eerilly warm weather

[Li Kao]

But seriously, cows produce a LOT of methane. Somebody said upwards of 150 liters a day. If we could only tap cows butts we could probably solve our fuel crisis.

LOL that's a great idea -- I nominate you for that job my friend!

[Ford Prefect]

Wow, I agree with DJ.

Re:Re: The articles. Those weren't fringe claims, it was the then prevailing scientific opinion. In some cases the SAME scientists had simply switched the word cooling with warming. There were scientists THEN saying, "That's pretty weak, you're not accounting for all the facts." and there are scientists NOW saying, "That's pretty weak, you're not accounting for all the facts." So...science has been wrong before, and will certainly be wrong again...but we need to take global warming (uh, sorry "climate change") as an absolute certainty. And wallow in the guilt of what we've done to the planet, even though almost everyone agrees that nothing can or will be done about it. Oh, yeah. We also need to spend lots of taxpayers dollars analyzing every little way we MAY be responsible so we can be sure to wring our hands hard enough.
Global warming, in my opinion, is political fearmongering on a global scale. It's, "Do it for the children!" to the nth degree, minus the necessity of those pesky bothersome "results" evil people who want the planet to die ask for just to be mean.
If it WAS humanities fault could we shut down all the U.S. factories? How about India and China? Everyone going to start riding bikes? It's just mental, spiritual and monetary self flagellation.

Sorry. You couldn't be more wrong. The global scientific consensus was "Gee. Looking at temperature records for the last 10 years, it looks like the earth is cooling." It was only a fringe element screaming about a new ice age, which the alarmist media bites on to get circulation. Scarey sells in the media. Truth sells in science. This is similar to the article you cited from 1994 about a new Ice Age. This was because following the 2 hottest years on record up to that point (1990 & 91) the temperature dropped about 0.3 C for the 1992 & 93. Now, non-fringe elements looked and saw similar behavior after other peaks. '80&81 then a 0.3C drop in '82 and back up in '83 only to drop again until '87... They looked at this along with other factors (green house gasses) and said, well the earth is still warming, this drop off is temporary until another spike in a couple years. However, fringe elements looked at 92 & 93 and declared the earth was cooling and headed toward an ice age. The media grabbed onto this fringe element which held a minuscule sway in prevailing scientific thought and then published a story about it.

Again, you offer little in the way of proof. Actually nothing in the way of proof... You only offer conjecture and conclusions based on what the media has published in the past as opposed to what science was saying at that time. The way science works is that data is gathered and then analyzed. Science then draws a conclusion that all the data is pointing to. When more and more data supports that conclusion, then the theory is adopted. That is until a peice of evidence comes along that doesn't fit into that theory. Then it is either modified or thrown out completely depending on exactly what that evidence is. As of now, ALL evidence is pointing to the earth being in a natural warming cycle but man accelerating that warming and pushing that warmer further than would occur naturally. All new evidence coming in FOR YEARS supports this.

But hey, let's just ignore it and hope we don't cause massive global problems. :/ Let's just ignore science all together since it's obviously tainted. The theories that supported the creation of the internal combustion engine, irrigation systems, rail ways, bridges, jets, computers, etc... Those were all "just theories" and could change. Why did anybody pay any attention to them? Silly scientists are so corrupt...

[Ray Pina]

were all gonna die too, but using that logic to justify smoking and snorting all of cuba's coke isn't exactly the wisest approach.

im not saying that's where you were goin with that, but i thought it was worth mentioning.

We're all going to die:

You can spend 40 years going to work and paying off a morgage

You can snort coke and live fast and die from OD or an accident

You can take the middle road, live simply, party here and there

You can do a lot of things.

Personally, I feel climate change is inevidable with all this industry. We did it. Now we're going to tell China they can't? While we still do it?

Money rules the world now and how many americans are going to get rid of their cars and take the bus to work? How many are willing to give up their TVs and easy access to food. We are a spoiled lot and there's no going back now. Industry produces and creates a need.

How many people NEED these HUGE TVS? They made them. Only the rich could afford them but that made others want them. More people made HUGE TVs, supply went up, prices came down. Now many people own something they didn't need. This goes for cell phones, iPOds, etc., etc., etc.

I don't blame people. They were born into this and are constantly bombarded with images telling them they need more things otherwise they are lacking.

I don't blame producers for producing and promoting.

What I don't like is when people don't take responsibility for their choices.

[Radhnoti]

Ford - "The way science works is that data is gathered and then analyzed. Science then draws a conclusion that all the data is pointing to. When more and more data supports that conclusion, then the theory is adopted. That is until a peice of evidence comes along that doesn't fit into that theory. Then it is either modified or thrown out completely depending on exactly what that evidence is."


Ok. My evidence is a Viking civilization in Greenland (not just farms, there were churches, etc.) until around 1400. That means it WAS warmer, then got colder and it had nothing to do with modern civilization. My hypothesis to fit this ignored (in certain circles) set of facts is that the Earth's temperature has fluctuated in the past and will continue to do so in the present and future. This may be (as in the case of Mars, which is why I posted that article) primarily due to the amount of energy currently being released by our Sun.

[Ford Prefect]

Ford - "The way science works is that data is gathered and then analyzed. Science then draws a conclusion that all the data is pointing to. When more and more data supports that conclusion, then the theory is adopted. That is until a peice of evidence comes along that doesn't fit into that theory. Then it is either modified or thrown out completely depending on exactly what that evidence is."


Ok. My evidence is a Viking civilization in Greenland (not just farms, there were churches, etc.) until around 1400. That means it WAS warmer, then got colder and it had nothing to do with modern civilization. My hypothesis to fit this ignored (in certain circles) set of facts is that the Earth's temperature has fluctuated in the past and will continue to do so in the present and future. This may be (as in the case of Mars, which is why I posted that article) primarily due to the amount of energy currently being released by our Sun.

If that is your evidence, then it is blatantly obvious you haven't the slightest clue about what science is saying about global warming and the risks man is posing toward his environement by adding to it.

1) ALL SCIENTISTS CONCUR that we are in a NATURAL warming trend. Wow! So like Oh my god. It like has nothing to do with civilization. That is like so weird. I'm sure that the hypothesis of "the earth's temperature has fluctuated in the past and will continue to do so in the present and future" is ignored in some circles. (ie people who have no clue about climatology and paleo-climate models) I think it is suffice to say that is blatantly obvious that temperatures do fluctuate naturally. It is also a bit obvious that the earth may warm naturally coming out of a period dubbed "The Little Ice Age".

2) The warming of Greenland was definately a naturally occuring event. 2 things to consider are: (a) Even it being naturally, such a warming would play disaster with current civilizations due to obvious reasons (b) that period is referred to as the "Medieval Warm Period" and has recently been called into question as to whether the global mean temperature actually rose very much during that period. It is now believed that it (and even the Little Ice Age) were more local changes (Northern Hemisphere) than global.

3) Solar variation and even orbittal variation are being accounted for Global Warming models. Even such solar variation enthusiasts and EXPERTS like Sami Solanki (the director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany) believe that in the past 60 years solar variance is at an all time high and its effect cannot be disentangled from man-caused greenhouse gasses. Even he admits in peer-reviewed study on solar radiation's effect on Earth's climate that, "Just how large this role [of solar variation] is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide." (ie the past 20 years --more on them later--- are obviously due to man's activity) Here is the headline of the press release from his institute (2004): Studies at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research reveal: solar activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current global warming

Basically, other than the fringe groups who claim that solar variances account for a large part of the current climate change and whose arguments are summarily torn to shreds when under peer-review, the most radical view that any kind of scientific backing is that solar variance played a bigger role for the first half of last century, but man-made greenhouse gasses are what caused the bulk of warming in the second half.

3) About those 20 years... They have seen the fastest temperature rise ever seen (even from ice core records). This is no coincidence that greenhouse gasses are now also at 10,000 year highs and approaching the high for the last 1,000,000 years...

Seriously guy. At least educate yourself before taking such an adamant stance on an issue. Not accounting for local variations during the Little Ice Age, Medieval Warming Period, and the fact that all climate scientists in the world believe the climate shifts naturally is a pretty ignorant argument.

[Radhnoti]

OK. Let's assume I'm undereducated. Looking at your post, you seem to be agreeing with most my points? I'll try to summarize:

1. We are in a natural warming trend, and historically temperatures have wildly fluctuated.

OK, but you're unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that man might have very little to do with the currect trend? Even while admitting that similar trends have happened?

2. Greenland happened.

But you explain it away as a localized event.

3. Solar variation happens.

But you indicate that it has little to do with Earth's warming...yet while quoting your expert he says, "Just how large this role [of solar variation] is, must still be investigated..."? Doesn't the title of the article fly in the face of this quotation? He admits it's an unknown, unless I'm mis-reading?

Your final point is the one of greatest interest to me. But you point to A. Greenhouse gas, then B. Rising temps and draw an equal sign. The actual formula is unknown, primarily because it is so complex. Solar variation, the Earth's position in our galaxy, the carbonate-silicate cycle... and there are LOTS of respected scientists (and politicians) who feel the issue is being overdone:
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

In fact, here's quotes reported in Free Republic that I think reinforces my position:

"What we've got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
-- Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." (Steven Schneider, Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989; see also (Dixy Lee Ray in 'Trashing the Planet', 1990) and (American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996).

"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are." (Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, commenting on reports that Greenland's glaciers are melting. Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001)

"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect"
(Richard Benedict, US Conservation Foundation)

"We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion -- guilt-free at last!"
-- Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue)"


OK, that last one was probably even "fringe" to Al Gore. But, hopefully, you see my point. There's a REASON to distrust this movement.

[lunghushan]

Ok. My evidence is a Viking civilization in Greenland (not just farms, there were churches, etc.) until around 1400. That means it WAS warmer, then got colder and it had nothing to do with modern civilization.

Yep, Greenland used to be Green. Finland actually means Vineland or something like that, and they grew grapes there and in England, until it got too COLD for that.

[Radhnoti]

Right, lunghushan. It got hot and cold without factories, cars, etc. I'm not saying those things may not be adding to the process, just that we have no idea to what extent and that nothing would change even if it turned out to be the major factor.

[Ford Prefect]

OK. Let's assume I'm undereducated. Looking at your post, you seem to be agreeing with most my points? I'll try to summarize:

1. We are in a natural warming trend, and historically temperatures have wildly fluctuated.

OK, but you're unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that man might have very little to do with the currect trend? Even while admitting that similar trends have happened?

The earth is in a natural warming trend. Based on scientific data concerning green house gas levels and their effects on climate, man is significantly impacting this current trend by making it both hotter as well as the speed in which the warming is taking effect.

This is all explained ad naseum by global warming reports released by various scientific bodies the world around. You may want to actually learn a little about it before dismissing it.

2. Greenland happened.

But you explain it away as a localized event.

I don't explain it away as anything. It was likely a localized event, but even so it is a moot point. The earth has been warmer in the past... The effects of which wouldn't bode well for current human society. If I have to explain this I will, but it will speak volumes about your understanding of the issue.

3. Solar variation happens.

But you indicate that it has little to do with Earth's warming...yet while quoting your expert he says, "Just how large this role [of solar variation] is, must still be investigated..."? Doesn't the title of the article fly in the face of this quotation? He admits it's an unknown, unless I'm mis-reading?

You are reading it poorly. The exact extent of solar variation effect is still unknown, however it is known the extent of greenhouse gas warming which is proven to be the impetus for the bulk of the warming in the past 20 years.

Your final point is the one of greatest interest to me. But you point to A. Greenhouse gas, then B. Rising temps and draw an equal sign. The actual formula is unknown, primarily because it is so complex. Solar variation, the Earth's position in our galaxy, the carbonate-silicate cycle... and there are LOTS of respected scientists (and politicians) who feel the issue is being overdone:
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

The fact remains that the vastly overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe there is a major issue here. Einstein is considered a prominent scientist, yes? Yet he fought tooth and nail against Quantum physics... The vast majority of the scientific community saw it as folly on his part and he was roundly beaten in debates as global warming skeptics are. Appeals to authority are falacious for a reason...

As for your silly point, greenhouse gasses have been shown to cause warming. They have largely been the impetus for climate change in the past, but of course they were naturally occuring then.

[golden arhat]

right simple as this
CO2 - green house gas eg make world warmer
trees take this and produce oxygen which is then balanced by animals
cars produce CO2
less trees and more animals and cars means more CO2 therefore world gets warmer
FACT!!
now weither or not this is occuring now is un questionable
it is
how much its happening is questionable
and the fact remains that even if global warming happens next year or 100 years from now

we still need to do something about it

the earth might be in a warming trend hell it might not

but eventually global warming will occur and we need to deal with that

[Yao Sing]

Why is it that RF emmissions doesn't figure in to the warming trend?

Not enough energy put out by radio, tv, cell phones, etc?