Author Topic: The Global Warming Thread (Read 7371 times)

publius · « **on:** March 27, 2006, 01:57:42 AM »

Who do you believe? I predicted that hurricane Charley would hit my area about 2 hours before our best scientists, and it was a good thing, too! I had time to leave, unlike almost everyone I know.

I have a sailboat race next Sunday. Is it going to rain?

What's going to happen in a hundred years?

280plus · « **Reply #1 on:** March 27, 2006, 02:53:02 AM »

Wait, I'll get my crystal ball...

Wink

Ron · « **Reply #2 on:** March 27, 2006, 03:28:16 AM »

I don't think the argument is whether the earth is warming so much as to why is it warming?

Is it a natural cycle? This is what I believe.

Is it due to mans influence on nature? This is what is being pushed today. This is nothing more than a trojan horse for more government control over the market and industry.

280plus · « **Reply #3 on:** March 27, 2006, 03:34:02 AM »

Quote

Is it a natural cycle? This is what I believe.

BRAVO!!

I wholeheartedly agree! It's also something for the media to hype and scare us with. Hey, they gotta sell SOMETHING!!

Cheesy

The Rabbi · « **Reply #4 on:** March 27, 2006, 04:03:20 AM »

www.junkscience.com

Good discussion of this issue as well as the usual health scares that come out. He points out that anything shy of 100% difference is not statistically significant. So articles about "28% higher incidence of cancer for coffee drinkers" or whatever are bogus.

jefnvk · « **Reply #5 on:** March 27, 2006, 04:12:32 AM »

Could it be pollution causing global warming? Sure. Could it be the Earth's natural heating/cooling cycles? I am a lot more likely inclined to believe so.

How long have we been keeping weather records? A hundred years? So we know that in a hundred years, the Earth's temperature has been rising. So what? What has it been doing for the other billions (or, if you are religious, the past few thousands) of years? If we know there are cooling and heating cycles, and the last one was a cooling cycle, is it really that hard to believe there is as great of a chance, if not a much better chance, that we are just stuck in this cycle?

grampster · « **Reply #6 on:** March 27, 2006, 04:41:05 AM »

You want to know about weather predictions? Follow the money. You want to know about any kind of prediction? Follow the money.

Desertdog · « **Reply #7 on:** March 27, 2006, 05:26:55 AM »

"Could it be pollution causing global warming? Sure. Could it be the Earth's natural heating/cooling cycles? I am a lot more likely inclined to believe so."

I always think when someone says "man is causing global warming"; What did man do to cause the end of the Ice Age? I am convinced the Ice Age was a natural event and the end of it was a natural event. If warming was natural event then, why wouldn't it be a natural event now.

Tallpine · « **Reply #8 on:** March 27, 2006, 05:44:56 AM »

"What did man do to cause the end of the Ice Age? "

Roasting mastodon meat over campfires ...? Tongue

Probably responsible for killing off the sabre tooth tigers as well.

Desertdog · « **Reply #9 on:** March 27, 2006, 06:12:47 AM »

I like this article;
The Sunday Times March 26, 2006
Brighter sun adds to fears of climate change
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2104022,00.html

An excerpt;
"They reverse a 30-year trend. Measurements of sunshine levels between 1960 and 1990 had shown a decrease in the amount of sunshine reaching the earth, a phenomenon known as global dimming.

This was thought to have been caused by dust, smog and other pollutants, mainly from industrialised western countries.The pollutants, known as aerosols, reduced sunshine levels by absorbing and scattering solar radiation and promoting the formation of clouds that reflected radiation back into space.

In the last two decades, however, there have been significant decreases in such pollutants, partly due to industry becoming cleaner but largely because of the collapse of the Soviet Union and much of its heavy industry".

It's the enviormentalist and Russians fault.

Personally, I think the sun may be getting brighter as reported by some journals. Why else would the other plants in our solar system be getting warmer also?

stevelyn · « **Reply #10 on:** March 30, 2006, 02:07:16 AM »

I'm with GoRon on this one. I think that whatever is happening is part of a natural cycle and there is nothing we did or can do to influence it. The best we can do is try and objectively figure out what (if anything) is actually happening and adapt to the change.

As for a global warming trend.........you couldn't prove that by this past winter and it still isn't over yet.

Iain · « **Reply #11 on:** March 30, 2006, 02:34:54 AM »

Quote from: stevelyn

I'm with GoRon on this one. I think that whatever is happening is part of a natural cycle and there is nothing we did or can do to influence it.

I'm not picking on you here, it's just my questioning of a seemingly widely held opinion - how do you know this? I don't know that it is mans actions, and I don't know that it isn't. It just seems that scientific opinion, and again I'm not a scientist, seems to be pointing toward human involvement.

Now, of course there is a certain agenda to some claims that human beings are destroying the planet. Whether it's anti-big business or some new Luddite movement I don't know. The thing I am cautious of though is discarding babies with bathwater and throwing out potentially valid scientific argument because there are a few loopy adherents to it.

And of course the 'global warming is all nonsense' crowd have their loopy adherents too.

Quote from: stevelyn

As for a global warming trend.........you couldn't prove that by this past winter and it still isn't over yet.

This winter had been colder here too, daffodils have come out much later than last year. We're not talking about trends that can be spotted year on year though, we're talking about how much earlier spring may or may not be compared to thirty, fifty, one hundred years ago.

El Tejon · « **Reply #12 on:** March 30, 2006, 02:44:39 AM »

Global dimming? I thought that was when the UN was in session?

As to fault, we all know this answer people . . . wait for it . . . it's the fault of . . . GEORGE BUSH AND HALIBURTON!

280plus · « **Reply #13 on:** March 30, 2006, 02:51:42 AM »

Why haven't we heard much about the ozone hole lately? Cause it was bullshit. Propagated by Union Carbide due to the fact that their patent on Freon was running out.

I happen to be reading "Life on the Mississippi" right now. Written by a guy named "Mark Twain". Ever hear of him? Cheesy

Written somewhere late 1800's I believe.

I JUST read a part where he's talking about how the Mighty Mississippi had changed in the 25 years since he seen it last. By that time they were trying to "harness" the river and make it follow the plans of man as opposed to it's own plan. He said there were at least FIVE different "expert" opinions on what all this harnessing would do to the river. It totally reminded me of this Global Warming argument. Totally.

When I got a little more time I'll post the opinions as he listed them. It's uncanny.

So it all just keeps going around and around from what I can tell. Only the subject has changed.

280plus · « **Reply #14 on:** March 30, 2006, 03:20:14 AM »

I'm going to summarize here but check this out:

1. Confining the river and therefore deepening the channel would preserve threatened shores.

2. Money should only be spent on building and strengthening levees

3. The higher you build your levee the higher the river bottm will rise requiring yet higher levees.

4.Some believed in relieving the river to lakes in flood time.

5. Some beleived in building northern reservoirs to replenish the river in low water seasons.

"Wherever you find a man down there who believes in one of these theories you may turn to the next man and frame your talk on the hypothesis that he does not believe in that theory."

Cheesy

brimic · « **Reply #15 on:** March 30, 2006, 04:04:45 AM »

Its not whether or not I believe in global warming or junk science etc....

1. I live 1200 or so ft above sea level
2. We've had several sub zero days in my loacation this year.
3. We've had at elast 2' of snow in my area this year.
4. our summers are fairly short.

I can certainly see a few benifits to me if the temps rose by 2 or 3 degrees

Iain · « **Reply #16 on:** March 30, 2006, 04:40:39 AM »

I know you're kidding, but there are an awful lot of folks for whom a few degrees would be extremely serious.

The Rabbi · « **Reply #17 on:** March 30, 2006, 05:26:28 AM »

Quote from: Iain

I'm not picking on you here, it's just my questioning of a seemingly widely held opinion - how do you know this? I don't know that it is mans actions, and I don't know that it isn't. It just seems that scientific opinion, and again I'm not a scientist, seems to be pointing toward human involvement.

I dont know that global warming wasnt caused by Hillary Clinton's increased speaking in public. There is no way to prove it wasn't.
The global warming fans seem to think that correlation=causation. It doesnt. But the thing is political so evidence is manufactured at will.
I have a young German fellow staying with me and he firmly believes that global warming is being caused by the U.S. because we consume 40% of the energy in the world (I pointed out we also produce 40% of the goods and services in the world as well but to no avail). He also firmly believes that this US-caused global warming is responsible for Katrina and other natural disasters. He studied it in school, he tells me. It is an article of faith in Europe I guess.

Iain · « **Reply #18 on:** March 30, 2006, 05:37:42 AM »

My point was that there seems to be a lot of lay persons with firmly held convictions on this subject and I wonder how this is. Your German house guest would also appear to be fall into that group.

It's not an article of faith in Europe, but it is widely discussed, and in many cases presented as fact. This is of course questionable, but then after discussions about global warming on THR and APS I wonder if the exact opposite isn't the case in some sections of the US media and amongst members of the American public - and if so I'd regard that as equally questionable.

280plus · « **Reply #19 on:** March 30, 2006, 05:51:46 AM »

Well, FWIW, I did used to know a very advanced geologist that held the firm belief that man is arrogant in his thinking that whatever he does will have an effect on the Earth and it's climate. His argument was that man was simply too puny to ever have any serious effect on something as large as the Earth and that once man is gone (should that ever come about) the Earth will shrug off whatever he has done and "forget" he was ever here in a very short time geologically. (~100,000 years IIRC) He and I both agreed what we are experiencing is nothing more than a warming cycle caused by nature. Not man. So that's how I've arrived at my particular stance in the argument.

But I'll bet we could find another imminent geologist to disagree with him if we wanted to. I think that's what Twain was getting at.

SADShooter · « **Reply #20 on:** March 30, 2006, 05:58:41 AM »

Iain:

There is also a widely held perception that scientists are inherently objective, and that a scientific premise is therefore inviolate. Unfortunately, as I am learning in my latest employment, there is just as much political strife, grubbing for money, and plain old human nature in science as any other field of human endeavor. As a result, any novel theory should be approached with a healthy dose of skepticism.

The critical variable, in my opinion, is the influence of the media. Here, in the U.S. at least, we have a story in which a crisis looms on the horizon, driven by heartless corporations polluting the environment with the aid of a slavishly subservient government. That's tremendous fodder for a media culture ever in search of a crime and a culprit.

I have no reservations in agreeing that mankind is impacting our environment, often negatively. But the notion that a century or two of industrialization and human population growth can radically disrupt a system so large and sophisticated, compared to the many factors over which we (currently) have no control? It seems counterintuitive, and I need more that a scientist seeking renewed grant funding to buy it.

p.s: 280plus 1

Iain · « **Reply #21 on:** March 30, 2006, 06:18:08 AM »

Quote from: SADShooter

There is also a widely held perception that scientists are inherently objective, and that a scientific premise is therefore inviolate. Unfortunately, as I am learning in my latest employment, there is just as much political strife, grubbing for money, and plain old human nature in science as any other field of human endeavor.

Absolutely. But two can play 'follow the money', and I'm betting there is a considerable amount of money to be followed on both sides of this argument. After it's not being anti-big business to suggest that uncontested 'Carbon dioxide causes global warming and big business pumps out that stuff' theories would be very bad for said business.

Quote from: SADShooter

As a result, any novel theory should be approached with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Again I agree, and I approach the idea that human beings have had and can have no measurable damaging effects on global systems very sceptically. 280plus is right when he says that you can find an 'expert' for each side of an argument. Which is why I am very cautious of those with hard and fast answers.

SADShooter · « **Reply #22 on:** March 30, 2006, 06:59:18 AM »

Fair points all. I suppose what it all comes down to for me is the measure of the response to the threat. After the mini ice age, population explosion, or predicted cataclysm of your choice which haven't materialized, despite being widely reported, debated, and supported by voluminous evidence, I'm cautious about devoting massive resources or engineering social change to "undo" the "damage" human environmental impacts have caused without more information.

I'm no ostrich. Reducing fossil fuel emissions, dependence on foreign oil, exploration of alternate energy sources, conservation, and environmental stewardship all make sense to me regardless of potential global disaster. I would just like to see them happen in a rational, cost-benefit/market-driven fashion rather than under a rush to judgment based on fear-mongering, which is what I perceive to be happening.

I personally see a tremendous irony in the prospect of human efforts to cool the Earth being followed by an environmentally-driven ice age.

grampster · « **Reply #23 on:** March 30, 2006, 07:07:11 AM »

I'll rerecommend a good book on the subject of global warming as well as some comments regarding other questionable "facts" about man's impact. "Trashing the Planet" by Dr. Dixie Lee Ray. Highly educated lady who was in her late 70's when she wrote the book iirc...so knowledge plus wisdom = interesting information.

Iain · « **Reply #24 on:** March 30, 2006, 07:49:16 AM »

Quote from: SADShooter

I'm no ostrich. Reducing fossil fuel emissions, dependence on foreign oil, exploration of alternate energy sources, conservation, and environmental stewardship all make sense to me regardless of potential global disaster. I would just like to see them happen in a rational, cost-benefit/market-driven fashion rather than under a rush to judgment based on fear-mongering, which is what I perceive to be happening.

I agree with you, and when Britain comes to decide how our power for the next few decades is to be generated, as we will shortly, I'll be arguing in favour of nuclear over fossil fuels or any insanely expensive attempt at massive investment in renewables. For some reason the greens still don't like me.

My point is that the truly sceptical position on the global warming argument is to question the strident voices on either side, not to only question the dominant voice as so many seem to do (generally, not just in this thread.)

News:

Author Topic: The Global Warming Thread (Read 7371 times)

Ron