1BC Civ Forums / Off Topic Discussions / More Than a Game, Civ in Real Life / Politics & Religion / Global Warming Thread / Latest Posts

RE: Global Warming Thread

Nuclearcow — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 14:09:15 GMT

[url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5430362.ece]EU's new president believes climate change is a myth[/url]

RE: Global Warming Thread

Scipio Africanus — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 09:28:29 GMT

[quote]“They simply get letters about it from all these lobby groups, it’s popular and therefore they go along with the flow — and that would be ok if there were no implications for it, but the implications are immense.”[/quote]

Hmmph. Seems there really is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch]nothing new under the sun[/url].

RE: Global Warming Thread

Nuclearcow — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:24:32 GMT

UK Environment minister Sammy Wilson: I still think man-made climate change is a con

[url]http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/environment-minister-sammy-wilson-i-still-think-manmade-climate-change-is-a-con-14123972.html[/url]

RE: Global Warming Thread

Locus Coeruleus — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:32:01 GMT

accountability a conservative value....? the hell you say!!!!!! :P

Next you are going to tell us that patriotism is a conservative principle as well! :w00t:

[quote]But what happened to science being... you know... scientific?
[/quote]

That is correct. All I can do now is claim ignorance. I am really not too familiar with the science supporting, or not, global warming. And I haven't really been following this issue in the news either.

Maybe someday...

RE: Global Warming Thread

jerm — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:46:24 GMT

This just may do it ;). If science isn't immune to the same "evils" religion falls into, perhaps the problem is not religion but mankind in general eh? Maybe just maybe the issue is accountability, you know, a conservative value :w00t:.

RE: Global Warming Thread

Nuclearcow — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:37:45 GMT

I likewise agree with Jerm.

YES, we should be more ecologically friendly regardless of how much warming is man-made if any, like LC says. But what happened to science being... you know... scientific?

When scientists point out things like, "hey... the other planets are warming too" and are called "debunkers" and likened to people who think the world is flat... COME ON! I mean, seriously.

Even though this is about Global Warming, I am somehow anticipating Roadkill hijacking this into the "Sooo...." thread. :P

RE: Global Warming Thread

jerm — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:04:13 GMT

The issue has much less to do with "global warming" or "climate change" than it does with the current state of science. It's supposed to be empirical and not dogmatic yet it has turned out to be quite political and agenda oriented at least with regards to this issue. You're not supposed to start with the conclusion and work your way backwards. The more dissent there is the less bothered I am about the whole thing. Maybe global warming is man made but at least the science should be honest in its interpretation of the data.

RE: Global Warming Thread

Locus Coeruleus — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:52:27 GMT

Every one is intitled to their opinion.

Personally, I do not need the notion of Global Warming to be a good steward of this planet. It's just plain common sense. Pollute less. Recycle more. Do not be wasteful. These are very simple concepts.

RE: Global Warming Thread

Nuclearcow — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:52:06 GMT

*Picks up bomb and stares at it curiously before tossing it over shoulder*
[url]http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6[/url]

[b]“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” [/b]- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

[b]“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.”[/b] - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

[b]Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” [/b]- UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

[b]“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” [/b]- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

[b]“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” [/b]- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

[b]“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” [/b]- U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

[b]“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.”[/b] – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

[b]“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.”[/b] - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

[b]“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?"[/b] - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

[b]“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.”[/b] - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

[b]“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” [/b]- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

[b]“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” [/b]- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

[b]“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” [/b]- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

[b]“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” [/b]- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

RE: Global Warming Thread

Scipio Africanus — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:12:33 GMT

[quote][b]Nuclearcow (10/30/2008)[/b][hr]*throws bomb*

MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data [/quote]

*Neatly catches bomb like a softball . . . bites into it like an apple*

Mmmm! Tastes like an oreo cookie inside!

RE: Global Warming Thread

Nuclearcow — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:23:29 GMT

*throws bomb*

MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data

RE: Global Warming Thread

Roadkill — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:47:07 GMT

[quote][b]cleopatra143 (7/26/2008)[/b][hr]Frankly, I think the only "agenda" here is to be annoying. lol[/quote]

lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala..I beg to differ!

RE: Global Warming Thread

cleopatra143 — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:02:25 GMT

Frankly, I think the only "agenda" here is to be annoying. lol

RE: Global Warming Thread

Scipio Africanus — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:37:51 GMT

It is probably very complicated.

You can quote me on that ;)

Sorry if that throws a monkey-wrench into the religious fervor for "The Cause," but ah well . . . religious-fanatics never like having their imaginary worldviews popped like soap bubbles . . .

RE: Global Warming Thread

Roadkill — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:33:51 GMT

[quote][b]jerm (7/24/2008)[/b][hr]Well it does suggest that the warming, at least over the continents, is not a direct result of greenhouse gasses and furthermore human activity. It's not conclusive on how much is natural or how much is human related but it also suggests that the warming may not be occuring how we think it is. It's not really there to make any particular point, just throwing something out there I read and thought it relevant. Does everything you posthave to be there to push your own agenda?[/quote]

-I was just wondering.

RE: Global Warming Thread

jerm — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:34:46 GMT

Well it does suggest that the warming, at least over the continents, is not a direct result of greenhouse gasses and furthermore human activity. It's not conclusive on how much is natural or how much is human related but it also suggests that the warming may not be occuring how we think it is. It's not really there to make any particular point, just throwing something out there I read and thought it relevant. Does everything you post have to be there to push your own agenda?

RE: Global Warming Thread

Roadkill — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:04:37 GMT

-I'm sorry, is that article meant to oppose the idea of global warming? Because it doesn't.

RE: Global Warming Thread

jerm — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:37:51 GMT

This paper was published in the Journal Climate Dynamics and this source is from NOAA's website:

[url=http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf]Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming[/url]

[quote]Abstract

Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.[/quote]

[quote]In summary, our results emphasize the significant role of remote oceanic influences, rather than the direct local effect of anthropogenic radiative forcings, in the recent continental warming. They suggest that the recent oceanic warming has caused the continents to warm through a different set of mechanisms than usually identified with the global impacts of SST changes. It has increased the humidity of the atmosphere, altered the atmospheric vertical motion and associated cloud fields, and perturbed the longwave and shortwave radiative fluxes at the continental surface. While continuous global measurements of most of these changes are not available through the 1961-2006 period, some humidity observations are available and do show upward trends over the continents. These include near-surface observations (Dai 2006) as well as satellite radiance measurements sensitive to upper tropospheric moisture (Soden et al. 2005).

Although not a focus of this study, the degree to which the oceans themselves have recently warmed due to increased GHG, other anthropogenic, natural solar and volcanic forcings, or internal multi-decadal climate variations is a matter of active investigation (Stott et al. 2006; Knutson et al. 2006; Pierce et al. 2006). Reliable assessments of these contributing factors depend critically on reliable estimations of 11 natural climate variability, either from the observational record or from coupled climate model simulations without anthropogenic forcings. Several recent studies suggest that the observed SST variability may be misrepresented in the coupled models used in preparing the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, with substantial errors on interannual and decadal scales (e.g., Shukla et al. 2006, DelSole, 2006; Newman 2007; Newman et al. 2008). There is a hint of an underestimation of simulated decadal SST variability even in the published IPCC Report (Hegerl et al. 2007, FAQ9.2 Figure 1). Given these and other misrepresentations of natural oceanic variability on decadal scales (e.g., Zhang and McPhaden 2006), a role for natural causes of at least some of the recent oceanic warming should not be ruled out.

Regardless of whether or not the rapid recent oceanic warming has occurred largely from anthropogenic or natural influences, our study highlights its importance in accounting for the recent observed continental warming. Perhaps the most important conclusion to be drawn from our analysis is that the recent acceleration of global warming may not be occurring in quite the manner one might have imagined. The indirect and substantial role of the oceans in causing the recent continental warming emphasizes the need to generate reliable projections of ocean temperature changes over the next century, in order to generate more reliable projections of not just the global mean temperature and precipitation changes (Barsugli et al. 2006), but also regional climate changes.[/quote]

RE: Global Warming Thread

Scipio Africanus — Fri, 09 May 2008 20:11:06 GMT

Correlation does not explain causation. Indeed, it might not even reveal a true association.

Thus, all our observations are squat if they are not compared to the bigger picture: Earth over the last few tens (if not thousands) of thousands of years.

From that standpoint, we got a long way to go to be "normal," as in so cold that the northern hemispheres have a mile thick continental ice sheet piled on top of them with so much weight that it produces long-term depressions in the Earth crust like Hudson Bay . . .

Anyone can observe if the weather is different now than five minutes ago. Retrospective and anecdotal observations about the past remembered in a human life time might even have some reliability or validity as indicators, though probably not much. There are lots of other forms of observation being done today, and all of it probably means something.

The key thing is: if it is not integrated with what we know about Earth climate over the long haul then all those observations just mean squat as far as predicting which way it is going in the future, let alone whether or not anthropogenic ecological impacts are the source of the observed patterns.

RE: Global Warming Thread

Black Owl — Fri, 09 May 2008 01:52:42 GMT

[Look, just as we should not take lightly the fact that the earth may be warming, my fear is that we take drastic measures which either make things worse, or have such a small benefit and at the same time harm the globe's economies. I am always dubious of panics and man made global warming 'solutions' feels like a panic.] jerm

Agreed:D

I don't trust the motives behind the "science" of the Global Warming Debate. I tend to trust Farmers and Ranchers motives more.

Sorry for getting on my hind legs there. Guess I'm still a bit frustrated by other threads I've dealt with recently. My apologize.

RE: Global Warming Thread

jerm — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:03:19 GMT

Whoa there Black Owl, it was a genuine question. I wasn't trying to drive at anything. The reason I said you were an "expert" was because I got the impression you have had experience working on a farm or ranch. I'm sorry if it came off as confrontational but that was not my intent.

I can attest to your observation of having several seasons in one day, especially during March/April. That said, winters are predictably cold and summers are predictably hot. We had snow (that stuck) last week and high 70's the day before. Now, this doesn't mean anything since we've had snow as late as June, but it is rare. My only point is that climate is different regionally.

The direction I was going with my question though, is to question whether a warmer climate is necessarily worse than a relatively cold climate. If we have longer seasons to grow crops, doesn't that mean more food for growing populations? You make a good point about pests and droughts but will technology help us deal with them? Is it a net gain from longer growing periods?

Look, just as we should not take lightly the fact that the earth may be warming, my fear is that we take drastic measures which either make things worse, or have such a small benefit and at the same time harm the globe's economies. I am always dubious of panics and man made global warming 'solutions' feels like a panic.

Furthermore, I think that it's good to question the consensus on lots of issues. There is little questioning of "man made global warming" so here I am. :D

RE: Global Warming Thread

Black Owl — Thu, 08 May 2008 14:00:23 GMT

[Now, you are the expert Black Owl, so what's better for growing, long cold winters or shorter winters with long growing periods? Is precipitation more important? If you have a short (comparatively) winter with a large snow pack, isn't that better than a long winter with little snow? How does a warmer climate affect growing?] jerm

Who said anything about me being an expert. I do have "on the ground" experience, yes. Meaning I can step out my front door and observe the world around me. And you know what? Maybe some other "experts" here should try the same?

You must know how general your questions are. It depends on the crop (plant), soil conditions/PH/loam/clay/shale, altitude, humidity, how many days of sunshine, how many days of overcast without precipitation, (because I have seen fields dry out under days of over cast.), so as you state, locale plays a huge part. But I'm not sure of the point your driving at other than that which we already agree on. I think the point that is being missed in the science aspect of this discussion is that, while yes, there are highs and lows, in the relative short term, the overall temps continue to ratchet up. This according to some "experts", denied by other "experts". The question I think is, are we effecting a global change or NON-change? Meaning are we through our Human activities blocking what might be a normal down turn? I never said I had the answers to this. I simply put forth MY observations of the last twenty years or so.

I have lived in the west also. I was at Camp Williams, Salt Lake City for a short two weeks of PLDC training with the Army. It was the end of March/beginning of April. I went through all four seasons in the two weeks I was there. You and I know, tho you have not mentioned it, how fickle the Rocky mountains truly are. Which is why I didn't bat an eye at your saying what a terrible winter it was there. The Rockies, because of elevation, see faster weather changes and greater extremes. You are I'm sure aware of that FACT also. The saying out there is, "if you don't like the weather, wait fifteen minutes, it'll change." I have ranched/cowboyed, camped/lived, guided hunts/fishing trips, in the Northern and central Rocky Mountains. I've seen it go through all four seasons in one day! And some winters we get the average twenty feet of snow pack in the rockies. But it doesn't always mean the temps are up. I've been in sub-zero blizzards, as I'm sure you have.

In the Rockies, a heavy snow pack is needed for irrigation and general use by livestock and Humans. Back east here, the spring rains are a greater contributor to the water table. Lack of normal precipe creates situations now being suffered in the Southeast. I saw the fires are back in Florida. Above normal rainfall and you get the situation now being suffered in the upper Midwest.

Look, I'm not trying to convince anyone here that the "sky is falling". I will leave that to the "experts" to argue over. But don't be so quick to down play what the older folks in your region are saying about the climate. Especially Mom & Pop Farmer/Rancher. They are not planing their year to year crops around Global Warming, just yet. Not as far as I can observe. Things are still pretty status quo. (except possibly more drought and pest resistant crop strains) But they are talking about the changes since they were children. For one to notice a change in one generation, maybe that might hint at extreme changes in the next few decades. I don't know. But I'm not gonna stick my head in the dirt and say "it'll just blow over". I guess the best I can take away from all of this is just a "heads up" warning at this point. Only a fool could possibly pass the discussion (atleast) off as just two sides arguing about nothing.

A quick answer to one of the questions you pose. Longer growing seasons are better than shorter ones in general. But keep also in mind that longer warm spells and warmer winters are also welcomed by pests like "Corn Worms", Gypsy Moths, Grasshoppers, Locusts, Mice and Rats. All threats to crops from corn to managed timber. Their populations also soar. I'm speaking in the Rural frame of reference.

RE: Global Warming Thread

jerm — Thu, 08 May 2008 11:39:11 GMT

Well, note that our flat decade is a plateau so we're still above what we were 30 years ago. Also keep in mind that there is variability regionally as well. Just because your area is warmer, does not mean another is not cooler. We actually had a long cold winter. The ground is normally frozen solid for about 2 to 4 weeks in Utah while this year I think it was more like 6 (totally anecdotal here ;)). Our temperatures have been way below normal as well for spring. Trees didn't start getting leaves until about 3 weeks ago! That's a month later than usual. That said, I didn't grow up here and people who have tell me that winters are much less harsh than they were when they were younger.

The real point of the article is to show that there are no "scientific facts" when it comes to predicting future climate. In the end, we can only guess. Also, we just assume that climate is being adversely affected by our actions when the climate changes without us all the time. How can we tell that it is us that is changing the climate? Our little spell of "predictable" climate is not the norm. In fact, there are indications that we're still in the "Ice Age" and that this is just one of those warm periods in between. There were many warm periods, roughly 10,000 years long for the last few hundred thousand years IIRC.

Now, you are the expert Black Owl, so what's better for growing, long cold winters or shorter winters with long growing periods? Is precipitation more important? If you have a short (comparatively) winter with a large snow pack, isn't that better than a long winter with little snow? How does a warmer climate affect growing?

RE: Global Warming Thread

cleopatra143 — Thu, 08 May 2008 02:08:59 GMT

[quote][b]Black Owl (5/8/2008)[/b][hr]I'm afraid the signs under my very feet disagree with the "scientific facts". Sorry, but I've been on this Earth for fourty eight years. For the last twenty years the ground has remained unfrozen in the North for longer periods of time. Infact, in the Northeast this year the ground only froze once for about a week. And only to a depth of about one half inch.

Spring is here now and the wasps and ants are numerous early on. A long "normal"freeze means less pests. Say hello to the inheritor's of Earth the next time an ant scurries past.[/quote]I agree, although I've only been around half as long as you, the last 10 years for me have been totally different then the first 16. I've seen the evidence to support both sides of this story. While I definitely agree that things are changing, I don't feel that they are as bad as Algore says. For the record, I think he's as bad as that Micheal Moore dude.

RE: Global Warming Thread

Black Owl — Thu, 08 May 2008 02:05:20 GMT

I'm afraid the signs under my very feet disagree with the "scientific facts". Sorry, but I've been on this Earth for fourty eight years. For the last twenty years the ground has remained unfrozen in the North for longer periods of time. Infact, in the Northeast this year the ground only froze once for about a week. And only to a depth of about one half inch.

Spring is here now and the wasps and ants are numerous early on. A long "normal" freeze means less pests. Say hello to the inheritor's of Earth the next time an ant scurries past.

RE: Global Warming Thread

jerm — Thu, 08 May 2008 01:23:05 GMT

[quote]This thread reminds me of a quote that a fellow over on the Matrix Games site uses as his signature (and YES I DO recognize that the pot is not exactly lilly white here . . .)

"Arguing on the internet is liking running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."[/quote]

Doesn't that remind you of the entire P&R forum then :w00t:.

Alright, I've been way too busy but ran across this article:

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm]Next decade 'may see no warming'[/url]

[quote]The Earth's temperature may stay roughly the same for a decade, as natural climate cycles enter a cooling phase, scientists have predicted.

A new computer model developed by German researchers, reported in the journal Nature, suggests the cooling will counter greenhouse warming.

However, temperatures will again be rising quickly by about 2020, they say.[/quote]

[quote]"One message from our study is that in the short term, you can see changes in the global mean temperature that you might not expect given the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)," said Noel Keenlyside from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University.[/quote]

Looks like we've got another 10 years to figure things out... ironically, the last 10 years have been a wash as far as any warming goes as well.

[img]http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/rss-msu-monthly-anom-zoom_042008-520.png?[/img]

RE: Global Warming Thread

psweetman1590 — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:08:20 GMT

We're not arguing. We're debating. :D

Besides, I tend to think that this little corner of the web is somewhat different. :)

RE: Global Warming Thread

Scipio Africanus — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:38:11 GMT

This thread reminds me of a quote that a fellow over on the Matrix Games site uses as his signature (and YES I DO recognize that the pot is not exactly lilly white here . . .)

"Arguing on the internet is liking running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."

RE: Global Warming Thread

Rishbhav — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:29:33 GMT

You're probably right, which is sad because worrying about smog and air pollution is really a rich man's problem. Third World countries like China and Mexico can't afford to worry about relatively minor issues like smog when they have massive amounts of poverty to contend with.

And besides, living in the U.S which is as of now either the #1 or #2 Co2 emitter in the world, how often do you find yourself noticing the excessive smog? Living in a suburb of NYC I certainly don't, and this will continue as folks move out into the suburbs more...

RE: Global Warming Thread

psweetman1590 — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 01:42:38 GMT

[quote]The main debate over whether or not global warming is human caused seems to be because if we caused it than we can take more or less obvious steps to fix it, whereas if pumping carbon into the athmosphere didn't change it then stopping the pumping won't make things better anyway.[/quote]

I see that. But it seems to me, even if carbon isn't doing anything about global warming... what puts carbon in the atmosphere? Car exhaust, industrial processes, stuff like that. Now, these are things that no one wants to breathe, regardless of what it does to influence global temperatures. Cities like Mexico City have pronounced smog problems, and it's been conclusively proven that living in cities like that drastically increases chances for repiratory illness.

So my point is, whether or not these things contribute to global warming SHOULD be irrelevant, because they also do things that are directly harming people, quite aside from melting the icecaps.

My guess is that Places like China or Mexico will be the first to implement cleaner technology, and eventually there will be an outcry in better-off countries and cities to adopt the same. Seeing as these new technologies are bound to be expensive (at least at first), I'm also guessing that poorer countries like China, India, and Mexico will take a good long while to adopt them. All the same, as those are the countries that have the most dire need of them, I still think they will lead the way, with Europe and America following them.

It's not how I would like it, but I think that's the most likely outcome.

RE: Global Warming Thread

Rishbhav — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:33:03 GMT

The main debate over whether or not global warming is human caused seems to be because if we caused it than we can take more or less obvious steps to fix it, whereas if pumping carbon into the athmosphere didn't change it then stopping the pumping won't make things better anyway.

That said I agree that this is a problem that needs to be fixed, but it won't until people really start feeling the effects. We'll have to wait until the average sheeple of the developed world and the sheeple of the developing world all have their lives significantly effected by this process. Hopefully by then it won't be too late

RE: Global Warming Thread

psweetman1590 — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 01:47:33 GMT

LC is pi, and EVERYBODY loves pi! :P

Okay, my personal thoughts on global warming, in a (probably useless) attempt to get this thread back on track:

Are humans causing causing it? Possibly. Does it matter? Not really. We know that global warming is almost a certainty. And cleaning up our act will help more than just the greenhouse effect. All the same, going crazy will do much more harm than good - I think I'd rather have the icecaps melt than see civilization return to pre-1800's levels of technology. In any case, why there is so much debate about whether or not humans are causing it is beyond me. The times (and temps) are a'changin', and blaming ourselves won't help one whit. Neither will acquitting ourselves. How about we stop spewing stuff into the air just because, you know, we don't like to poison our own lungs? Surely that's enough motivation?

Idealistic? Perhaps. Enough rhetorical self-answered questions in my post? Most certainly. :hehe:

RE: Global Warming Thread

Comedy Dave — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:31:23 GMT

[quote]LC, why must you be so irrational?[/quote]

Because he is a number which cannot be expressed as a fraction m/n, where m and n are integers, with n non-zero.

(sorry, that's for the Maths thread) :P

...

Global Warming / Climate Change is interesting though. Sydney just had one of the "coolest" summers for 25 years. Of course it was still hot, but not as hot as normal.

People say it's just one of those longer-term cycles. We seem to be getting more rain again (which is good).

It's hard to say how much impact man has made, given we cannot compare with what would have happened without man's impact over the last 200-250 years of industry.

I'm fully for getting us off the oil dependency, as we get held to ransom on the prices at the bowser all the time.

How about all the heat man generates through heating homes in winter? How about the change in the reflectivity of the planet with all the concrete and buildings we have created? Surely these must have an impact too.

RE: Global Warming Thread

Locus Coeruleus — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 18:49:53 GMT

[quote]LC, why must you be so irrational?[/quote]

I don't believe in rationality!

:runs:

:w00t:

RE: Global Warming Thread

RabiAkiva — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:29:43 GMT

yes, while we are at it. My apologies for waiting so long. I had this thread pegged for moving over to P&R as of day one, but waited and waited.
Now the mud slinging is ... wait a minute. It is not allowed here either. Please recall, my effort to debate on reason and on reason alone - hey, why has that one gone unpinned? I'll pin it again

RE: Global Warming Thread

tones — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 15:17:57 GMT

yeah and you can shuddup too, you overbrained doctor of Yank doohicky!

oh gawd... I have been sucked into the vortex.......

RE: Global Warming Thread

Locus Coeruleus — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 15:11:37 GMT

tones, quit yer ***in'!!!! :w00t:

RE: Global Warming Thread

tones — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 15:05:13 GMT

Someone kindly explain to me what all this has to do with global warming, or is it somehow connected to all this electronic hot air? Kindly restrict this sort of argument and what is tantamount to virtual mudslinging to the P&R threads that I can safely ignore because IT MAKES MY F**KING BRAIN HURT!

RE: Global Warming Thread

Nuclearcow — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 10:30:11 GMT

LC, why must you be so irrational? ;)

RE: Global Warming Thread

Locus Coeruleus — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 08:52:45 GMT

Well, y'all are debating rationality versus irrationality, which way is up, which is down. Down is up, and up is down, left is right and right is left. I just got my PhD, so that is supposed to confer upon me great wisdom, but honestly, y'all are just making my head hurt with all that talk! :P