Jump to content

Global Warming


tommyboy444

Recommended Posts

Historical temperature records are not the only method of tracking this. Scientists look at ancient ice pack and glacial retreat. The Arctic Ocean was not nearly ice-free during any recorded history. Pacific islands inhabited for centuries were never underwater until recently.

Ice core sampling is only useful when evaluating climate change in areas that have ice pack that can be sampled. That's very limiting for a process that is described as "global" in nature. The data may provide evidence of the warming of polar regions, but it does little to prove the warming of sub-arctic regions.

Pacific islands were created by volcanic activity and are naturally reclaimed by the ocean over the course of geologic time. For every atoll, there was once a mountainous volcanically-active island. Other islands sit on muddy shelves that are steadily slipping into deeper seas; this is precisely what much of the Texas coast, including Galveston and Houston, are doing relative to the Gulf of Mexico. There are even geologic processes related to bouyancy by way of which the crust of the earth can be shifted upwards or downwards over a fairly broad expanse. I don't know where the islands are that you were referring to, specifically, but as stand-alone evidence of Global Warming, they're pretty weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 316
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I haven't seen too many folks talk about how global warming is way better than having a mile or so of ice covering most of North America and Europe.

The Earth has been warming since the end of the last glacial period. I would much rather deal with the impact of warming than with ice. I also believe we shouldn't risk destroying our economy to to reduce the growth in CO2 levels by some minuscule amount while India and China go full speed ahead with industrialization.

That's an oversimplification, one allowed if you're just citing a simple trend with two datapoints, but that betrays very imporant fluctuations that actually further your point. There was a time when New York harbor froze on a fairly regular basis, and over the course of one year (not coincidentally, the year that Krakatoa blew its top) it did not unfreeze throughout the summer. In Scandanavia, glacial advance destroyed any trace of villages that had existed for many centuries. Famines and crop failures became a regular feature of society, especially in Europe. That occurred before the industrial age really kicked into full gear, however just a couple hundred years before that was the peak of the medeval warm period, unmatched until fairly recently, and predating any aspect of industrialization such as would coincide with an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Actually, I'd argue that not only did the warm period represent a high-point for its era, but that the warm temperatures resulted in economic surpluses sufficient to support the research and development of technologies that spurred industrialization. Warming was a tremendous boon to human civilizations.

Clearly there is sufficient historical evidence to conclude that non-anthropogenic climate change is common, that it can occur independently of significant fluctuations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and that its effects can have dramatic adverse or beneficial impacts on human civilization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an oversimplification, one allowed if you're just citing a simple trend with two datapoints, but that betrays very imporant fluctuations that actually further your point. There was a time when New York harbor froze on a fairly regular basis, and over the course of one year (not coincidentally, the year that Krakatoa blew its top) it did not unfreeze throughout the summer. In Scandanavia, glacial advance destroyed any trace of villages that had existed for many centuries. Famines and crop failures became a regular feature of society, especially in Europe. That occurred before the industrial age really kicked into full gear, however just a couple hundred years before that was the peak of the medeval warm period, unmatched until fairly recently, and predating any aspect of industrialization such as would coincide with an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Actually, I'd argue that not only did the warm period represent a high-point for its era, but that the warm temperatures resulted in economic surpluses sufficient to support the research and development of technologies that spurred industrialization. Warming was a tremendous boon to human civilizations.

Clearly there is sufficient historical evidence to conclude that non-anthropogenic climate change is common, that it can occur independently of significant fluctuations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and that its effects can have dramatic adverse or beneficial impacts on human civilization.

Your back on my good side =) (not that you care). Sorry for getting pissy last night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are even geologic processes related to bouyancy by way of which the crust of the earth can be shifted upwards or downwards over a fairly broad expanse. I don't know where the islands are that you were referring to, specifically, but as stand-alone evidence of Global Warming, they're pretty weak.

A lot of people don't realize that before laying a pipeline in the Gulf of Mexico, you must first do an archaelogic survey (by sonar, of course!). Partially, the purpose is to search for evidence of prehistoric civilization. Reading the reports is interesting. A very wide swath of the continental shelf was once not only exposed as dry land, but almost certainly inhabited. That's real climate change -not a degree over the last century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. So climate change is a hoax, and not man made.

Let's then talk about the ever-increasing cost of mitigating and recovering from severe weather.

Every major weather event now carries more expensive losses. Here, they are mostly property and commerce related but in the less developed world, they cause greater migration and general human suffering on top of that. Funny, that. Poor people around the world have achieved a standard of living good enough to survive in greater numbers, but ultimately make themselves more of a burden on the rest of us when disaster strikes. All those well meaning NGOs aside, many governments, as well as the global finance and insurance industry, find the newfound ability of the third world to hang on to life an expensive impediment, at best.

Assume that those of us in the first world continue to operate as usual, at least in regard to building and living in extreme weather zones. (by that I mean the southwest generally, the coasts, and the midwestern riverways). How do we pay to keep our infrastructure and people safe, with larger numbers of poor migrants (necessary for GDP growth to feed the machine) but increasingly unaffordable, unavailable, or insufficient property insurance? I understand why many believe that measures like cap and trade will be at best ineffective, and at worse will stifle world economies. But I'm willing to bet that continuing to ignor significant, weather-related destruction, disease, and migration will be far worse. I feel that we have allowed politics to corrupt a significant discourse on how to make the planet more bearable, and profitable, for everyone.

It strikes me that whether the global climate is shifting more to warmer temperatures or to cooler temperatures, there will be economic winners and losers somewhere on the planet. For some regions, the prospect of global warming ought to be celebrated. In others, it ought to be feared. Regardless of what humans do, however, we can know with certainty that climate change will continuously occur. As the effects of climate change are observed, it would behoove us to build better infrastructure and adapt to nature, rather than try to anticipate and adapt nature to us.

Look at Holland. Using medeval technology, they reclaimed vast areas from swamp and sea, in spite of some pretty horrible weather. The improvement to their infrastructure not only allowed more land to be cultivated so as to support a larger population, but reduced property and casualty risk. The infrastructure tamed mother nature and enabled them to become the wealthiest most commercially-prosperous nation in the world for a very long while.

Another great thing about infrastructure improvements are that its beneficial effects are immediate, predictable, and verifiable. If you make New Orleans' infrastructure capable of withstanding a 40-foot storm surge from any direction, no doubt more insurers would be willing to provide coverage in New Orleans, insurance rates would decline, and the residents of New Orleans would benefit...with or without having to even test the infrastructure with a Cat 5 storm for another decade or so. This is very different from legislation coming out of only one country in the world that attempts to apply vague processes to a vague climate model with highly uncertain localized impacts. How does anybody (except for bureaucrats, investment bankers, and the shareholders of companies within a lucky few industries that received more than their fair share of carbon permits) benefit immediately from that?

Maybe the prospect of Global Warming is rightly concerning for many (albeit certainly not all) populations, but perhaps mitigating the localized effects as they are recognized is more cost-effective than attempting to eliminate only the vaguely-understood anthropogenic causes of a malady that is global in scope and that can never totally be stabilized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

One day, people will look back at all this and laugh.

Can i start laughing yet ?

http://www.spiegel.d...ational/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can i start laughing yet ?

http://www.spiegel.d...ational/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill.

None of this will matter much when the next ice age comes upon us in about 1500 years or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can i start laughing yet ?

No you can't.

Just like every other wacky thing people like this come up with, once they are proven wrong you will have revisionist history to deal with. There is no winning this argument, ever because this isn't an argument it's an agenda that was here long before it took on the "global warming" mantle and it will be here long after it's gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I briefly looked over all the comments on this thread, and it looks like it followed pretty much the exact same pattern as all other threads ever written about the subject, albeit with fewer expletives - though no fewer references to Al Gore.

It seems a bunch of people completely unfamiliar with scientific methodology, ethics and self-policing policies have weighed in yet again. I find it curious so many people use the words "know" and "believe" rather than the word "think" to describe their feelings about subjects beyond their individual levels of comprehension.

No you can't.

Just like every other wacky thing people like this come up with, once they are proven wrong you will have revisionist history to deal with. There is no winning this argument, ever because this isn't an argument it's an agenda that was here long before it took on the "global warming" mantle and it will be here long after it's gone.

And what could that nefarious agenda be? A clean planet?

Those bastards!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what could that nefarious agenda be? A clean planet?

Those bastards!

So you're a Ends justify the Means kinda guy ?

Lots of green money to be had... Lots of voodoo science to justify it.

Yes.. Those bastards. Cultivating fear, Selling science... As usual, the scientist skeptic will be proven right.

I'll tune back into this thread in yet another two years to laugh some more at you "Reduce your Carbon footprint or Die, Consensus of scientist agree, Global warming is all carbon emissions" freaks.

Clean planet.. Good.

Lying to make money with the side effect of a clean planet .. Bad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See Highway6? Point Proven.

AtticaFlinch:

You're supposed to be saying a "cooler planet" not a "clean planet". This is about global warming, isn't it?

Conveniently True:

Consensus of Global Warming Fanatics feel they can ignore debate, ignore the ever rising tide of scientists saying "Hold on a second", ignore the evidence that the dooms day models are already being proven wrong by shouting "Boo.... Blah Blah.. Clean Planet"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See Highway6? Point Proven.

AtticaFlinch:

You're supposed to be saying a "cooler planet" not a "clean planet". This is about global warming, isn't it?

Well, no, it isn't really. In your suggestion that there was some agenda underlying the issue, and the idea of "global warming" (your quotation marks, btw) was some sort of ruse to mask that true agenda, I offered about the only other possible "agenda" that could be causing this overwhelming scientific concensus that something indeed is awry with our climate. Perhaps 99% of our world's earth scientists are in the back pocket of the hemp clothing industry, but... no, that's just retarded.

Do you want an education in science and the processes taken in refining hypotheses as more evidence is uncovered? Would you like to know why it's no longer called global warming or global cooling? Would you like to know how hypotheses are tested, refined and retested and retested again prior to publication? Or, would you rather throw out more clever Gorebal Warming-stylee portmanteaus.

And so you know, it isn't about cooling the planet, and it never was. The pressing matter now is recognizing and then limiting our impact before it's gotten so far out of hand as to be uncontrollable. It's about mitigating damage, not reversing it. Cooling and warming cycles are natural, but they don't occur with this rapidity unless some external device has caused it. The reason this debate has become political is because the repair won't be cheap, and it'll force a ton of people to completely change the way they do business. Which, considering the debate on the I-10 thread, since we can't even repair a stretch of road a few miles long without an uproar, something this large may prove too big for humanity to tackle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pressing matter now is recognizing and then limiting our impact before it's gotten so far out of hand as to be uncontrollable. It's about mitigating damage, not reversing it.

No... the pressing matter now should be scientists being held to account for the fact that they have no effin clue really how complicated it all is. Working together to understand it. Not pretending to already understand it to enact billion dollar policy decisions.

The pressing matter should be unpoliticizing science.

And you're lying to yourself if you can characterize the only people behind the green industry making any money are hemp clothes manufacturers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No... the pressing matter now should be scientists being held to account for the fact that they have no effin clue really how complicated it all is. Working together to understand it. Not pretending to already understand it to enact billion dollar policy decisions.

The pressing matter should be unpoliticizing science.

And you're lying to yourself if you can characterize the only people behind the green industry making any money are hemp clothes manufacturers.

You're confusing scientists and politicians. Scientists work with raw data and draw conclusions based on that data. If their conclusions lack merit and don't hold up under peer scrutiny, their conclusions are discarded. Science is apolitical to begin with. False paradigms have been developed based on individual political or social leanings, but gone are those days of the "gentleman" scientist using dubious methods to achieve those ends. Science has democratized, and bad ideas don't last long anymore.

It's your politicians who've hyperbolized this issue. Let's clear that up right away. It's a favorite pasttime of certain groups on the right to poke holes in scientific thought, especially the fundy ones who've blown so much hot air perfecting their practice arguing the Bible's timeline as a literal measure of the Earth's age. But, in those attempts, they don't disprove scientific conclusions, they just prove their own lack of understanding in the scientific method.

And, the hemp clothes comment was a joke, but you do bring up an interesting point. Simply because some businesses are profiting from the green initiative, are we then to assume the issue isn't real or lacks merit? Because it seems to me that's what you're saying. Likewise, I could use the exact same logic to say since there are some businesses who stand to profit from denying climate change, then the climate indeed must be changing. Here I thought St Anselm died during the Dark Ages.

I think I'm going to willingly remove myself from this discussion before it goes any further. For those of you who wish to continue to deny that something is amiss, whatever it may be and however it ultimately manifests, more power to you. It's not ours or our children's generation who are likely to feel the brunt of whatever's going on anyhow. Probably not. Most likely not. But then, what do scientists know? Hell, it could happen in... 2012. Spooky. I think I read that in the book of Revelations. Or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're confusing scientists and politicians. Scientists work with raw data and draw conclusions based on that data. If their conclusions lack merit and don't hold up under peer scrutiny, their conclusions are discarded.

Scientist cant have agendas dictated by funding? You are naive. The tide is turning amigo.

http://blogs.telegra...global-warming/

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=climategate

Consensus of scientists used to believe in spontaneous generation.... used to believe the sun revolved around the earth.... the skeptical scientists always win and the truth always eventually comes out.... you'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're confusing scientists and politicians. Scientists work with raw data and draw conclusions based on that data. If their conclusions lack merit and don't hold up under peer scrutiny, their conclusions are discarded. Science is apolitical to begin with. False paradigms have been developed based on individual political or social leanings, but gone are those days of the "gentleman" scientist using dubious methods to achieve those ends. Science has democratized, and bad ideas don't last long anymore.

It's your politicians who've hyperbolized this issue. Let's clear that up right away. It's a favorite pasttime of certain groups on the right to poke holes in scientific thought, especially the fundy ones who've blown so much hot air perfecting their practice arguing the Bible's timeline as a literal measure of the Earth's age. But, in those attempts, they don't disprove scientific conclusions, they just prove their own lack of understanding in the scientific method.

And, the hemp clothes comment was a joke, but you do bring up an interesting point. Simply because some businesses are profiting from the green initiative, are we then to assume the issue isn't real or lacks merit? Because it seems to me that's what you're saying. Likewise, I could use the exact same logic to say since there are some businesses who stand to profit from denying climate change, then the climate indeed must be changing. Here I thought St Anselm died during the Dark Ages.

I think I'm going to willingly remove myself from this discussion before it goes any further. For those of you who wish to continue to deny that something is amiss, whatever it may be and however it ultimately manifests, more power to you. It's not ours or our children's generation who are likely to feel the brunt of whatever's going on anyhow. Probably not. Most likely not. But then, what do scientists know? Hell, it could happen in... 2012. Spooky. I think I read that in the book of Revelations. Or whatever.

You're wasting your time with this crowd.

...the debate is over. In fact, it is so ever that now, today, even if we stopped 100% of our carbon emissions... we're still screwed. It's that bad.

Sooooo.... if that's the case... then why change anything now? The damage has already been done. As long as we can get another 75 years out of the planet - that'll be good enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scientist cant have agendas dictated by funding? You are naive. The tide is turning amigo.

http://blogs.telegra...global-warming/

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=climategate

Consensus of scientists used to believe in spontaneous generation.... used to believe the sun revolved around the earth.... the skeptical scientists always win because the truth always eventually comes out.... you'll see.

Ah, so we're just imagining that the glaciers are melting and the sea levels are rising. Phew!

Global Warming's Impacts Have Sped Up, Worsened Since Kyoto

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're wasting your time with this crowd.

...the debate is over. In fact, it is so ever that now, today, even if we stopped 100% of our carbon emissions... we're still screwed. It's that bad.

Sooooo.... if that's the case... then why change anything now? The damage has already been done. As long as we can get another 75 years out of the planet - that'll be good enough.

Because some folks are deranged and actually want a so-called apocalypse. I think most of the deniers don't understand the idea of consequence, and they have no respect for or knowledge of the scientific process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because some folks are deranged and actually want a so-called apocalypse.

No.. some of just don't believe Al Gore's apocalypse is upon us.

and they have no respect for or knowledge of the scientific process.

You're talking about the consensus of climate experts pushing the lie, right ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because some folks are deranged and actually want a so-called apocalypse. I think most of the deniers don't understand the idea of consequence, and they have no respect for or knowledge of the scientific process.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that too many universities gloss over the study of the philosophy of science. This should be core material that is taken more seriously than any amalgam of data from any field as it pertains to any particular topic, yet that's usually not the case it seems. Instead, such students who ought to be living breathing monuments to logic and reason buy into vapid rhetoric, such as that someone who is skeptical of a theory is a "denier" of it. It's a pathetic situation, really, one that is too easily solved to be excused.

There are too many instances in the annals of science where forward-thinking creative thinkers and skeptics were dismissed (both in ancient times and in the modern era) for me to believe that the scientific mainstream is an impregnable and monolithic force of reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because some folks are deranged and actually want a so-called apocalypse. I think most of the deniers don't understand the idea of consequence, and they have no respect for or knowledge of the scientific process.

Someone claimed we have 100 degree days with 100% humidity today. That's rather apocalyptic, don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're talking about the consensus of climate experts pushing the lie, right ?

I'd like to know what exactly the lie is. The only story seems to be that some illegally obtained emails are being read out of context by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an anti-government think tank and outspoken opponent of any regulations pertaining to global warming. And even if these scientists at the University of East Anglia are exaggerating their findings, isn't this just an isolated incident, and not a global conspiracy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a mighty big claim you've put out there. Explain it thoroughly.

I could, but I'm not not. It would not be an efficient use of my computer's CPU cycles, which requires electricity, which strains the earth's resources, contributing to global climate change.

Hey - I'm on your side now. There's no need to conserve anything, or change course - no matter what the scientists say. At this point, all they are telling us is that the damage is occurring faster than initially projected... and that it is pretty much irreversible now. We've past the point of no return, so damn the torpedoes - full speed ahead!

Screw the future. The next generation won't miss what they don't have. They'll just get used to a warmer planet and 1 foot of water in their living rooms... because that will be all they know... it will be their "normal." No harm, no foul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could, but I'm not not. It would not be an efficient use of my computer's CPU cycles, which requires electricity, which strains the earth's resources, contributing to global climate change.

Hey - I'm on your side now. There's no need to conserve anything, or change course - no matter what the scientists say. At this point, all they are telling us is that the damage is occurring faster than initially projected... and that it is pretty much irreversible now. We've past the point of no return, so damn the torpedoes - full speed ahead!

Screw the future. The next generation won't miss what they don't have. They'll just get used to a warmer planet and 1 foot of water in their living rooms... because that will be all they know... it will be their "normal." No harm, no foul.

If you're right, then it doesn't matter how wasteful you are of CPU cycles.

Humor me.

The next generation won't miss what they don't have. They'll just get used to a warmer planet and 1 foot of water in their living rooms... because that will be all they know... it will be their "normal." No harm, no foul.

So, what it sounds like is that an average of 18 inches of water will cover the enter land area as we know it, denying future generations the capability of owning a dry living room. And if they put it on tall piers or build levees, the water will just rise up in a rising mound underneath the targeted object until its objective of submerging all (or perhaps just the vast majority of) living rooms is accomplished. The higher we'd build, the more pissed off the water would get at us and the more it'd be motivated to flood out our living rooms. Do you think this might have something to do with the surface tension of water? And if so, what happens if I disrupt it, say by poking it with a fork? Would that cure the effects of global warming?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could, but I'm not not. It would not be an efficient use of my computer's CPU cycles, which requires electricity, which strains the earth's resources, contributing to global climate change.

Hey - I'm on your side now. There's no need to conserve anything, or change course - no matter what the scientists say. At this point, all they are telling us is that the damage is occurring faster than initially projected... and that it is pretty much irreversible now. We've past the point of no return, so damn the torpedoes - full speed ahead!

Screw the future. The next generation won't miss what they don't have. They'll just get used to a warmer planet and 1 foot of water in their living rooms... because that will be all they know... it will be their "normal." No harm, no foul.

03rdowner3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...