No Climate Change? My ASS!!!

[jonb]

[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1059666572;start=20#32 date=08/09/03 at 19:49:26]Hypothetically, if the polar ice caps were to melt somehow (definately not saying they will), would it really flood the world to the degree that certain climatologists always say it will?[/quote]
What about glaciers on land masses? Antarctica, for one. Quite a few mountain ranges have glaciers as well.

Obviously, we're not just talking about a few icebergs melting here.

 

[13788]

hawl: What I find slightly disturbing if not outright bizarre about this quite extended discussion is the outright avoidance of what should be the most pressing issue to this board: how would or does this increased heat affect the resting packages of the already conspicuously hung? Heat is known to be a strong factor in "showage", and those of us with low-hanging balls are (at least) doubly threatened (though longelephantballs may welcome any increased droop). In these tumultuous times, when so much is at stake, can we please stay focused on the essential ?

 

[13788]

7x6andchg: r^6:



That was the best laugh I've had all day.

As George Carlin once said:

"The Earth doesn't need saving. The Earth will get along JUST FINE. We're worried about saving ourselves if this is true. Let's call it like it is."

7x6&C

 

[13788]

7x6andchg: Well you might get me to believe in Global Warming today. High of 97, heat index 107. Keeping in mind I'm halfway between the North Pole and the Equator. I feel like I live in Bora Bora instead of Wisconsin.

 

[13788]

gigantikok: Just a touch of humor for you, Javierdude.

 

[jay_too]

Wall Street Journal, August 28, 2003, has a poll for online readers every day. The question for today is:

Has the Bush administration done enough to address global warming?

Yes 12%

No 57%

Global warming is not a problem 31%

I guess corporate executives, professionals, and coupon-clippers tend to be concerned also about global warming -- hey, aren't these the people that Bush needs to get re-elected?

jay

 

[13788]

gigantikok: Sun's warming is global:
CfA lecture links solar activity and climate change
By Alvin Powell
Gazette Staff


The twin solar images glared from the screen in the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics' auditorium, green tinged with yellow, swirls of fire erupting from the surface.

One image had more fire swirls, showing the sun during a period of maximum solar activity. The second showed a quieter sun, during a solar minimum.

Lit up by the image were the faces of about 150 community members who packed the Center for Astrophysics' (CfA) Phillips Auditorium to hear CfA research astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas talk about recent findings linking solar activity to global climate.

The research, conducted with colleague Willie Soon, links cycles of sunspots and outbursts of solar activity with long-term changes in terrestrial climate.

The talk came just weeks after their paper on the subject was published in the journal of Energy and Environment. With human-induced global warming a hot topic, their findings of the sun as a potential significant natural factor in global warming generated a lot of reaction, according to CfA Director of Public Affairs David Aguilar.

"Ten days ago we sent out a news release; our phones have not stopped ringing," Aguilar said.

The talk was part of the Center for Astrophysics' monthly Observatory Night lecture series, which is open to the public and followed by a session of sky watching through telescopes on the CfA roof.

During her talk, Baliunas took the audience on a tour through the ages, from the warmest period known, the Mesozoic era of the dinosaurs, about 250 million years ago, through the Ice Ages and into recorded human history.

Though records of solar activity are not as complete as the Earth's climatological history, Baliunas and Soon assembled four centuries of telescopic data along with information gleaned from tree rings and ice cores dating back thousands of years.

They found correlations between periods of high solar activity with warm periods on Earth, like the Medieval Warm Period from 800 to 1300 - when the Vikings settled Greenland and Newfoundland. Similarly, they found a reduction in solar activity during cooler periods, like the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1900.

"Changes in the output of the sun, in some measure, are linked to changes in temperatures on Earth," Baliunas said. "The sun seems to be one of the factors, but not the only one."

Using charts and dramatic images of the sun and stars, Baliunas took the audience through the history of solar exploration and laid out the evidence as she and Soon saw it.

The audience seemed enthusiastic about the subject, asking questions during a question-and-answer session and then clustering around Baliunas and Soon, who was present for the talk, with more queries when the program concluded.

"It was a great learning experience," said Maria Hamill of Boston, who came to the talk with several friends.

 

[13788]

sudas: I'm glad to see others have done the heavy lifting in this argument. I still haven't figured out why Americans are more conservative than Europeans. Maybe it's the inferior schools of the U.S. Here's a few things that weren't addressed.

[quote author=Longhornjok link=board=99;num=1059666572;start=20#37 date=08/10/03 at 18:45:30]I have read Bjorn Lomborg's book THE SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST and found it well-researched and compelling. [/quote]
I just pulled out my copy of the January 2002 Scientific American. The article is called "Misleading Math about the Earth"

The book The Skeptical Environmentalist uses statistics to dismiss warnings about peril for the planet. But the science suggests that it's the author who is out of touch with the facts.

I'm not too interested in any quack that has his own ideas about science or psuedo-science. Usually I just bypass them. They're usually refuted and forgotten.

In the U.S. there is a prevalent philosophy which I call the Krypton factor. In the fictional Superman story, his father presents evidence that the planet Krypton may explode. The officials can't handle the implications (of evacuating the whole planet), so they silence him and do nothing.

Many people can't handle big problems. It was scientists who brought to light the danger of the ozone layer, not the DuPont company, which manufactured freon. I heard it said that if Prime Minister Thatcher hadn't been a chemist, we'd still be fighting over this issue. Even so, there are still some emissions, which may take 20 years to reach the stratosphere.

The science is pretty conclusive that global warming is occurring. The question is how much CO2 relates to how much increase in global temperature. The temperature will increase 2-7°F, but we don't know the probability breakdowns. However, the costs of changing to carbon-free energy is unthinkable to some people.

Some people also confuse weather (which is local) to climate (which is regional or global). Some evidence for global warming is not obvious, and that is increased night-time low temperatures. The greater CO2 reduces the black-body effect of the earth radiating infrared energy to the night sky.

Northern Europe may be hit hard with global warming (after islands and low coastlines of the Third World). One possibility is that the Atlantic current may change, reducing warm water to the North Sea, making Northern Europe colder! By the way, melting of the North Polar cap won't increase sea level, because the ice is in the ocean, not on land, like Antarctica.

 

[13788]

gigantikok: [quote author=sudas link=board=99;num=1059666572;start=40#47 date=09/02/03 at 21:53:34]I'm not too interested in any quack that has his own ideas about science or psuedo-science. Usually I just bypass them. They're usually refuted and forgotten.[/quote]
Isn't an attitude like that going to hinder your intellectual advancement?  I mean, if we all just blew off people with opinions opposite of our own and labeled them "quacks", we wouldn't really learn anything would we?

I still don't think Global warming can totally be credited to any carbon we are pumping into the atmosphere.  No proof on the other side is extensive enough to convince me that we as human beings are sure enough of the millions of different variables in the weather to make the assumption that we are killing ourselves.  However, I think it's still important to show the opposing side some respect... or we'll regress back to the childish, name-calling that Javierdude and I unfortunately got into.
[quote author=sudas link=board=99;num=1059666572;start=40#47 date=09/02/03 at 21:53:34]I'm glad to see others have done the heavy lifting in this argument. I still haven't figured out why Americans are more conservative than Europeans. Maybe it's the inferior schools of the U.S.[/quote]
That's crossing the line a bit. Americans are more conservative by culture due to our settlers, not due to the school system. Maybe in Europe political propoganda is pumped into children as soon as they are able to form complete thoughts, but it doesn't quite work that way over here. People are allowed to form their own opinions their own ways, and I'm glad.

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: [quote author=sudas link=board=99;num=1059666572;start=40#47 date=09/02/03 at 21:53:34]By the way, melting of the North Polar cap won't increase sea level, because the ice is in the ocean, not on land, like Antarctica.[/quote]

Just quickly. Although you're right that the melting of the North Pole won't have the same effect on sea level as would the melting of ice on Antarctica, it does have sóme effect. Ice, when melting expands. And the molecules making up water expand as well when they warm up. Both conclude in a rise in sea level.

But indeed, the melting of ice caps and glaciers on Greenland and Antacrtica has worse conqequences.

 

[13788]

sudas: You got it backwards, water expands when it freezes, unlike other molecules. If you put a full glass bottle (capped) in the freezer, it will burst.

The problem is that people pick and choose their "experts" to fit their preconceptions. Hey, I've been wrong before, but I don't expect to get my information from sources that have an agenda other than presenting facts and delivering good science.

Weather and climate is perhaps some of the most complicated systems we can study. Perhaps some scientists will make advances by challenging the accepted notions. But they have to play by the rules: controlled experiments that can be repeated, with peer review of published articles. The current conclusion of science is that global warming results (largely) from increased carbon dioxide, caused by human activity. Now, it's a matter of refinement of how bad it will be by 2100. Some articles say it might be 2050 before we have accurate climate forcasts for the next 50 years. Doing nothing until then is not wise. Also, those who advocate this position aren't consistent. If this was a human enemy out to inflict the results of 5 degree temperature increase, they would recommend the most extreme measures (war, increased defense spending, sanctions, or more men under arms).

 

[13788]

7x6andchg: Except that we, in this argument, are our own worst enemy...

While I am undecided myself as to whether or not global warming on the scale being discussed is in fact happening (I mean, come live where I do in January sometime and tell me ALLLLLL about it ), I think we humans will have to adapt...

Adaptation might mean population shifts inland (away from rising sea waters) and further north (look out Minnesota and Wisconsin, No Dak and Montana)...but eventually, like Mr. Carlin said above, it's US that will die, not planet Earth. She'll go right on spinning around Sol until we're all LONG gone.

Sorry - just my 2 cents - continue your debate on the overall probability of whether or not it's happening.

7x6&C

 

[13788]

gigantikok: [quote author=sudas link=board=99;num=1059666572;start=40#50 date=09/03/03 at 15:52:43]The current conclusion of science is that global warming results (largely) from increased carbon dioxide, caused by human activity. Now, it's a matter of refinement of how bad it will be by 2100.[/quote]
This, once again, is debatable. There are many scientists and institutions that don't believe science is causing global warming. Read the sunspot article I provided above.

Either way, the main point is, if there is global warming, we as humans are resiliant enough to live on. We will adapt, we will enhance our technology to save ourselves, we will inhabit space if we need to. This is definately not a death sentance, or anything that will eradicate the human race (IF it even is happening, and that's a big IF).

Humans are extremely ignorant. We like to pretend we know alot about science and facts and the universe, but in reality, we don't know shit. We don't even know enough as of yet to be able to accurately simulate a working eco system. If we don't even know enough about the environment to simulate and understand ecosystems, I don't see how the hell we can jump to the conclusion that we know enough about weather to make the assumption that Global warming is happening... or will even kill us, for that matter.

But, you all know my opinion already anyway.

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: [quote author=sudas link=board=99;num=1059666572;start=40#50 date=09/03/03 at 15:52:43]You got it backwards, water expands when it freezes, unlike other molecules. If you put a full glass bottle (capped) in the freezer, it will burst.
[/quote]

Damn, your quite right dude...i'm applying for Physics 100 next semester :-/ ....

But i ám pretty sure that water, does expand when it warms up. I'm Sure!!

Paul, your quite right about adaptation man. That is actually what the political and scientific world is discussing right now, and not so much preventing it. Preventing would be impossible since it was estimated that we would have to reduce 60% in emissions. Impossible of course, so we try to remedy it by adapting. Not much has been done yet in that respect though, in Holland i have seen a few mesures taken, but especially the developing nations will be the ones to take the downfall. If you like the maledives (close to India) visit them soon, they are said to submerge withing 30 years (them being coral reef islands).

 

[13788]

gigantikok: [quote author=Javierdude23 link=board=99;num=1059666572;start=40#53 date=09/04/03 at 01:07:44] If you like the maledives (close to India) visit them soon, they are said to submerge withing 30 years (them being coral reef islands).
[/quote]
Interesting. Tell you what, I'll take you up on that. 30 years from now, if the maledives are submerged, I'll buy you a cookie.

 

[13788]

sudas: [quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1059666572;start=40#52 date=09/03/03 at 18:21:56]
we don't know shit. [/quote]
Speak for yourself. We can know that gravity, for example is occurring. But it takes experiments to find out how much "g" is, to a close approximation. Does a feather and a ball bearing fall at the same rate in a vacuum? The answer is yes, but I don't think Newton had a vacuum to play with (pun intended).

I'm surprised people from northern climates don't care or notice. That's a region where we get the more dramatic changes. When I left Alaska, it was in the news how species (of insects) were going further north, than they had been in recorded times. Mosquitos, I understand, are now active a week longer in a year. Since decades ago, governments gave up on trying to eradicate malaria, southern states may be getting it soon.

Science is not make-believe or story-time or pretend. It's about making more accurate and precise measurements to reduce the margin of error and get to the truth. The range for 2100 global temperature is 2-7 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Current studies are trying to zero-in on the most likely value and ascertain its consequences.

I had a long argument with a teenager, trying to explain why mankind will never exceed the speed of light. It is a cosmic speed limit. This fact comes from Einstein's Relativity, which is not an easy thing to convey in a paragraph or two. He held to his belief that there is nothing mankind can't accomplish, and the light barrier would be broken, just like the sound barrier. Finally, he asked his dad, who knew the correct answer. He grudgingly accepted that and didn't argue anymore.

I don't know where or when you are going to find an authority figure that you trust enough to change your belief. Some people needed MacNamara's recant or the LBJ tapes to believe the Vietnam War was not winnable. Had these views been revealed earlier it could have saved lives in 1968-1974. Same thing with global warming. The conversion of you and others in 30 years, won't do the planet a whole lot of good.

 

[13788]

gigantikok: You are confident about your knowledge, but I repeat... we don't know shit. We don't know exactly why those insects are migrating. Are we secure enough in our beliefs to link it to tempurature, when there is no possible way of experimenting and drawing those conclusions? Some can say yes, I think not. Humans are unfortunately way over confident in their beliefs. Make broad assumptions if you want, but everyone I talk to on the issues seems to "make up" different "facts" to support their opinions. I have never once read anywhere that it is assumed a 2-7 degree climate change has affected our planet. Actually, many websites and books I have read make the assumption that it's only been less than a half of a percent, if anything at all. There you go, more broad assumptions, more "facts" (that might not be true at all).

I've provided as much evidence, if not much more than you have to discredit Global Warming. But in the long run, they might potentially not be hard facts. Just like the stuff you say isn't hard fact either, Sudas. I guess I'm just coming to the conclusion that I really just don't fucking think half the scientific community knows what they are talking about and that many people are wrong. That leads me to just say to myself "Global Warming? Maybe/Maybe not, who knows?..." As of right now, there is no evidence. This is speculation, there is theory, but no evidence. Speculation and theory, in the history of humanity, has never amounted to a hard fact. Tell that to the Greeks who tried to explain the entire world they lived in by speculating and theorizing about Gods. At the time, they probably thought they were smart, they probably thought they knew what they were talking about. There is much more to learn, Sudas, much more...

 

[13788]

jerkin4-10: ya know...anyone that cant recognise that the temps around the earth are getting warmer..just lives under a rock...but...just as true...is the damage has been done...
probably irreversable with the state of current technology...i mean we are a mechanized society, dependent of fossil fuel for the most part...nuclear power is an option, but the tree huggers have lobbied to block any new plants to be built in the US currently..
[or has that changed recently?], coal is an option...but until they perfect the process to cost effectively, efficiently remove the sulfur from the waste gasses...
and who among us is willing to give up their car??? big show of hands???...i mean...ya wanna do something productive on a grass-roots level?...plant a couple of trees on your property...get an electric mower for your yard...tune up your car...air up your tires...and drive a little less...all the above stuff is cool to throw around...
but until keannu reaves comes to the rescue with the
missing element of the cold fusion equation...errr...its all bullshit...

 

[13788]

gigantikok: Well, we're never going to advance as a society if we revert back to the same lifestyle we were living 200 years ago. That is why I have never agreed with the Religion of Environmentalism (because frankly, it's become a religion moreso than anything founded on fact). We are a resiliant species, but we can't expect the millions of people in our current day advanced civilizations to just drop everything, and live like people did way back when. We are going to survive, we are going to succeed by IMPROVING our technology, not shunning it. And if anyone argues that our technology won't advance or that we can't save ourselves from something like Global Warming (if), then they are just living in a bubble. Look at the amazing advances technology has made in just the last century. We went from needing to light candles to a globally connected internet and other such wonders in just that short amount of time. I think it's safe to say that technology will just keep advancing at the same rate. We will find a more efficient, cleaner fuel source. We will even find a way to colonize space to deal with population issues (I'm not talking about planets, I'm talking about self sustained colonies planted in the Earth's orbit that uses the sun's consistent rays to power itself and grow wildlife). We will succeed if we keep moving forward, not stepping backward. Just my 2 cents.

 

[D_Martin van Burden]

You sound overly confident about our society adapting a more powerful and innovative technology to support the changes for an environmentally-free tomorrow, but that type of change begins with a like-minded public. It depends on the people's intentions in how that environmental investment plays out. What I mean is, if we have more Presidents concerned with nuclear weapons and defense spending than the environment, that's one step further away from energy sources that aren't readily consumable and rapidly depleting.

Sure, some private companies and subsidiaries like GE are messing around with wind power and solar power, but those projects have quite the way to go toward becoming standardized sources. Let's face it; those hybrid cars can't hold in number to those damn SUVs or other gas-guzzlers out there.

I think time would be better spent getting over the skepticism of global warming, and figuring, whether statistically it's a big deal or not, some smarter ways to take care of the planet. Arguments for posterity -- i.e. "so that our future generations can enjoy the environment" -- are often mentioned but never followed-through. But, to be honest, while I'm still alive and kickin', I know I wouldn't mind a little less air pollution, would favor a bit more prevalence in recycling, and to see someone in charge who thinks it's a good idea to practice the three Rs and put some funding in that direction.