G
Guest
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
Global Warming: Bad Science?
- Thread starter thebullet
- Start date
Xelebes
Little Blue Alien
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Posts
- 13,068
Xelebes said:Have any of you seen the charts or graphs depicting the actual temperature of the globe over the last 1,000 years taken from ice sample cores from the Greenland's and Antarctica glaciers? If I can locate them, I will show them to you.
But until then, I shall have to describe them to you. As Liar can attest to, it is possible to analyse charts in the same manner as sound - that is responding variableover a manipulated variable (most often case here: time.)
Anywho, if you look at the chart you will see a sharp rise from 1860 and on. This is what we are currently worried about. I forget what the amount was for the rise - 1.6 C or something. Once I can locate the chart I can give you more accurate numbers. But take a look at the time before that and what you'll see is like a 0.2 - 0.4 C drop or something like that over 800 or so years. There is a peak around 1400 or something but then it goes downhill some more.
What does this remind me of? Sawtooth form with natural static. What is that comparable to in something a little bit more applicable? Listen to a violin playing a simple note, evenly bowed with the bow at a nice angle. Or for something even more practical, try plucking a guitar string. That is what I am thinking this reminds me of.
When you pluck a string, there is a force exerted on the string which is a slow push to a direction which it then releases to sharply return to it's previous state and then goes a bit further with the inertia involved. From the looks of the chart I saw, the cycle looks about to be a 5-10 milennia long cycle.
Of course, humans may be helping push it this time, but I certainly think the climate change would be interesting to note down as deserts might no longer be deserts anymore and might actually turn into very fruitful territories which in turn might cause some wars and such and such and such... the list goes on.
Now, to hunt down the chart and harass some people into helping me find that chart.
The chart I am refering to is this:
http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/05.16.jpg
Amicus, it sounds as if you're suggesting that people who are not directly connected to the production of a particular resource have no right to comment on the development of that resource? Great way of ignoring people's arguments and dismissing ideas based on who they are coming from! Fortunately, I am involved in primary industries (a common man, as you put it), so I'll consider myself qualified to spout off.
Self control has always been a key aspect of evolution and existence, both in humans and animals. Either a group puts controls on itself, or the external environment forces controls upon it. Many species of animals react to reduced food supplies with lower birth-rates. It's not a conscious decision, it's genetic conditioning invoked to maintain an equilibrium. Similarly in human history, those industries that do not learn to place controls on themselves are often forced out of operation by a lack of resource--overhunting of various north-american animals is a great example of this. On the other hand, industries such as fishing are smart enough to place controls on themselves to maintain their stocks. Unfortunately, not everyone involved in primary industries (common man, I think you call them) have the forsight to do what's best for the long-term viability of their industry, which ultimately hurts consumers as well as the producers.
Self control has always been a key aspect of evolution and existence, both in humans and animals. Either a group puts controls on itself, or the external environment forces controls upon it. Many species of animals react to reduced food supplies with lower birth-rates. It's not a conscious decision, it's genetic conditioning invoked to maintain an equilibrium. Similarly in human history, those industries that do not learn to place controls on themselves are often forced out of operation by a lack of resource--overhunting of various north-american animals is a great example of this. On the other hand, industries such as fishing are smart enough to place controls on themselves to maintain their stocks. Unfortunately, not everyone involved in primary industries (common man, I think you call them) have the forsight to do what's best for the long-term viability of their industry, which ultimately hurts consumers as well as the producers.
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Lime...Exelebes....
http://www.bloodshed.org/~clovis/article.php?story=20030406085545544
Global Cycles
Sunday, April 06 2003 @ 08:55 AM PDT
Contributed by: Clovis
Views: 34
Middle Ages Warmer
Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists
By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented" global warming have been seriously undermined by new research which shows that the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages.
From the outset of the global warming debate in the late 1980s, environmentalists have said that temperatures are rising higher and faster than ever before, leading some scientists to conclude that greenhouse gases from cars and power stations are causing these "record-breaking" global temperatures.
Last year, scientists working for the UK Climate Impacts Programme said that global temperatures were "the hottest since records began" and added: "We are pretty sure that climate change due to human activity is here and it's accelerating."
This announcement followed research published in 1998, when scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia declared that the 1990s had been hotter than any other period for 1,000 years.
Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.
The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing at sites around the world.
The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than today.
They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again - but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.
The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's temperature rise.
According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today's "unprecedented" temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period of time.
The study, about to be published in the journal Energy and Environment, has been welcomed by sceptics of global warming, who say it puts the claims of environmentalists in proper context. Until now, suggestions that the Middle Ages were as warm as the 21st century had been largely anecdotal and were often challenged by believers in man-made global warming.
Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history."
According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone."
In contrast, said Prof Stott, severe famines and economic collapse followed the onset of the Little Ice Age around 1300. He said: "When the temperature started to drop, harvests failed and England's vine industry died. It makes one wonder why there is so much fear of warmth."
The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the official voice of global warming research, has conceded the possibility that today's "record-breaking" temperatures may be at least partly caused by the Earth recovering from a relatively cold period in recent history. While the evidence for entirely natural changes in the Earth's temperature continues to grow, its causes still remain mysterious.
Dr Simon Brown, the climate extremes research manager at the Meteorological Office at Bracknell, said that the present consensus among scientists on the IPCC was that the Medieval Warm Period could not be used to judge the significance of existing warming.
Dr Brown said: "The conclusion that 20th century warming is not unusual relies on the assertion that the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon. This is not the conclusion of IPCC."
He added that there were also doubts about the reliability of temperature proxies such as tree rings: "They are not able to capture the recent warming of the last 50 years," he said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lime...in the link you supplied...notice two occasions where the article said...'likely' when it referred to amospheric changes attributed to the works of man...
They choose to use an ambiguous and soft word such as that for the reason that man's influence on global warning cannot be 'scientifically demonstrated' regardless of how much of a 'believer' thebullet may be.
There is no doubt the activities of man influence the climate in some ways...but most of the scientific conclusions I have read suggest that the influence of the works of man is 'miniscule' when compared to solar output, wind patters, ocean currents and the tilt and wobble of earth on its axis.
One needs to ask oneself why is it so important to place blame on the industry of man as the cause of all evils. I have suggested before and do so again....it is politically motivated and even deeper, philosophically motivated by those who in essence bemoan the passing of the pastoral nomadic existence of mankind.
I personally blow a kiss to every power plant, high rise structure, superhighway and industrial complex I pass by. You see, I respect the mind of man and his creativity.
amicus...
http://www.bloodshed.org/~clovis/article.php?story=20030406085545544
Global Cycles
Sunday, April 06 2003 @ 08:55 AM PDT
Contributed by: Clovis
Views: 34
Middle Ages Warmer
Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists
By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented" global warming have been seriously undermined by new research which shows that the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages.
From the outset of the global warming debate in the late 1980s, environmentalists have said that temperatures are rising higher and faster than ever before, leading some scientists to conclude that greenhouse gases from cars and power stations are causing these "record-breaking" global temperatures.
Last year, scientists working for the UK Climate Impacts Programme said that global temperatures were "the hottest since records began" and added: "We are pretty sure that climate change due to human activity is here and it's accelerating."
This announcement followed research published in 1998, when scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia declared that the 1990s had been hotter than any other period for 1,000 years.
Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.
The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing at sites around the world.
The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than today.
They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again - but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.
The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's temperature rise.
According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today's "unprecedented" temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period of time.
The study, about to be published in the journal Energy and Environment, has been welcomed by sceptics of global warming, who say it puts the claims of environmentalists in proper context. Until now, suggestions that the Middle Ages were as warm as the 21st century had been largely anecdotal and were often challenged by believers in man-made global warming.
Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history."
According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone."
In contrast, said Prof Stott, severe famines and economic collapse followed the onset of the Little Ice Age around 1300. He said: "When the temperature started to drop, harvests failed and England's vine industry died. It makes one wonder why there is so much fear of warmth."
The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the official voice of global warming research, has conceded the possibility that today's "record-breaking" temperatures may be at least partly caused by the Earth recovering from a relatively cold period in recent history. While the evidence for entirely natural changes in the Earth's temperature continues to grow, its causes still remain mysterious.
Dr Simon Brown, the climate extremes research manager at the Meteorological Office at Bracknell, said that the present consensus among scientists on the IPCC was that the Medieval Warm Period could not be used to judge the significance of existing warming.
Dr Brown said: "The conclusion that 20th century warming is not unusual relies on the assertion that the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon. This is not the conclusion of IPCC."
He added that there were also doubts about the reliability of temperature proxies such as tree rings: "They are not able to capture the recent warming of the last 50 years," he said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lime...in the link you supplied...notice two occasions where the article said...'likely' when it referred to amospheric changes attributed to the works of man...
They choose to use an ambiguous and soft word such as that for the reason that man's influence on global warning cannot be 'scientifically demonstrated' regardless of how much of a 'believer' thebullet may be.
There is no doubt the activities of man influence the climate in some ways...but most of the scientific conclusions I have read suggest that the influence of the works of man is 'miniscule' when compared to solar output, wind patters, ocean currents and the tilt and wobble of earth on its axis.
One needs to ask oneself why is it so important to place blame on the industry of man as the cause of all evils. I have suggested before and do so again....it is politically motivated and even deeper, philosophically motivated by those who in essence bemoan the passing of the pastoral nomadic existence of mankind.
I personally blow a kiss to every power plant, high rise structure, superhighway and industrial complex I pass by. You see, I respect the mind of man and his creativity.
amicus...
Lucifer_Carroll
GOATS!!!
- Joined
- May 4, 2004
- Posts
- 3,319
warning to bullet, don't bother arguing with amicus. He lives in a world of fantasy and we have learned to use him much like kings of yore use jesters...and sometimes when we're frisky we use him like kings of yore used little boys of yore.
I think most of the interesting data that has been done is in the comparison of the warming to historical trend. The real reason that most scientists find it alarming is that the current global warming is occuring when its not supposed to be. By most predictions, we should still be in a global cooling. THAT is why scientists are upset. Its not that its global warming, but UNCHARACTERISTIC global warming.
But who gives a shit, really. Nature will survive nearly any calamity that will befall it. All that we risk is the current ecosystem. The speices of plants, the speices of animals, and the species of humans. They're the only things that are fragile. So go on, humanity, fuck up your world. You've always been a suicidal lot.
I think most of the interesting data that has been done is in the comparison of the warming to historical trend. The real reason that most scientists find it alarming is that the current global warming is occuring when its not supposed to be. By most predictions, we should still be in a global cooling. THAT is why scientists are upset. Its not that its global warming, but UNCHARACTERISTIC global warming.
But who gives a shit, really. Nature will survive nearly any calamity that will befall it. All that we risk is the current ecosystem. The speices of plants, the speices of animals, and the species of humans. They're the only things that are fragile. So go on, humanity, fuck up your world. You've always been a suicidal lot.
G
Guest
Guest
Xelebes
Little Blue Alien
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Posts
- 13,068
amicus said:
Did you not see the chart I posted. the temperature fluctuated quite a bit in the last 1,000 years causing some years to be warmer in the 1300s to be warmer than some years in the 1900s.
But that does not mean all were. Now, if you bothered to read what I had posted, I was observing some of the environmentalist's charts and putting some spin on them to see if they would be dismissed. What I was getting at was the temperature was at most going to rise 2 or 3 more degrees and than resume going colder due to strains of other climate moderating systems to kick in that we have not accounted for.
Please read a bit more into my posts. I was merely casting some speculation on the opposing side's diagrams. Now, don't make me poke holes in your articles.
thebullet
Rebel without applause
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Posts
- 1,247
To Lucifer_Carroll:
You've been listening to Ian Malcom too much. Yes, Earth will abide. But hey, I'm a human and I want to abide too. I'd like my grandchildren to have a nice life, and their grandchildren as well.
So I won't throw up my hands and say, 'whatever happens, happens. We can't hurt the Earth no matter how hard we try'. Although this is true, we can make the Earth a pretty miserable place to live for the next several thousand years.
So I'll tilt my lance and continue to attack the windmill that is Amicus and his neocon brethren in hopes that if I can't convince them, at least I can move them the hell out of the way.
You've been listening to Ian Malcom too much. Yes, Earth will abide. But hey, I'm a human and I want to abide too. I'd like my grandchildren to have a nice life, and their grandchildren as well.
So I won't throw up my hands and say, 'whatever happens, happens. We can't hurt the Earth no matter how hard we try'. Although this is true, we can make the Earth a pretty miserable place to live for the next several thousand years.
So I'll tilt my lance and continue to attack the windmill that is Amicus and his neocon brethren in hopes that if I can't convince them, at least I can move them the hell out of the way.
cantdog
Waybac machine
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Posts
- 10,791
Besides which, the primary weapons intended to be used to address the difficulty are conservation, efficiency, and sustainable power systems.
What on earth is wrong with any of those, except that it limits the wealth of the coal and oil people? God, no one is calling for stone knives and bearskins. Conservation all by itself saves lots of money. Any new processes, efficiencies, and workarounds will create jobs and new products, making money. The very measures taken will make fuckin money.
What the fuck? I can understand the panic they get into when you want less arsenic in the water or fewer resource wars-- wars are fucking wonderful fun, and arsenic adds color to life. But we're not asking people to give up jingoistic crusades or arsenic this time, just pushing for conservation (which conservatives always hate), and efficiency, and sustainable power.
So get out of the way, already.
What on earth is wrong with any of those, except that it limits the wealth of the coal and oil people? God, no one is calling for stone knives and bearskins. Conservation all by itself saves lots of money. Any new processes, efficiencies, and workarounds will create jobs and new products, making money. The very measures taken will make fuckin money.
What the fuck? I can understand the panic they get into when you want less arsenic in the water or fewer resource wars-- wars are fucking wonderful fun, and arsenic adds color to life. But we're not asking people to give up jingoistic crusades or arsenic this time, just pushing for conservation (which conservatives always hate), and efficiency, and sustainable power.
So get out of the way, already.
Lucifer_Carroll
GOATS!!!
- Joined
- May 4, 2004
- Posts
- 3,319
thebullet said:
Yes, I was merely being gloomy. I meant what i said about amicus only because he doesn't listen to anybody but the voices in his head. Which explains why he's on a literotica writer's forum.
I think George Carlin summed it up best when he said: "The Earth isn't going anywhere. We are. We're going away."
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Y'all leave me with a wry smile....
thebullet left us with a 'Malthusian' concept a few posts ago and I had to look as I was certain the Malthusian theories concerning poplulation and growth had been debunked over a half century ago.
Lo and behold the neo ecologist no growth faction has adopted Malthus like a long lost anti-industrialist activist.
The long disproved claim to fame of Malthus...was that he saw population growth as exponential and food supplies as linear. He drew the conclusion that population would outstrip the worlds capacity for food and other resources.
He was proven wrong, literally and figuratively...long, long ago.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://arts-sciences.cua.edu/econ/faculty/aguirre/resenv.htm
The Limited Resources Perspective. This perspective represents the synthesis of traditional Malthusian concern about natural limits with the preoccupation of contemporary environmentalism. According to the limited resources perspective, population growth has a negative and potentially destructive impact on the environment. Its proponents argue that even if a growing population can be fed, the environment cannot sustain such large numbers, population growth will lead to the explosion of pollution, which will have a catastrophic effect on the environment. See Harrion (1993) for a clear statement of this position.
The Socio-Biological Perspective. This approach politicizes the limited resources perspective. Its proponents present population growth as a threat not only to the environment but also to a way of life. They regard people as polluters and often define population growth as a pathological problem. In the West, the ruthless application of this variant of Malthusianism leads to demands for immigration control. Some writers call for the banning of foreign aid to the countries of the South, on the grounds that it stimulates an increase in the rate of fertility. Other writers believe that the numbers of people threatens the ecosystem, and even go so far as to question the desirability of lowering the rate of infant mortality. Abernethy (1993) and Hardin (1993) provide a systematic presentation of the socio-biological perspective.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is just a couple paragraphs from the linked source....there is much more.....
The thing that bothers me greatly about the econuts...is that while restricting access to resources, preventing the use of rivers for hydro electric, forbidding exploration in so called 'wildlife areas', continuing to heavily tax production at all levels...all bad enough.....
...but with this statist mentality...like China...they wish to forcefully limit the size of the family by a one child or even no child policy...with sterilization also an option.
These eco nuts have become violent and may become the next wave of environmental terrorists...with total disregard of human life.....
Malthus....you gotta be kiddin'! Tell me it ain't so!
amicus...
thebullet left us with a 'Malthusian' concept a few posts ago and I had to look as I was certain the Malthusian theories concerning poplulation and growth had been debunked over a half century ago.
Lo and behold the neo ecologist no growth faction has adopted Malthus like a long lost anti-industrialist activist.
The long disproved claim to fame of Malthus...was that he saw population growth as exponential and food supplies as linear. He drew the conclusion that population would outstrip the worlds capacity for food and other resources.
He was proven wrong, literally and figuratively...long, long ago.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://arts-sciences.cua.edu/econ/faculty/aguirre/resenv.htm
The Limited Resources Perspective. This perspective represents the synthesis of traditional Malthusian concern about natural limits with the preoccupation of contemporary environmentalism. According to the limited resources perspective, population growth has a negative and potentially destructive impact on the environment. Its proponents argue that even if a growing population can be fed, the environment cannot sustain such large numbers, population growth will lead to the explosion of pollution, which will have a catastrophic effect on the environment. See Harrion (1993) for a clear statement of this position.
The Socio-Biological Perspective. This approach politicizes the limited resources perspective. Its proponents present population growth as a threat not only to the environment but also to a way of life. They regard people as polluters and often define population growth as a pathological problem. In the West, the ruthless application of this variant of Malthusianism leads to demands for immigration control. Some writers call for the banning of foreign aid to the countries of the South, on the grounds that it stimulates an increase in the rate of fertility. Other writers believe that the numbers of people threatens the ecosystem, and even go so far as to question the desirability of lowering the rate of infant mortality. Abernethy (1993) and Hardin (1993) provide a systematic presentation of the socio-biological perspective.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is just a couple paragraphs from the linked source....there is much more.....
The thing that bothers me greatly about the econuts...is that while restricting access to resources, preventing the use of rivers for hydro electric, forbidding exploration in so called 'wildlife areas', continuing to heavily tax production at all levels...all bad enough.....
...but with this statist mentality...like China...they wish to forcefully limit the size of the family by a one child or even no child policy...with sterilization also an option.
These eco nuts have become violent and may become the next wave of environmental terrorists...with total disregard of human life.....
Malthus....you gotta be kiddin'! Tell me it ain't so!
amicus...
Weird Harold
Opinionated Old Fart
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2000
- Posts
- 23,768
cantdog said:
Nothing is wrong with any of those if we enact them for their own sake.
As a solution ot Global Warming and other forms of pollution, they're just holding actions; they do nothing to reverse the effects pollution.
Both sides of the Global Warming issue acknowledge they're stop-gap measures that will only slow down the looming disasters. The most fervent advocates of cutting down greenhouse emissions only claim it will buy us time to prepare.
I don't know of ANY serious suggestions on how to go about removing or even reducing the concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere to stop or reverse Global Warming.
G
Guest
Guest
Joe Wordsworth
Logician
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2004
- Posts
- 4,085
Not that I want to be known to agree with amicus, but he brings up something important, I think, with the "how far environmentalists are willing to go now" stuff. China controlled its country to such an extent as to limit populations.
That's not so bad of an idea, if we're dedicated to "saving the planet".
The planet can handle pollution. Hell, every civilizations pollutes (some have been eradicated already due to their habits). Its all about how much... eliminate people, eliminate pollution.
That's not so bad of an idea, if we're dedicated to "saving the planet".
The planet can handle pollution. Hell, every civilizations pollutes (some have been eradicated already due to their habits). Its all about how much... eliminate people, eliminate pollution.
thebullet
Rebel without applause
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Posts
- 1,247
Amicus is so full of crap.
I never said I agreed with Malthus. I merely speculated if Amicus the fool was looking for a Malthusian solution to the world's ills. It's just the kind of solution that one might expect from a 'compassionate conservative'. And of course Amicus attempted to twist my words, as is the habit of all Nazi and neocon propagandists.
Actually I just like to use the term Malthusian. It rolls off the tongue so well.
I never said I agreed with Malthus. I merely speculated if Amicus the fool was looking for a Malthusian solution to the world's ills. It's just the kind of solution that one might expect from a 'compassionate conservative'. And of course Amicus attempted to twist my words, as is the habit of all Nazi and neocon propagandists.
Actually I just like to use the term Malthusian. It rolls off the tongue so well.
bloodsimple
Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
- Posts
- 78
Just a couple of thoughts -
The earth may be slightly warmer than it was 100 or 150 years ago. It is not any warmer than it has been on a number of occasions in history (when there was no industrial production), and the rate of temperature change is not as steep as it has been on some previous occasions, judging from ice core readings etc.
Environmentalists are very quick to point out any increase in temperature, but remember that this is average temperature (i.e. averaged over the 24 hours). In fact, where increases have been recorded, most of this increase is in night-time temperatures rather than average maxima. This suggests the "increase" may be linked more to amounts of rain, cloud cover, and to wind strength. There may be many reasons for these unconnected with industry (volcanic activity, changes in sea currents, etc).
The earth's climate is immensely complicated and none of the climatology models comes close to explaining it. Do you know how they get these predictions of earth's temperatures in the future? They take the swirls of clouds, pressure systems etc from thirty or forty years ago, and then run through every single day, and then take that model forward through every day for 100 years. It only takes a tiny adjustment in their assumptions, the mechanics of the model, or a one-off event like Mt St Helens, to totally screw up their predictions. So forgive me if I don't get too excited by them. My weather forecaster often fails to get within 3 degrees Celcius of the actual figure for the day, so I don't have much faith in their over-simplistic attempts to tell me what it will be like in 2104.
There is no doubt that the world would be a better place for less pollution, greater biodiversity and sustainable energy sources. But science has failed to prove a causal link with the items it cites as directly leading to "global warming". It has become an orthodoxy no scientist in need of research funding dares to query. Remember, 600 years ago most people thought the earth was flat. Took a brave man to prove them wrong.
The earth may be slightly warmer than it was 100 or 150 years ago. It is not any warmer than it has been on a number of occasions in history (when there was no industrial production), and the rate of temperature change is not as steep as it has been on some previous occasions, judging from ice core readings etc.
Environmentalists are very quick to point out any increase in temperature, but remember that this is average temperature (i.e. averaged over the 24 hours). In fact, where increases have been recorded, most of this increase is in night-time temperatures rather than average maxima. This suggests the "increase" may be linked more to amounts of rain, cloud cover, and to wind strength. There may be many reasons for these unconnected with industry (volcanic activity, changes in sea currents, etc).
The earth's climate is immensely complicated and none of the climatology models comes close to explaining it. Do you know how they get these predictions of earth's temperatures in the future? They take the swirls of clouds, pressure systems etc from thirty or forty years ago, and then run through every single day, and then take that model forward through every day for 100 years. It only takes a tiny adjustment in their assumptions, the mechanics of the model, or a one-off event like Mt St Helens, to totally screw up their predictions. So forgive me if I don't get too excited by them. My weather forecaster often fails to get within 3 degrees Celcius of the actual figure for the day, so I don't have much faith in their over-simplistic attempts to tell me what it will be like in 2104.
There is no doubt that the world would be a better place for less pollution, greater biodiversity and sustainable energy sources. But science has failed to prove a causal link with the items it cites as directly leading to "global warming". It has become an orthodoxy no scientist in need of research funding dares to query. Remember, 600 years ago most people thought the earth was flat. Took a brave man to prove them wrong.
Couture
Ass Expert
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2001
- Posts
- 1,363
amicus said:
So you mean all that stuff I learned about K in biology was just bunk? Mother fucker!
Now, my slacker knowledge of biology leaves me ill equiped to debate over this guy, but it seems to me that Malthus had a couple of points he was trying to make. One, that a exponentially increasing population was inherently unsustainable.
What he's saying there is like that math problem where you are given a penny and it doubles every second. Within a few days you would be as rich as Bill Gates. A few days after that and you would run out of copper.
My grandparents had ten children. However, these children had at most three children. You see, they had birth control pills and abortions. Then there was Uncle Ralph who would always pull out and spray on Aunt Helen's face.
The point being that most of the world is currently engaging in population control. Those parts of the world that don't, suffer from the very predictions that Malthus made.
Malthus was wrong about one thing though... it isn't the rich that have more children...it's the poor.
gauchecritic
When there are grey skies
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2002
- Posts
- 7,076
Well apart from the flat earth thing which isn't and never has been true, I'd go along with the predictive thing if they could show me how they manage to model 'chaos' into the theory.
3 days for the meteorology department (including the armed forces weathermen) is as far as they can usefully predict an 'average' of forecasts.
Gauche
3 days for the meteorology department (including the armed forces weathermen) is as far as they can usefully predict an 'average' of forecasts.
Gauche
Lucifer_Carroll
GOATS!!!
- Joined
- May 4, 2004
- Posts
- 3,319
bloodsimple said:
Engh. Okay, first off the bat. The "scientists will say anything to get funding line" is getting old and is denigrative to the entire scientific community.
For the most part scientists work for science, pursuing theories they or their grad students find intriguing and seeing if the work leads to a new theory, new technology, new drug, etc...
Most of the scientists you insult are professors in research universities. These workers who rarely get rich off their work and most certainly don't become famous design all the pathway sciences and tools that have propeled medicine, science, and technology.
But, I digress. My point is that your "orthodoxy" is bullshit. Scientists pursuing funding look toward scientific trend first. Those swayed by politics are often spoken of disparagingly by the rest of the scientists. In truth, many of the experts you see that give people bad views of climatologists are in fact hacks. Shills paid for by interests who haven't put forth much climatology research or work for a shiny sounding agency. Many of the "brave men" against the environmentalists have turned out to be career industry men who have interests in a lack of environmental controls.
So who are these "non-querying funding-greedy" climatologists? Most are standard research men who seek nonpolitical answers. The problem with the climate prediction technology? That is the highest priority for many. Others seek a method to better take readings of climate change. Others sift the data seeking what seems to be the most likely connections. Many of them produce correlations NOT NECCESARILY CAUSATION, but correlation nonetheless. Much of this correlation shows that currently we are in an UNCUSTOMARY warming movement. By most predictions, we should still be in the Little Ice Age, but it seems we are warming early.
Some scientists have found that mankind's growth especially throughout the Industrial Revolution had an affect on the pattern, causing it (through the 1800s) to slow down cooling and begin to heat.
Is there politically motivation? Hell yes. Is it possible that nature will adjust without human intervention? Hell yes. Will such a change affect people? Duh. Is causation fully established? No, but there is strong correlation that warns caution and this correlation has been found repeatedly even by sources that seemed to have been biased towards a pro-industry slant. (see the Bush Administration's admissions)
Anyway, all of you, I urge you while you discount all data and believe all scientists evil, urge you all to look into the scientific journals. The annals of hard research that make the backbone of our scientific system. "A group" or "Discover" are simply not good enough for you to make these battles or for you to make such disparaging comments upon my colleagues.
Please, all of you, inform yourselves.
Then die. The cockroaches are waiting to take over this rock.
Couture
Ass Expert
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2001
- Posts
- 1,363
bloodsimple said:
Um hello? Scientists discovered that the earth was round before Jesus was born. Matter of fact, they had even calculated the size.
Brave men went around burning these very same scientists for centuries before they became brave enough to see if they had been right all along.
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Mr. Wiggins...aka thebullet...
Your quotes from the EPA do not seem to equate with other sources on line....
http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2003/oct03/noaa03-131.html
What I found on several sites, by searching 'natural absorption of CO2 gases' illustrates again that the burning of fossil fuels and other acts of mankind barely contribute to any change in the atmosphere.
Water vapor is the largest 'greenhouse gas' and when added to the mix of all gases in the atmosphere even further diminishes the percentage of which 'may' be caused by mankind.
Most scientists will not take a firm position on the man caused global warming issue, as the evidence is inconclusive and far from certain.
Scientists with an ecological agenda, since the mid 70's, usually at the University level have increasingly participated in the political discussion. Their agenda, as yours appears to be, is to advocate limiting, regulating and controlling the emission of 'greenhouse gases' by basic industry.
You will 'believe' whatever you wish...and I never expected to sway your faith with an opposing opinion. However, as 10 times more people read these posts than ever participate, I feel it only equitable to offer a differing opinion.
Up ur CO2 my feisty friend...
amicus....
Your quotes from the EPA do not seem to equate with other sources on line....
http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2003/oct03/noaa03-131.html
What I found on several sites, by searching 'natural absorption of CO2 gases' illustrates again that the burning of fossil fuels and other acts of mankind barely contribute to any change in the atmosphere.
Water vapor is the largest 'greenhouse gas' and when added to the mix of all gases in the atmosphere even further diminishes the percentage of which 'may' be caused by mankind.
Most scientists will not take a firm position on the man caused global warming issue, as the evidence is inconclusive and far from certain.
Scientists with an ecological agenda, since the mid 70's, usually at the University level have increasingly participated in the political discussion. Their agenda, as yours appears to be, is to advocate limiting, regulating and controlling the emission of 'greenhouse gases' by basic industry.
You will 'believe' whatever you wish...and I never expected to sway your faith with an opposing opinion. However, as 10 times more people read these posts than ever participate, I feel it only equitable to offer a differing opinion.
Up ur CO2 my feisty friend...
amicus....
Couture
Ass Expert
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2001
- Posts
- 1,363
amicus said:
You know amicus, if you boil a Pepsi, it will release all it's CO2. If you imagine that the ocean is one big ass bottle of Pepsi, you will see that you just disproved your own point.
You have a habit of that.
Do you think about things in order to know the truth of them or do you merely think of them to prove the lie?
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
As I Understand it, the climate of this planet is governed by forces, laws & happen stance that no one even claims to be able to predict. Overall, the planet is getting warmer, that's a fact. One of the few that all sides agree upon. The cause of that trend is the source of all the arguments.
Explanations of that trend are all theories. The reason there are so many competing theories is because you are talking about time on a geologic scale as the final arbiter and that is simply not observeable.
There is a fundamental difference in a theory and a law. The difference is that a law has been challenged and has survived all challenges. Should it ever fail to survive one, it becomes a theory again and has to be modified to include the conditions that caused it to fail.
Enviormentalists grab theories and tout them as law. There is no proof that man's activities have altered global temperature or weather patterns. Those who claim it is part of the natural cycle are equally guilty, as no proof for that theory exists either.
You aren't talking about bad science here, you are talking about amatuers grabbing this set of findings or that set and touting them as if they have some mystical inherent rightness. They don't. One expert's opinion is just as good as another's because they are just that, opinions and everyone has one.
The simple fact is that the earth is getting warmer and we don't know why. There is a body of credible evidence that our industrial pollution might have something to do with it. Most scientists, while they wouldn't jepardize their credibility by claiming they know this is the case, are concerned enough to think some moves to limit those emmissions would only be prudent, until we can find out for sure.
Prudence is, however, in the eye of the beholder and is always subject to the danger forseen. Getting a diverse group of people, with divergent socio/political theory on the same page is impossible even within the limited confines of this forum, it's exponentially more difficult when you are talking about a forum as large as the globe.
The Kyoto accords were seen by enviormentalists as prudent. They were seen as unduly harsh and onerous to U.S. bussinssmen. The failure to get them ratified and enforced is not a case of those who would save the world versus those who would destroy it, it's a case of one group acting prudently against the danger they see, while not seeing the same danger as the other.
Almost all would agree the prudent course would be to act. The problem is, all parties don't see the same danger to be acting against.
-Colly
Explanations of that trend are all theories. The reason there are so many competing theories is because you are talking about time on a geologic scale as the final arbiter and that is simply not observeable.
There is a fundamental difference in a theory and a law. The difference is that a law has been challenged and has survived all challenges. Should it ever fail to survive one, it becomes a theory again and has to be modified to include the conditions that caused it to fail.
Enviormentalists grab theories and tout them as law. There is no proof that man's activities have altered global temperature or weather patterns. Those who claim it is part of the natural cycle are equally guilty, as no proof for that theory exists either.
You aren't talking about bad science here, you are talking about amatuers grabbing this set of findings or that set and touting them as if they have some mystical inherent rightness. They don't. One expert's opinion is just as good as another's because they are just that, opinions and everyone has one.
The simple fact is that the earth is getting warmer and we don't know why. There is a body of credible evidence that our industrial pollution might have something to do with it. Most scientists, while they wouldn't jepardize their credibility by claiming they know this is the case, are concerned enough to think some moves to limit those emmissions would only be prudent, until we can find out for sure.
Prudence is, however, in the eye of the beholder and is always subject to the danger forseen. Getting a diverse group of people, with divergent socio/political theory on the same page is impossible even within the limited confines of this forum, it's exponentially more difficult when you are talking about a forum as large as the globe.
The Kyoto accords were seen by enviormentalists as prudent. They were seen as unduly harsh and onerous to U.S. bussinssmen. The failure to get them ratified and enforced is not a case of those who would save the world versus those who would destroy it, it's a case of one group acting prudently against the danger they see, while not seeing the same danger as the other.
Almost all would agree the prudent course would be to act. The problem is, all parties don't see the same danger to be acting against.
-Colly
Similar threads
