I figured with the dumping garbage in my bed thing I figured you were exaggerating as well, so meh. I mean weren't those rather tongue in cheek?

And I'm not asking them, I'm asking you to name one species that has gone extinct, because quite honestly I can't find any species that went extinct. They seem to fail to actually list the species that went extinct. They use statistical information to determine that another species went extinct, but WHAT SPECIES.

As for trash, I generally don't throw it back. I have a bin on my boat for that. Of course I've pulled in some rather odd trash, The weirdest was a tractor steering wheel. And yes it is my selfishness that makes me keep the places I go clean. When I go rock climbing, I tend to leave the place cleaner than when I got there, because I hate seeing the trash on the trails. I hate seeing junk on the highways, so I volunteer to keep a section clean. I hate catching trash when I'm fishing, so I don't throw it back. I work on my own self cleaning up for myself.

As for corporations: Absolutely there should be regulations on them. I'm absolutely against toxifying areas. I am however opposed to them making stupid regulations that do nothing but make global warming alarmists beam with joy. "Don't poop where you eat" is what I follow.

Ray Jones
04-14-2008, 11:22 AM
Oh to be sure, I'm exaggerating on several points. But then I figured with the dumping garbage in my bed thing I figured you were exaggerating as well, so meh. I mean weren't those rather tongue in cheek?Mmmm. No.


And I'm not asking them, I'm asking you to name one species that has gone extinct, because quite honestly I can't find any species that went extinct. They seem to fail to actually list the species that went extinct. They use statistical information to determine that another species went extinct, but WHAT SPECIES.What do I know what species they are talking about? I don't even know those statistics, so why ask me?

All I know is that tuna prices are not as high as they are because they are literally jumping into the fisherman's boat. While they are still there, their population decreased significantly. Needless to say that this applies for a number of species.

So, I find it rather pointless to care and split hairs about extinction or not when human actions are directly responsible for populations changing from hundreds of thousands to only a couple of hundred specimen.


As for trash, I generally don't throw it back. I have a bin on my boat for that. Of course I've pulled in some rather odd trash, The weirdest was a tractor steering wheel. And yes it is my selfishness that makes me keep the places I go clean. When I go rock climbing, I tend to leave the place cleaner than when I got there, because I hate seeing the trash on the trails. I hate seeing junk on the highways, so I volunteer to keep a section clean. I hate catching trash when I'm fishing, so I don't throw it back. I work on my own self cleaning up for myself.That is the spirit! ^^


As for corporations: Absolutely there should be regulations on them. I'm absolutely against toxifying areas. I am however opposed to them making stupid regulations that do nothing but make global warming alarmists beam with joy.I'm not pro "stupid regulations" as well, and surely would prefer rather clever and useful regulations over anything else. On the other hand I doubt that for instance regulating emissions, or power-consumption down to a minimum whenever possible can be considered a stupid regulation. As an example, I saw a comparison about the energy used by printers which are only on standby. The worst case was a model that used about 200kWh per year. That is as much as my fridge needs per year to keep my stuff fresh. The problem is, there is no off-switch. You can only go standby. While I don't want to get rid of standby modes, there are ways to enhance them to have no power consumption at all. It's just "too expensive". And seriously, I'd rather pay 30 bucks more for a printer not wasting our resources, instead of 20 bucks for every year I "use" that printer.

Then again, I went the cheap route and use a junction I can switch on and of remotely. ^^;

In other words, I'm not sure what a stupid regulation is, when it basically tries to handle emissions and stuff that wouldn't be there without us producing it in the first place.


"Don't poop where you eat" is what I follow.Add don't poop where your food eats, or your kid plays, or where it simply doesn't belong.

The Source
04-22-2008, 04:25 PM
Regardless about who is right or wrong, the issues surrounding global warming is clear. Even if the facts are not 100% correct, I believe that humanity is only a visitor here. If we do not take steps to reduce our environmental impact, I am confident that future generations will suffer the consequences.

Plus, if we do not get off of oil and gas fuels, we will be indebted to other countries forever. As long as the replacement fuels don't cause more damage, I think looking for alternatives is the way to go.

Web Rider
04-22-2008, 05:33 PM
Plus, if we do not get off of oil and gas fuels, we will be indebted to other countries forever. As long as the replacement fuels don't cause more damage, I think looking for alternatives is the way to go.

It's highly likly we'll be indebeted to other countries anyway simply because we have such horrid governmental spending habits.