Al Gore is a stupid ass. His theory of global warming is antiquated and about 5,000 - 10,000 years behind the time. Look at the Earth fromthe last ICE AGE. Can we all say Global Warming from the last Ice Age. We had warimng and then a mini ICE AGE. Now we are into warming ---the next mini Ice Age is coming soon in Siberia = HAHAHAHAHA...or except in the SW Desert. It has been cold as a witch's tit in a brass bra. The Spring has been going well.
I have not seen a grasshopper nomotode or those nasty pre-wings. They were prolific last year. they ate evey garden plant I had. I talked with a great gardener this year - I doubt I will have the grasshoppers.
OK - I went off on a tangent.
Al Gore is still the biggest environmental LOSER of all time,
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Snidely: Have read all the articles you posted. Most of them quote this Chapman bloke or just rehash his paper. The fact that for example the last one uses the word "globaloney" tells you the scientific credibility of the writers (low to zero). Heck, I remember being told that the next glaciation was about due back in school thirty years ago, but that the timescale was likely to be thousands of years.
As I've said before - if the lack of sunspot activity is a sure sign of the next glacial (not remotely proven, but possible), then we are going to be subject to a higher order event than the global warming that worries most of us - in other words, the glaciation will simply swamp the effects of global warming.
It is certainly very possible that one of the effects of global warming will be to trigger the shutdown of the Gulf Stream, thus causing a localised drop in temperature in the British Isles.
Mostly it seems to be lone voices. I find them unconvincing - don't know the sites, but none of them appear to be the homes of serious scientific bodies. (Please tell me if I'm wrong and I'll go back and reread the article in question). The use of emotional terms like "globaloney" is anathema in serious scientific reporting and reduces the credibility of the the writer and his case.
Nonetheless I'll grant you that it is remotely possible that glaciation may swamp the effects of global warming, but I am still much more worried by the latter. As one of your pieces said, it is possible we will have all the effects of global warming before the effects of the next glaciation kick in. That would be nice (sarcasm).
However, for someone calling the science of global warming a load of rubbish I'd have hoped you could have come up with something a little more substantial than this. Nothing from CalTech or Harvard? Nothing from Oxford or Cambridge? Nothing from journals like "Science" or "Nature" (where serious scientists publish their research)? Nothing from any scientific body studying climate change or glaciation? Just a few individuals?
Need rather more than this to change my mind at all. If anything your postings serve only to convince me that the global warming people are probably right.
As I've said before - if the lack of sunspot activity is a sure sign of the next glacial (not remotely proven, but possible), then we are going to be subject to a higher order event than the global warming that worries most of us - in other words, the glaciation will simply swamp the effects of global warming.
It is certainly very possible that one of the effects of global warming will be to trigger the shutdown of the Gulf Stream, thus causing a localised drop in temperature in the British Isles.
Mostly it seems to be lone voices. I find them unconvincing - don't know the sites, but none of them appear to be the homes of serious scientific bodies. (Please tell me if I'm wrong and I'll go back and reread the article in question). The use of emotional terms like "globaloney" is anathema in serious scientific reporting and reduces the credibility of the the writer and his case.
Nonetheless I'll grant you that it is remotely possible that glaciation may swamp the effects of global warming, but I am still much more worried by the latter. As one of your pieces said, it is possible we will have all the effects of global warming before the effects of the next glaciation kick in. That would be nice (sarcasm).
However, for someone calling the science of global warming a load of rubbish I'd have hoped you could have come up with something a little more substantial than this. Nothing from CalTech or Harvard? Nothing from Oxford or Cambridge? Nothing from journals like "Science" or "Nature" (where serious scientists publish their research)? Nothing from any scientific body studying climate change or glaciation? Just a few individuals?
Need rather more than this to change my mind at all. If anything your postings serve only to convince me that the global warming people are probably right.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
What does "Sea-surface temperature in the Gulf of Alaska has increased about 3% over the past 30 years" mean, anyone? I can't find a concept of a percentage of a temperature in my mind, not one that would equate with this statement anyway.
It's a pity that the deniers on the thread refuse to address any of the points I've made. It makes it rather hard for me to join in. I've discussed the utter waste of a one-time resource in burning oil as fuel, I've discussed the imbalance of atmospheric constituents compared to the historic record over the last few million years, I've discussed the impossibility of "global warming" having anything to do with a steady accrual of energy but being, instead, a matter of jumps between stable states which are held back by negative feedback systems.
I've also tried to ask what the consequence would be in posters' minds if various scenarios played out, starting with my 25,000 US deaths from heatstroke in a single month. Nobody goes near any of my points, they'd so much rather copy/paste half-understood apologia.
One thing which interests me in the threads are the the fallback positions the deniers are building into their posts, so they can go back and say it's the fault of X or Y or Z for not being positive enough in their warnings. Eat cake today, eat cake after things get uncomfortable, sit back complacently regardless of the outcome.
It's a pity that the deniers on the thread refuse to address any of the points I've made. It makes it rather hard for me to join in. I've discussed the utter waste of a one-time resource in burning oil as fuel, I've discussed the imbalance of atmospheric constituents compared to the historic record over the last few million years, I've discussed the impossibility of "global warming" having anything to do with a steady accrual of energy but being, instead, a matter of jumps between stable states which are held back by negative feedback systems.
I've also tried to ask what the consequence would be in posters' minds if various scenarios played out, starting with my 25,000 US deaths from heatstroke in a single month. Nobody goes near any of my points, they'd so much rather copy/paste half-understood apologia.
One thing which interests me in the threads are the the fallback positions the deniers are building into their posts, so they can go back and say it's the fault of X or Y or Z for not being positive enough in their warnings. Eat cake today, eat cake after things get uncomfortable, sit back complacently regardless of the outcome.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester: I'd say the bias is out there in the open - it's a piece of creationist science so the bias is out there for all to see: God said he made the world in seven days, so anything that goes against that is just plain wrong and can be discounted. (You know I don't agree about this, but I hope I've stated clearly the major bias I perceive)
If we are disregarding a wide range of possible explanations on principle, then it seems to me that this writer does a fair job of explaining where he sees gaps in the scientific "logic" of climate change - and I'm sure there are gaps because we don't know everything about this, in fact we don't know very much.
Unfortunately, from my point of view the fact that a certain number of possibilities are excluded on principle means that it is not good science as I understand it.:-2
spot: It might be something to do with being uncomfortably right and uncomfortable to argue against!:wah:
I think my comment on the steady state / negative feedback thing is that it might well turn out to be thoroughly uncomfortable to live in a time when the climate is switching from one state to another, if that is what is happening. I just hope we don't start off positive feedback loops or trigger something like the methyl hydrates into melting and releasing vast quanties of greenhouse gasses. I have this awful sense of walking closer and closer to the edge of a precipice, while blindfolded.:-3
If we are disregarding a wide range of possible explanations on principle, then it seems to me that this writer does a fair job of explaining where he sees gaps in the scientific "logic" of climate change - and I'm sure there are gaps because we don't know everything about this, in fact we don't know very much.
Unfortunately, from my point of view the fact that a certain number of possibilities are excluded on principle means that it is not good science as I understand it.:-2
spot: It might be something to do with being uncomfortably right and uncomfortable to argue against!:wah:
I think my comment on the steady state / negative feedback thing is that it might well turn out to be thoroughly uncomfortable to live in a time when the climate is switching from one state to another, if that is what is happening. I just hope we don't start off positive feedback loops or trigger something like the methyl hydrates into melting and releasing vast quanties of greenhouse gasses. I have this awful sense of walking closer and closer to the edge of a precipice, while blindfolded.:-3
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
We've triggered a single positive feedback system as far as I can tell, the loss of the summer northern icecap. I don't think anyone's competent to model the consequence in terms of that single new state triggering a second in the way that a cue ball fires off a second ball in billiards but that's the image I have of positive feedback systems overlapping. We could list the systems that are capable of being triggered I suppose, there's several of them out there waiting for the right conditions to set them in motion.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
For those who read pictures and chart:
Looks like a very nice concentration of sea ice above.
The ice shelves here look rather nice too.
Notice how 2008 is exceeding the 31 year average?
Notice how there really aren't any major changes? The annual cycle changes from about 13.5 to 16.5 million square miles. That makes the changes in the annual low areas less significant. 1993 had more than double the ice of 2003. This is less than 10% the annual change though. The 2007 low was about 1.8 million square miles of Antarctic sea ice. 16 of the 30 years clearly has smaller surface areas is sea ice with the lowest being 1993. The largest area that remained in the annual retreat was in 2003. As for the maximums, 2008 is the largest southern ice we have has since... Oh wait... it's a 30 year record! It looks like 2000 and 2004 tie the previous record. The smallest annual peak was in 1986.
As a 30 year record, who cares about small pieces braking off like the Wilkins Ice Shelf?
Images from The Cryosphere Today
Looks like a very nice concentration of sea ice above.
The ice shelves here look rather nice too.
Notice how 2008 is exceeding the 31 year average?
Notice how there really aren't any major changes? The annual cycle changes from about 13.5 to 16.5 million square miles. That makes the changes in the annual low areas less significant. 1993 had more than double the ice of 2003. This is less than 10% the annual change though. The 2007 low was about 1.8 million square miles of Antarctic sea ice. 16 of the 30 years clearly has smaller surface areas is sea ice with the lowest being 1993. The largest area that remained in the annual retreat was in 2003. As for the maximums, 2008 is the largest southern ice we have has since... Oh wait... it's a 30 year record! It looks like 2000 and 2004 tie the previous record. The smallest annual peak was in 1986.
As a 30 year record, who cares about small pieces braking off like the Wilkins Ice Shelf?
Images from The Cryosphere Today
-
Snidely Whiplash
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:33 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
I liked that above post...! Wild cobra, whooooooahhhh....! :guitarist
I just don't have the time online to do all this research to reply to all the posts, I'm sorry and don't mean to make it seem like I ignore peoples replies, I just login here for an hour or less every day or two, and it's imposible to keep up....? I just add a post when something catches my eye, but I don't mean to seem disrespectful when I can't post lots of replies....
But my thoughts on the last page or two of replies are that common sense dictates that there is much to be learned on this subject still, and there is no consensis on anything, except that scientists don't agree on any of this..?
I don't agree on any of the pro gW points by anyone... I will admit that members here are more educated and seem more intellegent than most groups, and thats whats interesting about this debate... But I have several facts that are not debatable that I use as something of a rudder to keep me from wandering astray when I think about this issue... My roots if you will, are that most of the record high temps recorded by instruments in the past 100+ years were mostly far before any industrialization by man, most record high temps were back 50-100 years ago, and there are few record highs today, except the regular heat waves that have affected us from year to year as always... I also stand behind the fact that ALL of the major temp recording facilities that keep track of current ocean and air temps all have shown no warming over the past decade, and in many places cooling, especially in the past year when this cooling has been at the most drastic level since instruments first started keeping track... Not to mention the many many authentic reports of record breaking severe winters all over the world in the past year or two or three... My base of belief is also that the planet is about 1000 years overdue for an abrupt cooling trend, or "little Ice age"... Between every ice age of 100,000 years or so, there has been a warming trend of about 10,000 years, and we have enjoyed more than that recently...
Not to mention all the greedy politicians and every business and group on the planet that wants to benifit financially from "going green", and you have this extrordinary massive hoax being portrayed on all of us by virtually everything and everyone that has input into our day, and into our lives...
It's all just such a big scam, and from the United nations to our governments, to our local shops and stores that want your business by telling you how Green they are, it all just amounts to prices of everything going up and them benifiting, and we the people are either going along with it all, even encouraging it, and getting taken advantage of, our prosperity taken away, and our standard of living torn from us, and our taxes multiplied, all to take care of our planet...?
How is any of this "green" crap helping anything..? It's not... It's just helping those who make money from it, and can take away the things we all enjoy, by making us feel guilty and scared...
You people are not doing anything wrong, and should have a great prosperous life for you and your families...! And when the U.N. or your government or some enviro-wacko group wants to change your lifestyle and take away the things in your lifestyle that you enjoy, we have to shout back at them that it's NONE OF THEY'RE BUSINESS, we all need to stand up and tell them to "STICK IT"..!!! :sneaky:
If they win, meaning the UN, Al Gore and the other SOB's that are trying to control our lives, regulate everything we do, and get our money, then it's all over... Thats not life worth living in my book....
I just don't have the time online to do all this research to reply to all the posts, I'm sorry and don't mean to make it seem like I ignore peoples replies, I just login here for an hour or less every day or two, and it's imposible to keep up....? I just add a post when something catches my eye, but I don't mean to seem disrespectful when I can't post lots of replies....
But my thoughts on the last page or two of replies are that common sense dictates that there is much to be learned on this subject still, and there is no consensis on anything, except that scientists don't agree on any of this..?
I don't agree on any of the pro gW points by anyone... I will admit that members here are more educated and seem more intellegent than most groups, and thats whats interesting about this debate... But I have several facts that are not debatable that I use as something of a rudder to keep me from wandering astray when I think about this issue... My roots if you will, are that most of the record high temps recorded by instruments in the past 100+ years were mostly far before any industrialization by man, most record high temps were back 50-100 years ago, and there are few record highs today, except the regular heat waves that have affected us from year to year as always... I also stand behind the fact that ALL of the major temp recording facilities that keep track of current ocean and air temps all have shown no warming over the past decade, and in many places cooling, especially in the past year when this cooling has been at the most drastic level since instruments first started keeping track... Not to mention the many many authentic reports of record breaking severe winters all over the world in the past year or two or three... My base of belief is also that the planet is about 1000 years overdue for an abrupt cooling trend, or "little Ice age"... Between every ice age of 100,000 years or so, there has been a warming trend of about 10,000 years, and we have enjoyed more than that recently...
Not to mention all the greedy politicians and every business and group on the planet that wants to benifit financially from "going green", and you have this extrordinary massive hoax being portrayed on all of us by virtually everything and everyone that has input into our day, and into our lives...
It's all just such a big scam, and from the United nations to our governments, to our local shops and stores that want your business by telling you how Green they are, it all just amounts to prices of everything going up and them benifiting, and we the people are either going along with it all, even encouraging it, and getting taken advantage of, our prosperity taken away, and our standard of living torn from us, and our taxes multiplied, all to take care of our planet...?
How is any of this "green" crap helping anything..? It's not... It's just helping those who make money from it, and can take away the things we all enjoy, by making us feel guilty and scared...
You people are not doing anything wrong, and should have a great prosperous life for you and your families...! And when the U.N. or your government or some enviro-wacko group wants to change your lifestyle and take away the things in your lifestyle that you enjoy, we have to shout back at them that it's NONE OF THEY'RE BUSINESS, we all need to stand up and tell them to "STICK IT"..!!! :sneaky:
If they win, meaning the UN, Al Gore and the other SOB's that are trying to control our lives, regulate everything we do, and get our money, then it's all over... Thats not life worth living in my book....
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;862172 wrote: For some reason I cant pull the link to this one, the goggle search is 'ICR global warming' first hit.
I'd like folks to address the biased or non biased nature fo this article before you tear it apart, the web site is the institute for creation reasearch, I agree that the institute itself is of course religiously biased, but please read the article and let me know what you think.
Let's just take the easy one first?
Select your samples from recent data series, ignoring all the long term data, and then, as a conclusion, say you cannot have certainty because the timescale of the data is too short to be conclusive.
I'd like folks to address the biased or non biased nature fo this article before you tear it apart, the web site is the institute for creation reasearch, I agree that the institute itself is of course religiously biased, but please read the article and let me know what you think.
Let's just take the easy one first?
Select your samples from recent data series, ignoring all the long term data, and then, as a conclusion, say you cannot have certainty because the timescale of the data is too short to be conclusive.
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;864781 wrote: The data that he used covers the time frame in question. The long term data before this shows no trends upward in terms of global wamingg. He supposes that its not enough data for himself to accept any conclusions yet.
This article seems very commonly reasonable to me... It says basicly that we do see a 30 year data set of increased temps, but that theres no conclusive identifiable cause of man made entities and only one possoble suggestion that may shed light on the subject which is the cosmic ray suggestion. (which if Im not mistaken Spot was trying to relay to us)
To me this is the first honest assessment not bent on a biased assumption, but thats my opinion.
What is the time frame in question? It is the time frame he has chosen by ignoring the long timeline data sources purely so that he can conclude that there is not enough evidence to prove it is man made.
There are plenty of sources of data showing temperatures year on year going back thousands of years - why limit himself to three measures which only cover a thirty year period and then conclude it is not a long enough timeilne?
This article seems very commonly reasonable to me... It says basicly that we do see a 30 year data set of increased temps, but that theres no conclusive identifiable cause of man made entities and only one possoble suggestion that may shed light on the subject which is the cosmic ray suggestion. (which if Im not mistaken Spot was trying to relay to us)
To me this is the first honest assessment not bent on a biased assumption, but thats my opinion.
What is the time frame in question? It is the time frame he has chosen by ignoring the long timeline data sources purely so that he can conclude that there is not enough evidence to prove it is man made.
There are plenty of sources of data showing temperatures year on year going back thousands of years - why limit himself to three measures which only cover a thirty year period and then conclude it is not a long enough timeilne?
-
Snidely Whiplash
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:33 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Clodhopper;861947 wrote: Snidely: Have read all the articles you posted. Most of them quote this Chapman bloke or just rehash his paper. The fact that for example the last one uses the word "globaloney" tells you the scientific credibility of the writers (low to zero).
LOL, well being a stuffy boring monotone drab lifeless unintersting dry writer does the same for me, like some of these gW prophets...! :wah:
Ha, who knows, "Globaloney" might be the next favorite politically correct "green snack", comming to a store near YOU....??? :guitarist You just wait and see... I wouldn't put anything past the mentally ill leftist enviro- weirdo libs.... No offense... :wah:
Clodhopper;861947 wrote: Snidely: As one of your pieces said, it is possible we will have all the effects of global warming before the effects of the next glaciation kick in. That would be nice (sarcasm).
Sorry to provoke your sarcasm professor.... What is your earth science degree in..? But don't tell us, this is the internet and you can say whatever you want to make your phoney gW computer models shine, just like a habitual gambler can pull a dollar slot machine handle and make himself look like a winner, even though his slot machine reads only lemons, just like the gW hysteria ends up as....
Clodhopper;861947 wrote: However, for someone calling the science of global warming a load of rubbish I'd have hoped you could have come up with something a little more substantial than this.
Lol, gW isn't a science...? It's just a theory put forth by Al Gore and a bunch of other nutters to take advantage of you.... Just like gC (cooling) was in the late 70s-early 80s, but Al Gore or the environ-nuts weren't bright enough to take advantage of it then, so it faded away......... But todays nutters have found the way to take the whole world on they're doom and gloom themepark ride, but some don't want to get off when it's over...?
Well you're gW thrill ride is over.... Theres no warming going on at present, and hasn't been for quite a few years now.... Sorry to burst your bubble of doom and gloom for the planet... That's not from me, that's from NASA who has had temp bouys in the oceans around the world for years now, as well as the other major temp recording institutes...
I respect your view, but you'll soon have to come to terms that it's wrong, and we're all not going to die.......
LOL, well being a stuffy boring monotone drab lifeless unintersting dry writer does the same for me, like some of these gW prophets...! :wah:
Ha, who knows, "Globaloney" might be the next favorite politically correct "green snack", comming to a store near YOU....??? :guitarist You just wait and see... I wouldn't put anything past the mentally ill leftist enviro- weirdo libs.... No offense... :wah:
Clodhopper;861947 wrote: Snidely: As one of your pieces said, it is possible we will have all the effects of global warming before the effects of the next glaciation kick in. That would be nice (sarcasm).
Sorry to provoke your sarcasm professor.... What is your earth science degree in..? But don't tell us, this is the internet and you can say whatever you want to make your phoney gW computer models shine, just like a habitual gambler can pull a dollar slot machine handle and make himself look like a winner, even though his slot machine reads only lemons, just like the gW hysteria ends up as....
Clodhopper;861947 wrote: However, for someone calling the science of global warming a load of rubbish I'd have hoped you could have come up with something a little more substantial than this.
Lol, gW isn't a science...? It's just a theory put forth by Al Gore and a bunch of other nutters to take advantage of you.... Just like gC (cooling) was in the late 70s-early 80s, but Al Gore or the environ-nuts weren't bright enough to take advantage of it then, so it faded away......... But todays nutters have found the way to take the whole world on they're doom and gloom themepark ride, but some don't want to get off when it's over...?
Well you're gW thrill ride is over.... Theres no warming going on at present, and hasn't been for quite a few years now.... Sorry to burst your bubble of doom and gloom for the planet... That's not from me, that's from NASA who has had temp bouys in the oceans around the world for years now, as well as the other major temp recording institutes...
I respect your view, but you'll soon have to come to terms that it's wrong, and we're all not going to die.......
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;864956 wrote: Seems reasonable to me. Even the global wamring scientist dont recognize a trend farther back than that. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
It's not so much wrong as completely meaningless. There are no "global warming scientists", there are scientists. Man-made pressure on the environment can be traced back ten thousand years. The specific thing that's building in terms of atmospheric industrial effluents including carbon dioxide, from burning coal and oil, starts to show up well over 200 years ago. What on earth is this 30-50 year period about?
It's not so much wrong as completely meaningless. There are no "global warming scientists", there are scientists. Man-made pressure on the environment can be traced back ten thousand years. The specific thing that's building in terms of atmospheric industrial effluents including carbon dioxide, from burning coal and oil, starts to show up well over 200 years ago. What on earth is this 30-50 year period about?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;864956 wrote: Well he is addressing the claims of the persons who tout global warming and they refer to the 30-50 years trend, hes just analying the data time frame they are referencing. I'm pretty sure hes stating that the global warmers say its 30-50 and so hes using that data as his set.
Seems reasonable to me. Even the global wamring scientist dont recognize a trend farther back than that. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
He's choosing his ground to prove the point he wants to make - that's why he's taken such a limited set of data. The claims of global warming are not based purely on the last fifty years data, that is the first distortion he's making.
Seems reasonable to me. Even the global wamring scientist dont recognize a trend farther back than that. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
He's choosing his ground to prove the point he wants to make - that's why he's taken such a limited set of data. The claims of global warming are not based purely on the last fifty years data, that is the first distortion he's making.
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;865211 wrote: 30-50 years is the common warming period spewed out that Ive seen.
You say it goes back 10000 years, and then concentrates in the last 200 years. fine.
What did you think about his mentioning the cosmic rays study?
What does "warming period" mean? I keep saying it, the planet has no capacity to accumulate heat. Do you simply not believe me when I say that? If you do, what's a warming period? Language is everything when it comes to discussing something this wide-ranging.
The relationship between cosmic ray bursts and cloud formation was, I thought, dismissed in the Lancaster University study: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm
The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature. The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity. But UK scientists found there has been no significant link between cosmic rays and cloudiness in the last 20 years.
Presenting their findings in the Institute of Physics journal, Environmental Research Letters, the University of Lancaster team explain that they used three different ways to search for a correlation, and found virtually none.
This is the latest piece of evidence which at the very least puts the cosmic ray theory, developed by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark at the Danish National Space Center (DNSC), under very heavy pressure. Dr Svensmark's idea formed a centrepiece of the controversial documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.
You say it goes back 10000 years, and then concentrates in the last 200 years. fine.
What did you think about his mentioning the cosmic rays study?
What does "warming period" mean? I keep saying it, the planet has no capacity to accumulate heat. Do you simply not believe me when I say that? If you do, what's a warming period? Language is everything when it comes to discussing something this wide-ranging.
The relationship between cosmic ray bursts and cloud formation was, I thought, dismissed in the Lancaster University study: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm
The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature. The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity. But UK scientists found there has been no significant link between cosmic rays and cloudiness in the last 20 years.
Presenting their findings in the Institute of Physics journal, Environmental Research Letters, the University of Lancaster team explain that they used three different ways to search for a correlation, and found virtually none.
This is the latest piece of evidence which at the very least puts the cosmic ray theory, developed by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark at the Danish National Space Center (DNSC), under very heavy pressure. Dr Svensmark's idea formed a centrepiece of the controversial documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;865310 wrote: So Spot correct me if I'm wrong but I hear you saying there is no such thing as global warming. Since the earth cannot retain heat.
There's no such thing as global warming, since the earth cannot retain heat. There's weather. Globally, weather's subject to major jolts as the environment changes. Some of those jolts can push the next jolt to happen as a domino effect because a jolt in the global weather can cause further environmental changes. Each jolt will obviously settle to a characteristic average world temperature. The huge increase in human numbers and activities has caused major environmental changes, not least the change in atmospheric constituents to proportions which haven't existed on earth for well over 50 million years. Those major environmental changes are pushing the weather toward the first human-induced jolt it's ever had - the total loss of the summer Arctic icecap - and it won't be comfortable for a sizeable fraction of humanity.
Does that tie together what I've said before? Does it fit with what you've thought I've said? Do you have any problem with it as a statement of facts?
There's no such thing as global warming, since the earth cannot retain heat. There's weather. Globally, weather's subject to major jolts as the environment changes. Some of those jolts can push the next jolt to happen as a domino effect because a jolt in the global weather can cause further environmental changes. Each jolt will obviously settle to a characteristic average world temperature. The huge increase in human numbers and activities has caused major environmental changes, not least the change in atmospheric constituents to proportions which haven't existed on earth for well over 50 million years. Those major environmental changes are pushing the weather toward the first human-induced jolt it's ever had - the total loss of the summer Arctic icecap - and it won't be comfortable for a sizeable fraction of humanity.
Does that tie together what I've said before? Does it fit with what you've thought I've said? Do you have any problem with it as a statement of facts?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;865215 wrote: But hes taking that data and saying its not long enough, if he goes back 200-10000 years as Spot suggests, there is no wamring trend to set data on. The cause may be in that older time frame, but the wamring data doesnt show up till now.
What Im reading is him saying just that. That the data is too short to gain a long term trend from.
And according to what was posted about the polar icecaps in this thread a few posts back shows yet another fluctuation towards cold.
Given that the data exists, how can you say that there is no trend - whether that trend be warming or cooling, it can be derived from existing data.
The data is only too short to gain a long term trend from because he's deliberately chosen short timeline data to work with.
What Im reading is him saying just that. That the data is too short to gain a long term trend from.
And according to what was posted about the polar icecaps in this thread a few posts back shows yet another fluctuation towards cold.
Given that the data exists, how can you say that there is no trend - whether that trend be warming or cooling, it can be derived from existing data.
The data is only too short to gain a long term trend from because he's deliberately chosen short timeline data to work with.
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;865574 wrote: I agree, we have isolated areas of above average temps. but I diasgree that tying them together can relate to a 'global temperature reading' other than them being averaged together it has little to do with a true picture of the earths climate, yes they are related, one system plays off another, but man isnt the trigger. Man still isnt large enough to affect the earth to such a degree in my opinion. The simple thing to stick in your head is: there are no coincidences. If there's been a summer Arctic icecap for the last ten million years and in 2013 there isn't a summer Arctic icecap then you can absolutely utterly to your very last dollar guarantee that the reason is human.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;865675 wrote: And why is that Spot? Why do we not see natural changes occuring as well? Why must it be Human casued?
The timing. Because there are no such vile shocking extreme coincidences. Because something that major has to have a cause, and there's a perfectly believable cause in the shift in atmospheric composition which is beyond argument caused by humans, and because nothing else is in the frame as a culprit, and to hit one in ten thousand odds without explanation isn't believable.
The timing. Because there are no such vile shocking extreme coincidences. Because something that major has to have a cause, and there's a perfectly believable cause in the shift in atmospheric composition which is beyond argument caused by humans, and because nothing else is in the frame as a culprit, and to hit one in ten thousand odds without explanation isn't believable.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;865602 wrote: I may be too daft to pick up the nuance of what your saying Bryn...
Well, I havnt disputed that there isnt local temp increases, I dispute that it can accuratly reflect a world trend. No matter how far back you go. Climates change all the time, there are predictable cycles, no doubt. We certainly see ice flow changes, which some say is a normal occurance, some say are related to 'global warming' and some say we are heading for a great cooling period, it appears everybody is using the same data time frame.
So, let me just shrug my shoulders and say... well OK then!:-2
Just that by selecting the data you analyse, especially by cutting the selected data down to a very small sample, you can select the conclusions you are forced to arrive at.
Well, I havnt disputed that there isnt local temp increases, I dispute that it can accuratly reflect a world trend. No matter how far back you go. Climates change all the time, there are predictable cycles, no doubt. We certainly see ice flow changes, which some say is a normal occurance, some say are related to 'global warming' and some say we are heading for a great cooling period, it appears everybody is using the same data time frame.
So, let me just shrug my shoulders and say... well OK then!:-2
Just that by selecting the data you analyse, especially by cutting the selected data down to a very small sample, you can select the conclusions you are forced to arrive at.
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;865687 wrote: It not that major, its been a small gradual change over the last 30-50 years in some regions.
Its still not a major deal and fluctuations may still reverse the trend. If the trend changes and it gets cooler over the next 30 years or so and these aleged man causing factors dont change what will you say then?
That something's happened that hadn't happened in ten million years of stability, something that really is that major, that once it's happened pushes the weather into a new warmer stable state automatically because it removes one of the cooling aspects of the weather system - the reflectivity of the summer Arctic icecap. Once it goes, the new environment makes the stable state "no summer Arctic icecap" and lots of warmer weather elsewhere on the planet. And out of all the last ten thousand thousand years, it's happened in the only thousand year period when the atmosphere's been screwed off the scale by human activity.
Its still not a major deal and fluctuations may still reverse the trend. If the trend changes and it gets cooler over the next 30 years or so and these aleged man causing factors dont change what will you say then?
That something's happened that hadn't happened in ten million years of stability, something that really is that major, that once it's happened pushes the weather into a new warmer stable state automatically because it removes one of the cooling aspects of the weather system - the reflectivity of the summer Arctic icecap. Once it goes, the new environment makes the stable state "no summer Arctic icecap" and lots of warmer weather elsewhere on the planet. And out of all the last ten thousand thousand years, it's happened in the only thousand year period when the atmosphere's been screwed off the scale by human activity.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;865689 wrote: I do understand you, I just dont agree that the data size is too small to conclude what hes saying.
But his conclusion is that the data sample is too small to be certain!
But his conclusion is that the data sample is too small to be certain!
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Snidely Whiplash;864948 wrote: LOL, well being a stuffy boring monotone drab lifeless unintersting dry writer does the same for me, like some of these gW prophets...! :wah:
Ha, who knows, "Globaloney" might be the next favorite politically correct "green snack", comming to a store near YOU....??? :guitarist You just wait and see... I wouldn't put anything past the mentally ill leftist enviro- weirdo libs.... No offense... :wah:
Sorry to provoke your sarcasm professor.... What is your earth science degree in..? But don't tell us, this is the internet and you can say whatever you want to make your phoney gW computer models shine, just like a habitual gambler can pull a dollar slot machine handle and make himself look like a winner, even though his slot machine reads only lemons, just like the gW hysteria ends up as....
Lol, gW isn't a science...? It's just a theory put forth by Al Gore and a bunch of other nutters to take advantage of you.... Just like gC (cooling) was in the late 70s-early 80s, but Al Gore or the environ-nuts weren't bright enough to take advantage of it then, so it faded away......... But todays nutters have found the way to take the whole world on they're doom and gloom themepark ride, but some don't want to get off when it's over...?
Well you're gW thrill ride is over.... Theres no warming going on at present, and hasn't been for quite a few years now.... Sorry to burst your bubble of doom and gloom for the planet... That's not from me, that's from NASA who has had temp bouys in the oceans around the world for years now, as well as the other major temp recording institutes...
I respect your view, but you'll soon have to come to terms that it's wrong, and we're all not going to die.......
Believe me, if the scientists are wrong about this I'll be dancing in the streets! I'm not on a personal crusade and I happen to love the beautiful place I live - if it survives unharmed I will be ecstatic!
My academic qualifications include an English degree and a Postgraduate Diploma in Psychology (about 2/3 of a degree done in a year). The latter is only of importance in that it allows me to look at scientific experiments and understand the process they are following. My maths is not great and I fall down trying to follow the criticisms of those attacking the maths either pro or con, so I listen politely and rarely comment on it. However I'm very good at spotting faulty logic or failures of concept and I rely on other people to look at the maths. It's one of the reasons I go on at you to produce evidence from a known and reputable source, why I disagree with you that global warming is a conspiracy by climatologists to get more funding in the face of the known altruism and high-mindedness of the oil companies and feel that the one with his head in the sand while on a crusade (just love mixing metaphors:)) is YOU!
The sarcasm wasn't aimed at you, it was a reaction to the idea of going through all the horrors associated with global warming and THEN hitting a major glaciation. To put it in American: Nice....NOT!
Barcelona is having a major drought and for the first time since it was built in the 1960s one of the reservoirs has dropped so low as to reveal a medieval village for the first time since the valley was flooded. Water stocks in Barcelaona are at 18% of the usual for this time of year. They are bringing in water by sea in tankers. Never happened before. Just like the Burmese typhoon or the Wilkins Ice Sheet collapse these things cannot individually be proved to be part of global warming. But if you add these things together and look at them with the rest of the evidence it becomes clear (at least to me) that SOMETHING is going on and a lot of very clever people who work in the field are saying it's global warming. Now, you may be right and the current lack of sunspot activity MAY lead to another glaciation - but we've got even less data on the subject and just don't know, just as there may be feedback loops damping the effects of man made global warming that we currently don't know about.
What is clear to me is that IF the predictions of global warming are anywhere near correct we are risking a catatrophe to our world unless we clean up our mess. If the predictions then turn out to be wrong (always possible, though unlikely imo) all we have done is clean up the planet a bit. If the preditions are right and we have done nothing, the consequences are just appalling. Better to do some things that may turn out to be unnecessary than have civilisation collapse.
Ha, who knows, "Globaloney" might be the next favorite politically correct "green snack", comming to a store near YOU....??? :guitarist You just wait and see... I wouldn't put anything past the mentally ill leftist enviro- weirdo libs.... No offense... :wah:
Sorry to provoke your sarcasm professor.... What is your earth science degree in..? But don't tell us, this is the internet and you can say whatever you want to make your phoney gW computer models shine, just like a habitual gambler can pull a dollar slot machine handle and make himself look like a winner, even though his slot machine reads only lemons, just like the gW hysteria ends up as....
Lol, gW isn't a science...? It's just a theory put forth by Al Gore and a bunch of other nutters to take advantage of you.... Just like gC (cooling) was in the late 70s-early 80s, but Al Gore or the environ-nuts weren't bright enough to take advantage of it then, so it faded away......... But todays nutters have found the way to take the whole world on they're doom and gloom themepark ride, but some don't want to get off when it's over...?
Well you're gW thrill ride is over.... Theres no warming going on at present, and hasn't been for quite a few years now.... Sorry to burst your bubble of doom and gloom for the planet... That's not from me, that's from NASA who has had temp bouys in the oceans around the world for years now, as well as the other major temp recording institutes...
I respect your view, but you'll soon have to come to terms that it's wrong, and we're all not going to die.......
Believe me, if the scientists are wrong about this I'll be dancing in the streets! I'm not on a personal crusade and I happen to love the beautiful place I live - if it survives unharmed I will be ecstatic!
My academic qualifications include an English degree and a Postgraduate Diploma in Psychology (about 2/3 of a degree done in a year). The latter is only of importance in that it allows me to look at scientific experiments and understand the process they are following. My maths is not great and I fall down trying to follow the criticisms of those attacking the maths either pro or con, so I listen politely and rarely comment on it. However I'm very good at spotting faulty logic or failures of concept and I rely on other people to look at the maths. It's one of the reasons I go on at you to produce evidence from a known and reputable source, why I disagree with you that global warming is a conspiracy by climatologists to get more funding in the face of the known altruism and high-mindedness of the oil companies and feel that the one with his head in the sand while on a crusade (just love mixing metaphors:)) is YOU!
The sarcasm wasn't aimed at you, it was a reaction to the idea of going through all the horrors associated with global warming and THEN hitting a major glaciation. To put it in American: Nice....NOT!
Barcelona is having a major drought and for the first time since it was built in the 1960s one of the reservoirs has dropped so low as to reveal a medieval village for the first time since the valley was flooded. Water stocks in Barcelaona are at 18% of the usual for this time of year. They are bringing in water by sea in tankers. Never happened before. Just like the Burmese typhoon or the Wilkins Ice Sheet collapse these things cannot individually be proved to be part of global warming. But if you add these things together and look at them with the rest of the evidence it becomes clear (at least to me) that SOMETHING is going on and a lot of very clever people who work in the field are saying it's global warming. Now, you may be right and the current lack of sunspot activity MAY lead to another glaciation - but we've got even less data on the subject and just don't know, just as there may be feedback loops damping the effects of man made global warming that we currently don't know about.
What is clear to me is that IF the predictions of global warming are anywhere near correct we are risking a catatrophe to our world unless we clean up our mess. If the predictions then turn out to be wrong (always possible, though unlikely imo) all we have done is clean up the planet a bit. If the preditions are right and we have done nothing, the consequences are just appalling. Better to do some things that may turn out to be unnecessary than have civilisation collapse.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Bryn & Jester: Isn't one of the difficulties discussing this is that there are no certainties about it? Let alone that it's not clear if he's talking about certainty as 100% that ordinary folk or at the 99.8 and 99.5% (correct me someone - it's been a while!) that science of this sort runs on. Whether on a scale of thirty or thirty thousand years we have incomplete data and as a result any conclusions but the broadest are to some degree tentative.
Nonetheless, at the broadest level we seem to be at the point where some things can be said with some certainty:
1) Climatic changes over the last thirty years have been largely human driven.
2) If the effects of this are not addressed the results will be globally catastrophic, possibly to the point of the extinction of the human species, definitely with a death toll running into the billions.
3) Better to act now.
Nonetheless, at the broadest level we seem to be at the point where some things can be said with some certainty:
1) Climatic changes over the last thirty years have been largely human driven.
2) If the effects of this are not addressed the results will be globally catastrophic, possibly to the point of the extinction of the human species, definitely with a death toll running into the billions.
3) Better to act now.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester: Ah well, you and I will be dead before the worst effects kick in.
Scientists have indeed been wrong before and will be again. But when the community as a whole is saying something is wrong - badly so - and the effects have a delay built into them, so we have ALREADY affected the climate twenty years into the future then we should pay serious attention. Here's a link to the BBC's summary of the IPCC's latest. If you want to follow it further there are many links on that page.
http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6321351.stm
Yaay! It worked! Seems only fair that as you taught me how, you should be the first "beneficiary".
Scientists have indeed been wrong before and will be again. But when the community as a whole is saying something is wrong - badly so - and the effects have a delay built into them, so we have ALREADY affected the climate twenty years into the future then we should pay serious attention. Here's a link to the BBC's summary of the IPCC's latest. If you want to follow it further there are many links on that page.
http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6321351.stm
Yaay! It worked! Seems only fair that as you taught me how, you should be the first "beneficiary".
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Damnation. It didn't work when I checked it. Blast. I was so proud of getting it to "stick" as well.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Try it again now. It seems to be working.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;866727 wrote: Not his data sample, the actual warming trend is too short with too much flectuation to be certain.
No, that's the whole point. The data is available, he just chose to ignore and long timeline data and to very selectively chose limited datasets.
Whilst the marked changes in the climate are most apparent over the last fifty years the data you need to correlate your model covers a far greater period. If you only chose to look at the limited dataset then of course the link cannot be proven - to do that you need to look at the linkages between variables and that takes lots of data over a long enough period to demonstrate that it is more than co-incidence.
No, that's the whole point. The data is available, he just chose to ignore and long timeline data and to very selectively chose limited datasets.
Whilst the marked changes in the climate are most apparent over the last fifty years the data you need to correlate your model covers a far greater period. If you only chose to look at the limited dataset then of course the link cannot be proven - to do that you need to look at the linkages between variables and that takes lots of data over a long enough period to demonstrate that it is more than co-incidence.
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Clodhopper;866740 wrote: Bryn & Jester: Isn't one of the difficulties discussing this is that there are no certainties about it? Let alone that it's not clear if he's talking about certainty as 100% that ordinary folk or at the 99.8 and 99.5% (correct me someone - it's been a while!) that science of this sort runs on. Whether on a scale of thirty or thirty thousand years we have incomplete data and as a result any conclusions but the broadest are to some degree tentative.
Nonetheless, at the broadest level we seem to be at the point where some things can be said with some certainty:
1) Climatic changes over the last thirty years have been largely human driven.
2) If the effects of this are not addressed the results will be globally catastrophic, possibly to the point of the extinction of the human species, definitely with a death toll running into the billions.
3) Better to act now.
It is surely true that there is no certainty about it - we cannot be certain that the Houses of Parliament will not be flattened by an earthquake tomorrow but it does not stop us visiting the place
There is no certainty in life (which is why BTS's prove it site is so ludicrous) but mankind has always had to work the probabilities weighed off against the consequences. That, to me, says your point (3) is spot on.
Nonetheless, at the broadest level we seem to be at the point where some things can be said with some certainty:
1) Climatic changes over the last thirty years have been largely human driven.
2) If the effects of this are not addressed the results will be globally catastrophic, possibly to the point of the extinction of the human species, definitely with a death toll running into the billions.
3) Better to act now.
It is surely true that there is no certainty about it - we cannot be certain that the Houses of Parliament will not be flattened by an earthquake tomorrow but it does not stop us visiting the place
There is no certainty in life (which is why BTS's prove it site is so ludicrous) but mankind has always had to work the probabilities weighed off against the consequences. That, to me, says your point (3) is spot on.
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;866784 wrote: I can see that I am not able to come to the same conlusions you are Clod, and no offense intended.
The one thing thats been consistant in science most all my life is that they are consitantly wrong. when it comes to long term trends such as we are discussing, they can suppose, and gather evidence but the conclusions they come to arent what actually happens in my experince.
Modern scince is a lot like 'plain old worry'... most of what we 'worry' about never comes to pass, and then when the small percentage of it does come to pass, its NEVER like we imagined it and we typically imagine the worst.
What I see in your statement is an alarmist's view. Well intended you may be but it aint gonna happen.
So the polar ice melts (not that I believe it will happen) and we get sea rise, the media predicts from the scintific data a catastrophic searise, the reality will be a new shoreline level, so what? We rebuild along the new shoreline a bit further up the beach...
You see Im a firm believer that humans will adjust to whatever new level comes, if it comes at all. Necessaty builds creativity and I cant wait to see what folks come up with? Floating cities at waters edge where land used to be? Raised hotels and apartments above the water? Or even more dramatic, homes under water?
And I know all those are mere possiblities, none or all can be true, the point is man will adjust with the ever changing world much like we do now and have done for centuries.
You stress that these are "mere possibilities" without mention of the "probability" of their occurring. What needs to be evaluated is the probability - put a number to it and we can judge what best to do. I look over the lifetime of my children and I see greater than 50% and I'm damn'd if I'll take that gamble on their behalf.
If you agree that there is a possibility of the polar ice caps melting (as they currently appear to be - quite quickly) then consider the consequences :-
Earth receives a fairly fixed amount of energy from the sun (it's slowly increasing as the sun heats up but over our civilisation's lifetime the effect is negligible). It can lose that heat by reflecting it or by re-radiating it after adsorption. The amount reflected depends on the planet's albedo and the major factors affecting that are cloudcover, air borne particulates, vegetation and ice (of which the polar ice caps are the major portion).
As the polar ice caps melt they are replaced by dark rock, the albedo drops, less energy is reflected (more energy is adsorbed) the temperature rises and the ice caps melt faster - a clssic positive feedback loop.
So the problem with the melting ice caps is not the rising sea level (inconvenient as it is for the large proportion of the Earth's population who live or who's food is grown close to sea level) but the step change in temperature that accompanies it.
The one thing thats been consistant in science most all my life is that they are consitantly wrong. when it comes to long term trends such as we are discussing, they can suppose, and gather evidence but the conclusions they come to arent what actually happens in my experince.
Modern scince is a lot like 'plain old worry'... most of what we 'worry' about never comes to pass, and then when the small percentage of it does come to pass, its NEVER like we imagined it and we typically imagine the worst.
What I see in your statement is an alarmist's view. Well intended you may be but it aint gonna happen.
So the polar ice melts (not that I believe it will happen) and we get sea rise, the media predicts from the scintific data a catastrophic searise, the reality will be a new shoreline level, so what? We rebuild along the new shoreline a bit further up the beach...
You see Im a firm believer that humans will adjust to whatever new level comes, if it comes at all. Necessaty builds creativity and I cant wait to see what folks come up with? Floating cities at waters edge where land used to be? Raised hotels and apartments above the water? Or even more dramatic, homes under water?
And I know all those are mere possiblities, none or all can be true, the point is man will adjust with the ever changing world much like we do now and have done for centuries.
You stress that these are "mere possibilities" without mention of the "probability" of their occurring. What needs to be evaluated is the probability - put a number to it and we can judge what best to do. I look over the lifetime of my children and I see greater than 50% and I'm damn'd if I'll take that gamble on their behalf.
If you agree that there is a possibility of the polar ice caps melting (as they currently appear to be - quite quickly) then consider the consequences :-
Earth receives a fairly fixed amount of energy from the sun (it's slowly increasing as the sun heats up but over our civilisation's lifetime the effect is negligible). It can lose that heat by reflecting it or by re-radiating it after adsorption. The amount reflected depends on the planet's albedo and the major factors affecting that are cloudcover, air borne particulates, vegetation and ice (of which the polar ice caps are the major portion).
As the polar ice caps melt they are replaced by dark rock, the albedo drops, less energy is reflected (more energy is adsorbed) the temperature rises and the ice caps melt faster - a clssic positive feedback loop.
So the problem with the melting ice caps is not the rising sea level (inconvenient as it is for the large proportion of the Earth's population who live or who's food is grown close to sea level) but the step change in temperature that accompanies it.
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Bryn Mawr;869076 wrote: As the polar ice caps melt they are replaced by dark rockor, as it's technically known above 80 degrees north, "less reflective water".
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
spot;869177 wrote: or, as it's technically known above 80 degrees north, "less reflective water".
:-p
:-p
-
Bored_Wombat
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;866784 wrote: The one thing thats been consistant in science most all my life is that they are consitantly wrong.
That's an amusing little anecdote, but it is very much exaggerated. Simply that most experts believe something is no reason to discard it as false.
Most scientists believe that the world is round and not flat.
when it comes to long term trends such as we are discussing, they can suppose, and gather evidence but the conclusions they come to arent what actually happens in my experince.
What are some of the examples that you have seen in your lifetime of the entire scientific community making erroneous predictions of long term trends?
the point is man will adjust with the ever changing world much like we do now and have done for centuries.
Yes. And the most sensible and cheapest adjustment to make in this case, is to stop burning fossil fuels.
That's an amusing little anecdote, but it is very much exaggerated. Simply that most experts believe something is no reason to discard it as false.
Most scientists believe that the world is round and not flat.
when it comes to long term trends such as we are discussing, they can suppose, and gather evidence but the conclusions they come to arent what actually happens in my experince.
What are some of the examples that you have seen in your lifetime of the entire scientific community making erroneous predictions of long term trends?
the point is man will adjust with the ever changing world much like we do now and have done for centuries.
Yes. And the most sensible and cheapest adjustment to make in this case, is to stop burning fossil fuels.