An inconvenient truth - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Bill O'Rights · 09-28-2006, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

2006 was the hottest summer on record since 1936.

In 1936 there were dire preditions about global warming.
Then things started to cool off and until 1980 there were dire preditions about global cooling.
Now again we have dire preditions about global warming.

And its still not as warm as it was before the little ice age durring the mideval period when Greenland was warm enough to farm.

But please, don't let history get in the way of thinking the sky is falling yet again.

Ok...I'm old enough to remember the "Ice Age is coming" predictions, of the 1970's.
I wasn't around in the middle ages to witness the warm period then, so I'll just concede all of the rest. Including 2006 being the hottest summer since 1936, because I do know that my A/C got one hell of a workout.

Still...even if global warming/cooling is part of the natural cycle (which to a large extent...it is) you have to see the common sense that the continuation of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, in ever increasing quantities...coupled with the continued deforestation of the rainforests, has to have an adverse effect. While the sky may not be falling, there has to be some stress fractures.

Ustwo · 09-28-2006, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Ok...I'm old enough to remember the "Ice Age is coming" predictions, of the 1970's.
I wasn't around in the middle ages to witness the warm period then, so I'll just concede all of the rest. Including 2006 being the hottest summer since 1936, because I do know that my A/C got one hell of a workout.

Still...even if global warming/cooling is part of the natural cycle (which to a large extent...it is) you have to see the common sense that the continuation of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, in ever increasing quantities...coupled with the continued deforestation of the rainforests, has to have an adverse effect. While the sky may not be falling, there has to be some stress fractures.

Bill what does the rainforest have to do with global warming? Its one of those things some people have tried to link but its part of the scare tactics, since they feel you won't save the rainforest just for its own sake so they want a bigger tie in. Over all the rainforest could become a giant golf course and while it would be devastating to the local ecology, it would not change the planet. Of course a google gives you things like this Why Gaia Needs Rainforests

I never claimed that the environment was perfect, or that humans were not having adverse local effects. The rainforest has poor quality soil which is why the slash and burn is so devastating there, it can't recover once the soil is depleted.

Now this will vary WILDLY depending on where you look, which is also part of the frustration. Due to the agendas in the global warming craze its past beyond science into politics and its like looking up 'George Bush' on google and expecting dispassionate unbiased results. Needless to say this is quite disturbing in what should be a scientific matter but it is what it is. Anyways human produced gases make up about 1% of the atmosphere. What sort of effect it has we really do not know. There are so many variables that all predictions are meaningless. We have carbon sinks in vegetation, some claim all it will do is increase plant life, we have the oceans which deposit calcium carbonate and some think that takes care of the excess, we have people claiming that the particulate matter in pollution is cooling the earth and thats masking global warming, well anyways it goes on and on, and thats just the good science. There is even more junk science out there thats more wild and gets more press like those idiots who said the earth was at its warmest in 1 million years just this week. (sob)

But Bill can you advocate expensive action, which even the proponents of human caused global warming say will make NO difference just so some people can feel good and THINK they are helping the environment? Action with no hope of results is just assinine.

Seaver · 09-28-2006, 05:50 AM

Sorry, I know we're not supposed to post twice the same article. But this holds much relevance in the argument.

More info and science on the sun-based warming cycles.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1045327.stm

Quote:

Sun's warming influence 'under-estimated'
The Sun
Opinion is divided over the Sun's impact on climate change
By BBC News Online science editor Dr David Whitehouse

Scientists at Armagh Observatory claim a unique weather record could show that the Sun has been the main contributor to global warming over the past two centuries.

I suspect that the greenhouse lobby have under-estimated the role of solar variability in climate change

Dr John Butler
The weather observations, made almost daily since 1795, comprise the longest climate archive available for a single site in Ireland.

Dr John Butler, the astronomer in charge of the project, told BBC News Online: "We can see global warming taking place over the past two centuries that suggests that changes in the Sun are at least partially responsible."

The data will confuse some climate experts who argue that the influence of changes in the Sun on rising temperatures has already been studied, and discounted, as a major cause of global warming.

Longer is better

The observations at Armagh began in 1795, a few years after the observatory was founded. Temperature, pressure and, later, rainfall have been measured every day with the exception of a period around 1825.

In all that time, the Armagh meteorological instruments have been moved only about 20 metres.

Armagh Observatory
The Armagh Observatory's weather archive spans two centuries
"What makes the data so useful is that the site of the observatory has not changed all that much in 200 years," said Dr Butler. "Other weather stations have been engulfed by towns and cities that make the long-term reliability of their data questionable."

When analysed, the data allow the average temperature at Armagh to be calculated to an accuracy of 0.1 deg C per decade. Eventually the entire data set will be placed on the internet.

"It's quite apparent from our data that global warming, of about a degree C, has been taking place for at least a hundred years," Dr Butler told BBC News Online.

Shorter is warmer

The researchers point out that the mean average temperature at Armagh seems to be related to the length of the Sun's activity cycle. This cycle is on average 11 years in duration but it can vary a few years either way.

"We have found that it gets cooler when the Sun's cycle is longer and that Armagh is warmer when the cycle is shorter," said Dr Butler.

Scientists cannot yet fully explain how natural variations in the Sun's brightness and activity may affect the Earth's climate. While the Sun is about 0.1% brighter during shorter cycles the effect is not enough to account for the observed warming trend.

"But the Sun's activity does affect the flux of cosmic rays, high-energy particles from deep space, that strike our atmosphere," said Dr Butler.

Consequently it has been suggested that because cosmic rays are the main source of ionisation in the Earth's atmosphere they may have an influence on cloud formation.

Solar cycle
Average temperatures in Armagh appear to correlate with solar activity
In general, the more cosmic rays that reach the Earth, the more low cloud there is. However, a higher solar activity leads to lower cosmic ray flux and reduced low cloud.

Low clouds cool the Earth by reflecting more solar radiation back into space, so a drop in the amount of low cloud contributes to global warming.

High cloud does the opposite and tends to warm the Earth by reflecting more of the Earth's infra-red radiation back to the ground.

It may be that changing cloud cover has caused global warming over the past century or so.

However, Dr Butler is cautious about this issue: "There is currently very little evidence for a low-altitude cloud reduction over the past century. But there is some evidence for a global increase in total cloud."

"I suspect that the greenhouse lobby have under-estimated the role of solar variability in climate change," he added. "However I am not in favour of polluting the atmosphere, for whatever reason."

dc_dux · 09-28-2006, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

.... can you advocate expensive action, which even the proponents of human caused global warming say will make NO difference just so some people can feel good and THINK they are helping the environment? Action with no hope of results is just assinine.

The Univ of California released a study earlier this year of the economic impact of the global warming bill signed into law by Gov. Schwarzenegger earlier this week:

A new UC Berkeley report finds that returning California global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as envisioned by pending global warming legislation, can boost the annual Gross State Product (GSP) by $60 billion and create 17,000 new jobs by 2020.

The report, "Economic Growth and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in California," offers an independent assessment of the economic benefits of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), The Global Warming Solutions Act, sponsored by Assemblyman Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) and Assemblywoman Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills).

The study finds that the gains could be even larger—$74 billion in annual GSP and 89,000 new jobs by 2020—if climate policies are designed to create direct incentives for California companies to invest in new technology.

"Our study demonstrates that meeting the 2020 limits under debate in Sacramento can stimulate the state economy," said David Roland-Holst, UC Berkeley adjunct professor of agricultural and resource economics and author of the report. "Climate action can be profitable."

http://www.climatechoices.org/site/s...erkeley_Report

I have not read the full report and I doubt that I would have the expertise to to critiique it after reading it.

I am sure many will "debunk" it; I would only hope they do so with credible and verifiable arguments of their own.

Ustwo · 09-28-2006, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blahblah454

Ustwo I see where you are coming from with your being against scare tactics. I suppose that most people do get really excited about everything they see in a movie and would be frightened by it. Yes it is wrong to scare people into doing things (Like going to war for no reason...) but with todays society and mentality that seems to be the only way to get anything done.

And it is sad that money drives everything. You look at these huge corperations that are causing most of the polution and look at the amount of money that they do have. Its absolutely discusting how much money they have, and yet they always need more. I find that most people get by with there meager salaries just fine, they wouldn't mind more money but its not a HUGE deal, and yet you look at these mega-corperations and there top officials and they are just rolling in the cash and its never enough. They cut wages, move factories, do tax fraud, anything to get more money. No one cares about anything but money anymore. I think that until that changes the world is heading to shit and its not going to stop.

And as far as cutting the rain forest down being bad because of the oxygen production... who fucking cares if the rain forest makes oxygen!! How about we stop burning it to make room for cattle and industry because its the rain forest. I mean they burn the fucker down because its faster than cutting it down! Its a giant ecosystem and that alone should be reason enough to try and preserve it.

I find that today people are protesting for all the wrong reasons and that they lose sight of alot of important things by these tangents they go off on. I am not saying everyone does, but alot of people do.

Well ironically the 'anti-global warming' crowd outspent the oil industry almost 3-1 in political spending. Don't think that there isn't a lot of money on both sides in this, and I've been seeing some 527 funded adds that are just disgusting on cable TV about global warming lately.

The problem with scaring people is that once they figure out they were duped its going to be that much harder to get them to do the right thing. All the eggs are in the global warming basket right now, what happens if the temperatures start to go down with the end of the current solar cycle like it did after the last global warming scare in the 30's?

Really I think we were making pretty good progress at educating the general public over environmental issues but that has been totally overshadowed by global warming and the WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE IF YOU DON'T ACT NOW AND VOTE FOR THESE PEOPLE! mentality they are trying to push on us. I can't recall the last mass media story about the environment that didn't tie in global warming.

People may be poorly educated, but despite what most environmentalist groups think, they are not stupid. Its going to be that much harder to keep people focused on the environment in the long run if global warming goes away on its own.

Ch'i · 09-28-2006, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Well ironically the 'anti-global warming' crowd outspent the oil industry almost 3-1 in political spending. Don't think that there isn't a lot of money on both sides in this, and I've been seeing some 527 funded adds that are just disgusting on cable TV about global warming lately.

The problem with scaring people is that once they figure out they were duped its going to be that much harder to get them to do the right thing. All the eggs are in the global warming basket right now, what happens if the temperatures start to go down with the end of the current solar cycle like it did after the last global warming scare in the 30's?

Really I think we were making pretty good progress at educating the general public over environmental issues but that has been totally overshadowed by global warming and the WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE IF YOU DON'T ACT NOW AND VOTE FOR THESE PEOPLE! mentality they are trying to push on us. I can't recall the last mass media story about the environment that didn't tie in global warming.

People may be poorly educated, but despite what most environmentalist groups think, they are not stupid. Its going to be that much harder to keep people focused on the environment in the long run if global warming goes away on its own.

Just because global climate change has been given a connotation of hyperbole by politicians and media trying to front their agenda does not mean that global warming is a myth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Anyone can make a claim, but instead of proving their claim they expect you to disprove it and frankly its not worth the time.

You'll notice this argument can be applied to you as well.

Cynthetiq · 09-29-2006, 05:15 PM

well this is just interestingly telling...

Quote:

GORE: CIGARETTE SMOKING 'SIGNIFICANT' CONTRIBUTOR TO GLOBAL WARMING
Fri Sep 29 2006 09:04:05 ET
DRUDGE REPORT
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore warned hundreds of U.N. diplomats and staff on Thursday evening about the perils of climate change, claiming: Cigarette smoking is a "significant contributor to global warming!"

Gore, who was introduced by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, said the world faces a "full-scale climate emergency that threatens the future of civilization on earth."

Gore showed computer-generated projections of ocean water rushing in to submerge the San Francisco Bay Area, New York City, parts of China, India and other nations, should ice shelves in Antarctica or Greenland melt and slip into the sea.

"The planet itself will do nicely, thank you very much what is at risk is human civilization," Gore said. After a series of Q& A with the audience, which had little to do with global warming and more about his political future, Annan bid "adios" to Gore.

Then, Gore had his staff opened a stack of cardboard boxes to begin selling his new book, "An Inconvenient Truth, The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It," $19.95, to the U.N. diplomats.

at least give it away to the diplomats...

Ustwo · 09-29-2006, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Then, Gore had his staff opened a stack of cardboard boxes to begin selling his new book, "An Inconvenient Truth, The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It," $19.95, to the U.N. diplomats.

Even Gore can't be THAT stupid.

Cynthetiq · 09-29-2006, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Even Gore can't be THAT stupid.

isn't his family invested in tobacco farms? incredible irony...

"Throughout most of my life, I raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I've hoed it. I've dug in it. I've sprayed it, I've chopped it, I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it."

Charlatan · 09-29-2006, 05:41 PM

At this point I don't really care if there is Global Warming or not. All I care about is that we make some (real) attempt to slow or halt pollution.

I don't need to frame that debate in Global Warming terms. I'd rather look at the increased rate of resperatory illness. If reducing harmful particulates from the air leads to a reduction of "greenhouse gases" I see that as just an added bonus.

Add to this, that increased efficencies in our current systems (better heating and cooling systems, better insulated houses, more efficient means of production) while expensive in the initial stage will bring dividends in the long run -- the biggest of which is a reduction in the amount of power required to run said systems (read: less reliance in foreign oil, etc.).

As for how to pay for it all? I would set up a system of government sponsored Interest Free loans to be paid back with the savings in Energy consumption. Additionally, you would be creating a big whack of jobs for people who will have to impliment these systems as well as in R&D into creating these efficiencies.

This discussion need not be couched in Global Warming... Global Warming is just a "convenient" fear factor, regardless of the veracity of global warming one way or the other.

Ustwo · 09-29-2006, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

At this point I don't really care if there is Global Warming or not. All I care about is that we make some (real) attempt to slow or halt pollution.
.

The cleanest internal combustion engine makes H2O and CO2, so then what?

Ch'i · 09-29-2006, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The cleanest internal combustion engine makes H2O and CO2, so then what?

We don't have to be confined by internal combustion engines. Thinking outside the box is what will bring us our cleanest systems.

Great point Charlatan, couldn't agree more.

Charlatan · 09-29-2006, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The cleanest internal combustion engine makes H2O and CO2, so then what?

There are way more efficiencies to be had than *just* the internal combustion engine.

But to answer that... If we look at the internal combustion engine of Henry Ford's time compared to today we have squeezed much more energy out of our engines that was previously available. Of course, instead of making our cars more efficient we have just made them bigger and faster. In and of itself this is not a problem so long as the overall effect is greater efficiency and less pollution over all.

As a suggested above, it isn't just about cars. It also about how we build our houses (or live with the legacy of what we already have built), how we run our industry, how we use our energy and what we do with our waste.

Many would like to see there be no regulations. Fuck efficiency. I want to do it the cheapest way possible to maximize profits.

This is extremely short sighted and ignores negative externalities such as resperatory illness and death (the cost of which is rarely calculated by industry or economists). And one need not just look at that example of a negative externality, a greater number of heavier vehicles on our roads (i.e. more SUVs) has also increased the wear and tear on our roads and highways. Who pays for these roads? It is not the auto industry, you can be sure of that.

But my point in the post of above was not to get into that side of things... it was simply to state that with proper investment in R&D and stronger regulations greater efficiencies and reduction of pollution can be achieved. This does not require the spectre of Global Warming.

Implimenting it just takes good leadership with an eye towards the long term rather than just sort term gain.

Ustwo · 09-29-2006, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

But my point in the post of above was not to get into that side of things... it was simply to state that with proper investment in R&D and stronger regulations greater efficiencies and reduction of pollution can be achieved. This does not require the spectre of Global Warming.

Implimenting it just takes good leadership with an eye towards the long term rather than just sort term gain.

Or lying to the public, creating fear where no fear is warrented, all for political gain under the guise of environmentalism. I don't have a problem with anything you say, I do have a problem with those creating a false hysteria.

Charlatan · 09-29-2006, 06:49 PM

Then we agree on something.

Fear is a shitty tool to use as a motivator. Better to state your real agenda and make it happen.

Ustwo · 09-29-2006, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Then we agree on something.

Fear is a shitty tool to use as a motivator. Better to state your real agenda and make it happen.

I suppose that is what irks me so much. We were making gains with the public mindset with acid rain, the rain forest, endangered species, etc, and now you are lucky if you hear a peep about that sort of thing unless its directly tied into global warming.

Charlatan · 09-29-2006, 07:19 PM

Interesting. I would suggest that in your rebuttals to the Global Warming discussion you make this emphasis. Until now, this concern for the environment is mostly lacking from your position. You end up coming off as someone who is just dismissing it all rather than suggesting that your motivation for change is fueled but other things.

It is perhaps, why so many are quick to call you a shill for the current admin's position (well at least one reason

).

Ustwo · 09-29-2006, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Interesting. I would suggest that in your rebuttals to the Global Warming discussion you make this emphasis. Until now, this concern for the environment is mostly lacking from your position. You end up coming off as someone who is just dismissing it all rather than suggesting that your motivation for change is fuel but other things.

It is perhaps, why so many are quick to call you a shill for the current admin's position (well at least one reason

).

Hey the RNC's check didn't clear this week so I'm back to my old self.

Marvelous Marv · 09-29-2006, 09:08 PM

Good old Gore!

Quote:

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore warned hundreds of U.N. diplomats and staff on Thursday evening about the perils of climate change, claiming: Cigarette smoking is a "significant contributor to global warming!"

Gore, who was introduced by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, said the world faces a "full-scale climate emergency that threatens the future of civilization on earth."

Gore showed computer-generated projections of ocean water rushing in to submerge the San Francisco Bay Area, New York City, parts of China, India and other nations, should ice shelves in Antarctica or Greenland melt and slip into the sea.

"The planet itself will do nicely, thank you very much what is at risk is human civilization," Gore said. After a series of Q& A with the audience, which had little to do with global warming and more about his political future, Annan bid "adios" to Gore.

Then, Gore had his staff opened a stack of cardboard boxes to begin selling his new book, "An Inconvenient Truth, The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It," $19.95, to the U.N. diplomats.

A little history:

At the 1996 Democratic National Convention, Gore recounted how his cigarette-smoking sister died from lung cancer.

"I knelt by her bed and held her hand," he grieved. "And in a very short time her breathing became labored. And she breathed her last breath. And that is why, until I draw my last breath, I will pour my heart and soul into the cause of protecting our children from the dangers of smoking."

He neglected to mention was that he had happily accepted campaign contributions from tobacco industry political action committees for six years after his beloved sister passed away.

Oh, and in a speech he gave in North Carolina, four years after his sister "breathed her last breath," he said, "Throughout most of my life, I've raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in plant beds and transferred it. I've hoed it. I've chopped it. I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it."

What a piece of shit he is.

Charlatan · 09-29-2006, 09:15 PM

Please Marv, don't open that can of worms. All it leads to is a tit for tat process. You think HE's bad, well your leader did THIS!

I don't care what Gore did in the past, or if he's a "piece of shit."

Let's keep the focus on the message itself. There is plenty of interest to debate there.

If you wish to get into any politican's character, please start another thread.

This goes for everyone.

dc_dux · 09-29-2006, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I suppose that is what irks me so much. We were making gains with the public mindset with acid rain, the rain forest, endangered species, etc, and now you are lucky if you hear a peep about that sort of thing unless its directly tied into global warming.

Ustwo....I'm curious on your take on Bush"s "Clear Sky Initiative" to amend the Clean Air Act.

As I understand it, it sets new targets for emissions of sulfur dioxide, mercury, and nitrogen oxides from U.S. power plants and allows for "pollution trading" that would effectively weaken (or delay) the emission targets that would be in place if the Bush administration simply implemented and enforced the existing law.

I've read what the White House and EPA say as well as what the environmental groups say. It seems to me that "we were making gains" with existing law, without an adverse impact on the utility industry.

Marvelous Marv · 09-29-2006, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Please Marv, don't open that can of worms. All it leads to is a tit for tat process. You think HE's bad, well your leader did THIS!

I don't care what Gore did in the past, or if he's a "piece of shit."

Can't say I'm surprised at that, but in your haste to make yet another "tu quoque" accusation, you abandoned logic, since I'm talking about the hypocrisy of the SAME person.

If Duke Cunningham went on the lecture tour promoting integrity in government, I doubt that I'd buy any book he wrote. If that analogy is also lost on you, perhaps another reader will consider it relevant. If he or she gets a chance to read it.

I don't know why I thought things might have changed around here.

Charlatan · 09-30-2006, 07:25 AM

Marv... don't be uneccessarily obtuse.

The path you were trodding is one we have been down before. It leads to a flame war... one that has already been had.

If you want to start a flame war... do it elsewhere.

Ustwo · 09-30-2006, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ustwo....I'm curious on your take on Bush"s "Clear Sky Initiative" to amend the Clean Air Act.

As I understand it, it sets new targets for emissions of sulfur dioxide, mercury, and nitrogen oxides from U.S. power plants and allows for "pollution trading" that would effectively weaken (or delay) the emission targets that would be in place if the Bush administration simply implemented and enforced the existing law.

I've read what the White House and EPA say as well as what the environmental groups say. It seems to me that "we were making gains" with existing law, without an adverse impact on the utility industry.

I'll have to look into it again. I don't recall being really concerned when it came out but I don't remember any details or reasoning either.

flstf · 09-30-2006, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore warned hundreds of U.N. diplomats and staff on Thursday evening about the perils of climate change, claiming: Cigarette smoking is a "significant contributor to global warming!"

I wonder if they will propose to suspend all indoor smoking bans in order to save the planet from the ravages of global warming caused by cigarettes. It is getting harder and harder to take this guy seriously.

KungFuGuy · 09-30-2006, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Then we agree on something.

Fear is a shitty tool to use as a motivator. Better to state your real agenda and make it happen.

Fear is an excellent and efficient motivator. It is the single fastest thing that can engage a response from people en masse. (probably the leading reason as to why people act only when it's too late.)

It is sad that fear works so well as a motivator for people.

And junkscience.com / Steven Milloy is basically our era's version of the people who fought so hard against evolution in Darwin's and the heliocentric solar system in Galileo's respective eras.

MechCow · 10-05-2006, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Can't say I'm surprised at that, but in your haste to make yet another "tu quoque" accusation, you abandoned logic, since I'm talking about the hypocrisy of the SAME person.

If Duke Cunningham went on the lecture tour promoting integrity in government, I doubt that I'd buy any book he wrote. If that analogy is also lost on you, perhaps another reader will consider it relevant. If he or she gets a chance to read it.

I don't know why I thought things might have changed around here.

The logic of this argument is that a message must be judged by the person who presents it. Its valid for personal messages - I wouldn't ask my grandma what heroin feels like. For messages that are in no way personal, like Al Gore really re-wrapping and presenting what other people have been saying for a while now, there is no real basis for this argument except as to draw attention to bias that may be injected into the message.

I saw this movie recently and I must admit some of the graphs looked pretty scary and to see all that ice disappearing is concerning. There has been talk that the Australian ski fields will be gone in a matter of years because of global warming, if this is true then I think that is quite concerning. This year I ski'd new zealand and the season was one of the better ones on record.

Its certainly very hot here in Sydney and its only mid autumn. I'm not a scientist and so I have no real way of judging these claims but from what I've read I'm convinced that something real is occuring. I think Kyoto sounded like a fairly good idea to me, and I know the nations who pariticipated in it did reduce their emissions. I think economic measures are the best way to enforce compliance but really governments have to step up to the plate and stop this ridiculous free market globalization turn a blind eye attitude. We have to start being a little bit more responsible, rational and careful because at the moments its a very crowded party and there aren't a whole lot of beers left doesn't mean we should all go in and grab a six pack and hide it in a bunker somewhere. We're human beings and we should act more like a global community.

I think anytime anyone says either the "sky is falling" or "all those scientists who tell you the sky is falling are lying" to you they are probably pushing an agenda even if that agenda is just getting you to read their newspaper. The world is in many ways a fucked up place and I think we need to maintain constant dialogue on ways to deal with the complex challenges we face.

Fear mongering relies on idiots who will be scared easily and frankly there is no shortage of such people. If they weren't afraid of global warming they would be afraid of terrorism or the economy or communism - you can't try and protect people by attacking fear mongerers. We need to all rise up and become practical rather than reactionary.

Cervantes · 10-05-2006, 10:38 AM

I know why the hockey stick diagram showed 1998 to be the hottest year ever, it has nothing to do with CO2 or anything like that.. The reason is simply numbers. The year 1998 had 3(!) Friday the 13th (bad luck baaaad luck) and if you divide 1998 by 3 you start to understand why it was the hottest year ever.

Seriously though, here are some links about said hockey stick diagram:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3569604.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5109188.stm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

Some other links of interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempera...ast_1000_years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F...ate_Change.png

As it is now I'm not convinced either way, on one hand I see the ones claiming that humans are responsible are pretty arrogant in assuming that we can affect that much and on the other hand, it is getting hotter where I live and less snow in the winters.

But as it is now blahblah454 said it best. Why bother why we want to clean up the air, it's a good thing no matter what reason.

Ustwo · 10-05-2006, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cervantes

But as it is now blahblah454 said it best. Why bother why we want to clean up the air, it's a good thing no matter what reason.

Because of how it would define pollution. CO2 being 'pollution' causes a lot of issues if you want to clean up the air. Based on global warming, we would be BETTER off having engines that produced more particulate matter and less CO2, in other words, better off having engines that burn uncleanly.

Cervantes · 10-05-2006, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Because of how it would define pollution. CO2 being 'pollution' causes a lot of issues if you want to clean up the air. Based on global warming, we would be BETTER off having engines that produced more particulate matter and less CO2, in other words, better off having engines that burn uncleanly.

Ah yes, that is a good point.
By cleaning up the air I mean away with the industries etc. that produces "smog" that mixture of pretty much everything that makes it so disgusting to even breathe in some cities. But that may very well be the very thing that is slowing down global warming so.. Guess we just don't know for sure untill we are there.

Ch'i · 10-09-2006, 03:40 PM

Some recent data on Greenland's ice mass.

Quote:

Originally published in Science Express on 10 August 2006
Science 29 September 2006:
Vol. 313. no. 5795, pp. 1958 - 1960
DOI: 10.1126/science.1129007

Reports

Satellite Gravity Measurements Confirm Accelerated Melting of Greenland Ice Sheet
J. L. Chen,1* C. R. Wilson,1,2 B. D. Tapley1

Using time-variable gravity measurements from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite mission, we estimate ice mass changes over Greenland during the period April 2002 to November 2005. After correcting for the effects of spatial filtering and limited resolution of GRACE data, the estimated total ice melting rate over Greenland is –239 ± 23 cubic kilometers per year, mostly from East Greenland. This estimate agrees remarkably well with a recent assessment of –224 ± 41 cubic kilometers per year, based on satellite radar interferometry data. GRACE estimates in southeast Greenland suggest accelerated melting since the summer of 2004, consistent with the latest remote sensing measurements.

1 Center for Space Research, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
2 Jackson School of Geosciences, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, TX 78712, USA.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: chen@csr.utexas.edu

Ch'i · 10-13-2006, 06:59 PM

Interesting article on the global warming cycle.

Quote:

Rapid Growth of Huge Northern Bog Complex May Have Helped Kick-Start Past Global Warming

Methane released by the massive northern peatlands complex in western Siberia contributed to global warming at the end of the Ice Age.

Methane gas released by peat bogs in the northern-most third of the globe probably helped fuel the last major round of global warming, which drew the ice age to a close between 11,000 and 12,000 years ago, UCLA and Russian Academy of Sciences scientists have concluded.

But the new information in no way lets human sources of greenhouse gases off the hook for the present round of global warming, warn the team of researchers whose findings appear in the Oct. 13 issue of Science.

"If anything, our findings show just how sensitive the planet's environment is to change and just how complex the results of these changes may be," said Glen M. MacDonald, the lead author of the study and a UCLA climate change scholar.

As the incipient bogs were strong producers of methane, the findings help solve a long-standing mystery about the source of a massive infusion of atmospheric methane that helped raise the Earth's surface temperature following the ice age.

"Scientists have long known that the northern bogs produce methane, but until now they were generally dismissed as the source of this change at the close of the last ice age because they were thought to have formed too slowly and too late to be a factor," said Laurence C. Smith, a UCLA professor of geography and study coauthor. "The initial development of the huge complex of northern bogs that now cover 1.54 million square miles occurred earlier than previously thought."

With funding from the National Science Foundation, MacDonald, Smith and four other researchers cored 84 peat bogs in Siberia. By radiocarbon dating the samples, they were able to reconstruct the timing of initial bog development. The researchers then assembled previously gathered radiocarbon dates for an additional 1,432 peat bogs throughout Northern Europe, Asia and North America, including Greenland.

They then compared the formation dates for these 1,516 bogs with high-resolution ice core records of the Earth's atmosphere and temperature from two locations: Dome C, a half-mile ice core from Antarctica dating back 32,000 years; and the Greenland Ice Core Project 2, a 1.9-mile ice core dating back 110,000 years. As they formed, the ice caps captured miniscule air bubbles that reveal the amount of carbon dioxide and methane gas in the atmosphere and provide information on surface temperature at any given time in the past.

Peat bogs sequester vast amounts of carbon by preventing plant material from decaying aerobically — that is, with oxygen. Today, these peatlands are thought to hold about one-third of globe's store of sequestered soil carbon.

But, in addition to tying up carbon, the bogs release methane gas as a byproduct of plant decomposition that takes place without oxygen. Like carbon dioxide, methane is a greenhouse gas. But, molecule for molecule, it is said to be up to 23 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So while peatlands do sequester carbon, their methane emissions can offset any potential drop in greenhouse gases. Yet, the rate of emissions is not steady.

"Newly formed peatlands are often typified by systems dominated by sedge plants — systems that tend to produce a large amount of methane," said Dave W. Beilman, a UCLA post-doctoral researcher and study coauthor. "But over time, peat moss-dominated systems develop, and they emit less of the gas."

The UCLA-Russian Academy of Sciences team found no peatland dates earlier than about 16,500 years ago, suggesting that no large northern peatland complex existed before that time. At that time, methane levels hovered around 360 parts per billion by volume and the Earth was still in a deep freeze. But as surface temperatures and atmospheric methane levels rose, northern bogs appeared in lockstep, the team found.

Over the course of the next 2,500 years, atmospheric methane levels doubled and temperatures in central Greenland — where the ice core is located — jumped 18 degrees Fahrenheit.

Between 8,000 to 12,000 years ago, the area covered by peatlands increased dramatically and methane levels rose to 750 parts per billion by volume — a level they would not reach again until the Industrial Revolution. Temperatures over Greenland likewise jumped an additional 7 degrees Fahrenheit, reflecting a period of warming which in turn thawed more ice, particularly in North America, and freed up more land for bog formation, MacDonald said.

In the past, scientists have attributed the 8,000-to-12,000-year-old methane release to wetlands in the tropics or liquefied deposits of very cold methane buried deep in the ocean. What — if any — part was played by tropical wetlands is still unclear, but the role of ocean deposits has been disputed by two recent studies.

"It is now clear that the northern peatlands have to be considered a major part of this prolonged early rise in methane," said MacDonald, who is chair of the UCLA Geography Department and a professor in the UCLA Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.

In addition to pinpointing a new source of methane that helped end the ice age, the team's work has established a much earlier date for the formation of these bogs. Until a related discovery announced two years ago by the same researchers, scientists had thought that the northern peatlands did not start forming until 8,000 years ago. But the new research suggests that by that time, 50 percent of today's northern peatlands were already formed.

Over the past 8,000 years, the rate of bog formation has steadily declined, the new research shows. Meanwhile, starting 6,000 years ago methane levels began to steadily increase before jumping dramatically by between 2.5 and 3.0 times following the start of the Industrial Revolution about 200 years ago. Some researchers have attributed the latter increase to human activities, including early rice cultivation, cattle domestication and biomass burning. Other researchers have suggested the increased growth of northern peatlands is responsible.

The human role in the increase 6,000 years ago remains controversial, but major increased expansion of northern peatlands is probably not the culprit, MacDonald said.

"The rate of development of these peatlands has been slowing down and they have been maturing into low-methane producing moss bogs, so they don't seem to be responsible for the steady growth of atmospheric methane that began 6,000 years ago," MacDonald said. "The source of that methane — human or otherwise — remains an important question."

In addition to MacDonald, Smith and Bielman, other researchers on the team were Konstantine V. Kremenetski, UCLA research scientist; Yongwei Sheng, UCLA assistant professor of geography; and Andrei A. Velichko, director of the Laboratory of Evolutionary Geography of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Source: UCLA

09-29-2006, 05:41 PM	#50 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	At this point I don't really care if there is Global Warming or not. All I care about is that we make some (real) attempt to slow or halt pollution. I don't need to frame that debate in Global Warming terms. I'd rather look at the increased rate of resperatory illness. If reducing harmful particulates from the air leads to a reduction of "greenhouse gases" I see that as just an added bonus. Add to this, that increased efficencies in our current systems (better heating and cooling systems, better insulated houses, more efficient means of production) while expensive in the initial stage will bring dividends in the long run -- the biggest of which is a reduction in the amount of power required to run said systems (read: less reliance in foreign oil, etc.). As for how to pay for it all? I would set up a system of government sponsored Interest Free loans to be paid back with the savings in Energy consumption. Additionally, you would be creating a big whack of jobs for people who will have to impliment these systems as well as in R&D into creating these efficiencies. This discussion need not be couched in Global Warming... Global Warming is just a "convenient" fear factor, regardless of the veracity of global warming one way or the other. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-29-2006, 06:49 PM	#55 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Then we agree on something. Fear is a shitty tool to use as a motivator. Better to state your real agenda and make it happen. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-29-2006, 07:19 PM	#57 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Interesting. I would suggest that in your rebuttals to the Global Warming discussion you make this emphasis. Until now, this concern for the environment is mostly lacking from your position. You end up coming off as someone who is just dismissing it all rather than suggesting that your motivation for change is fueled but other things. It is perhaps, why so many are quick to call you a shill for the current admin's position (well at least one reason ). __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke Last edited by Charlatan; 09-30-2006 at 05:12 PM..

09-29-2006, 09:15 PM	#60 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Please Marv, don't open that can of worms. All it leads to is a tit for tat process. You think HE's bad, well your leader did THIS! I don't care what Gore did in the past, or if he's a "piece of shit." Let's keep the focus on the message itself. There is plenty of interest to debate there. If you wish to get into any politican's character, please start another thread. This goes for everyone. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-30-2006, 07:25 AM	#63 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Marv... don't be uneccessarily obtuse. The path you were trodding is one we have been down before. It leads to a flame war... one that has already been had. If you want to start a flame war... do it elsewhere. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

10-05-2006, 10:38 AM	#68 (permalink)
Cervantes Psycho Location: Above you	I know why the hockey stick diagram showed 1998 to be the hottest year ever, it has nothing to do with CO2 or anything like that.. The reason is simply numbers. The year 1998 had 3(!) Friday the 13th (bad luck baaaad luck) and if you divide 1998 by 3 you start to understand why it was the hottest year ever. Seriously though, here are some links about said hockey stick diagram: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3569604.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5109188.stm http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11 Some other links of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempera...ast_1000_years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F...ate_Change.png As it is now I'm not convinced either way, on one hand I see the ones claiming that humans are responsible are pretty arrogant in assuming that we can affect that much and on the other hand, it is getting hotter where I live and less snow in the winters. But as it is now blahblah454 said it best. Why bother why we want to clean up the air, it's a good thing no matter what reason. __________________ - "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.." - "Religions take everything that your DNA naturally wants to do to survive and pro-create and makes it wrong." - "There is only one absolute truth and that is that there is only one absolute truth." Last edited by Cervantes; 10-05-2006 at 10:52 AM..