|
|
|
Blair Nekkid
New Member
Canada
20 Posts |
 Posted - 06/05/2002 : 17:43:46 [Permalink]
|
My question is how many years back does the world wide temperature database go? I know about temperature trend data supplied by dendrochronologists, but it is my impression that this data is more of the "good growing deason vs: bad growing season" type. Do we have any way of knowing what the specific and acurate global temperature was for the first 1800 of the last 2000 years? I thought that it was this absence of data that leads to the divergent doomsday scenarios of waterworld vs: the next ice age.
I believe that human industry/civilization is twisting the knobs on the environment, but I think no one really knows exactly what the knobs do. We don't know in any detail how this amazingly complex machinery of thermal regulation worked before we got ahold of the knobs.
P.J.O'Roarke said "Human problems are complex. If something isn't complex it doesn't qualify as problematic. Very simple bad things are not worth troubling ourselves about."
Cheers,
Blair
"I am treated as evil by those who feel persecuted because they are not allowed to force me to believe as they do."
|
 |
|
|
Phobos
New Member
USA
47 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2002 : 09:37:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My question is how many years back does the world wide temperature database go?
Not sure. But offhand, I have a National Geographic article (May 98) which showed direct temperature measurement fluctuations since 1865 and then another chart showing deduced climate temperatures going back 750,000 years.
quote:
I know about temperature trend data supplied by dendrochronologists, but it is my impression that this data is more of the "good growing deason vs: bad growing season" type. Do we have any way of knowing what the specific and acurate global temperature was for the first 1800 of the last 2000 years?
Things like tree rings are one source of recent-term data (hundreds of years). But ice cores from the poles give long-term (thousands of years....maybe tens or hundreds) indications of climatic conditions.
quote:
I thought that it was this absence of data that leads to the divergent doomsday scenarios of waterworld vs: the next ice age.
Uncertainties certainly play a large factor in the variation of model results but the other major obstacle is that climate is a complex system...kind of an emergent property of countless contributing factors. Perhaps that "chaos theory" applies more to weather than climate, but certainly all the feedback systems of climate are not fully understood.
quote:
I believe that human industry/civilization is twisting the knobs on the environment, but I think no one really knows exactly what the knobs do. We don't know in any detail how this amazingly complex machinery of thermal regulation worked before we got ahold of the knobs.
Agree. But I think we're getting better at it.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2002 : 09:46:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My question is how many years back does the world wide temperature database go? I know about temperature trend data supplied by dendrochronologists, but it is my impression that this data is more of the "good growing deason vs: bad growing season" type. Do we have any way of knowing what the specific and acurate global temperature was for the first 1800 of the last 2000 years? I thought that it was this absence of data that leads to the divergent doomsday scenarios of waterworld vs: the next ice age.
That's part of why they are attempting to take so many deep ice core samples from Antarctica.
http://gust.sr.unh.edu/GISP2/MoreInfo/Ice_Cores_Past.html
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/vostok.html
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm
[aside]
Gakk! ICR is attempting to use the ice cores to prove the earth is really young. Gakk!
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-226.htm
[/aside]
quote:
Erring on the side of caution sounds wise to me (but not going overboard and jumping onto a Luddite bandwagon).
Even Luddites could pose serious problems. Instead of all those smoke stacks producing CO and CO[sub]2[/sub] you would havee individual fires burning, would there be a differenc? Historically where I'm at has suffered polution problems from forest fires and from human inhabitants, however, industialization and a population explosion has worsened the effect.
quote:
I believe that human industry/civilization is twisting the knobs on the environment, but I think no one really knows exactly what the knobs do. We don't know in any detail how this amazingly complex machinery of thermal regulation worked before we got ahold of the knobs.
I agree with this, we don't know. I'm sure we need to look at new manufactories having tighter controls, upgrading older manufactories to meet some type of stancdard, but where should that line be drawn? I'd like to see excess polution prevented if it can be, but what if any effect will that have? Have we polluted enough that it's run away at this point or are we only experiencing another rise in temperature following the little ice age?
There's a lot we don't know, compared to what we do.
---
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2002 : 10:42:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well, I'm new here...I hate to start stepping on toes. Sorry.
Go right ahead, that's what groups like this are here for. Aren't they?
quote:
quote:
Sigh!!! People are idiots.
Sure, you'll encounter a lot of stupid ideas in the world, but such a generalized insult to the population is unwarranted.
I can see you are one of those people who likes to pin point and disscet every word for word and might not have a sense of humor so I won't direct my comments to you, thank you. Or rather perhaps you shouldn't read my posts, they might upset you too much.
quote:
I'm not saying we need to all-out change the world so everyone is hugging a tree. I'm saying we need to find a right balance in supporting our economy and proceeding cautiously based on current scientific understanding so as to minimize potential future problems.
Agreed
quote:
Nor should they resort to strawman arguments.
Someone once explained what that (strawman) means but I forget, so sorry I don't know how to answer that.
quote:
Again, critical thinking requires that you consider both sides of the argument
Me personaly, I do try to look at both sides even after I make up my mind.
People can debate, chat, argue on web sites all they want, I don't take anything here seriously. Who here is going to change what's happening? We are giving opinions as far as I'm concerned. Maybe some facts but still that's not making a differece in my world, so like I said.....I'll belive it when I see it.
The politicians do what they want, people vote or protest (or chat like on here) but still the world keeps turning.
* * * * * *
*Carabao forever.
-----------------
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves for they shall never cease
to be amused. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2002 : 17:58:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Instead of all those smoke stacks producing CO and CO<sub>2</sub> you would havee individual fires burning, would there be a differenc?
I remember hearing that candles are one of the largest sources of particulate polution in the world. I can't seem to find it doing a search however, so I don't know if it's true.
That would be ironic. I find that people who are into candle burning and "aromatherapy" and such, are usually very "earth conscious". You know, the same people who are vegetarians and wear leather... 
------------
fortiter in re, suaviter in modo
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 06/07/2002 11:42:01 |
|
|
|
Phobos
New Member
USA
47 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2002 : 09:47:31 [Permalink]
|
Snake - I hear what you're saying. I just tend to be optimistic about influencing others through education and discussion. Anyway, I was just discussing your statements. No offense intended.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2002 : 12:46:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I remember hearing that candles are one of the largest sources of particulate polution in the world. I can't seem to find it doing a search however, so I don't know if it's true.
The only specific problem I remember with cnadles is that scented candles often times have a metallic core in the wick that can give off toxic fumes. As for particulates, alot of fire places and so on contribute to particulate pollution.
Well, there's one for you irony pile TD.
---
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2002 : 21:07:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Snake - I hear what you're saying. I just tend to be optimistic about influencing others through education and discussion.
I do also think education is important and when possible I like to teach people too, but my statement stands, I also find most people to be idiots. Perhpaps we just know, work with or run into a different class of people but from what I see, it is difficult to communitcate with the majority of humans, thereby making it frustrating to try to teach. Call me Capt. Nemo but that's what I believe. Sorry I can't (at this time) be as optimistic as you.
quote:
Anyway, I was just discussing your statements. No offense intended.
Ok, thank you. Sorry if I came off too strong but in the past I've been criticized and not given a chance to explain so I guess I get a little to defensive.
Nothing wrong with truly debating ideas.
* * * * * *
*Carabao forever.
-----------------
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves for they shall never cease
to be amused. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2002 : 21:18:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The only specific problem I remember with cnadles is that scented candles often times have a metallic core in the wick that can give off toxic fumes. As for particulates, alot of fire places and so on contribute to particulate pollution.
Well, there's one for you irony pile TD.
The report I heard, I thought, didn't mention only scented candles but any kind with that metal wick. I think they said lead, which sounds right. And that they were only more dangerous to children or the elderly, those with weaker systems. IMO it's probably of some concern but, hey! What isn't. If you live anywhere where there's motor traffic and as you said, fire places, probably BBQ's and everything else, what's a little candle wick.
I did think though that candles could suck out too much oxygen from the air but I'll plant enough trees to compensate.
* * * * * *
*Carabao forever.
-----------------
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves for they shall never cease
to be amused. |
|
|
|
lil_devil
New Member
Canada
17 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2002 : 14:12:59 [Permalink]
|
The Questionable Science Behind
the Global Warming Scare
by Joseph Bast
Heartland Policy Study No. 89
October 30, 1998
Click here to download the study in Adobe Acrobat's Portable Document Format
Download Adobe Acrobat Reader+Search software to view PDF files.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph L. Bast is president and CEO of The Heartland Institute, a nonprofit research organization based in Chicago, Illinois. He is the coauthor of Eco-Sanity: A Common-Sense Guide to Environmentalism (Lanham, MD: Madison Books, 1994 [second edition 1996]). He can be reached by e-mail at jbast@heartland.org.
Introduction
Scientists have discovered that concentrations of minor greenhouse gases<1> in the atmosphere, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2), are rising. Theoretically, these gases could trap more heat in the atmosphere, leading to a gradual warming of the Earth's atmosphere. And, again theoretically, the consequences of rapid global warming could be harmful to the environment and to human health. Since the stakes are high, careful research and a deliberate response are called for.
In 1997, representatives of the United States and other nations met in Kyoto, Japan, to negotiate a treaty to address the possible threat of global climate change. That treaty, called the Kyoto Protocol, would require the U.S. to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions -- primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N02) -- to 7 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2012.<2>
The Kyoto Protocol does not become effective unless approved by the United States Senate. However, Vice President Al Gore and other spokespersons for the Clinton Administration have said they will attempt to implement the treaty even if the Senate does not approve it.<3>
The debate over global warming is important because implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would have significant negative effects on American workers and consumers. In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the United States government would need to adopt policies that would raise energy costs by the equivalent of $0.60 per gallon of gasoline or more.<4> Higher energy costs, in turn, would result in substantially higher prices paid by consumers for electricity and home heating oil, some 2.4 million lost jobs, and lost income averaging $2,700 per year for the typical American family.<5>
The cost of the Kyoto Protocol might be worth bearing if we knew three things for sure: (1) that man-made greenhouse gases are truly causing global warming; (2) that global warming is or will be bad for the natural environment and for human civilization; and (3) that the emission reduction schedule that is contained in the Kyoto Protocol is the best or most effective way to stop the threatened global warming from occurring. It is the contention of this author that all three necessary conditions for accepting the treaty are either false or we currently lack sufficient knowledge to know whether they are true.
The discussion that follows has the goal of imparting a basic understanding of the issues related to global warming. Believe it or not, it is possible for a person who is not trained in physics or climatology to reach an informed opinion about the science behind the global warming debate. On issues where the science is too complicated or the jargon too dense, there are reliable sources to turn to for an objective and informed opinion.
The seven principal conclusions of this paper are listed in the box on this page. Together, they make a convincing case for rejection of the Kyoto Protocol and pursuit, instead, of an alternative strategy called "no regrets." This strategy involves funding research on the effects of higher CO2 concentrations on plants and agriculture, lowering capital gains taxes to encourage the speedy replacement of old tools and equipment and with a new generation of more energy-efficient and less-polluting equipment, and carefully targeted investments where they are needed to accommodate climate change.
The final section of this study gives readers advice on how they can participate in the national debate over global warming.
1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate.
Over 17,000 scientists have signed a petition saying, in part, "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."<6>
The petition is being circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, an independent research organization that receives no funding from industry.
Among the signers of the petition are over 2,100 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, and environmental scientists who are especially well-qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere. Another 4,400 signers are scientists qualified to comment on carbon dioxide's effects on plant and animal life. Nearly all of the signers have some sort of advanced technical training.
The qualifications of the signers of the Oregon Institute Petition are dramatically better than the qualifications of the 2,600 "scientists" who have signed a competing petition, circulated by Ozone Action, calling for immediate action to counter global warming. An investigation by Citizens for a Sound Economy found that more than 90 percent of that petition's signers lacked credentials to speak with authority on the issue.<7> The entire list included just one climatologist.
Over one hundred climate scientists signed the 1996 Leipzig Declaration, which stated in part, "there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. On the contrary, most scientists now accept the fact that actual observations from Earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever."<8>
A survey of 36 state climatologists--scientists retained by state governments to monitor and research climate issues--conducted in September and October 1997 found that 58 percent disagreed with the statement, "global warming is for real," while only 36 percent agreed.<9> A remarkable 89 percent agreed that "current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused only by man-made factors."
The same survey found that none of the climatologists strongly agreed, and only 11 percent "somewhat agreed," with the following statement: "Reducing anthropogenic or man-made carbon dioxide emissions among developed nations such as the United States to 1990 levels will prevent global temperatures from rising." Eighty-six percent disagreed with the statement.
Global warming alarmists have sought to silence their critics by calling them a small group of industry-funded dissenters from the "scientific consensus."<10> The Oregon Institute Petition, the Leipzig Declaration, and the survey of practicing climatologists prove these claims are false. We should keep in mind, however, that scientific truths are not found by polling scientists, but through rigorous debate recorded in peer-reviewed journals. As the following points show, global warming skeptics can win that debate, too.
2. The most reliable temperature data show no global warming trend.
It is an article of faith among those who warn of catastrophic global warming that temperatures are already rising. They point to surface-based measurements produced by the National Oceanic and Atmos |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2002 : 14:48:38 [Permalink]
|
This Heartland Institute is interesting in several ways. First they seem to contradict scientific studies and secondly they parallel conservative views on gun control as well as climate issues. Check this page for more on the Heartland Institute:
http://www.capitalresearch.org/publications/advocacyguide/Groups/heartland.html
quote:
Also publishes Policy Studies; The Eco-Sanity Report, "devoted to sound science and market-based environmentalism," and School Reform News, billed as "a Monthly Review of School Reform Efforts."
Market-based environmentalism??? Gee I wonder what they would conclude!
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Phobos
New Member
USA
47 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2002 : 14:49:10 [Permalink]
|
lil_devil - -
Just skimming through that article gives many hints of its own "junk science".
But I'll try to find the time to read it more thoroughly so we can actually debate it.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
