Global Warming [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

Desertrat

Jul 13, 2009, 07:42 PM

I've had fun watching the emotions and politics of the hassles over Globular Worming. First, the "Warmies" were riding tall in the saddle, after having given up on their prior worries about a new Ice Age. Now, a large number of atmospheric scientists are hollering, "Whoa up!" as the data shows skewed temperature measurements and better data. It seems that the world has been running a tad cooler, these last eight or ten years.

The greater number of ocean temperature measurements now available (thanks, NOAA) indicate that the water is cooler than it was projected to be by the various computer models--and there are many scientists now griping at the problems with the models themselves. It seems that re-running the programs with updated input data doesn't show the warming that was predicted.

Damfino. I don't really have a clue as to which group is factually correct. I do know that I don't trust politicians to "save" the planet. And "trust" is not the appropriate word to use as I watch the present regime work to extend governmental power over all of us.

'Rat

.Andy

Jul 13, 2009, 07:47 PM

First, the "Warmies" were riding tall in the saddle, after having given up on their prior worries about a new Ice Age.
This never happened.

Now, a large number of atmospheric scientists are hollering, "Whoa up!" as the data shows skewed temperature measurements and better data. It seems that the world has been running a tad cooler, these last eight or ten years.
This is a misunderstanding. There's a long term trend to the climate as well as shorter term fluctuations. I presume what you are referring to here is effects such as El Nino and La nina which change the climate in the short term. This is a well understood effect and there certainly wouldn't be any atmospheric scientists hollering "whoa up" at such data.

The greater number of ocean temperature measurements now available (thanks, NOAA) indicate that the water is cooler than it was projected to be by the various computer models--and there are many scientists now griping at the problems with the models themselves. It seems that re-running the programs with updated input data doesn't show the warming that was predicted.
Link to scientific publications to back this up please.

Damfino. I don't really have a clue as to which group is factually correct. I do know that I don't trust politicians to "save" the planet. And "trust" is not the appropriate word to use as I watch the present regime work to extend governmental power over all of us.
This is why you trust the science. You seem to be getting the politics mixed up with the science.

Desertrat

Jul 13, 2009, 08:53 PM

No, I'm not the one mixing the politics with the science. What I'm saying is that there are too many conflicting statements within the "world of science" and I'm therefore agnostic.

I've no links. I ran across an article a few months back about NOAA's placement of an expanded number of ocean buoys with temperature-measuring systems for deepwater as well as near-surface. The initial data did not correspond to expectations.

And the politicos have chosen which side they believe. Okay, fine. But their proposed solutions have more to do with extension of power than of reducing CO2 emissions. All ya gotta do is run the numbers on electricity, transportation fuel and jobs. One unanswered question is that of efficacy: What good does it do the world itself if we cut back to economic hardship levels of CO2 output while the rest of the world surpasses us in CO2 output? Again: Look up the data, run the numbers.

'Rat

.Andy

Jul 13, 2009, 09:02 PM

No, I'm not the one mixing the politics with the science.
I disagree. Both your posts now are arguing from a political point of view and have very little grounding in science whatsoever. Despite you making scientific claims.

What I'm saying is that there are too many conflicting statements within the "world of science" and I'm therefore agnostic.
There really isn't. The "conflicting statements" come when the science is presented in the media/by politicians to obsfucate for their own agenda. There's nothing more to it. I'd suggest that the ill-informed due to the literature you read is more apt than agnostic.

I've no links.
This doesn't come as a surprise.

I ran across an article a few months back about NOAA's placement of an expanded number of ocean buoys with temperature-measuring systems for deepwater as well as near-surface. The initial data did not correspond to expectations.
Any chance you could come across it again or do we just take your word for it? Google is right there for you to back up your claims. To make your search simple your claim is that "expanded NOAA ocean buoys returned data that disproved the current models on climate change".

And the politicos have chosen which side they believe. Okay, fine. But their proposed solutions have more to do with extension of power than of reducing CO2 emissions. All ya gotta do is run the numbers on electricity, transportation fuel and jobs. One unanswered question is that of efficacy: What good does it do the world itself if we cut back to economic hardship levels of CO2 output while the rest of the world surpasses us in CO2 output? Again: Look up the data, run the numbers.
This has nothing to do with the science of climate change. You are bordering on politics again.

Scarlet Fever

Jul 13, 2009, 09:05 PM

Previous research into this period, called the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM, estimates the planet's surface temperature blasted upwards by between five and nine degrees Celsius (nine and 16.2 degrees Fahrenheit) in just a few thousand years.
But all this CO2 can only account for between one and 3.5 C (1.8-6.3 F) of PETM's warming if the models for climate sensitivity are right, the team found.
Man-made global warming, driven mainly by the burning of oil, gas and coal, has amounted to around 0.8 C (1.12 F) over the past century.

So during this warm up, CO2 levels accounted for between 1 - 3.5 C increase in temperature over a few thousand years.

In this day and age, man-made emissions are accountable for around 0.8 C increase in temperature over the past 100 years.

Just to extrapolate that (yes, I know the Earth is not a linear system), at current warming and emission levels, that would mean in 1000 years, we would have caused 8 C in temperature increase just in CO2 emissions.

.Andy

Jul 13, 2009, 09:19 PM

The problem with the global warming deniers is that they don't even read these news articles properly. Nor do they have anything but a rudimentary understanding of science. They jump on a single article they perceive as contrary to the tens to hundreds of thousands of other scientific articles as proof that global warming is a sham. Of course this isn't the case as science needs to be verified by independent researchers and alternative mechanisms. Most of the time (such as in the OP article and Desertrat's claims) the data presented isn't contrary to the scientific consensus at all. It's usually a misunderstanding (sometimes purposeful) or just new data that is absorbed into the current models and theories to make them stronger without hooplah. Which is as science is meant to be. A dynamic system of understanding.

Desertrat

Jul 13, 2009, 09:27 PM

.Andy, I'll stipulate that man-made CO2 is strongly contributive to the warming of the earth's atmosphere:

When legislative bodies get involved in passing laws pertaining to the output of CO2, how is that NOT political?

For that matter, when scientists argue among themselves, would you try to make me believe there's no politicking going on? That various groups don't form alliances to try to refute others' works? That they can't draw entirely different conclusions from the same data?

One reason I'm quite often sceptical stems in part from an event from 1965. I was then working at the Texas Water Commission. The agency deals with the permitting process for dams and reservoirs. At a hearing in front of the commissioners about a permit for a dam, there were proponents and opponents to the project. Each side had hired well-respected civil engineering firms. One side said the dam would harm downstream users. The other side said there would be no effect. In response to a question concerning the data used by the firms, a commissioner was told that they used the same streamflow and flood/drouth records. "How can this be?" he asked. "Well, sir, we interpret the data differently."

.Andy

Jul 13, 2009, 09:36 PM

When legislative bodies get involved in passing laws pertaining to the output of CO2, how is that NOT political?
Your claims in your first post weren't political. I took issue with you making scientific claims and not supporting them.

For that matter, when scientists argue among themselves, would you try to make me believe there's no politicking going on?
They most certainly can argue politically. But at the end of the day it's the data that counts. Not the politics.

That various groups don't form alliances to try to refute others' works?
This isn't how science works. We generally don't get together to form alliances to refute other people's work. We look for interesting applications where we can discover new information or provide data that adds to the knowledge pool. The driver is understanding the world, which sometimes involves disproving other's data interpretation with further data.

That they can't draw entirely different conclusions from the same data?
Infrequently one can. But when one draws different conclusions one inevitably ends up making new, and testable scientific hypotheses which they can test to prove their conclusions.

One reason I'm quite often sceptical stems in part from an event from 1965. I was then working at the Texas Water Commission. The agency deals with the permitting process for dams and reservoirs. At a hearing in front of the commissioners about a permit for a dam, there were proponents and opponents to the project. Each side had hired well-respected civil engineering firms. One side said the dam would harm downstream users. The other side said there would be no effect. In response to a question concerning the data used by the firms, a commissioner was told that they used the same streamflow and flood/drouth records. "How can this be?" he asked. "Well, sir, we interpret the data differently."
Again you're mixing up politics in the equation. Your observation is why you must always take an individual research paper with a grain of salt until it is verified by independent workers with independent data. It's also why scientific journals require that you state where all your funding comes from and disclose any conflict of interests in your paper. To not do so gets your paper withdrawn.

Desertrat

Jul 13, 2009, 09:58 PM

"Again you're mixing up politics in the equation. Your observation is why you must always take an individual research paper with a grain of salt until it is verified by independent workers with independent data. It's also why scientific journals require that you state where all your funding comes from and disclose any conflict of interests in your paper. To not do so gets your paper withdrawn."

On that we agree.

Look: I run across articles in reputable news media which cite some PhD or another who's said to be in atmospheric sciences or some related field. University of somewhere or another. I'm not gonna save every link or or worry for months about who said what about which. But over time I see claims and counter-claims by what seem to be equally reputable sources.

I give more credence to data recorded by NOAA than I do to the claims one way or the other by any one scientist employed by NOAA. Same for a lot of other entities involved in this GW business.

Shift emphasis: To meet the CO2 emissions levels of the Kyoto accords, is that science or politics?

brad.c

Jul 13, 2009, 10:06 PM

I've had fun watching the emotions and politics of the hassles over Globular Worming.

Is that like nucular medicine for your dog? :D

OutThere

Jul 13, 2009, 10:25 PM

I don't pretend to understand Earth's climate, however I've taken climate science classes from people who understand Earth's climate better than anyone who has or will post in this thread. Maybe you should take a couple at your local community college, reread that article and then start a real discussion based on your analysis of scientific observations, rather than just posting a link and an inflammatory comment.

Desertrat

Jul 13, 2009, 11:50 PM

Out There, if this is aimed at me, "Maybe you should take a couple at your local community college..." are you going to buy the gasoline? It's only 240 miles, one way, for me to drive to Odessa.

And if my comment was "inflammatory", you possibly might consider how much emotion you have invested in the subject. I'm certainly not at all saying the subject is unimportant, but it does not demand religious fervor--which, really, was the thrust of my comment.

'Rat

bobber205

Jul 14, 2009, 12:25 AM

What's the worst consequence if we unnecessarily lessen our impact on the earth? Nothing? What do we have to lose?

OutThere

Jul 14, 2009, 01:52 AM

Iscariot

Jul 14, 2009, 02:07 AM

It was directed at the OP who addressed people who 'pretend' to understand the Earth's climate, posted a link and made no effort to do anything other than get people angry.

Troll is as troll does. But there always seems to be a few willing to waste their time on a reply.

WinterMute

Jul 14, 2009, 03:44 AM

Queso

Jul 14, 2009, 06:07 AM

I fully believe that the differences we measure are not to do with the amount of CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere, but instead our destruction of carbon sink areas. Basically deforestation has hampered the Earth's natural mechanisms for regulating its own temperature. It should be able to cope with the extra CO2 we're generating, but we're stopping it from being able to.

Now of course the oceans can still suck in a large amount of the extra CO2 that the forests used to, but the downside of that is that increased acidity is killing the coral reefs and destroying the marine environment. So either we start planting some serious amounts of trees and protect the forests we have left, or we cut down our CO2 output. There's your choices. Doing nothing other than our current path will lead to a world that our descendants struggle to live on.

.Andy

Jul 14, 2009, 07:07 AM

It strikes me as deeply ironic that the people working to alter the course of a natural change in the planet's climate are actually trying to cause man-made climate change!

As Jerry Pournelle says, warmer is better than cooler, more people will die if the planet is cooled artificially and we fall into another mini-ice age (as some people believe may be the case anyway).
Decreasing carbon output into the atmosphere from burning petroleum isn't "artificially cooling the atmosphere". Nor is the current output of carbon dioxide required to keep us from falling into an ice age. The idea is to limit the impact we have on the climate through our own avoidable polluting activities.

It's extreme hubris to believe we may be able to alter a mechanism that is driven by the sun in any case.
The only thing worse is the uber-extreme hubris trying to brush aside the fact that pumping billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide pollution into the atmosphere isn't going to have adverse effects on the climate. The best scientific evidence we currently have points to our activities having an negative impact. It's prudent to try and limit that where possible. If we can adversely affect the climate through our actions we can limit our impact by altering those same actions. Irrespective of what is the overall driving force.

djellison

Jul 14, 2009, 07:35 AM

As Jerry Pournelle says, warmer is better than cooler, more people will die if the planet is cooled artificially and we fall into another mini-ice age (as some people believe may be the case anyway)..

So, Global Warming will cause floods that will kill millions. Global Cooling will cause floods that will kill millions.

Now - if only we could think of a means to avoid either. Ahh, shucks, I just can't think of any possible alternative. It looks like we'll just have to freeze or fry.

Oh..hang on...how about if we...er.

Nope...still struggling here.

Can anyone think of a third alternative.

:rolleyes:

DELLsFan

Jul 14, 2009, 08:02 AM

What's the worst consequence if we unnecessarily lessen our impact on the earth? Nothing? What do we have to lose?

Billions, maybe trillions of dollars exploited from you, the taxpayer under the banner of clean, green technology and R&D for same. That's what. Don't forget the additional money you'll be spending on the increases in fuel / utility costs as one power plant after another must pass its costs onto your utility company and therefore - on to you because of cap and trade legislation or outright plant shutdowns. Get ready for some brown and blackouts - as grid capacity continues to exceed supply.

I recycle. I reuse shopping bags, I am mindful of my water usage and waste. I manage furnace / A/C usages closely in the winter and summer and most of my electronic toys and appliances at home use less energy when idle or during normal use. I drive a small, gas-efficient vehicle. I believe we can and should do what we can to limit the impact on the environment by way of new technologies, recycling, and education. It's just the smart thing to do. I think we can do this and still harness fossil fuels and other resources safely - and with minimal impact on the environment. Nope. The environmental Marxists who have entrenched themselves in current domestic policy are still not happy.

We cannot drill or collect our own, plentiful, natural resources even though it can proven to be clean, safe, and effective. We cannot build additional coal, nuclear, or refinery plants - even though the technology and care in maintaining them safely over the years has been proven sound. The environmental zealots and politicians swimming in billions of grant and federal dollars do not allow for constructive, scientific debate on the premise of man-made global warming. Just as many (if not more) scientists have refuted the very foundation of the environmental movement's arguments and yet - engaging in any debate is like bringing your fists to a knife fight.

I do not subscribe to the notion that we are primarily responsible for the polar ice caps melting, of turbulent hurricane seasons, or for any other "climate change" threatening to destroy the earth (according to Gore). One volcano eruption = more CO2 emissions than man can emit in a decade (maybe longer - I read somewhere). However, if anyone can be classified as the major polluter in this world ... it's not the US. It's China. It's India. It's countries who couldn't give a rat's ass about your Windmill Farm, the Prius or our environment. And besides, CO2 (the stuff humans exhale) is not the primary "greenhouse gas" anyway. It's water vapor (I read somewhere else).

I believe our sun and its activity is what is influencing and has long-influenced the short and long term climate changes affecting the planet. The past 5+ years have shown very little solar activity at the sun. It explains the overall cooling (not warming) trend in many places on the planet. Record low temperatures throughout the US so far this summer. Oh ... it's summer already? :eek: It unfortunately explains why Gore and the environmental Marxists have stopped using the term "Global WARMING" ... using the catch-all phrase - "climate change" instead. After all, it's big business to embrace the clean green initiatives now, isn't it? Not just here. Billions and Billions of dollars worldwide. Scientists and politicians aren't going to easily dismiss their livelihood for something as silly as science - especially in this economy. :rolleyes:

arkitect

Jul 14, 2009, 08:15 AM

*snip*

OK. So according to you there just isn't a problem?

Cool…

:rolleyes:

Queso

Jul 14, 2009, 08:36 AM

I do not subscribe to the notion that we are primarily responsible for the polar ice caps melting, of turbulent hurricane seasons, or for any other "climate change" threatening to destroy the earth (according to Gore). One volcano eruption = more CO2 emissions than man can emit in a decade (maybe longer - I read somewhere). However, if anyone can be classified as the major polluter in this world ... it's not the US. It's China. It's India. It's countries who couldn't give a rat's ass about your Windmill Farm, the Prius or our environment. And besides, CO2 (the stuff humans exhale) is not the primary "greenhouse gas" anyway. It's water vapor (I read somewhere else).
The USA is the second largest carbon polluter, slightly behind China at 5902 million tonnes a year as opposed to China's 6017. However, bearing in mind China has a population 5 times (!!) that of the USA this means that the US population have a long way to go before anyone can claim they are not a major polluter. You are right about the effect of major volcanic explosions, however as I've posted above we've been chopping down the forests at an ever-increasing rate, meaning the amount of biomass that would normally inhale all that extra carbon is depleted. We will see the next time a major volcano goes bang exactly how well the Earth copes.

India, BTW, only has carbon output of 1293 million tonnes a year, which means each American's carbon footprint is 18 times the size of an Indians.
I believe our sun and its activity is what is influencing and has long-influenced the short and long term climate changes affecting the planet. The past 5+ years have shown very little solar activity at the sun. It explains the overall cooling (not warming) trend in many places on the planet. Record low temperatures throughout the US so far this summer.
The extremely low activity of the Sun is masking the true effect of the carbon increase IMO. When solar activity picks up again, as it inevitably will, we are going to see major changes in our climate, far worse than from any previously recorded solar cyclic event. It's all about trends.

DELLsFan

Jul 14, 2009, 09:44 AM

The USA is the second largest carbon polluter, slightly behind China at 5902 million tonnes a year as opposed to China's 6017. However, bearing in mind China has a population 5 times (!!) that of the USA this means that the US population have a long way to go before anyone can claim they are not a major polluter. You are right about the effect of major volcanic explosions, however as I've posted above we've been chopping down the forests at an ever-increasing rate, meaning the amount of biomass that would normally inhale all that extra carbon is depleted. We will see the next time a major volcano goes bang exactly how well the Earth copes.

India, BTW, only has carbon output of 1293 million tonnes a year, which means each American's carbon footprint is 18 times the size of an Indians.

The extremely low activity of the Sun is masking the true effect of the carbon increase IMO. When solar activity picks up again, as it inevitably will, we are going to see major changes in our climate, far worse than from any previously recorded solar cyclic event. It's all about trends.

You make a good argument. Thanks. I have some doubts on the validity of your specific carbon output figures, but do agree with you that deforestation without equivalent replantation of "biomass" is not really serving our planet's best interest. Still ... I am not convinced CO2 is the primary culprit in affecting planetary climate change. I'll concede it may have some effect on the overall greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, but I believe man's contribution to this affect is miniscule compared to the natural phenomenon affecting the earth. If it were the opposite, why aren't we seeing drastic changes today? Trends? Folks got all rabid, bent out of shape when phenomenon like Katrina hit us a while ago, and yet - can't explain why their "trend" of destructive hurricanes didn't hold water in the subsequent years after it came and went.

I've observed that the proponents decrying the rampant industrial destruction of our climate and global "warming" today are curiously silent or dismissive when asked of the emergence of the world from its mini Ice Age of the 14th century (prior to any industrial revolution). There were no oil refineries, no coal plants, no manufacturing plants, and no automobiles during those days. Natural phenomenon warmed the earth back then. It warmed the earth during the previous ice age(s), and when the Sun gets cranky again, it will warm us up again. It remains to be seen what the effect of the next warming cycle will have on the earth - but I'm of a mind there won't be enough money to tax in every economy in the world to prevent it. We're supposed to "feel good" about having done everything we can to minimize the effects - no matter that the means toward this end results in the economic collapse of industry, jobs, and individual liberties, though right? :rolleyes:

djellison

Jul 14, 2009, 10:05 AM

However, if anyone can be classified as the major polluter in this world ... it's not the US. It's China. It's India.

Do you know how wrong you are on this?

Really?

I mean - this isn't debate material. This is about quantifiable figures.

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/national_carbon_dioxide_co2_emissions_per_capita

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita

# 5 United States: 19.4839 per 1,000 people
# 80 China: 2.65908 per 1,000 people
# 113 India: 0.933086 per 1,000 people

What world do you live in to come up with a statement like...
"However, if anyone can be classified as the major polluter in this world ... it's not the US. It's China. It's India."

I can JUST about understand people questioning AGW. But coming out with something so massively, fundamentally wrong as that?

Wow.

AP_piano295

Jul 14, 2009, 10:14 AM

Does it really matter?

If global warming is (partially) caused by us then...

-we are still running out of gasoline
-burning coal is still undeniably a bad idea considering the environmental impact of burning and mining it (impact other than the the CO2 and other green house gases)

If we have no (or almost no) hand in climate change we still need to make ALL of the changes required to stop it.

So why all the kicking and screaming.

djellison

Jul 14, 2009, 10:35 AM

So why all the kicking and screaming.

That's what I don't understand.

Humans derive most of their energy by getting carbon out of the ground and putting it in the air.

That is fundamentally unsustainable, by ANY analysis.

DELLsFan

Jul 14, 2009, 10:38 AM

Do you know how wrong you are on this?

Really?

I mean - this isn't debate material. This is about quantifiable figures.

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/national_carbon_dioxide_co2_emissions_per_capita

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita

# 5 United States: 19.4839 per 1,000 people
# 80 China: 2.65908 per 1,000 people
# 113 India: 0.933086 per 1,000 people

What world do you live in to come up with a statement like...
"However, if anyone can be classified as the major polluter in this world ... it's not the US. It's China. It's India."

I can JUST about understand people questioning AGW. But coming out with something so massively, fundamentally wrong as that?

Wow.

Thanks for your post and links. I live in a world where human agendas often supersede and misrepresent or outright lie about facts in many issues. I am a skeptic. I will take some time to review your data - compare it with other data, and come to my own conclusions, thanks. Note, this is slightly more courtesy afforded to you than the reverse - since you of course had no comment on any of my other obviously ignorant arguments that placed the entire CO2 emission issue moot in my opinion.

leekohler

Jul 14, 2009, 10:45 AM

You make a good argument. Thanks. I have some doubts on the validity of your specific carbon output figures, but do agree with you that deforestation without equivalent replantation of "biomass" is not really serving our planet's best interest. Still ... I am not convinced CO2 is the primary culprit in affecting planetary climate change.

Perhaps you should examine the atmosphere of Venus.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/science/globalwarming/venus.html

I've observed that the proponents decrying the rampant industrial destruction of our climate and global "warming" today are curiously silent or dismissive when asked of the emergence of the world from its mini Ice Age of the 14th century (prior to any industrial revolution). There were no oil refineries, no coal plants, no manufacturing plants, and no automobiles during those days. Natural phenomenon warmed the earth back then. It warmed the earth during the previous ice age(s), and when the Sun gets cranky again, it will warm us up again. It remains to be seen what the effect of the next warming cycle will have on the earth - but I'm of a mind there won't be enough money to tax in every economy in the world to prevent it. We're supposed to "feel good" about having done everything we can to minimize the effects - no matter that the means toward this end results in the economic collapse of industry, jobs, and individual liberties, though right? :rolleyes:

So- your answer is that we do nothing? Because all those things you listed aren't going to matter if the Earth becomes unable to support human life, now are they?

.Andy

Jul 14, 2009, 10:59 AM

I am a skeptic.
If you truly were a skeptic you would have gone to the effort to do some reading of the scientific literature about the lack of correlation between solar activity and climate change before espousing it's merits. As it stands I think you've demonstrated you're a denier of anthropomorphic climate change (for whatever reason), not a skeptic.

DELLsFan

Jul 14, 2009, 11:50 AM

...So- your answer is that we do nothing? Because all those things you listed aren't going to matter if the Earth becomes unable to support human life, now are they?

No. I believe I've already indicated we should do what we can to reduce emissions, and in general - be good stewards of our environment. However, I think a line needs to be drawn somewhere between stewardship and incessant government spending for solutions ... of programs with dubious merit, IMO. Some folks are very paranoid and militant about the types of corrective actions we should take. I'm not - because I don't believe the earth is in danger of becoming Venus.

If you truly were a skeptic you would have gone to the effort to do some reading of the scientific literature about the lack of correlation between solar activity and climate change before espousing it's merits. As it stands I think you've demonstrated you're a denier of anthropomorphic climate change (for whatever reason), not a skeptic.

I've done enough reading to develop my own correlation between solar activity and climate change, thanks. Perhaps I don't read and subscribe to the same scientific literature that you do. I've made it clear - my opinion of anthropomorphic climate change. It's unfortunate you seem unable to discern between this dissent and my disdain of those with the self-serving, political, and dangerous agendas to refute the same.

leekohler

Jul 14, 2009, 11:58 AM

No. I believe I've already indicated we should do what we can to reduce emissions, and in general - be good stewards of our environment. However, I think a line needs to be drawn somewhere between stewardship and incessant government spending for solutions ... of programs with dubious merit, IMO. Some folks are very paranoid and militant about the types of corrective actions we should take. I'm not - because I don't believe the earth is in danger of becoming Venus.

First, you say that CO2 isn't the cause of global warming. Now you simply say Earth isn't in danger of becoming Venus. Interesting.

Exactly what programs are of "dubious merit"?

Gelfin

Jul 14, 2009, 12:15 PM

I'm sitting here wondering what an "environmental Marxist" could possibly be, because it sounds a bit like "electrical Episcopalian" or "immunological postmodernist."

leekohler

Jul 14, 2009, 12:40 PM

I'm sitting here wondering what an "environmental Marxist" could possibly be, because it sounds a bit like "electrical Episcopalian" or "immunological postmodernist."

It's a term parroted by the extreme right. Basically they have come up with the notion that people who are concerned with climate change are hell-bent on destroying capitalism. The reason? Making changes to greener methods takes money- money that could otherwise be in a corporation's bank account. Therefore, anyone who advocates for greener methods must be anti-capitalist and a Communist, especially if the (gasp) government is involved in any way.. It's really brilliant how they like to twist things.

Rt&Dzine

Jul 14, 2009, 12:42 PM

I'm sitting here wondering what an "environmental Marxist" could possibly be, because it sounds a bit like "electrical Episcopalian" or "immunological postmodernist."

You could ask a "linguistical Libertarian."

Wotan31

Jul 14, 2009, 12:56 PM

It was directed at the OP who addressed people who 'pretend' to understand the Earth's climate, posted a link and made no effort to do anything other than get people angry.
Thinking makes you angry?

DELLsFan

Jul 14, 2009, 01:08 PM

First, you say that CO2 isn't the cause of global warming. Now you simply say Earth isn't in danger of becoming Venus. Interesting.

Quite ... since your premises don't accurately represent my comments.

Exactly what programs are of "dubious merit"?

"Programs of dubious merit" is probably too kind a generalization. Just about anything currently addressing carbon emissions on one page, and earmarking millions of dollars in pork programs on another qualifies. You know, kind of like that bold, emergency "stimulus" legislation Congress rammed through Capital Hill without reading it. Obama insisted it would jump start the economy and create or save scores of jobs. How is that working out? Oh wait a minute ... we need to give it some more time ... give it a chance to succeed. Is another 4 years enough? No? How about let's repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution and find out, ok? :rolleyes:

Isn't this the same Congress who spent a few billion of your tax dollars on GM to prevent a bankruptcy that was inevitable? Isn't this the same Congress that let Lehman Brothers die on the vine while bailing out Goldman Sachs? Does anyone care about the bonuses that company issued in the wake of their bailout dollars? No one remembers Fannie and Freddie and the non-existent oversight on them either, right? Isn't this the same Congress that crucified AIG for bonuses they were instructed by Congress to issue? Just about anything being pushed through Capital Hill before the mid-term elections deserves scrutiny and attention by you, me, and your neighbors and family. Why? Because Congress and Obama know that you really have no power to prevent anything until 2010 - when you can boot your power-hungry, idiot Congressman or Senator to the curb. There's a lot of damage that can be done before those elections.

Now that the US federal deficit is over 1 trillion dollars (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12754) and will likely double by year end, just who do you propose should pay for that bold climate change legislation? How about that bold health care legislation BHO wants? How will Congress' spending orgy affect YOUR family this winter? Next? Does anyone besides Marx and Obama even care what rampant, unsustainable spending does to a government and the monetary system? "Oh sure I do", said the scientist studying cow flatulence. :rolleyes:

Eraserhead

Jul 14, 2009, 01:11 PM

Billions, maybe trillions of dollars exploited from you, the taxpayer

Defence and Healthcare are also ungodly expensive for the US, I assume you also want to reign in the excesses there too.

The USA is the second largest carbon polluter, slightly behind China at 5902 million tonnes a year as opposed to China's 6017. However, bearing in mind China has a population 5 times (!!) that of the USA this means that the US population have a long way to go before anyone can claim they are not a major polluter.

...

India, BTW, only has carbon output of 1293 million tonnes a year, which means each American's carbon footprint is 18 times the size of an Indians.

Thanks for your post and links. I live in a world where human agendas often supersede and misrepresent or outright lie about facts in many issues.

I was going to make the same point, and its perfectly possible that the Indians are lying about there emissions a bit - like the Argentineans are lying about their inflation rate. Or alternatively they could just not have the capability to gather the data accurately and they do have other things to spend money on.

The thing is that India is very big, so while the figures might be out by a small percentage (say up to 20% or so) they aren't going to be massively out as otherwise it'd be obvious to everyone else that they weren't telling the truth (and besides someone could leak it if there was a cover-up).

The extremely low activity of the Sun is masking the true effect of the carbon increase IMO. When solar activity picks up again, as it inevitably will, we are going to see major changes in our climate, far worse than from any previously recorded solar cyclic event. It's all about trends.

+1

leekohler

Jul 14, 2009, 01:32 PM

Quite ... since your premises don't accurately represent my comments.

You said CO2 doesn't cause global warming. It most certainly does- hence my Venus example.

"Programs of dubious merit" is probably too kind a generalization. Just about anything currently addressing carbon emissions on one page, and earmarking millions of dollars in pork programs on another qualifies. You know, kind of like that bold, emergency "stimulus" legislation Congress rammed through Capital Hill without reading it. Obama insisted it would jump start the economy and create or save scores of jobs. How is that working out? Oh wait a minute ... we need to give it some more time ... give it a chance to succeed. Is another 4 years enough? No? How about let's repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution and find out, ok? :rolleyes:

Isn't this the same Congress who spent a few billion of your tax dollars on GM to prevent a bankruptcy that was inevitable? Isn't this the same Congress that let Lehman Brothers die on the vine while bailing out Goldman Sachs? Does anyone care about the bonuses that company issued in the wake of their bailout dollars? No one remembers Fannie and Freddie and the non-existent oversight on them either, right? Isn't this the same Congress that crucified AIG for bonuses they were instructed by Congress to issue? Just about anything being pushed through Capital Hill before the mid-term elections deserves scrutiny and attention by you, me, and your neighbors and family. Why? Because Congress and Obama know that you really have no power to prevent anything until 2010 - when you can boot your power-hungry, idiot Congressman or Senator to the curb. There's a lot of damage that can be done before those elections.

Now that the US federal deficit is over 1 trillion dollars (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12754) and will likely double by year end, just who do you propose should pay for that bold climate change legislation? How about that bold health care legislation BHO wants? How will Congress' spending orgy affect YOUR family this winter? Next? Does anyone besides Marx and Obama even care what rampant, unsustainable spending does to a government and the monetary system? "Oh sure I do", said the scientist studying cow flatulence. :rolleyes:

Where were you when Bush started an unsustainable war in Iraq? I guess we pay for it the same way you guys proposed we pay for the war. Here's the facts- conservatives only care about spending when the money is being spent on something other than what they want. If it's for a war, conservatives can't wait to get out the credit card. But if it's for health care, infrastructure etc., then it must be stopped immediately. WTF kind of priorities are those? And if you thought an economy this bad was going to turn around in 5 months, I don't know what to tell you.

BTW- I was against all bailouts. However, I am not against infrastructure spending and health care reform. The rest of the civilized world makes it work. So can we.

Wotan31

Jul 14, 2009, 01:43 PM

BTW- I was against all bailouts. However, I am not against infrastructure spending and health care reform. The rest of the civilized world makes it work. So can we.
That's one of those things that's really going to bite all of us in the ass over the next few decades. Electric grids, sewer systems, train systems, etc. have been kept on life support for far too long. Time to tear out some of this antiquated stuff and re-do it from scratch using modern technology. And it ain't gonna be cheap. No one wants to talk about it, but it's only getting worse as time goes by.

bbotte

Jul 14, 2009, 01:47 PM

The world is flat.

leekohler

Jul 14, 2009, 01:53 PM

That's one of those things that's really going to bite all of us in the ass over the next few decades. Electric grids, sewer systems, train systems, etc. have been kept on life support for far too long. Time to tear out some of this antiquated stuff and re-do it from scratch using modern technology. And it ain't gonna be cheap. No one wants to talk about it, but it's only getting worse as time goes by.

You're absolutely right. So much of our infrastructure is outdated. I'm tired of that stuff being politicized. It's necessary, and we are all going to have to start realizing this.

Zombie Acorn

Jul 14, 2009, 01:57 PM

Resource efficiency is good enough reason to drive "green" movements. If we want to do it under the cover of human CO2 contributions being the major cause of global warming I guess I will have to just accept that and move on.

As populations grow efficiency is going to be the only way to maintain anyways so we will be heading this direction no matter what.

dukebound85

Jul 14, 2009, 02:09 PM

as long as these effects dont affect me in my lifetime im good;)

now gimme my gas guzzler!

leekohler

Jul 14, 2009, 02:25 PM

as long as these effects dont affect me in my lifetime im good;)

now gimme my gas guzzler!

Dukey! Go sit in the corner! :D

oscillatewildly

Jul 14, 2009, 02:38 PM

Making the best of resources is sensible, but you cannot save the planet, it is doomed.

leekohler

Jul 14, 2009, 03:14 PM

Making the best of resources is sensible, but you cannot save the planet, it is doomed.

Well, of course. The sun will eventually go supernova.

.Andy

Jul 14, 2009, 03:14 PM

I've done enough reading to develop my own correlation between solar activity and climate change, thanks. Perhaps I don't read and subscribe to the same scientific literature that you do.
I find this odd given there is only one scientific literature. Is there another one that the all the IPCC scientists missed in all their years of reports? Would you mind posting the scientific articles that have convinced you to "believe" that solar activity alone accounts for the worlds warming trends and that humans aren't making a contribution? Perhaps we could send it to the IPCC.....

oscillatewildly

Jul 14, 2009, 03:59 PM

Well, of course. The sun will eventually go supernova.

The Andromeda Galaxy will get us before then, about 2 billion years. Imagine the MacBook Pro available, maybe I should delay my purchase... Off to Buying Tips.

Gelfin

Jul 14, 2009, 04:22 PM

Making the best of resources is sensible, but you cannot save the planet, it is doomed.

Well, of course. The sun will eventually go supernova.

The sun, I believe, is considered insufficiently massive for a supernova. It will become a red giant in about five billion years, and Earth will likely be consumed. Life on Earth is actually screwed long before that. The sun's output increases as it ages. In as little as a billion years it will be impossible for liquid water to exist on the surface. The steam that used to be oceans will cause a massive greenhouse effect and Earth will be like a Venus, except with steam, until increased solar winds finally strip that away along with the rest of the atmosphere. A few pockets of deep subterranean life may survive for a time, but nothing like surface plants and animals.

On the bright side (the metaphorical one, not the lethal one), given what we've accomplished in ten thousand years, if human culture is still going strong in even another ten thousand I bet we'll have some good ideas what to do about it.

leekohler

Jul 14, 2009, 04:24 PM

The sun, I believe, is considered insufficiently massive for a supernova. It will become a red giant in about five billion years, and Earth will likely be consumed. Life on Earth is actually screwed long before that. The sun's output increases as it ages. In as little as a billion years it will be impossible for liquid water to exist on the surface. The water vapor that used to be oceans will cause a massive greenhouse effect and Earth will be like a Venus, except with water vapor. A few pockets of deep subterranean life may survive for a time, but nothing like surface plants and animals.

On the bright side (the metaphorical one, not the lethal one), given what we've accomplished in ten thousand years, if human culture is still going strong in even another ten thousand I bet we'll have some good ideas what to do about it.

Hopefully, Mars is colonized by then.

Queso

Jul 14, 2009, 04:47 PM

Hopefully, Mars is colonized by then.
Take the Eon approach. Hollow out an asteroid, set it spinning to generate gravity, then colonise it and set sail for another star system :)

Zombie Acorn

Jul 14, 2009, 05:09 PM

If we could replicate the human brain function into a computer we could probably endure harsher temperatures, and we would be robots (or would we?). win/win.

OutThere

Jul 14, 2009, 06:14 PM

Thinking makes you angry?

Yes clearly you put a lot of thought into your original post. :rolleyes:

Wotan31

Jul 14, 2009, 06:24 PM

Yes clearly you put a lot of thought into your original post. :rolleyes:
LMAO no no no. The thinking part is what you need to be doing here. I merely provided the "food for thought" in the form an (apparently unpopular) opinion. Heck, I'm not even taking sides in this one. I'm merely pointing out that while Global Warming and "Green" may be fashionable these days, there is indeed credible evidence to the contrary, and knowledgeable folks that have presented this evidence (http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml).

I don't know enough to say one way or another. And neither do you. But if reading things that go contrary to your own opinions makes you angry, then you should definitely give up on this "thinking" thing; it isn't working out well for you.

Eanair

Jul 14, 2009, 07:15 PM

I'm merely pointing out that while Global Warming and "Green" may be fashionable these days, there is indeed credible evidence to the contrary, and knowledgeable folks that have presented this evidence (http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml).

Writing a book is not evidence.

A scientific article is evidence. I want to know what journal this person published in.

bobber205

Jul 14, 2009, 07:58 PM

To DELLSfan:

What do you have to lose if we go overboard with reducing carbon emissions. Say it does nothing to help or it's not the cause. What do you have to lose? I suspect you only have something to lose if we DON'T do something.

And those numbers posted lead to only one conclusion btw.

spillproof

Jul 14, 2009, 08:43 PM

I don't know who or what to believe anymore. But I will say Al Gore is full of *****. I just have a personal distaste for him.

The world is flat.

Yes it is. And I don't believe in Global Warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyO8_as7k_0)

AP_piano295

Jul 14, 2009, 09:18 PM

I don't know who or what to believe anymore. But I will say Al Gore is full of *****. I just have a personal distaste for him.

Yes it is. And I don't believe in Global Warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyO8_as7k_0)

What an intelligent song.

So you dont believe in global warming because you dont feel like it...and you dont like Al Gore.

Solid reasoning pal...

spillproof

Jul 14, 2009, 10:35 PM

What an intelligent song.

So you dont believe in global warming because you dont feel like it...and you dont like Al Gore.

Solid reasoning pal...

I normally don't explain myself further, but. I apologize calling Al Gore full of **** offended anyone. That was just my extra two cents after my opinion on global warming. He did not make a good impression on me when I went to one of his speeches; he was rude.

The song link was merely a joke, as was bbotte's statement.

I don't believe or not believe in global warming. There is too much conflicting evidence for me to make an educated decision. However, I do think that taking better care of the environment is a good thing regardless if global warming is an issue or not.

If you say it is real, okay. If you say its all a shame, okay, that's your opinion. I am not a crazy person who will attack anyone who does not share the same beliefs as me.

hulugu

Jul 15, 2009, 12:58 AM

What an intelligent song.

So you dont believe in global warming because...
you dont like Al Gore.

Solid reasoning pal...

A classic ad hominem argument really.

....

As for the end of Sol, hopefully we're at the point where we can build a Dyson sphere and harness the sun's energy completely, move Earth to a new gravity well and keep the whole thing as a planetary menagerie, all while using FTL-capable, AI-driven starships on weekend trips to Andromeda.

However, part of me fears that we'll either be merely a memory as a species or we'll be watching the Sun glow redder and grow closer with each passing eon until the oceans boil and we remain, but for a moment, huddled beneath the crackling crust of a burnt world.

Eraserhead

Jul 15, 2009, 03:15 AM

There is too much conflicting evidence for me to make an educated decision.

So can you (or anyone else) provide some evidence in a respected scientific journal that global warming isn't happening?

I mean if there is so much conflicting evidence there should be some evidence in a major scientific journal against global warming.

.Andy

Jul 15, 2009, 05:54 AM

So can you (or anyone else) provide some evidence in a respected scientific journal that global warming isn't happening?

I mean if there is so much conflicting evidence there should be some evidence in a major scientific journal against global warming.
Cue the argument that there's a scientific conspiracy keeping out alternate research.

Iscariot

Jul 15, 2009, 01:10 PM

The Andromeda Galaxy will get us before then, about 2 billion years. Imagine the MacBook Pro available, maybe I should delay my purchase... Off to Buying Tips.

The sun, I believe, is considered insufficiently massive for a supernova. It will become a red giant in about five billion years, and Earth will likely be consumed. Life on Earth is actually screwed long before that. The sun's output increases as it ages. In as little as a billion years it will be impossible for liquid water to exist on the surface. The steam that used to be oceans will cause a massive greenhouse effect and Earth will be like a Venus, except with steam, until increased solar winds finally strip that away along with the rest of the atmosphere. A few pockets of deep subterranean life may survive for a time, but nothing like surface plants and animals.

On the bright side (the metaphorical one, not the lethal one), given what we've accomplished in ten thousand years, if human culture is still going strong in even another ten thousand I bet we'll have some good ideas what to do about it.

Actually, if my understanding is correct, within a mere billion years the Earth will have become inhospitable because of increased solar activity. I dare somebody to outdoom me!

SLC Flyfishing

Jul 15, 2009, 02:22 PM

......The sun's output increases as it ages......

That's interesting, so basically we need to find a way to cool the earth because we'll be getting global warming as the sun ages even if we don't create CO2 emissions?

SLC

Iscariot

Jul 15, 2009, 02:31 PM

That's interesting, so basically we need to find a way to cool the earth because we'll be getting global warming as the sun ages even if we don't create CO2 emissions?

SLC

Yep, over several hundred million years mind you. Interestingly, I was just reading an article about this last week, I believe the idea is to control the level of nitrogen to extend the lifespan of Earth by an extra billion years or so!

leekohler

Jul 15, 2009, 02:39 PM

Cue the argument that there's a scientific conspiracy keeping out alternate research.

It's all a Marxist plot, dontcha know. ;)

oscillatewildly

Jul 15, 2009, 04:52 PM

Actually, if my understanding is correct, within a mere billion years the Earth will have become inhospitable because of increased solar activity. I dare somebody to outdoom me!

What's that large fiery boulder thing headed this way? :)

solvs

Jul 20, 2009, 12:25 PM

Just because some of you don't understand the issue/science/facts (and you clearly don't), or because the people you support have turned it into a partisan issue, doesn't make it so. Global Climate CHANGE is clearly happening, there is absolutely no denying that. You might as well claim the Earth is flat. No, the debate is over just how much humans are causing. The data is there, but it actually leaves some room for speculation. Some saying none, which is ridiculous. As you can see from most of their "evidence", it's usually the same type of thing evolution deniers use - simply trying to disprove it pointing out the holes, rather than actually proving much themselves. Or showing how it's cooling in some places, which, duh, is how it happens. Often also criticizing people like Gore, who's been touting it since before it was "popular". Saying things like "follow the money", which if you do actually makes most of them seem like the ones with ulterior motives. Or that we shouldn't do anything because China and India aren't... yet.

Some, believe-it-or-not, saying it's actually far worse than we're being told, but they're usually ignored a kooks (even when their science is more sound) because the not-so-liberal media has to play "fair", even to those calling them liberal anyway, even if the "other side" is completely wrong.

(BTW, Global Cooling in the 70's was NEVER accepted science, especially compared to GCC)