GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

[DrivinAllNight]

Ok, this didn't belong in the other side of the playground , so I brought it here, in short this is a safe place to discuss the fallacy or the truth of Global Warming.

I would also like to ask people to keep it friendly, and not be insulting to those who disagree with you, since sometimes I know this discussion gets more heated than a religious topic does.

and now for my 2cp on the subject -
I personally think Al Gore needs to have his head examined since his continued heat pattern didn't pan out, so now he's claiming Climate Change. As does a lot of the media, why is the language changing? why oh why, could it be the battle isn't working so a focus group was convened to determine what the best way to fool more people about it is? There is so much more than CO2 that is a cause to climate change, the majority of it being cyclical and not changeable by human or their actions. Everything from sun spots to solar winds. After Katrina they predicted massive seasons of hurricanes for three years, and each year they over predicted and were constantly scaling back their predictions as the season went on.
There is evidence both for and against man made global warming, but is it proof that we are to blame? Or is it simply anecdotal that they found that one thing may seem to cause another, and without computer models that can't take into account all the variables how are you supposed to make an accurate prediction, and that is all it is, a prediction, just like the weather report, sometimes their right, but often they are wrong. I will not go silently into the government controlled global warming scare that seeks to rob us of more and more of our liberties with more and more restrictions as to what we can buy and use.
Those nice new CFL (twisty) bulbs may last much longer, but they have mercury in them which then leaks into the ground through landfills, so much for environmentally friendly. America has the technology to produce clean coal, as well as safe and stable nuclear power, all this with out the need for foreign oil and it would be much cheaper than anything else we could come up with, and would help provide a lot of jobs.

Ok, my 2cp was a little long. Remember, no name calling, we are all human, or something like that anyways.

[Tirian]

I would also like to ask people to keep it friendly, and not be insulting to those who disagree with you


I personally think Al Gore needs to have his head examined

This is just how quickly things go askew in political threads. The very sentence after you say that this isn't a place to insult people, you insult someone.

[Raiser Blade]

Just because you put a friendly discussion tag on something doesn't mean you can discuss b& material.

[RabbitHoleLost]

Annnd...threadlock in five...
four...
three...

[FoE]

Forget global warming. What I'm concerned about is the media's cover-up of the existence of ManBearPig.

[Saithis Bladewing]

Forget global warming. What I'm concerned about is the media's cover-up of the existence of ManBearPig.

WE'RE TOTALLY CEREAL!!!

[Highwarlord]

Isn't discussion of religion not allowed? Global Warmism might fit in under that.

[Innis Cabal]

I think you mean political....which is also not allowed.

[Serpentine]

Personally, I don't think it really matters whether it's "true" or not. If there is even the possibility that our activities could be effecting the planet on this sort of a scale, we seriously need to look at what we're doing. There are oh so many reasons to change our ways, completely apart from global warming.
Moreover, what about the concurrent effect of global dimming? It could be chance, but in the days after the World Tower attacks, when all aeroplanes were grounded, the temperature of the US went up by several degrees. How many of global warming's doubters have taken this into account when they cite the inaccuracies of "global warmists'" predictions? (though, to be fair, I'd hope that the latter would take it into account themselves...)

I've just now mentioned elsewhere the effect of CO2 emissions on the oceans. It's called "ocean acidification", but my lecturer went into great detail on why that term's innaccurate. Anyway, basically, the calcification of coral reefs relies on a delicately balanced chemical equation. Calcifying corals are able to calcify more into their skeletons during the day than is dissolved at night (if you really want me to I can find the equations, but really, do you need it?). Increased CO2 in the atmosphere (which is pretty much undeniable as a human-caused phenomenon) means more CO2 dissolved in the ocean. This unbalances the oceanic chemistry, causing it to require more energy for the coral to calcify and resulting in a net loss of coral skeleton structure. This has already begun, with the paltry amount of action already taken it's practically inevitable and possibly irreversible, and unlike global warming (from which coral may be able to survive by moving further from the equator to cooler climes) it is ocean-wide and inescapable.
As my lecturer told me, get out and enjoy coral reefs while you can. There's a good chance they're on their way out. Regardless of whether global warming "exists", it's the same human activities that's causing it.

[Thanatos 51-50]

Global Warming as an event is a vital meterological phenomena that can be easily observed. It is THE (singular) reason that all heat does not escape the planet, making life unsustainable whenever Sol shines on the other side of Terra.

"Climate Change" is the more scientifically accurate term.

/nitpick

[Nerd-o-rama]

I would also like to ask people to keep it friendly, and not be insulting to those who disagree with you, since sometimes I know this discussion gets more heated than a religious topic does.But...you just spent your entire post insulting people who warn against global warming, calling people crazy, and tossing in unrelated claims for the hell of it. If you're going to boss people around on how to act in a thread, at least follow your own rules. I'd have much rather you just had an honest rant without all the hypocrisy.

[Coidzor]

Why are we discussing Ghost Warlock? Has he gone away? :smalleek:

[Serpentine]

Global Warming as an event is a vital meterological phenomena that can be easily observed. It is THE (singular) reason that all heat does not escape the planet, making life unsustainable whenever Sol shines on the other side of Terra.

"Climate Change" is the more scientifically accurate term.

/nitpickOh yeah... That too.

[kamikasei]

I think you mean political....which is also not allowed.

No, I think he was implying that the belief that anthropogenic global warming is a real phenomenon is a religious belief. Which is fairly insulting and pointless.

OP: weather is hard to predict. Climate is hard to predict. The earth is a system. As a result of human actions, its atmosphere contains more of certain heat-retaining substances now than a hundred years ago. It will retain more of the energy incident on it as heat. The average global temperature will rise, causing a whole lot of problems. Seems straightforward enough to me. Of course, the details of how to respond are up for debate.

[KnightDisciple]

I dunno, it's frickin' cold this week. I could use a touch of warming right about now. :smallwink: :smalltongue:

[Thanatos 51-50]

I personally think Al Gore needs to have his head examined since his continued heat pattern didn't pan out, so now he's claiming Climate Change. As does a lot of the media, why is the language changing? why oh why, could it be the battle isn't working so a focus group was convened to determine what the best way to fool more people about it is? There is so much more than CO2 that is a cause to climate change, the majority of it being cyclical and not changeable by human or their actions. Everything from sun spots to solar winds. After Katrina they predicted massive seasons of hurricanes for three years, and each year they over predicted and were constantly scaling back their predictions as the season went on.
Well, there was a specific little mini-rant about the Global Warming/Climate change bit farther up.

After that lttile blur, I feel it nessecarry to point out that there are many, many smarter Weather (hereafter abbreviated to WX for simplicty's sake) Geeks out there and on this very site, even.

That more-or-less answers your question on the changing of terminology, I guess. If there is some Bald-heads-and-cigars backroom where people convene to discuss how to best frighten the populace, I DEFINATLY want in. Carbon Dioxide is a factor in climate change, and is popularly believed to be a factor in the generally climbing global temperature. I agree on the cyclical bit, though. Global climate change is like continental drift. It happens. It happens slowly, and unless you're there when the earthquake happens, you don't notice it. I hope you're standing underneath a doorframe.

In response to Katrina/hurricanes, I am obligated to point out that WX forecasts do not come from magickal machines. (Although, there are these helpful "computer" gizmos for the new-skool meterologists amongst us.)
I know my A-school class and I were, at least, taught to overforecast when in doubt. If you're prepared for moderate turbulance, you're prepared for light turbulance and all that jazz.
I have seen and plotted the course of typhoons here in the Pacific. One day, the predominant path has it pointed at Taiwan or something, and on the next posit, the predicted track is updated to have in re-curving and beating up Okinawa. Be happy South America is sitting there happily taking up surface area which would otherwise be a haven for Hurricane birth.

There is evidence both for and against man made global warming, but is it proof that we are to blame? Or is it simply anecdotal that they found that one thing may seem to cause another, and without computer models that can't take into account all the variables how are you supposed to make an accurate prediction, and that is all it is, a prediction, just like the weather report, sometimes their right, but often they are wrong. I will not go silently into the government controlled global warming scare that seeks to rob us of more and more of our liberties with more and more restrictions as to what we can buy and use.
Mankind affecting climate change is a fact. Mankind is to blame for its role. The rifleman does the shooting, but the drummer who relays the order to fire has his hands just as blood-stained.
And I can confidantly say that the Government has never told me to propagate some ridiculous "Global Warming Scare." But I do work with Freemasons, they might be told these things in lieu of me...

Those nice new CFL (twisty) bulbs may last much longer, but they have mercury in them which then leaks into the ground through landfills, so much for environmentally friendly. America has the technology to produce clean coal, as well as safe and stable nuclear power, all this with out the need for foreign oil and it would be much cheaper than anything else we could come up with, and would help provide a lot of jobs.
This is more general pollution and over-harvesting than Climate chnage, but I'll bite. I know nothing about these bulbs you mention, but I do know that there is no such thing as "Clean" fossil fuel. I'm a fan of the whole biofuel idea, myself, where we burn refuse and trash and such instead of coal. From my admittidly meagre understanding of power plants, it should work, albeit at a lower efficency.
Nuclear fission is dangerous if it breaks down, and people are afraid. There are universities out there studying nuclear fusion and attempting to buiold self-sustaining Generators, much less ones that Generate excess power to be able to use it as a plant. I've seen the generator at MIT. Its pretty impressive. I think they may have gotten it to the point where it can power itself, although am unsure. That much magnetisim, heat and speed is the result of alot of actual power, too.

As for oil, all we have to do is kill alot of organisims and wait a few billion years, it'll be back.

[Mx.Silver]

Perhaps if we stuck to the actual scientific side of this, rather than immediately openning with a political rant about 'government-controlled scares' (an assertion that seems rather at odds with observable reality) we might actually be able to avoid getting this locked. There are a couple of excellent youtube (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&feature=PlayList&p=A4F0994AFB057BB8&index=1) videos (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI&feature=PlayList&p=A4F0994AFB057BB8&index=0) on this subject that manage to do this without bias.

As far as the scientific community is concerned, there is no question that the planet's climate is going through a serious change. There is no dissagreement over that, as the evidence is simply too overwhelming. You have be ignorant of several decades worht of confirmed observations and research to argue that such a change was not occuring. There is debate over to what extent human actions are responsible for this although there is a very strong consensus they are a significant factor.

For my own part, I am not a scientist. I have looked at some of the evidence brought forth and it is convincing but I don't claim to know all of it. Nonetheless, I, like many others, consider it and the presence of the strong consensus amongst the scientific community reason enough to assume that human beings are indeed responsible for the current climate change.

[SDF]

Nuclear fission is dangerous if it breaks down, and people are afraid. There are universities out there studying nuclear fusion and attempting to buiold self-sustaining Generators, much less ones that Generate excess power to be able to use it as a plant. I've seen the generator at MIT. Its pretty impressive. I think they may have gotten it to the point where it can power itself, although am unsure. That much magnetisim, heat and speed is the result of alot of actual power, too.

As for oil, all we have to do is kill alot of organisims and wait a few billion years, it'll be back.

You're scared of nuclear because people taught you to be scared of it, they were wrong. No one was hurt in Three Mile Island, no one was contaminated, no radioactive material spilled into the river or air or anything. More cost effective than almost any other energy source, and near the top of the list in terms of environmental impact too. There is a reason France has the cheapest energy and cleanest air of any industrialized nation.

Fusion would be ideal, but it is still a pipe dream that is years away from potential viability in a market that is prepared to pick a direction for the long haul and stick with it. Fusion will also come with the same nonsensical rhetoric that accompanies fission now.

It is also possible to artificially create oil. The Germans did it during the second world war, but it isn't cost effective. Cost efficacy is going to be what determines what we do for energy in the future. It is the reason oil has been and will be a mainstay of the energy market for years to come.

As for global warming... man I'm not touching that with an adventurer standard 10ft. pole. I remember bannings last time :smalleek:

[ghost_warlock]

And here I was all like: "GW!? That's me! A thread all about me!? :smallbiggrin:"

Imagine my disappointment... :smallfrown:

[KnightDisciple]

And here I was all like: "GW!? That's me! A thread all about me!? :smallbiggrin:"

Imagine my disappointment... :smallfrown:

Well, I could start a thread for you if you'd like...:smallwink:

[hamishspence]

you never know, if its kept to the science, its validity (or lack of), and any claims of cover-ups (on either side) or political implications are avoided, it could be a Science thread.

[hamishspence]

Windscale in Britain and Chernobyl in russia illustrate the dangers of fission (though both go back a long way and Tech Moves On.) Ironically, Chernobyl is now a haven for wildlife- radiation might lead to slightly higher incidence of birth defects, but absence of people is a major bonus for the animals.

as for climate change, question is, based on the "no man made effect at all" whats the explanation for numerous things that have lasted thousands of years, through ups and downs, deteriorating Now? Medieval warm period- permafrost didn't melt then, but its melting now. Whats different about Now?

GW explanation is- a big influx of CO2, that has built up since the Industrial Revolution. Methane from global farming. And others.

to show it isn't man-made, explanation has to account for all the data that suggests it is.

I haven't seen any such explanation yet- most of the ones I've seen come across as seriously lacking.

[Mx.Silver]

Windscale in Britain and Chernobyl in russia illustrate the dangers of fission (though both go back a long way and Tech Moves On.) Ironically, Chernobyl is now a haven for wildlife- radiation might lead to slightly higher incidence of birth defects, but absence of people is a major bonus for the animals.

as for climate change, question is, based on the "no man made effect at all" whats the explanation for numerous things that have lasted thousands of years, through ups and downs, deteriorating Now? Medieval warm period- permafrost didn't melt then, but its melting now. Whats different about Now?

GW explanation is- a big influx of CO2, that has built up since the Industrial Revolution. Methane from global farming. And others.

to show it isn't man-made, explanation has to account for all the data that suggests it is.

I haven't seen any such explanation yet- most of the ones I've seen come across as seriously lacking.

The second video I linked to looks over some alternate explanations, such as increased Solar Forcing and changes in cloud cover. However, the evidence indicates that these probably aren't the main factors in this situation. Levels of solar output and sunspots do not correlate with the recent changing temperature and cloud density alone is not enough to account for the scale we're seeing now.

[hamishspence]

I recall one explanation for increased cloud- pollution and aircraft contrails. It also said that was why temperatures weren't rising even faster, and why there was drought in Africa- big pollution cloud drifting down from the north.

Clouds are tricky- can explain both warming and cooling.

[afroakuma]

I'd suggest you stop posting in this thread; this one's probably going to get preemptively threadlocked very soon.

[KnightDisciple]

Chernobyl was a disaster waiting to happen. Seriously, people drag it out as an example of the danger of all fission power, but it's not. It's the danger of poorly managed fission power.
Three Mile Island was a properly engineered emergency containment. And we've gotten better at it since then.
I understand potential concerns about the waste, but we have to consider power generation efficiency.
For example. If we switched every car in America to wall-charged electric, we'd have to vastly increase power production. Current wind, solar, geothermal, and water power couldn't match. So we'd have to either a)build lots of coal, oil, and natural gas plants. All of which will likely have similar outputs, pollution-wise. Or we make nuclear fission plants, which put out, uh...steam. The wastes are stored in a couple locations. And I have to wonder how soon we can clean that stuff up easier...

[hamishspence]

Its a bit borderline, but if all the posters discuss it as Science, not politics, and both sides are very civil, it might not get into trouble.

[The Minx]

Global warming is one of those topics which should properly be discussed as science, but are frequently discussed as politics instead. Just like evolution. It is a shame how much people can not only politicize scientific things which they find uncomfortable, but the ease with which they can politicize them in the eyes of the public: i.e. simply by acting as though they were political.

That global warming is taking place has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. Since denying the warming of the earth at this stage would be denying the obvious, the "controversy" pertains to whether human activity influences global warming or not. This too has been shown beyond all reasonable doubt. Certainly part of the warming is natural but by no means all.


EDIT: just to add, since the OP posted a link to a "global cooling" idea in the comic discussion thread: there will always be a small fringe of scientists who buck the trend. This is true in any field; there are scientists who deny the expansion of the universe, there are those who deny established theories that are used in all kinds of applications. This does not invalidate a theory in science, it is how science works. It is from the freedom of naysayers to make hypotheses like these that the established science is challenged on a regular basis, and how just maybe something new might be learned. It is quite inaccurate to think that simply because a handful of scientists issue challenges that the mainstream theory is not beyond reasonable doubt or that it is a political topic.

[SDF]

Chernobyl is what happens when you use stolen US technology and poorly reverse engineer it, in an above ground reactor, with no safeguards. Then, you under staff it with a bunch of space cadets that have no idea where they are or who put their slippers in the dish washer. Finally, you perform a stress test that melts down the reactor while the emergency cooling system is turned off in what I can only assume was a practical joke.

I'm going to go with a ruling of "stupid non-science" on that one.

Wind is a good alternative, but there are only certain areas where you will get wind patterns that will be enough to warrant the investment. Not to mention there are advocacy groups that are worried about the migratory patterns of birds and the dangers wind generators pose to them. Eventually wind generators need to be replaced when worn out. Solar is another good one, but again you need large open areas that get lots of sun. The desert is good. Seattle, not so much. Also solar cells need to be replaced in time, and they contain chemicals that are harmful to the environment and need special disposal. Hydroelectric is still technically the cleanest and cheapest source of energy, but you have to worry about fish and there are only so many rivers you can dam up. Fission reactors do have the problem of waste disposal, though modern ones can spin down spent fuel rods in secondary reactors until they are really only dangerous if you are in the same room as them. You also need a body of water near the nuclear power plant, and fuel rods are not a renewable resource. In fact many believe we are past peak fissile production.

Alternative really means not coal or oil. And all have their merits and drawbacks, but none stand out as being so much better than another that we exclusively switch to that.

[hamishspence]

sounds about right.

however, even with the climate change issue, the next problem is extrapolating from it to net consequence of Not Doing Anything- ecological disaster, or growing bonanza?

Given that its the real growing areas that are under threat from habitat destruction caused by this, the consequences of doing nothing are very very severe- for humans, not just animals, and for Western Civilization, not just the Third world. So everyone has a lot to lose if they don't act.

The consequences of doing Something- no matter what, temperature will rise- however, is there a "tipping point" below which, you can have the rise stop, if you act, and above which, you can't?

From what I can tell, answer is yes, there is, its not too late.

[Serpentine]

Wind is a good alternative, but there are only certain areas where you will get wind patterns that will be enough to warrant the investment. Not to mention there are advocacy groups that are worried about the migratory patterns of birds and the dangers wind generators pose to them. Eventually wind generators need to be replaced when worn out. Solar is another good one, but again you need large open areas that get lots of sun. The desert is good. Seattle, not so much. Also solar cells need to be replaced in time, and they contain chemicals that are harmful to the environment and need special disposal. Hydroelectric is still technically the cleanest and cheapest source of energy, but you have to worry about fish and there are only so many rivers you can dam up. Fission reactors do have the problem of waste disposal, though modern ones can spin down spent fuel rods in secondary reactors until they are really only dangerous if you are in the same room as them. You also need a body of water near the nuclear power plant, and fuel rods are not a renewable resource. In fact many believe we are past peak fissile production.

Alternative really means not coal or oil. And all have their merits and drawbacks, but none stand out as being so much better than another that we exclusively switch to that.Overall response to this: Yeah, this just means that we need to look at a wide range of options, and consider applying all of them in the situations that maximise the merits and minimise the drawbacks. Now, more specific:

Wind is a good alternative, but there are only certain areas where you will get wind patterns that will be enough to warrant the investment. Not to mention there are advocacy groups that are worried about the migratory patterns of birds and the dangers wind generators pose to them.I've heard they're messing with flocks of budgerigars in Australia. You'd think there'd surely be a way to fix this, at least a bit...
Eventually wind generators need to be replaced when worn out.True, but then again, so does every single other man-made device. This problem's gonna apply to all options.
Solar is another good one, but again you need large open areas that get lots of sun. The desert is good.Still trying to figure out why we don't have any solar farms in Australia... I like my mum's idea of having solar panels built in to roof tiles. I can't think that it should be too difficult, and it could make them cheaper, possibly easier to replace, nicer to look at and more of a long-term potential as new houses automatically have them built on. Anyway, Germany's doing pretty damn well with 'em.
Also solar cells need to be replaced in time, and they contain chemicals that are harmful to the environment and need special disposal.Again, a problem with all these options, including fossil fuels and nuclear.
Hydroelectric is still technically the cleanest and cheapest source of energy, but you have to worry about fish and there are only so many rivers you can dam up.Yeah, this is a very good but very problematic one. It's a big issue in Iceland at the moment, for one (I should read National Geographic more often...). I think further development on this would be useful.
Fission reactors do have the problem of waste disposal, though modern ones can spin down spent fuel rods in secondary reactors until they are really only dangerous if you are in the same room as them. You also need a body of water near the nuclear power plant, and fuel rods are not a renewable resource. In fact many believe we are past peak fissile production.That's just cuz we Aussies are holding out on you :smallwink: I think nuclear power could be good as maybe a bridge between fossil and renewable fuels, but as you said, it's gonna run out eventually, and the problem of the waste is not one to be sneezed at.

Not disagreeing with you on anything, really, by the way. Just discussing.

[KnightDisciple]

On the solar roof tiles thing...
What about areas that get large weather variances? I live in the US Midwest, and I've seen from over 100F to below 0 F. Wind, rain, snow, hail, ice, lightning...Do we have solar cells that can operate under that kind of cyclical weather and still be worth anything? (Putting aside issues of them being buried in snow/ice and not getting and light anyways...)

Part of my frustration with this, and other topics, is that if I'm doubtful, I'm treated as wrong. I've yet to see any truly compelling evidence, but apparently I'm just a "skeptic who keeps the system of free thought going" or some such. :smallannoyed:
Mind you, I'm all for cutting out carbon emissions, pollution, etc. But that's because I dislike pollution, and have a sense of duty to preserve the planet, not because it'll melt the icecaps in 30 years.

[Simanos]

Chernobyl was a disaster waiting to happen. Seriously, people drag it out as an example of the danger of all fission power, but it's not. It's the danger of poorly managed fission power.
Three Mile Island was a properly engineered emergency containment. And we've gotten better at it since then.
I understand potential concerns about the waste, but we have to consider power generation efficiency.
For example. If we switched every car in America to wall-charged electric, we'd have to vastly increase power production. Current wind, solar, geothermal, and water power couldn't match. So we'd have to either a)build lots of coal, oil, and natural gas plants. All of which will likely have similar outputs, pollution-wise. Or we make nuclear fission plants, which put out, uh...steam. The wastes are stored in a couple locations. And I have to wonder how soon we can clean that stuff up easier...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy
http://www.manferrostaal.com/Fresnel_solar_power_station_Spain.reference_detail s+M5d9527e0c22.0.html
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/09/on-sept-10-ausr.html
We can do it if we reallocate funds properly.
We shouldn't be wasting fission for conventional transportation (as opposed to space flight) and fusion is really close at last as a friend who works at JET has said to me.


On the solar roof tiles thing...
What about areas that get large weather variances? I live in the US Midwest, and I've seen from over 100F to below 0 F. Wind, rain, snow, hail, ice, lightning...Do we have solar cells that can operate under that kind of cyclical weather and still be worth anything? (Putting aside issues of them being buried in snow/ice and not getting and light anyways...)

Part of my frustration with this, and other topics, is that if I'm doubtful, I'm treated as wrong. I've yet to see any truly compelling evidence, but apparently I'm just a "skeptic who keeps the system of free thought going" or some such. :smallannoyed:
Mind you, I'm all for cutting out carbon emissions, pollution, etc. But that's because I dislike pollution, and have a sense of duty to preserve the planet, not because it'll melt the icecaps in 30 years.
What about areas that DO NOT get large weather variances and yet we haven't built solar power plant (or roof tiles)? Let's get those first and then we can consider what to do with the remaining areas. Besides, as I said (and for reasons you gave), I'm not much in favor of solar panels, I prefer Fresnel Reflectors and thermal.


PS: About climate change I don't really care much as I see the Earth is a rather stable system and we won't be turning into Venus for a few billion years more. Even if the ice melts and we lose a few coastal regions, so what? We will get a green Antarctica for free, almost :smalltongue:
OK, joking aside I'm more worried about pollution (air, water, ground, food, etc) and Ozone layer crumbling than green-house gases.
Someone please post the pic of telepathic contact with the sun being eerie at best:
"Your puny Ozone cannot protect you forever, earthmeats!"

[Serpentine]

On the solar roof tiles thing...
What about areas that get large weather variances? I live in the US Midwest, and I've seen from over 100F to below 0 F. Wind, rain, snow, hail, ice, lightning...Do we have solar cells that can operate under that kind of cyclical weather and still be worth anything? (Putting aside issues of them being buried in snow/ice and not getting and light anyways...)There are ways to store power from sunny days for dim days and nighttime. They're not particularly efficient yet, but they're working on it, and if noone invests anything into the technology it's just going to take longer. In any case, any reduction in fossil fuel use is good, even if it's not a complete changeover.

Part of my frustration with this, and other topics, is that if I'm doubtful, I'm treated as wrong. I've yet to see any truly compelling evidence, but apparently I'm just a "skeptic who keeps the system of free thought going" or some such. :smallannoyed:Nothing wrong with skepticism, it's cynicism you've gotta watch out for.

[Tirian]

Wind is a good alternative, but there are only certain areas where you will get wind patterns that will be enough to warrant the investment. Not to mention there are advocacy groups that are worried about the migratory patterns of birds and the dangers wind generators pose to them.

Apparently, it's not as much of an issue as you might think. At sufficient altitudes, high and steady winds are nearly ubiquitous. It is science fiction to imagine a floating generator taking advantage of the steady 100-150 mph winds in the jet stream, but that isn't more than ten miles away from anyone on earth. But given any sufficiently plains-like farmland, you can build a tower and find steady wind at the top of it.

If my reading about the situation in the U.S. is correct, the problem isn't that wind power isn't effective at generating electricity. It is, and there are some non-silly people who seem to think that we could fill all of the dead space in Montana with windmills and generate enough power to feed the entire nation. There are two problems with this vision. The first is that there is no backbone for sending electricity from Montana to the rest of the nation, so we'd ultimately need an energy infrastructure project as significant as building the national highway system back in the 60's. The second challenge is that wind power is steady but consumer demand isn't. Cities use a lot of power during the day, not so much in the evening, and very little at night. You can't easily take the nighttime wind energy and put it in a bottle for the next morning, at least not as easily as a coal plant which burns more coal when the area needs more power. These aren't insurmountable problems, but they're still pretty tricky.

[hamishspence]

main problem is habitat devastation. the Coral reefs are just one casualty (warming water) And they have lasted a long time- probably through the Medieval Warm period.

Look at all the places that are likely to be damaged from rising seas, desertification, etc, and- net result, world is getting big problems from global warming that won't be outweighed by slight crop increases in a few places.

[Serpentine]

main problem is habitat devastation. the Coral reefs are just one casualty (warming water) And they have lasted a long time- probably through the Medieval Warm period.Actually, calcifying corals have dropped out of the fossil record a number of times. It could just be that they moved and we haven't found them, but yeah... Also, as I said, warm water isn't the only, or even the major, concern with coral.
You're right, though.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

Seeing as it's appropriate to the topic, I've got a book to recommend for y'all. It's Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg. His main point is that global warming does indeed exist, but it's nowhere near the catastrophic event over the next 100 year some have made it out to be. He also points out, through lots of cost analysis, how ineffective the current plans (mainly Kyoto) are. He then goes on to say how instead of dumping trillions of dollars into something that has so little effect, let's look at the real issues in the world and by taking care of malaria, AIDS/HIV, poverty, and other major worldwide concerns, we will spend billions less, and have far more impact on the world. It's a pretty good book, and not very long either.

[Serpentine]

Funny, most of the stuff I've heard has said that it's happening faster than anticipated, just maybe in different ways...

[hamishspence]

How much of a problem is the extra CO2 in the ocean?

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

@ hamishspence

From what I've read in the aforementioned Lomborg book, focusing on CO2 is not the way to go. He says for every dollar that is spent on trying to reduce the impact of CO2, it only does about 32 cents worth of good. Trying to reduce CO2, even if the plans in place work 100%, the impact on CO2 is a fraction of a percent reduction over the next century. That being said, warming of the atmosphere naturally causes water to expand, but the current figure is that the oceans will rise about 1 foot by 2100. Most of which I don't believe is due to CO2, so to answer your question. Not too much.

[The Glyphstone]

I'm so disappointed, I thought this was going to be a heated debate over how SPEES MEHREENS are OP in their latest codex and if the prices going up for the umptibillionth time are price gouging or economic reponse.:smallfrown::smalleek:

[Innis Cabal]

No, I think he was implying that the belief that anthropogenic global warming is a real phenomenon is a religious belief. Which is fairly insulting and pointless.

I meant it as such. Just didn't want to come out and tell him he was wrong. That rarely gets anything done.

We're between ice ages as it is, the world has had global heating and cooling trends. Are we helping it? No, but we don't produce even half of what a volcano eruption does. Not that some of its not fearmongering,and we should go to other fuel sources for varied reasons. But there are clearly people out there in the know that disagree with the findings. And sadly they've been laughed out of their respective fields for not agreeing with the popular thought process. And thats a shame.

For all we know what we're doing is even worse of the ecosystem of our world. Is it likely? Maybe, we won't know.

[hamishspence]

we don't put out much in the short term, but over a long period of time, it is much more than any normal eruption. Eruptions- short pulse (and they provide a lot of water vapour, sulphur dioxide, etc as well). 2 centuries-odd of steady pumping of carbon from coal? Thats a lot.

Throw in the fact that the oceans have been soaking it up, and they are running out of ability to do so, and it explains why the concern- the danger of a "tipping point"

EDIT: Or rather- warming will reduce ability of ocean to act as a sink.

[bosssmiley]

I like their sculpt quality (particularly the LOTR models), their artwork, and the thought that goes into their fluff-writing, but I'm not so keen on their marketing strategies (as commented upon in other threads), their over-zealous IP protection, or their 'successful, but not successful enough' attitude to Black Library (WFRP and their excellent fluffbooks).

Oh wait. You want to talk about some other GW on a gaming webcomic forum? :smallamused:

Everything in its' place, and the place for arguing about the pros and cons of climate change, energy efficiency, alternative power generation technologies and the like (with all the quasi-political flamewar potential that appends therewith) is really not here.

[hamishspence]

well, there are other Science threads on this area of the forum. Still, it's tricky, but so far its not gone too badly.

[The Neoclassic]

I like their sculpt quality (particularly the LOTR models), their artwork, and the thought that goes into their fluff-writing, but I'm not so keen on their marketing strategies (as commented upon in other threads), their over-zealous IP protection, or their 'successful, but not successful enough' attitude to Black Library (WFRP and their excellent fluffbooks).

Oh wait. You want to talk about some other GW on a gaming webcomic forum? :smallamused:

This is the thread you are looking for! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102457)

[Mx.Silver]

I meant it as such. Just didn't want to come out and tell him he was wrong. That rarely gets anything done.

We're between ice ages as it is, the world has had global heating and cooling trends.
True, however ice ages do not spontaneuosly begin and end, there needs to be a trigger that affects the temperature first. Solar activity (which is and always has been the biggest influence on global temperature) has not increased in a way that would be consistent with it causing the current climate change. Neither has there been any significant change in volcanic activity, which is normally another prominent cause of climate change. While there has been increased cloud cover (which is mostly as a result of air pollution), that can have rather mixed effects on climate and we no evidence to suggest that it could account for what we're seeing now.

The only other warming mechanism is the greenhouse effect which, given the undeniable increase in the amount of Carbon-Dioxide and Methane in the atmosphere (not to mention in a very strong correllation with rising temperatures) is the only viable culprit. Similarly there is only one real phenomena that can account for this increase in greenhouse gasses: us.

To sum up: temperatures are rising, by far the largest amount of evidence suggests that this is a result of the increase in greenhouse gasses. The only thing we know of that could be creating this increase is human society and industry.
Therefore, unless you happen to have some solid alternate explanations or new data to hand, the logical conclusion is that we are probably causing this global climate change.



Are we helping it? No, but we don't produce even half of what a volcano eruption does.
This is a soundbite and not a very useful one. How big an erruption? What timescales are being taken into account here? Do we produce less than half what a typical volcanic erruption does in the length of time such an erruption takes? Do we produce less than half a year? Decade? Century? Millenia? Where are the figures for this?

Furthermore, even if that is the case the fact is that there hasn't been a significant change in volcanic activity that could account for the increased levels of greenhouse gasses. Therefore it doesn't really matter how human industry compares to volcanic erruptions as a pollutant. What matters is whether it produces any more than you'd expect to see in an environment where there isn't any source of human-made pollution and whether there are any other factors that could feasibly account for the increased amounts of grennhouse gasses.



Not that some of its not fearmongering,and we should go to other fuel sources for varied reasons. But there are clearly people out there in the know that disagree with the findings. And sadly they've been laughed out of their respective fields for not agreeing with the popular thought process. And thats a shame.
No, they've been sidelined because their data is questionable, their are flaws in their experiments or their results aren't supported by further investigation.

Or, in some cases, that they have do no scientific research nor have an understanding of the physics involved. Please do not pull the 'persecution' card here. It makes no sense when used in the context of the academic world in this manner.



For all we know what we're doing is even worse of the ecosystem of our world. Is it likely? Maybe, we won't know.
This is a rather flimsy assertion. Given that
1: we know pollution has negative effects on the ecosystem (even if you aren't counting global climate) and that
2: alternate methods produce significantly less of it and fewer waste products as well
It is quite simply illogical to assume we're doing more long-term damage with these methods. In a similar manner as it is illogical to assume rock music should be band in case it attracts hostile alien battlefleets.

[The Neoclassic]

In a similar manner as it is illogical to assume rock music should be band in case it attracts hostile alien battlefleets.

I'd just leave this out, as it is not a strong analogy and only going to lead to grief. For the record, I agree with your other points entirely; I just hate to see good arguments including little snippy statements which can be easily attacked (allowing people to ignore the real point).

[Moff Chumley]

Notice how the OP hasn't responded...

Trolling?

[Serpentine]

How much of a problem is the extra CO2 in the ocean?
@ hamishspence

From what I've read in the aforementioned Lomborg book, focusing on CO2 is not the way to go. He says for every dollar that is spent on trying to reduce the impact of CO2, it only does about 32 cents worth of good. Trying to reduce CO2, even if the plans in place work 100%, the impact on CO2 is a fraction of a percent reduction over the next century. That being said, warming of the atmosphere naturally causes water to expand, but the current figure is that the oceans will rise about 1 foot by 2100. Most of which I don't believe is due to CO2, so to answer your question. Not too much.I was talking about, and he was asking about, the ocean, not the atmosphere. As I said on the previous page:

I've just now mentioned elsewhere the effect of CO2 emissions on the oceans. It's called "ocean acidification", but my lecturer went into great detail on why that term's innaccurate. Anyway, basically, the calcification of coral reefs relies on a delicately balanced chemical equation. Calcifying corals are able to calcify more into their skeletons during the day than is dissolved at night (if you really want me to I can find the equations, but really, do you need it?). Increased CO2 in the atmosphere (which is pretty much undeniable as a human-caused phenomenon) means more CO2 dissolved in the ocean. This unbalances the oceanic chemistry, causing it to require more energy for the coral to calcify and resulting in a net loss of coral skeleton structure. This has already begun, with the paltry amount of action already taken it's practically inevitable and possibly irreversible, and unlike global warming (from which coral may be able to survive by moving further from the equator to cooler climes) it is ocean-wide and inescapable.
As my lecturer told me, get out and enjoy coral reefs while you can. There's a good chance they're on their way out. Regardless of whether global climate change "exists", it's the same human activities that's causing this well-documented phenomenon.
Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7059/abs/nature04095.html)
Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;318/5857/1737)
Ocean acidification: the other CO2 problem (http://home.earthlink.net/~misterwagner/citrusoceanography/articles/Ocean%20Acidification.pdf)
From my study guide:

In addition to coral bleaching impacts, another important aspect of global climate change that is only recently receiving attention, is the problem of altered calcification saturation states resulting from increased CO2 being absorbed by seawater. This is sometimes referred to as 'ocean acidification' (a technically incorrect term). Increased CO2 absorption in seawater lowers the calcium carbonate saturation state, which reduces calcification by hermatypic corals and algae etc., which in turn leads to reduce skeletal growth and strength, and a reduced rate of reef growth. This is further compounded by the altered seawater chemistry saturation state increasing the rate of dissolution of coral skeletons and reefs, especially at night.
Coral dies, reefs collapse, ecosystems disappear. Fish stocks plummet, millions of people lose their food source and livelihood, communities starve. The intangible value of biodiversity aside, what's the dollar value of that imminent catastrophy?

Furthermore, there are several models for climate change, not just one. Just because one turns out to be incorrect, doesn't mean they all are, and even if we don't have the right model it doesn't mean it's not happening at all. In any case, global climate change is a scientific fact, at least as much so as evolution. There is more reliable evidence that it is anthropogenic, or at least exaccerbated by human impacts, than that it is not. Regardless of whether human activities are causing global climate change, we know that the same activities suspected of doing so are also responsible for all sorts of other, possibly less global, environmental impacts - pollution, the aforementioned ocean acidification, habitat destruction, global dimming, etc. Thus, "humans probably aren't causing climate change" is absolutely no reason to not change our ways. Anyway, the consequences of ignoring the warnings if they're true are far more dire than the consequences of preparing for them if they're false.

[KnightDisciple]

I think Serpentine hits the nail on the head. Let's stop pollution because it's freaking pollution, not for some argued over, politicized, debated, unsure theory about melting icecaps or whatnot.
For example, let's try to help make available the world over methods of logging that discourage clear cutting. Variable retention and so forth. I'd eat the increased cost of wood products if it were for something like that. Alternatively, encourage purpose-grown tree groves; maybe set up a half a dozen spaces, with each harvested in turn, allowin the others to grow and recover.
Cut down on smoke emissions. Increase efficiency. I'm a "hardcore capitalist", and I support this stuff. It's logical Poison is bad, less poison or no poison is good.
Let's take that angle, rather than preaching ice cap melting doom. I'd wager you'd get less negative reaction.

[Serpentine]

Funny, I think we're kinda coming at this at opposite angles... Your last line, I would've put more as "Let's take that angle, rather than attacking legitimate yet fallible, and really kinda irrelevant, science". I think there's no point, and in fact a great deal of harm, in arguing that we shouldn't do anything because the evidence for global climate change is less than complete. And if there is even a chance that climate change science is correct, or even half right, we need to get started right now.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

Cut down on smoke emissions. Increase efficiency. I'm a "hardcore capitalist", and I support this stuff. It's logical Poison is bad, less poison or no poison is good.


See, you just hit the nail on the head. Capitalism and wealth will go a long ways to curing what Serpentine mentioned. If the world concentrated on things like eradicating Malaria, and getting developing and third world nations' infrastructure up to the rest of the world it will help leaps and bounds. When you actually keep people from dying from communicable diseases that a definitely preventable, you obviously have more healthy people. Why more people living, the wealth of a nation should naturally increase once the money is spent to update the infrastructure. Once you have good infrastructure, you no longer have the need of as many factories, and the like, which in turn decreases pollution a whole heck of a lot.

@ serpentine, I see that now, but I read it as what impact does/will CO2 have on oceans.

Oh, a little off tangent from the last point. I'd like to point out that more people(and animals) actually die from cold related deaths than they do heat related deaths by a factor of 5. (I think, I'll check that and change it if it's wrong.)

[Serpentine]

See, you just hit the nail on the head. Capitalism and wealth will go a long ways to curing what Serpentine mentioned. If the world concentrated on things like eradicating Malaria, and getting developing and third world nations' infrastructure up to the rest of the world it will help leaps and bounds. When you actually keep people from dying from communicable diseases that a definitely preventable, you obviously have more healthy people. Why more people living, the wealth of a nation should naturally increase once the money is spent to update the infrastructure. Once you have good infrastructure, you no longer have the need of as many factories, and the like, which in turn decreases pollution a whole heck of a lot.This isn't an either/or situation. Noone's saying "we can either spend all this money on helping cure diseases, or we can work on making our use of the planet more sustainable. You can't have it both ways, people!". Anyway, there's a pretty severe lack of money being spent on either. Furthermore, the planet can't wait for human life to reach perfection. The building of the infrastructure needs to start now.

@ serpentine, I see that now, but I read it as what impact does/will CO2 have on oceans.It is. And the answer is, "a lot".

Oh, a little off tangent from the last point. I'd like to point out that more people(and animals) actually die from cold related deaths than they do heat related deaths by a factor of 5. (I think, I'll check that and change it if it's wrong.)It's not just about direct, individual deaths. It's also about entire ecosystems. I know I'm focussing on this, but take corals: They can only survive and successfully reproduce within a relatively narrow thermal range. This range is already beginning to be breached - the damage is already obvious with increased frequency of bleaching episodes. This isn't just about one colony, or one species, or even one group of species: Hard corals form the foundation of coral reefs. Reefs are comparable in biodiversity to the richest of rainforests, especially when contrasting them with the desert that is the rest of the ocean. They are also the "nursery" of many other species of fish and the like, many of which humans use. If this one group of animals die, the ecosystem will completely collapse, which, aside from that being a disaster in itself, will have drastic flow-on repercussions for the humans that exploit marine resources. The death of a few individuals, and their relative thermal causes, is moot.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

Furthermore, the planet can't wait for human life to reach perfection. The building of the infrastructure needs to start now.

But there's one MAJOR issue with that thought. When the powers at be, due to the apocalyptic messages a select few send out of the of the worst case scenarios are taken as fact by many, priorities get skewed. When people are hell bent on following Kyoto through even though it will cost trillions and trillions of dollars for basically no effect at all, especially when the biggest culprits are allowed to do what they want, the building of anything constructive can't happen. people are too wrapped up that reducing CO2 is the answer when it is actually the least constructive measure we can take. it all boils down to using a lot less money where it will have the most impact, but most can't see that because the media I'm looking at you Discovery Channel), or such things like using blatantly wrong fact in An Inconvenient Truth) are ramming the end of the world in 50 years down are throats every day.

[The Neoclassic]

But there's one MAJOR issue with that thought. When the powers at be, due to the apocalyptic messages a select few send out of the of the worst case scenarios are taken as fact by many, priorities get skewed. When people are hell bent on following Kyoto through even though it will cost trillions and trillions of dollars for basically no effect at all, especially when the biggest culprits are allowed to do what they want, the building of anything constructive can't happen. people are too wrapped up that reducing CO2 is the answer when it is actually the least constructive measure we can take. it all boils down to using a lot less money where it will have the most impact, but most can't see that because the media I'm looking at you Discovery Channel), and the likes of Al Gore (I'm not trying to make this political, but he used a lot of data that was just plain wrong in An Inconvenient Truth) are ramming the end of the world in 50 years down are throats every day.

Just one thing: If we're all so brainwashed and indoctrinated, why are so many people arguing that global warming is nonsense or a conspiracy? :smallconfused:

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

Just one thing: If we're all so brainwashed and indoctrinated, why are so many people arguing that global warming is nonsense or a conspiracy? :smallconfused:

Because there will always be nutjobs out there on both sides of the equation. Just 30 years ago people were freaking out saying that the next ice age was upon us. These very same people are currently the ones with the doomsday predictions of global warming. Now, with more people on the planet, the temperature will naturally increase, as it does with the case of more urban areas. My view on the subject is as follows. Can we say that global warming exists? The answer to that is no. Can we say that global cooling exists? The answer to that is also no. The thing many people seem to fail to realize is that the temperature of the earth is cyclical. But, while the global cooling experts see the evidence and say that it's only anecdotal, many global warming theorists take it as fact. Now why is this? I believe is because many of the global warming people likely have agendas they want to push, while the people on the flip side of the coin seemingly do not. Now, with the aforementioned book I'm reading (Cool It), the author states that global warming is indeed happening. For the purpose of reading the book, I am looking at things from that perspective while I read it. Why am I doing this? Because it makes all the suggestions and data in the book work. It also goes to prove that if this guy can amass this information, and see things for what they really are, and what we should be spending billions less on, to do more good, why can't the leaders of the world realize these things too.

[Pyrian]

I believe is because many of the global warming people likely have agendas they want to push, while the people on the flip side of the coin seemingly do not.Dude, the people spending billions and billions of dollars on the flip side are oil companies.

I must confess, I'm now quite curious, though: why is this thread even allowed to exist, here? Has moderation stopped altogether?

[Serpentine]

^ I don't see where we've crossed the line so far. Maybe mention of the Kyoto Protocol is a bit political, and there's been passing reference perhaps to "government action", but that's about it. The rules forbid political and religious topics, and various antisocial behaviours, not controvercial (sp?) topics in general. I won't be surprised if this is soon locked, but it isn't foregone conclusion or natural assumption.


Now, with more people on the planet, the temperature will naturally increase, as it does with the case of more urban areas.This is an odd thing to say. Can you give me any data that says that this is so, and can account for all the weird climate stuff going on? Furthermore, you state this so dismissively, as though it's just a minor thing if humans are significantly effecting global temperatures through our mere presence, not a big deal and not something we have to worry about or deal with.

My view on the subject is as follows. Can we say that global warming exists? The answer to that is no. Can we say that global cooling exists? The answer to that is also no. The thing many people seem to fail to realize is that the temperature of the earth is cyclical.I think you'll find that climatologists are well aware of the history of the world's climate, and its cycles. I also think you'll find that almost no experts are surprised by events apparently contradictory to the term "global warming" - a term that, I think, is largely defunct nowadays. Earth is getting warmer over all. It is actually perfectly within the models of rapid climate change for some places to cool, rather than heat - something to do with changes in ocean currents, which were predicted and we are already seeing.

But, while the global cooling experts see the evidence and say that it's only anecdotal, many global warming theorists take it as fact.What, I wonder, is your definition of a "global cooling expert" as opposed to a "global warming theorist"? There's some seriously loaded language right there. I'd like to see you give me examples of some "experts" that are more reliable than the "theorists" due solely to the quality of their science and data collection and analysis, rather than the fact that they are attacking a "popular" scientific theory.

Now why is this? I believe is because many of the global warming people likely have agendas they want to push, while the people on the flip side of the coin seemingly do not.This is just absurd. What Pyrian said, and furthermore there are innumerable scientists, specifically in climatology and also in others such as marine biology, who are not only using global climate change as a basic fact but who are also gathering ample evidence to support it. Almost all the government reactions have, at least initially, been negative, especially among the oil-reliant nations. Science has had to push to get even as much action as there has been. Exactly what benefit are rapid climate change experts going to get from this?! Another grant for a few more years?
Tell me, just what are the qualifications and the background of this marvelous author?
On a previous post:

people are too wrapped up that reducing CO2 is the answer when it is actually the least constructive measure we can take.The only - only - way to save the coral reefs of the world is to reduce CO2, and I have absolutely no doubt that there are numerous other benefits to doing this, quite apart from the (extremely well-documented) global climate change. Never mind, though, it's all just a big conspiracy, pickin' on the poor li'l oil companies, and far too much effort :smallwink:

[Mx.Silver]

Because there will always be nutjobs out there on both sides of the equation. Just 30 years ago people were freaking out saying that the next ice age was upon us. These very same people are currently the ones with the doomsday predictions of global warming.
Exactly, which is why those particular groups are not generally worth concerning yourself with. The fact that they exist however does not mean that there is no strong evidence for the human-made climate change and that this may account for why many people are including themselves in this camp. E.g. the very large majority of climatologists and environmental scientists (who are not a group of people known for their wild flights or overdramatic fancy).


Now, with more people on the planet, the temperature will naturally increase, as it does with the case of more urban areas. My view on the subject is as follows. Can we say that global warming exists? The answer to that is no. Can we say that global cooling exists? The answer to that is also no.
Can we say though that we are experiencing a period of significant climate change? Yes and you'll have a very hard time finding actual climate scientists who say we're not. The evidence for it is completely overwhelming (temperature recordings, increased hurricane activty, shifting ocean currents, receeding glaciers and melting icecaps, most notably in antarctica, to name a few).



The thing many people seem to fail to realize is that the temperature of the earth is cyclical. But, while the global cooling experts see the evidence and say that it's only anecdotal, many global warming theorists take it as fact.
Firstly, cyclical climate change has to have a trigger. Saying change is 'cyclical' is all well and good (and not innaccurate) but it can give a misleading impression that it does this by itself without anything to 'get the ball rolling' as it were. This is simply not the case. As I explained in my last post the only factor that could probably account for the initial trigger is humanity, as there hasn't been any increased output from the sun nor any significant volcanic activity that could account for what we're seeing now.

Second point, what 'global cooling experts'? Who on earth is proposing this global cooling theory, outside of the non-scientific fringe? It certainly doesn't figure in scientific circles.


Now why is this? I believe is because many of the global warming people likely have agendas they want to push, while the people on the flip side of the coin seemingly do not.
Erm, what? So the vast majority of climate scientists are all in on this 'agenda' too? Even the ones who were sceptical of it when it first put forward and who were only subsequently convinced? (and there's a lot of them)
Even the scientists on 'the flip side of the coin' accept that it's happening, and are simply claiming that human action is not main factor. And they are a minority. If you look outside the scientific community then you are going to find agendas on both sides without any real difficulty.



Now, with the aforementioned book I'm reading (Cool It), the author states that global warming is indeed happening. For the purpose of reading the book, I am looking at things from that perspective while I read it. Why am I doing this? Because it makes all the suggestions and data in the book work.
But do you personally think that global warming is occuring? Because it sounds to me very much like you don't. If that is the case, I'm rather curious as to why.


It also goes to prove that if this guy can amass this information, and see things for what they really are, and what we should be spending billions less on, to do more good, why can't the leaders of the world realize these things too.
Okay, that's some incredibly loaded language here. 'See things for what they really are'? That's a dangerous statement to use here, as it implies there's some obvious objective truth here that you are presumabley able to see but which the scientific community is somehow unable to.

As to 'why the leaders of the world can't' bear in mind that Lomborg respresents a small minority opinion amongst climate scientists (the overwhelming consensus amongst whom is that human pollution is a major factor, if not the principle one, in climate change). From a policy-maker's standpoint, particularly if they're concerned that this could have negative consequences, it makes sense to go with the consensus view, particularly as pretty much every scientific advisor you've relied upon for this will be holding it. Even for a non-policy maker it is a still a logical choice to go with the consensus (it's what I and I suspect several other people in this thread did).

There's also the risk-management issue. If Lomborg's hypothesis is wrong (and bear in mind the significant majority of climate scientists are saying it is) then if left unchecked this could have very major negative effects, possibly even catastrophic in a worst-case scenario. Even outside of one though, unless action is taken quickly any effects to the climate will be irreversible so if something is to be done about it it should be done swiftly.
Now, it Lomborg is right and the effects are too minor to cause worry then it is not a complete waste. Many of the measures put in place are designed to reduce energy consumption and pollution, both of which will also have enviromental benefits. Furthermore, it's not as if we're stopping cancer research or international aid to pursue this. There may be wastage but that itself it nowhere a collosal downside, particularly when taking into account most of the models of the effects of unchecked climate change (which, once again, have rather more academic weight behind them than Lomborg's hypothesis)

[hamishspence]

Precautionary principle.

Like with the ozone hole- yes, the initial treaty wasn't very helpful as written, but it was a starting point, to set the ball rolling.

[Simanos]

See, you just hit the nail on the head. Capitalism and wealth will go a long ways to curing what Serpentine mentioned. If the world concentrated on things like eradicating Malaria, and getting developing and third world nations' infrastructure up to the rest of the world it will help leaps and bounds. When you actually keep people from dying from communicable diseases that a definitely preventable, you obviously have more healthy people. Why more people living, the wealth of a nation should naturally increase once the money is spent to update the infrastructure. Once you have good infrastructure, you no longer have the need of as many factories, and the like, which in turn decreases pollution a whole heck of a lot.

@ serpentine, I see that now, but I read it as what impact does/will CO2 have on oceans.

Oh, a little off tangent from the last point. I'd like to point out that more people(and animals) actually die from cold related deaths than they do heat related deaths by a factor of 5. (I think, I'll check that and change it if it's wrong.)
It's amazing how people can fit the word Capitalism in anything...

BTW, is the Ozone layer fixed now? Hmm, I just get this feeling CO2 regulations is a big corporation decoy so they can keep polluting with all the other dangerous (outlawed) stuff they do. While saying that they reduced CO2 emissions they hide their true pollution.

[Serpentine]

It's amazing how people can fit the word Capitalism in anything...Now that I think about it, it sounds pretty defensive, hey? It's not as though anyone's gone "Socialism is the answer!" :smallconfused:

edit: I don't know whether the ozone hole is completely healed, but it's definitely vastly improved. One of the true great victories of environmentalism...

[Simanos]

Now that I think about it, it sounds pretty defensive, hey? It's not as though anyone's gone "Socialism is the answer!" :smallconfused:

edit: I don't know whether the ozone hole is completely healed, but it's definitely vastly improved. One of the true great victories of environmentalism...
I think it is because people in USA are as brainwashed to believe Capitalism is the "answer" as people in the USSR were* brainwashed to believe Socialism is the "answer", when it's obvious the "answer" is Humanism :smallcool:
*=obviously now they aren't any more :smalltongue:
(I'm not totally serious about what I just said, feeling humourous a bit.)

Got any links about the Ozone being "fixed"? I'm asking honestly, not being a smartass.

[Moff Chumley]

I'm not positive, but I think that the argument "Global climate change is insignificant/nonexistent because there are dying people in Africa" is a tad fallacious. I don't think anyone's denying that the world's governments/people should be doing more to help that. However, it doesn't make Climate Change any more insignificant.

[hamishspence]

if anything, it may lead to "significantly more dying people in any marginal area" what with desertification, heat waves (which pose most threat to the poor) disease, etc.

[Mx.Silver]

It's amazing how people can fit the word Capitalism in anything...

BTW, is the Ozone layer fixed now?
No, but it's getting there now.


Hmm, I just get this feeling CO2 regulations is a big corporation decoy so they can keep polluting with all the other dangerous (outlawed) stuff they do. While saying that they reduced CO2 emissions they hide their true pollution.
I think this might be a bit of a stretch here. Corporations and businesses simply follow the path of most profit. Opposition to enviromental regulations is there because it means they lose money, not because they just love to destroy ecosystems. There was, and to a fair extent still is, an awful lot of cororate opposition to CO2 regulations because this impacted on industrial output.
However, as public concern for the environment has grown there has been some move on the part of companies due to the negative publicity and consumer ill-will being considered part of the problem creates. Whether it'll be enough to motivate the necessary changes without some kind of other financial enticement remains to be seen though.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

Pyrian, The two sides of the coin I refer to are global warming and global cooling. As it doesn't pertain to this discussion I won't go into it, but I can't stand the notion the Big Bad Evil Oil is to blame for everything.




This is an odd thing to say. Can you give me any data that says that this is so, and can account for all the weird climate stuff going on? Furthermore, you state this so dismissively, as though it's just a minor thing if humans are significantly effecting global temperatures through our mere presence, not a big deal and not something we have to worry about or deal with.

I don't think the fact that CO2 increases the earth's temperature is under debate. That being said, more people in the world means more CO2 in the atmosphere. And I did not say that it was a significant affect on temperature, but it does have some impact, so far it has been seen to be quite small, but it is an impact nevertheless.


I think you'll find that climatologists are well aware of the history of the world's climate, and its cycles. I also think you'll find that almost no experts are surprised by events apparently contradictory to the term "global warming" - a term that, I think, is largely defunct nowadays. Earth is getting warmer over all. It is actually perfectly within the models of rapid climate change for some places to cool, rather than heat - something to do with changes in ocean currents, which were predicted and we are already seeing.

I'm not saying that climatologists aren't aware of it, but I'd be willing to be there a a LOT of ordinary people out there that don't know that information. Now, while there are changes with ocean currents (the most brought up one being the Gulf Stream), some seem to think Greenland will melt so much as to dump so much fresh water into the Northern Atlantic that it will halt the current all together. This is nowhere near true as the most realistic worst case scenario models have the Gulf Stream at a reduction of 50% in the next century if nothing is done.


What, I wonder, is your definition of a "global cooling expert" as opposed to a "global warming theorist"? There's some seriously loaded language right there. I'd like to see you give me examples of some "experts" that are more reliable than the "theorists" due solely to the quality of their science and data collection and analysis, rather than the fact that they are attacking a "popular" scientific theory.

That's actually just me being me. I can't stand using the same word twice in one sentence, it's being redundant and I abhor it, especially when they're so close together.


This is just absurd. What Pyrian said, and furthermore there are innumerable scientists, specifically in climatology and also in others such as marine biology, who are not only using global climate change as a basic fact but who are also gathering ample evidence to support it. Almost all the government reactions have, at least initially, been negative, especially among the oil-reliant nations. Science has had to push to get even as much action as there has been. Exactly what benefit are rapid climate change experts going to get from this?! Another grant for a few more years?

I am certainly not referring to scientists when talking about agendas. Usually it's more the political arena that this takes place, and as such I really can't comment on it here.

Tell me, just what are the qualifications and the background of this marvelous author?
On a previous post:


The only - only - way to save the coral reefs of the world is to reduce CO2, and I have absolutely no doubt that there are numerous other benefits to doing this, quite apart from the (extremely well-documented) global climate change. Never mind, though, it's all just a big conspiracy, pickin' on the poor li'l oil companies, and far too much effort :smallwink: [

I seem to be thinking much bigger picture than you on this. Not to say it isn't important, but there's a lot more to the global warming issue than coral reefs. Most of what I've been saying is to the effect of a global scale.

As to the qualifications of Lomborg. he has backgrounds is political science, business and environmentalism. He was the former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen. He's written several very well received book about the global warming issue. The thing you have to realize about him is that, he comes at the issue at more of an economic point of view. His major points boil down to that by focusing on the social issues that need attention in the world, it will cost far less, and have far greater success in dealing with global warming than anything that we're doing right now. But my advice to you on him is not to just take my word for it. Go get one, or both of his books from you library or bookstore, read them, and see what you think of them for yourself. You seem to be against a lot of the information I've recited that I've read without seeing that information for yourself.




Can we say though that we are experiencing a period of significant climate change? Yes and you'll have a very hard time finding actual climate scientists who say we're not. The evidence for it is completely overwhelming (temperature recordings, increased hurricane activty, shifting ocean currents, receeding glaciers and melting icecaps, most notably in antarctica, to name a few).

While the melting of Antarctica will indeed have an impact on ocean levels, it hasn't been proven whether or not the continent has major melting occurring. I believe there's some data that the exact opposite is happening, and that the ice cover in the region is increasing. Along those lines, if all the ice of the polar ice cap were to melt, it would not raise the ocean levels one bit. Why might you ask? Well, the ice up there is not an anchored land mass, it's just a giant hunk of floating ice. And exactly like an ice cube, it displaces the amount of water relative to it's size.



Firstly, cyclical climate change has to have a trigger. Saying change is 'cyclical' is all well and good (and not innaccurate) but it can give a misleading impression that it does this by itself without anything to 'get the ball rolling' as it were. This is simply not the case. As I explained in my last post the only factor that could probably account for the initial trigger is humanity, as there hasn't been any increased output from the sun nor any significant volcanic activity that could account for what we're seeing now.

Second point, what 'global cooling experts'? Who on earth is proposing this global cooling theory, outside of the non-scientific fringe? It certainly doesn't figure in scientific circles.

How can you say that the cyclical nature of the temperature of the earth is soley due/started to human interaction. As I recall, the last ice age was due to environmental factors (granted that factor was a large meteor hitting the planet but still...) All you have to do is look at tree rings. You'll see sections with thick white rings, thin white rings. thick black rings and thin black rings, that have actually proven the cyclical nature of the Earth's temperature. I personally do not think that humans have any impact on the temperature swings of the planet. Can we affect what the current temperature is yet, but I think that it's more environmental factors that affect the cycles (now I don't currently have anything to back that up, that's just my thoughts). Ok, global cooling is not "fringe science", and is actually a widely accepted theory, just as much so as global warming in many scientific circles. So please don't tell me that it's just a bunch of crackpots that have thought the idea up.



Erm, what? So the vast majority of climate scientists are all in on this 'agenda' too? Even the ones who were sceptical of it when it first put forward and who were only subsequently convinced? (and there's a lot of them)
Even the scientists on 'the flip side of the coin' accept that it's happening, and are simply claiming that human action is not main factor. And they are a minority. If you look outside the scientific community then you are going to find agendas on both sides without any real difficulty.

Again, I reiterate that it's not the scientists that have agendas, that lies more with the politicians and the special interest groups than anything else.


But do you personally think that global warming is occuring? Because it sounds to me very much like you don't. If that is the case, I'm rather curious as to why.

I personally don't think you can say either way whether it is or not. Much of the evidence they've found out for either warming or cooling is anecdotal, and many models have been planned out and run through with many different factors involved. Again, it comes back to the cyclical nature of the Earth's temperature. There will be warmer periods, and colder periods. The thing I have issues with is that there are a select few, who publish stuff with the completely worst case scenarios. These are then the ones that get major worldwide press, and are broadcast on CNN, and many major news outlets all over the world. The fact the people are stupid now comes into play, as many see and/or read this information and take it as complete fact without a second thought.


Okay, that's some incredibly loaded language here. 'See things for what they really are'? That's a dangerous statement to use here, as it implies there's some obvious objective truth here that you are presumabley able to see but which the scientific community is somehow unable to.

As to 'why the leaders of the world can't' bear in mind that Lomborg respresents a small minority opinion amongst climate scientists (the overwhelming consensus amongst whom is that human pollution is a major factor, if not the principle one, in climate change). From a policy-maker's standpoint, particularly if they're concerned that this could have negative consequences, it makes sense to go with the consensus view, particularly as pretty much every scientific advisor you've relied upon for this will be holding it. Even for a non-policy maker it is a still a logical choice to go with the consensus (it's what I and I suspect several other people in this thread did).

There's also the risk-management issue. If Lomborg's hypothesis is wrong (and bear in mind the significant majority of climate scientists are saying it is) then if left unchecked this could have very major negative effects, possibly even catastrophic in a worst-case scenario. Even outside of one though, unless action is taken quickly any effects to the climate will be irreversible so if something is to be done about it it should be done swiftly.
Now, it Lomborg is right and the effects are too minor to cause worry then it is not a complete waste. Many of the measures put in place are designed to reduce energy consumption and pollution, both of which will also have enviromental benefits. Furthermore, it's not as if we're stopping cancer research or international aid to pursue this. There may be wastage but that itself it nowhere a collosal downside, particularly when taking into account most of the models of the effects of unchecked climate change (which, once again, have rather more academic weight behind them than Lomborg's hypothesis)

Ok, first, if you're going to bash the guy, at least read his stuff and see what you think, I can't stand people who are willing to put something down when the guy has clearly done his research on the subject, especially when he has facts to back up everything he says (out of the 260 pages of the book, only 160 or so is the actual book, the rest of it is all the material citations from his research and notes). One of the most telling things in the book is this. He asked a panel of top world economists to make a global priority list of pressing issues we have globally. He then did the same thing with a wide range of UN ambassadors, and the two lists were almost identical. They categorized the list items from very good opportunities to do much good to very poor. On both lists, climate was at the very bottom. Yet, the Chancellor of Germany, along with many other heads of state keep preaching that Kyoto is the best answer, when this is just not true. And you're telling me that the powers at be do know this stuff, and are listening to it? That's a bunch of hooey and you know it. Example: The data states that for every dollar spent on Kyoto, you get about 30 cents worth of good out of it. Even if it were to work perfectly, that plan would only delay the affects about 5 years (the world currently spends over a trillion dollars on Kyoto each year). Now, if we invest $27 into AIDS prevention, it will save over 28 million lives, or by investing $12 billion into curing malnutrition, it would cut the deaths due to such by over half. Lomborg's whole point is not leaving the climate issue unchecked, it is that by spending that money more wisely, we can help the world with it's problems, and climate at the very same time, much faster, and more economically that what is being done now. In the future, please don't dismiss someone who's actually gone out and done his homework on this issue. That REALLY REALLY ANNOYS ME. Now, you don't have to agree with everything he says, but don't just dismiss it offhand. I for one, don't like that he focuses so much on CO2 emissions, as there's more to the issue than that.

[The Neoclassic]

Ok, global cooling is not "fringe science", and is actually a widely accepted theory, just as much so as global warming in many scientific circles. So please don't tell me that it's just a bunch of crackpots that have thought the idea up.

I'm only commenting on the parts here that I really have something to say about, as arguing over things which I am less ideally informed about wastes time. :smallsmile: Without further ado:



Global cooling
This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s.

Since I know wikipedia is not a valid scientific source, below are some articles it cited when making the above assertation which should be up to snuff:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf)
Article published in the American Meterological Society (http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf)
Article by Spencer Weart, Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics with a PhD in Physics and Astrophysics (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/othergas.htm)

The first outlines the scientific consensus for global warming rather than global cooling. The second was cited for this quote:



Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming.

The third article addresses how the importance of greenhouse gases was underestimated in global cooling reports from the 1970s. But, like Reading Rainbow, don't take my word for it!

[Player_Zero]

So... Is Rawhide on holiday then? Seems to me this is pretty political.

[Moff Chumley]

Under the circumstances, it could be far worse.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

yeah, I think it would be wise for myself to stop posting in this thread, or something not good will likely happen. I'm willing to entertain any and all discussion in PM's or email.

[hamishspence]

Given that Industrial Revolution Coal burning is probably the first major contributor, it is relevant.

I am hoping it stays on the Science side of discussion, maybe more sources?

[Mx.Silver]

I know PGC has withdrawn, but I feel I should answer his points here if only the benefit of anyone else reading it.



While the melting of Antarctica will indeed have an impact on ocean levels, it hasn't been proven whether or not the continent has major melting occurring. I believe there's some data that the exact opposite is happening, and that the ice cover in the region is increasing. Along those lines, if all the ice of the polar ice cap were to melt, it would not raise the ocean levels one bit. Why might you ask? Well, the ice up there is not an anchored land mass, it's just a giant hunk of floating ice. And exactly like an ice cube, it displaces the amount of water relative to it's size.
What have ocean levels got to do with this? We aren't currently observing rising ocean levels, no one has said we are. Where you got that from I don't know. For the record though, while the melting of the Arctic icecpa wouldn't effect sea levels the melting of Antarctica would, as that is an anchored landmass. Greenland is similar. All of them would however have an impact on ocean currents regardless.

As to whether the icecaps are melting the answer is a quite definite yes. There is no data that they're increasing or anything of the kind. Both the arctic and antarctic ice sheets have been observed shrinking and breaking apart over the last few years. The ice covering Greenland is also melting at increasing rate. There is simply no disputing that, you can see it with your own eyes.





How can you say that the cyclical nature of the temperature of the earth is soley due/started to human interaction. As I recall, the last ice age was due to environmental factors (granted that factor was a large meteor hitting the planet but still...)
I have said that environmental factors were responsible for triggering the cyclical changes not once but twice already. The crucial difference this time is that no enviromental factors that could cause the current change in climate we are experiencing. There simply hasn't been any enviromental factors (e.g. Volcanic activity, solar forcing) that can explain why the climate is currently undergoing such change. Human activity is the only observable influence that could trigger such a change so it logically follows that human activity is probably the root cause.


Can we affect what the current temperature is yet, but I think that it's more environmental factors that affect the cycles (now I don't currently have anything to back that up, that's just my thoughts).
Unsupported opinion has no place in a scientific discussion (which is what this is). If you can't back it up then we have no reason to give it any consideration.



Ok, global cooling is not "fringe science", and is actually a widely accepted theory, just as much so as global warming in many scientific circles. So please don't tell me that it's just a bunch of crackpots that have thought the idea up.
Queenfange has already dealt with this. Global cooling has never, at any point, had significant scientific backing. It has never been even remotely comparible to Global Warming which, all enviromental scientists agree is happening (the only area of debate being to what extent it is the result of human action).




Again, I reiterate that it's not the scientists that have agendas, that lies more with the politicians and the special interest groups than anything else.
But all climate scientists aggree that we are currently experience a period of global warming and the vast majority of the scientific community is arguing that this is a result of human actions. This is the reason why so many politicians hold this same view. The fact that alarmist groups make exagerrated claims about the dangers of climate change does not change this.




I personally don't think you can say either way whether it is or not. Much of the evidence they've found out for either warming or cooling is anecdotal,
I'm sorry but this is just plain wrong. There is no other way to put. There is undeniably hard evidence that our planet is undergoing a period of warming. If there wasn't then there wouldn't be such a united scientific front on the matter. Science is all about evidence, no hypothesis without it can ever expect to get far in scientific circles without it (as seen in the case of global cooling, which is thoroughly discredited and never possessed any significant scientific following to begin with).


and many models have been planned out and run through with many different factors involved.
And all the ones based on up to date information are in agreement that climate change is taking place.


Again, it comes back to the cyclical nature of the Earth's temperature. There will be warmer periods, and colder periods.
See higher up this post.



The thing I have issues with is that there are a select few, who publish stuff with the completely worst case scenarios.
Here we are in agreement. Sensationalism and alarmist literature is never helpful. However, note that just because their claims are exagerated does not mean that human-caused climate change isn't happening. As far as the actual evidence is concerned it very probably is.





Ok, first, if you're going to bash the guy, at least read his stuff and see what you think, I can't stand people who are willing to put something down when the guy has clearly done his research on the subject, especially when he has facts to back up everything he says (out of the 260 pages of the book, only 160 or so is the actual book, the rest of it is all the material citations from his research and notes).
I'm not bashing him. I'm just saying that he's an ecomonist and that his views are not supported by the scientific community. I'm not saying he's definitely wrong but given that his economic claims will be based on his own non-expert opinion of the science behind you should be very careful (and exercise a lot of scepticism) in taking his word about the effects of climate change over that of actual scientists.


One of the most telling things in the book is this. He asked a panel of top world economists to make a global priority list of pressing issues we have globally. He then did the same thing with a wide range of UN ambassadors, and the two lists were almost identical. They categorized the list items from very good opportunities to do much good to very poor. On both lists, climate was at the very bottom.
Economists and diplomats are not scientists. You can't expect them to know all the relevent factors because in their own fields of expertise they are not going to need to know them.


Yet, the Chancellor of Germany, along with many other heads of state keep preaching that Kyoto is the best answer, when this is just not true.
I don't think they're preaching that Kyoto is the best answer (if anything the general consensus is that it's not enough). Nonetheless again, as they're politicians they will be making these claims on the advice of the scientists they have consulted. And since the general scientific consensus is that muan-caused global warming is really happening I'm really curious as to where your sources are for how it's 'simply not true'.



And you're telling me that the powers at be do know this stuff, and are listening to it? That's a bunch of hooey and you know it.
If they weren't listening to the scientific opinion they wouldn't be treating this as an issue at all.


Example: The data states that for every dollar spent on Kyoto, you get about 30 cents worth of good out of it.
How do you reach that conclusion? How are you defining 'good'? This is a soundbite and it really needs a lot more clarification.


Even if it were to work perfectly, that plan would only delay the affects about 5 years (the world currently spends over a trillion dollars on Kyoto each year).
Again this is based on Lomborg's own knowledge of climate science, a field which he is not an expert in. He's an economist.



Now, if we invest $27 into AIDS prevention, it will save over 28 million lives,
or by investing $12 billion into curing malnutrition, it would cut the deaths due to such by over half. Lomborg's whole point is not leaving the climate issue unchecked, it is that by spending that money more wisely, we can help the world with it's problems, and climate at the very same time, much faster, and more economically that what is being done now.
How is this helping the climate? While both are comendable, neither has any impact on the levels of greenhouse gasses or polution in general. Again, bear in mind that we haven't stopped funding AIDs research


In the future, please don't dismiss someone who's actually gone out and done his homework on this issue.
I'm not dismissing it, I'm being sceptical about it. You seem to be taking him as gospel despite the fact that, once again, his view does not have the support of the scientific community all of whom have also 'done their homework' on this issue. This is probably quite closely related to the fact that he's an economist and not a scientist and isn't going to have the same level of knowledge on the subject (and won't be keeping as up to date with it) as a climate scientist would.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

I didn't intend to post in this thread anymore, but found an interesting column I wanted to share. http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html

[Alex Knight]

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html

The earth was warmer 10 years ago than it was last year. The polar ice caps are now at their 1979/1980 levels.

To me, this is not a sign of "global warming". This is a sign that Earth's climate is changing, as a planetary system is wan to do.

Personally, I feel that the largest contributor to earth's temperature changes is the huge fusion furnace in the center of the system. Sunspots are an indication of increased solar output, and currently sunspot activity is very low, comparatively.

[Serpentine]

Two and a half things about that article raise red flags to me.

1. "Just as an aside, do you remember when the hole in the ozone layer was going to melt Antarctica? But don't worry, we're safe now, that was the nineties."
The reason that's not so much of an issue now is all those environmentalists who pushed to have CFCs, the cause of the hole, banned. They were, and the hole has closed. That's not a matter of an issue being blown out of proportion, it's an issue being successfully dealt with.

2. "To think, early last year, liberals suggested we spend 45 trillion dollars and give up five million jobs to fix global warming. But there is good news: now that we don't have to spend any of that money, we can give it all to the banks.

John Tomlinson is a local conservative columnist for The Flint Journal."
Political bitchiness and bias? In a scientific issue? Never!

[Mx.Silver]

John Tomlinson is a local conservative columnist for The Flint Journal."
I.e. not a scientist. Nor even a science journalist. This alone is a sign to up your levels of scepticism, and the fact that he quite clearly treats this as a political issue rather than a scientific one is a serious red flag.

The two men you're cited may well be fairly intelligent people and good at what they do but they do not have relevent experience in the field that actually matters: climate and environmental science. In fact, in that field you'll find anyone who is arguing that we are not experiencing a period of global warming/climate change. There are a few scientists and studies that argue that it's not the result of human activity, but there's very little indeed to suggest that it isn't happening at all.



Personally, I feel that the largest contributor to earth's temperature changes is the huge fusion furnace in the center of the system. Sunspots are an indication of increased solar output, and currently sunspot activity is very low, comparatively.
Actually, this is generally quite correct. Changes in the sun's activityt are the biggest contributer to earth's climate and there are actually a few climate scientists who are saying that this could be responisble this time around. However, the problem is that changes in solar activity do not correlate with the recent changes in temperature and climate that we've observed, which is the significant majority of climate scientists are arguing that human activity is the root cause (the second video I linked to in my first post looks over the arguements against human-caused climate change and spends a fair bit of time on this, so it's probably worth a look).

[DigoDragon]

I don't know whether the ozone hole is completely healed, but it's definitely vastly improved. One of the true great victories of environmentalism...

I read an article in a local newspaper a week ago that the Ozone hole won't seal up until 2030 and won't be completely healed until around 2050. Actual milage probably varies depending on who (http://www.livescience.com/environment/071003-ozone-hole-shrinks.html) you ask (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/ozone_resource_page.html). :smalleek:

STILL, regardless if GW is real or not, I'm quite convinced that the everyday pollution we expel (such as car emissions, CFCs, littered plastics, etc.) is harmful to our immediate habitat and science has shown the effects from that much at least. :smallsmile: Now if you think about it, we can consider our world a really big science experiment if we want to see the effects of all the CO2 we're expelling...

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

I.e. not a scientist. Nor even a science journalist. This alone is a sign to up your levels of scepticism, and the fact that he quite clearly treats this as a political issue rather than a scientific one is a serious red flag.

One, I never said he was a scientist, two I stated it was an article from the beginning. But, what is a fact is that 260 of the top climatologists think man-made global warming is a bunch of hooey. It is also a fact that the temperature worldwide has been declining for the past 10 year, and it's also a fact that Antarctica is back to the ice thickness it was almost thirty years ago. That is what I wanted to point out. The globe is cooling, there is plenty of evidence to support that. The Earth has warmed as well, but it seems obvious that this is actually not one of those times. There is also enough information to support the claim that if there is man-made global warming, it may actually be why things are not colder than they currently are.

[hamishspence]

260 of the top climatologists think man-made global warming is a bunch of hooey.

Temperature worldwide has been declining for the past 10 years.

Antarctic thickness is back to what it was 30 years ago.

Sources please?

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

260 of the top climatologists think man-made global warming is a bunch of hooey.

Temperature worldwide has been declining for the past 10 years.

Antarctic thickness is back to what it was 30 years ago.

Sources please?

Gladly

Climatologists (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6)

Arctic studies (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6) I haven't actually located the exact prject, but this is the group that conducted the study.

Temperature Trends (http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm) Many more can be found by searching for global temperature trends of the last 10 years/decade into Google.

[Mx.Silver]

260 of the top climatologists think man-made global warming is a bunch of hooey.

Temperature worldwide has been declining for the past 10 years.

Antarctic thickness is back to what it was 30 years ago.

Sources please?

He's repeating the article he linked to earlier.

At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis.

Unfortunately, from what my couple of hours of fact-checking indicate, the claim itself seems to be based off Tomlinson misinterepreting an article from the site Right Side News (not exactly an unbiased source in the frist place) about an umpcoming senate minority report which apparrently features comments of 650 scientists (warning: I could only find the article in pdf format (http://www.rightsidenews.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=2943)).

The article itself lacks substance, consisting mainly of supposed 'preview' soundbites from various scientists, a rather large number of whom are not climatologists. If it is an accurate excerpt from the report then I doubt it will make much headway, most of them are presented in an attempt to appeal to authority, contain no sources or citations and very little context. Significantly however, both the quotes Tomlinson uses are contained within the first two pages of said article.


Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"
For the record, David Gee is not a climatologist. He's a Geologist (hence presumably why he was chairing a geological congress). They are not the same thing.
On a side, Right Side News did run an article on the Congress, which did contain the quote they used in the above article but for some reason didn't actually attribute them to Dr. Gee, simply describing them as words from 'a scientist'. (the article is here (http://www.rightsidenews.com/200808191759/energy-and-environment/global-warming-skeptics-prominently-featured-at-international-scientific-meeting.html), the words themselves are in the last paragraph or so).

The quote from Dr. Kunihiko Takeda originally comes from an interview he gave with the Japan Times in July 2008 (full article here (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20080722jk.html)), although it is rather more trimmed down. Again It is rather relevent to note that Kunihiko's PHD is not in climatology or environmental science but in Engineering. He also happens to be a staunch anti-environmentalist.

The comment on temperatures having peaked I don't know about. Tomlinson doesn't even attempt to source it from anything so I can't really check it. The statement about temperatures set to drop is similarly unsourced (aside from a mention of ice cores). If PGC or Alex Knight could point out which studies this is based I'll be happy to look into them.

He did, however cite one statement.

Meanwhile, the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels. What's more, measurements of Antarctic ice now show that its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980.
Here is the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center's webpage (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/). Yeah, that's basically all I feel the need to say on this one.



One, I never said he was a scientist, two I stated it was an article from the beginning.
So why did you think it was worth mentioning in a discussion of science? If you don't have a scientific source then just say so. Presenting something like this as if it was on a similar level (which it very clearly is not) will subtract more from your position than add to it.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

Mr. Silver, you can check out the links I posted since you seem to not have noticed the first two. You seem to not believe that the aforementioned climatologists say that mad-made global warming is nonexistent. Seems to me that you're calling the best in their field liars. Are you also telling me that the research of a group from an accredited university is garbage just based on their website? It sure seems like that's what you're saying.

[Serpentine]

PGCo'D: I think I dreamt about you last night. Can't remember what about you. I don't think I was doing anything bad to you :smalltongue: On-topic, I think he was more accusing the author of the article of mis-quoting and misrepresenting his sources.

You know what this reminds me of? I saw a show last night (Urban Legends) Where they got the Expert Opinion of a "science expert". An expert in science.
:confused: :biggrin:

[Mx.Silver]

Mr. Silver, you can check out the links I posted since you seem to not have noticed the first two.
You don't seem to have noticed that the first two links are, in the fact, to the same article. Moreover the pdf I linked to is the exact same article. So technically the only source of yours I haven't checked is the last one. If we do, we yet again run into the problem that they don't say why they believe differently to the majority of climatologists. They say they've done research, but they don't say into what nor cite where it is.



You seem to not believe that the aforementioned climatologists say that mad-made global warming is nonexistent. Seems to me that you're calling the best in their field liars.
First point, a lot of them are most emphatically not climatologists. Hell, the very first quote they use is from a physicist. It goes on to feature engineers, geologists, geophysicists etc. as I already pointed-out in my last post.

Futhermore none of those soundbites (and that is what they are) are properly cited, in no case does it say where these quotes were said (and they weresaid somwhere, if the inclusion of Dr. Kunihika's remarks are any indication). You may say this doesn't matter, but the fact is that it very much does. These statements are extremely short and provided without context, which is more than a little troubling particularly in regards to this one:


“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs [...]
This sent a lot of alarm bells ringing, because it looks suspiciously like a quote-mine. Note that the statement is somewhat vague in meaning. What, exactly, does Briggs find it hard to remain quiet about? The article wants to imply that he's coming out to sate on record that global warming is a myth, but as far as that soundbite goes he could just as easily have been making a fuss about Pachauri's comment. Or maybe something else altogether, we don't know because there is no direct sourcing. If the article had actually bothered to include direct sourcing, instead of just long lists of qualifications of the speaker (which looks very much like an appeal to authority) I would not have this poblem with it as I could just go and look at them.


Second point, I'm not calling them liars. I'm saying that there is a fair chance they are wrong. There is a rather significant difference. Not least because lying in the academic is a very dangerous thing to do because if you're caught on it then the consequences are going to be serious. So no, I do not think these people are liars (okay, I will admit the thought had crossed my mind over Tomlinson, but then he's not an academic).

Are you also telling me that the research of a group from an accredited university is garbage just based on their website? It sure seems like that's what you're saying.
Again, you seem to be misinterpreting my intentions. The most signifcant thing about their website (in the context of this discussion) is that it starts mentioning the negative effects of global warming on the arctic in the second paragraph and continues to do throughout the rest of the entire site. The point I was making is that this is not what you would expect if these people had actually produced the same kind of undeniable evidence that global warming isn't occuring that Tomlinson claims they did. I felt no need to comment because his source blatantly contradicts his entire argument, which very strongly suggests he never actually looked-into the Center himself. I'm not saying they're garbage, quite the opposite in fact. I was saying Tomlinson makes a shoddy journalist, which by this point should be obvious to everybody.

[_Zoot_]

The way i see it is that every now and again the media needs to find some thing to make us think that it's the end of the world, they did this with Terrorism, the hole in the ozone layer, that hole ice age thing that came before that......

As you may have noted some of these are really threats that humanity can help fix, especially with the hole in the ozone layer thing, we helped fix what could have been a real problem. I think that Climate change has been taken to far by the media and that wile it may not be a world ending problem as some areas would have us believe, it is a problem that must be dealt with.

But, this is my opinion and people mightn't like it, if you are one of those people, Don't hurt me.

PS. this is not really relevant, but it is funny
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=PzE3qcWhNDE

WARNING!! CONTAIONS POLITICAL REFERENCES!!!

[king.com]

Ok, before this gets locked im just oging to put something out here. Everyone seems to be having an intelligent discussion so here goes:

One might argue that global warming is caused by man, is an actual fact, and is going to cause unparalleled damage if something is not done. I disagree but there is plenty of information to support both arguements.

What i have to say is what do we do? What causes damages? The carbon emissions produced by factories, cars etc? If this is the case thne what do we then do? Shut down these factories? Create unemployment? Set the world on a spiral to radically change our culter, one which has been established through thousands of years of human history? Radical change is often necessary but tell me this. What if the change doesnt work (as all study of humanity would demonstrate the human resistance to change). What if there is mass unemployment, mass economic failure. Sure it may have stopped global warming but it would only have harnessed the possibilities of human problems.

What then? Problems like these will always exist, how to we resolve them with progression? Sure a cleaner, power source would be nice but anyone with scientific data would clearly show you that the human race is the heighest emitter of carbon dioxide.

Humanity in itself is a problem, that is our very nature. What defines us as a species is that we have overcome our past problems. Some by reacting, some by not.

Isaac Asimov said it best "wait for the last possible moment, when only one course of action remains." It could mean the damnation of mankind or it could mean nothing. These problems mentioned previously have resolved themselves. The ozone layer (dispite what peple will tell you) has clsoed on its own, more cars were produced in the last 10 years than any in history, yet the ozone hasnt been damage?

During the middle ages, a cold which was known as the "Dead Wind" (or something to that effect), spread across europe, freezing a continent.

During the early 1900, temperatures were at a record high, far higher than today.

What do we learn from this? Nothing, they passed, demonstration of a planet operating in its cycle, nothing human made, nothing caused, nothing effected.

[Mx.Silver]

@King.com: I don't really get what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting our best course of action is to do nothing at all, just in case we end-up making things worse (although it must be pointed out re: unemployment that we're in a reccession and it's going to be an issue no matter what we do about it) and just hope everything works it itself out?
Regarding the Asimov quote, leaving the dubious wisdom of it aside, the problem is we can't tell when the last possible moment is going to be. We know there are going to be events which, if they occer, are going to remove any possible chance we even might have possessed of doing anything about it (e.g. if the methane trapped under the siberean ice is freed). What good is waiting for the last moment if we can only tell when that precisely is after we've passed it?

I appologise if that wasn't your intended message, but your post seems a little vague.


The way i see it is that every now and again the media needs to find some thing to make us think that it's the end of the world, they did this with Terrorism, the hole in the ozone layer, that hole ice age thing that came before that......

As you may have noted some of these are really threats that humanity can help fix, especially with the hole in the ozone layer thing, we helped fix what could have been a real problem. I think that Climate change has been taken to far by the media and that wile it may not be a world ending problem as some areas would have us believe, it is a problem that must be dealt with.

But, this is my opinion and people mightn't like it, if you are one of those people, Don't hurt me.


Actually, I find your opinion perfectly reasonable. I'd be surprised if many people took issue with it.

[_Zoot_]

Actually, I find your opinion perfectly reasonable. I'd be surprised if many people took issue with it.

Do you mind if i put that in my Sig? It would be nice to have something that reminds me of that somtimes.....

[The Giant]

While it theoretically could be an issue purely for science, this topic is unfortunately inherently political these days...a fact proved by the very first post, which cannot help insult a major political figure. Sorry, but this thread is locked.