|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
 Posted - 04/27/2001 : 18:40:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Quite right (.4 degrees Celsius in the last 100 years, real scary  ), but don't overlook the fact that the main argument is what is causing global warming, and should we become hysterical and panic? Are humans causing it? Or is it natural? And is it even dangerous? The evidence is not near complete enough to make global economic changes.
I suppose I should have specified what I meant when I said that Global Warming has not been proven. I suggest we leave the arguments over socialism aside, unless some of you want to continue that in the politics thread.
First off, many of the measurements taken in the last 100 years have been in growing urban areas. Anyone who stops to think for a second about this fact will realize that buildings, concrete, asphalt, and many other artificial urban structures can end up warming the general areas that they occupy. If one looks at satellite data you can find a much different picture. The overall warming of the earth appears to have been very small compared to the surface studies, and even that was offset by cooling in other areas of the planet.
Second of all, the idea that we humans have that large of an effect on the planet's content of greenhouse gasses is far from proven, but environmentalists want us to radically handicap our economy over this week hypothesis. They love to wave around a big international study of scientists as some sort of unanimous voice, but many of those scientists have been offended by the use of their names to support something they do not. This is not only because the scientists are unsure of the greenhouse gas data, they don't even know if elevated temperatures would be all that disastrous. There is a lot of data that supports the idea that Global Warming could be beneficial to various life forms on earth. It is not just "right-wing" or "conservative" kooks who are skeptical about global warming. Many respectable scientists, meteorologists, and other climate experts do not believe Global Warming is occurring. Only a "left-wing" or "tree-hugging" kook would make such a broad generalization about Global Warming skeptics.
Lastly, if global warming is occurring, a global weather system like that of earth's is far too complex and chaotic to find the exact cause. If anything the sun would be the most likely candidate. Our sun puts out incredibly large amounts of energy. Even small fluctuations could have large effects on the earth's climate. To ignore data regarding solar cycles, and just assume that cars and factories are causing any changes is ridiculous and stupid. My only conclusion about the environmentalists, who push dangerous laws to regulate human productivity on flimsy evidence, is that they are more interested in limiting the freedom of other people than doing what is right.
As a side note, I also liked the larger assortment of smile faces; especially scared. They were neat. |
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2001 : 19:15:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
They'll grow back. It's in the tree-cutter-downers' best interests.
The end with the seeds is gone.
To grow back they would have to be replanted like loggers in the USA do. And that just ain't happening. They apparently don't care about their future intrests—just quick bucks. The future be damned.
There is no ground cover because this was dense pine forest. With the canopy gone and the roots dead the top soil will wash away. It could be hundreds of years before any thing grew back.
When you fly over this in a 747 it takes an hour or so to get from one end to the other. Same time it takes to get from New York to Chicago. The entire place looks like a bomb went off. Tree hugger? What tree? Nothing on the northern east coast of Canada but stumps.
Trust me on this one. I'm Irish and we had the same thing done to us. All we had left was some lousey clover. Maybe the Canadians can put shamrocks on their hockey uniforms.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2001 : 21:31:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The end with the seeds is gone.
To grow back they would have to be replanted like loggers in the USA do.
Ahh, my apologies! If they are not replanting, then there is indeed a problem in Canada. I hope something can be done about that...
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2001 : 21:38:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
..Global Warming...
Living in Huntsville, Alabama, home of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, we have alot of exposure to editorials from a Dr. Christy (John, I believe). He is an environmental scientist with the climate as a specialty. He is VERY skeptical about the causes of global warming, and as far as I know, I've not heard of anyone claiming he has a political agenda.
www.junkscience.org has a very good article about it also, in which the 'heat-island effect' to which you are referring, Tiptup, is discussed and explained.
|
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2001 : 03:02:39 [Permalink]
|
Dihydrogen Monoxide website is at http://www.dhmo.org/.
The reactor accident that killed 3 people in the US was SL-1, there is some more info on it at http://www.ans.neep.wisc.edu/~ans/point_source/AEI/jul96/AEI_Jul96.html.
The scientific consensus is growing rapidly in favour of global warming being caused by humans, when one considers that most scientists are sceptics that sure does show that something needs to be looked at by the global warming denialists, in fact Thomas Karl who has been quoted by global warming denialists as whose doubts are widely quoted by global warming denialists has said quote:
The warming now has pretty much returned [after a brief cooling off period caused by Mount Pinatubo, whose volcanic soot temporarily dimmed the sun around the world]. If you were to come back in, say, the year 2000, and if we have taken another jump in temperature [like since 1980], then you are going to see some very strong statements from me and my colleagues.
, the reason Venus has such high temperatures all day and all night isn't because it is so close to the sun, but because it has so much CO2 in its atmosphere, the sun doesn't have anywhere near as much to do with Global Warming as the denialists claim.
The ten hottest years on record (which started in 1860 when we finally got reliable measurements) have all occured after 1973, annual temperatures even in places away from cities have been rising, polar ice caps are melting, cracks have appears and their is ice going missing, it wouldn't take all that much to raise sea level 10 metres, El Nino has been staying longer.
The Fact that CO2 is a Greenhouse gas is not being disputed in the scientific community, yes the whether is too complex, but we know that small fluctuations in the suns output can't have much effect on earth and we know that CO2 is a Greenhouse gas, we also know that we put a lot of it into the atmosphere, we can make an inference from this that the CO2 is causing Global Warming.
Sure there may not be 100% proof, but there is generally considered to be about 95% proof of it, and since the consquences are very bad, we should reduce CO2 production until it can be proven that CO2 is not the cause and that something else is.
There is more then enough proof to justify a ban on constrution of coal power and to ban coal power research, there should also be government programs to speed up a switch to nuclear power and research into SPS, reserach into alternative fuels for cars which don't release as much CO2 should also be conducted and economic incentives provided for people to use them.
Cont...
|
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2001 : 03:03:53 [Permalink]
|
Cont from Previous
Once a big company has a replacement for fossil fuels that it can market well or believes it is in a good position to do so then you can expect that company to start to admit that Global Warming is occuring and then recommend massive reductions in CO2 output.
Thats exactly what DuPont did when the truth about CFC's came out.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2001 : 03:20:44 [Permalink]
|
There is something else I would like to add. Yes protecting the environment is costly, sometimes very costly, but the effects of global warming could be so costly that prevention will seem cheap. No you shouldn't spend the money without some good evidence. I think it is safe to say that the Earth is getting warmer. Glaciers are receeding, as Bestonnet said the ice caps are melting. How much does it take before the doubters are willing to listen? Is there a certain amount of Florida that needs to rejoin the Ocean first? Waiting too long ould be disasterous.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Dog_Ed
Skeptic Friend
USA
126 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2001 : 05:02:26 [Permalink]
|
There is an excellent book on the climate of Oregon (my home state) by the state climatologist. I will post back later with the title and author. He makes a couple of strong points in a brief chapter on global climate change.
First, he contends that studies show that during the Medieval Warm Period (when the Vikings colonized Greenland) the global temperature seems to have been warmer than it is now. Sea levels, according to his data, were higher too. His point is that the current warming trend is not inconsistent with "normal" climate change, and may fit fairly well with a trend of temperature during Earth's previous interglacial. He also notes that atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased immensely in the last 100 years.
Environmentalists can be mystical sorts who believe what their hearts tell them and pay scant attention to facts, and they can be strictly scientific types who deal in species census, statistical analysis, and other data. And there is some cross-pollination between the two. Be skeptical! Demand facts. Investigate. The only key is your own smarts.
"Even Einstein put his foot in it sometimes" |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2001 : 09:43:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The scientific consensus is growing rapidly in favour of global warming being caused by humans
Could you please provide some links to this info? I've been looking into it, and from what I've seen, there's hardly any consensus between 'most' scientists.
Also, from what I've heard, the amount of CO2 we produce is relatively insignificant when compared to naturally occurring emmissions. Again, I don't think there is near enough proof, as you claim, that humans are causing any of the warming. (I'm looking for proof otherwise, and will be happy to admit you are right, but forgive me if I am skeptical of your claims...)
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2001 : 09:53:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Is there a certain amount of Florida that needs to rejoin the Ocean first? Waiting too long ould be disasterous.
You wouldn't consider this a little bit of hyperbole, would you? 
I went to www.greenpeace.org, to look at their side of the story. I didn't find a single piece of information, nor any links to anything remotely resembling evidence that humans were causing global climate change. But I did see a ridiculous amount of usage of words like 'catastrophe', 'disaster', 'calamity', 'crisis', etc. Who should we believe? Can you provide any links to anyone that DOESN'T have a political agenda on either side? I can't seem to find any.
But the ones on the 'deniars' side (a bit dishonest to call them that, I think) do seem to have some good, backed-by-science points that lead one to doubt that humans are causing it.
To clarify, I'm still up in the air on this issue, but I'm leaning heavily towards waiting for more evidence before doing anything ridiculous and ineffective like the Kyoto Treaty.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2001 : 14:40:39 [Permalink]
|
LOL, OK you got me.
One thing I found interesting though is that we are supposedly in a time when, historically, temperatures dip rather than increase. Unfortunately I don't have any links or references on hand to back that up. I will be on the lookout ,though, and will post it if I find it.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
sega
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2001 : 16:53:04 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
Global warming has been pretty much proven, most of the people who deny it have a vested interest in fossil fuels or are right wing nuts.
Can I assume you dislike petrochemicals and are left wing?
Like others have said, whats the Cause? People tend to throw out the scientific method and jump to the conclusion which most suits their political and or religious views, ignoring all data which does not support their opinion. The verdict ain't in on GW. there are only three very general conclusions one can make on global warming.
1.It is caused by humans and we can do something about it.
2.It is caused by humans and we can do nothing about it.
3.It is not caused by humans and we can do nothing about it.
We have already assumed that 1 is true and have done some things to attempt to change it. but if 1 is true, the only thing that will change it is a massive reduction in human population. Anyone for massive wars, famine, and pestilence? We are probably headed towards this anyway, and it is happening noew on a amaller scale. One glance at a history of the human species will tell you this. It is, however much more likely that three is the truth and we will just have to do what humans do best, Adapt. I am reminded of a statement in a text book I used in an ecology class at college. It stated that rainforests were being cut down and/or burned at the rate of 10 acres a minute. This seemed a rather cheeky thing to say, so I did the math. DID YOU KNOW THAT ALL OF THE RAIN FORESTS IN THE WORLD WERE CUT DOWN AND BURNED IN 1993!
The media and various environmental groups who make alarmist statements like this in order to rally an ignorant public are only harming the environmental movement as a whole. By making erroneous statements they weaken valid arguements.
Sega
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2001 : 21:10:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
One thing I found interesting though is that we are supposedly in a time when, historically, temperatures dip rather than increase.
That'd be an interesting read. I would think, though, that it would be very hard to predict something like that with only a little over a century of (incomplete) data.
And remember, 30 years or so ago, some scientists were predicting that we were entering another Ice Age, and that catastrophe was upon us! Glaciers were going to migrate south, running rampant over everyone!
I guess there's a fine line between Chicken Little, and 'better safe than sorry'.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2001 : 23:02:01 [Permalink]
|
I remember only that it was quoted on a NOVA from about 2 years ago. They came to that conclusion by taking measurements from ice they had brought up to the surface in Greenland. I do remember very well the claim that the pattern shown in the core samples is that this should be a period of cooling rather than warming. But you're right, all kinds of predictions have been made.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2001 : 04:12:34 [Permalink]
|
If global warming is caused by humans we can stop it from getting out of hand and buy some extra time, the argument that the amount we put is in nothing compared with what is natural is a common one for denialists and very bad science, for the simple reason that nature can absorb what was being put into the atmosphere before we started putting extra CO2into it, but can't absorb the extra that we put in, you don't need much extra CO2 for a Greenhouse effect.
We may be able to repair the damage (throwing Iron into the oceans) or we may not, but we should at least try to prevent it if we can, since we don't know the effects of adding CO2 to the atmosphere we should try to prevent it until we know whether it is safe to do so.
If we find that the CO2 doesn't cause Global Warming then I wouldn't see any problem with putting it in the atmosphere, but if we find that it does cause Global Warming then we will all be glad we acted early.
If we follow the suggestions to wait until more evidence comes along before slowing down CO2 production then when that evidence comes along Greenpeace will be saying "I told you so", I'm pretty sure you don't want to make them happy by allowing them to say that.
Greenpeace aren't for giving you evidence, their for making the public realise that there is something going on with global warming, find another site if you want the evidence, there is no one who has no political agenda, so good luck finding any sites like that.
The Kyoto Treaty is something which can buy us more time to study it, isn't that what the denialists want? More Time?
Or do they just want to stall so they don't have to reduce emissions?
My life and my right to actually go out to a day that isn't 40 in winter is far more important then the profits of exxon-mobile or other petrolium companies, anyway I would prefer the fossil fuels used to make plastics and other products, as for my political position, I am left wing, becasue thats the one that has been proven to work, left wing policies have almost always worked better then right wing ones.
The environmental movement isn't being harmed by people saying Global Warming is occuring, its being harmed by those who wont allow the Alternative to be used, namely nuclear power.
Looks like the denialists will have their way, in which case I will just have to find a way to make the denialists pay the most.
Cont...
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
