Global Warming

[Sabre]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Fastfwd,

Obviously, you didn't read Sabre's excellent posts.....or else, you are dismissing them out of hand.

Can't have any counterpoints, no matter how relevant, disrupting those politically correct, environmentalist brain-waves...can we?

My thanks, Shuckins, though really, I'm just trying to point out that there is relevant scientific data supporting a view different than the "consensus."  

This whole argument reminds me very much of the "Evolution vs. Intelligent Design" debate that continues to rage (however hard the Darwinists try to insist that there is in fact not debate).  One side advances scientific arguments and inferences from the evidence; the other side offers handwaving "just so" stories, philosophical arguments, circular logic, and arguments from authority.  Spend any time investigating that debate and you'll figure out which side is which...but that's a topic for a different thread:D .

[FiLtH]

From what Ive seen we are here as a result of the right circumstances. Lets say we are condensate on a can of beer. We are clinging there because the can is cold enough, and the air is warm enough. If the beer gets too warm, or the air cools off, the condensate disappears. As we would.

  Better drink up and enjoy it.

[lazs2]

oboe... I agree with you that no one is going to run economies into the ground to fix this boogey man.

I think that a lot of money will be spent to fix things that aren't broke or that would be better spent letting the free market correct them.

I both have more faith in humans than that... I mean, I have more faith in humans than to think they can be frieghtened into running their economies into the ground and that they are smart enough to figure out that.

As was said... I don't think that people, realizing that the smoke coming out of the chimney might be normal, that they will say "hey... if I really think that the house is on fire and needs to be soaked... I might ruin everything in it."

I also have less faith in that...  if the temp stays warm for a few weeks this summer...  the slack jawed and superstitious amoung us will be doing human sacrafices to the science gods but if it is a mild summer...  we will just all forget all about it... or.. if some really really cool actor get's in trouble or a divorce.. we will forget all about it.

lazs

[Mace2004]

Really?  You guys don't think that some politicians will run the economy into the ground trying to "solve" global warming?  How about this? Besides the obvious inaccuracies such as "Bush" withdrew us from Kyoto how about this little line."

Like California's recent laws, the Western pact also seeks to regulate imports of electricity from dirty coal-burning power plants from surrounding states outside of the agreement.

Cha-ching! Any idea where California's power crisis came from a few years ago?  Right, not enough power generation in California so they had to buy it from out of state, the very "dirty coal-burning" plants the law prohibits them from using.  Has California embarked on a massive stealth power generation program?  Not that I've heard of.  You also realize that the state almost went bankrupt buying electricity...of course politicians would do nothing to trash the economy. So, make it impossible to build power plants in your own state and then outlaw the purchase of power from outside the state...lol.  Here's another little gem:

Greenhouse pacts on both coasts could send a message to smokestack and transportation businesses and encourage them to lobby for a national greenhouse plan, rather than face patchwork local regulations, Baumann said.

Cha-ching! So, basically the entire US will be held hostage to what a few states want.  Why has the price of gasoline gone up?  Of course there are numerous reasons but one of the big spikes in prices is due to the changeover to specially formulated fuels for specific regions based on the time of year.  It adds enormous costs to gas production and now we can expect that these few states will successfully dictate that the entire US fund "solutions" to their disaster de jour.  Now, if every signatory of Kyoto actually lived up to the requirements (none are even close) we'd theoritically reduce global warming by .7 deg C in 50 years.  How much is this West coast pact going to help and at what cost to the taxpayer?

[FastFwd]

Originally posted by Mace2004
Ahhhh...we're global warming "denialists"...just like those Holocaust "denialists"...nice try.  Interesting idea regarding the fire vs water bill but you don't quite have the argument right.  The point isn't that you need to put out a fire and are too worried about the water bill, the question is "is there a fire at all?"  I'll rephrase your little story so maybe you can grasp reality.  "That's like hearing someone tell you your house is burning down but the only smoke is coming out of the chimney."  

Denialism is futile, when the effects of global warming can already be seen - meltdown of polar icecaps, climate shift, water shortages in regions that never experienced them before...

Of course, a major house fire can be made to LOOK like a chimney fire - if the onlooker chooses to wear blinkers - which I suspect is the case here.

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by FastFwd
Denialism is futile, when the effects of global warming can already be seen - meltdown of polar icecaps, climate shift, water shortages in regions that never experienced them before...

Of course, a major house fire can be made to LOOK like a chimney fire - if the onlooker chooses to wear blinkers - which I suspect is the case here.

LOL, the argument isn't about whether the earth is getting hotter or cooler, it's about whether or not man is causing it.  The earth has been warming up since the end of the little ice age from 1300 to 1850.  Before that the Earth warmed during the middle ages between 900 to 1300 and before that it warmed during the Roman warming period from 200BC to 600AD.  Of course between all these warming periods the earth cooled.  When Eric the Red landed in Greenland in the 900's, it really was green...of course that was followed by the little ice age and Greenland became pretty much uninhabitable.  Now we're supposed to worry that the Greenland ice sheets are melting?  Even worse we're supposed to blame outselves???  You don't have blinkers on, you're wearing blinders.

There is actually plenty of evidence that argues we're already on the backside of the warming period.  You claim a "meltdown of the polar icecaps"? Hummm...less than 2 percent of the Antarctic has experienced a reduction in ice, the rest has gained.  Climate shift? Where? How much? What's your proof? Water shortages?  Again where and when has the earth never experienced water shortage?  Yes, facts seldom can sway those of faith.  May Gaia give you her blessings.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by FastFwd
Denialism is futile, when the effects of global warming can already be seen - meltdown of polar icecaps, climate shift, water shortages in regions that never experienced them before...

source
A third relevant study is a recent paper in the Journal of Glaciology by Zwally et al. (2005) on the ice mass changes on Greenland and Antarctica. They use the same satellite obsevations (ERS 1 and 2) as Johanessen et al. and again find that the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins (-42 ± 2 Gt/year = -46 ± 2 km3/year below the equilibrium-line altitude - ELA), but growing in the inland (+53 ± 2 Gt/year = 58 ± 2 km3/year). The mass estimates have been converted to volume estimates here, assuming the density of ice is 0.917 g/cm3 at 0°C, so that the mass of one Gt of ice is roughly equivalent to 1.1km3 ice*. This means that the Greenland ice has an overall mass gain by +11 ± 3 Gt/year (=10 ± 2.7 km3/year) which they estimated implied a -0.03 mm/year SLE over the period 1992-2002.

what does this tell you?

[FastFwd]

Originally posted by Mace2004
LOL, the argument isn't about whether the earth is getting hotter or cooler, it's about whether or not man is causing it.  

I personally think "who's causing it" is irrelevant. In my "house on fire" analogy, that would be like going into the kitchen to get a beer from the refrig, finding that a pan containing oil had caught fire on the stove, and saying "well hey, it wasn't me who left the stove turned on" - then returning to the living room with your beer to watch the game.

You claim a "meltdown of the polar icecaps"? Hummm...less than 2 percent of the Antarctic has experienced a reduction in ice, the rest has gained. Climate shift? Where? How much? What's your proof? Water shortages?

Reread the thread. Pay attention to posts by tedrbr, 2bighorn, Angus and oboe. I'm not going to type in all the answers again when it's clear you still had your blinkers on when you read those posts the first time.

But I will say that it's time to bring Angus back in. He lives in Iceland, in an area where he can actually SEE the effects of global warming, and has already produced satellite photos clearly showing the Arctic ice meltdown since 1979.

For me, the argument isn't about whether or not man is causing global warming. The questions we should be asking ourselves are (1) What will happen to the earth in 25/50/100 years if man continues to burn fossil fuels at the current rate? (2)If we accept that the answer to (1) is an ecological calamity, then what steps can mankind take to reduce carbon emissions to safe levels to avert this disaster?

In the "house on fire" analogy, I'd say it's a case of turning off the stove and making it safe - even if it was someone else who left it turned on while they went to answer the phone.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by FastFwd
I personally think "who's causing it" is irrelevant.

Who is causing it is the whole argument.  Is it natural or is it our fault?  If it's a natural fluctuation, there is not much we can do.  If its 50% our fault, maybe we can temper the effects and slow it down, but we still cannot stop it.  If is all ours, then maybe we can do a great deal.

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by FastFwd
I personally think "who's causing it" is irrelevant. In my "house on fire" analogy, that would be like going into the kitchen to get a beer from the refrig, finding that a pan containing oil had caught fire on the stove, and saying "well hey, it wasn't me who left the stove turned on" - then returning to the living room with your beer to watch the game.
 Reread the thread. Pay attention to posts by tedrbr, 2bighorn, Angus and oboe. I'm not going to type in all the answers again when it's clear you still had your blinkers on when you read those posts the first time.

But I will say that it's time to bring Angus back in. He lives in Iceland, in an area where he can actually SEE the effects of global warming, and has already produced satellite photos clearly showing the Arctic ice meltdown since 1979.

For me, the argument isn't about whether or not man is causing global warming. The questions we should be asking ourselves are (1) What will happen to the earth in 25/50/100 years if man continues to burn fossil fuels at the current rate? (2)If we accept that the answer to (1) is an ecological calamity, then what steps can mankind take to reduce carbon emissions to safe levels to avert this disaster?

In the "house on fire" analogy, I'd say it's a case of turning off the stove and making it safe - even if it was someone else who left it turned on while they went to answer the phone.

Excellent use of circular logic.  You say it doesn't matter if global warming is caused by man or not BUT we need to take steps to "reduce carbon emissions to safe levels to avert this disaster?"  Are you insane?  You're actually arguing with a straight face that even if man is not the cause of global warming we still need to do something to counteract it???  Man has survived on the planet because we learn to adapt.  We're also one of the broadest reaching species on the planet with humans living from the poles to the equator.  If the Earth continues to warm, on it's own btw, then we'll adapt.  If the Earth is actually nearing a cooling period again, then we'll adapt again.

Angus isn't seeing the results of global warming, he's seeing  his local weather.  I live in Florida, I saw lots of hurricanes over the past few years, people said we were "seeing the results of global warming" then they stopped....hummmmm.  There is a huge difference between local weather and global climate and yes, I've read the posts and find them interesting arguments but unconvincing as proof.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by FiLtH
 Better drink up and enjoy it.

The gentleman from New Hampshire has been recognized and noted.

[lazs2]

fstfwd...  you said..

"For me, the argument isn't about whether or not man is causing global warming. The questions we should be asking ourselves are (1) What will happen to the earth in 25/50/100 years if man continues to burn fossil fuels at the current rate? (2)If we accept that the answer to (1) is an ecological calamity, then what steps can mankind take to reduce carbon emissions to safe levels to avert this disaster?"

Those are excellent questions...   Ones that your doom and gloom scientists will not answer because the answers do not exist or... they are really really "inconvienient".

If we are at the end of a natural warming trend then nothing we do will stop the earth from cooling.   If we are near the end then nothing will stop the earth from warming a little longer.   If man is only a slight producer of Co2 and if Co2 is the sign that a warming trend is ending...  as it has always been in the past... then why should we care about it?   What disaster does the tiny bit of Co2 production of man portend?  

If the overall temp of the globe is staying the same or cooling will you then relax a little or...  

Will you ask that we burn all kinds of energy to help stop global cooling?  or... will there be some reason that man is causing global cooling.. some thing that someone can get rich and powerful on by scaring you out of your panties?

lazs

[FastFwd]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Who is causing it is the whole argument.  Is it natural or is it our fault?

Granted, that's what a lot of the shouting is about, but is not the important issue.

If it's a natural fluctuation, there is not much we can do.  If its 50% our fault, maybe we can temper the effects and slow it down, but we still cannot stop it.  If is all ours, then maybe we can do a great deal.

I agree almost entirely! Except that if it's a natural fluctuation, you're saying that there's not much we can do. I agree that there's not much we can do about what NATURE is doing, but there's a great deal we can do about what WE are doing, and thereby offset what nature is doing in order to get atmospheric CO2 concentrations to within safe levels. The denialists' stance seems to be one of "if Nature is responsible for even a tiny amount of global warming, then the tens of billions of tons of carbon that mankind releases into the atmosphere doesn't make any difference". And that's baloney. At a recent science conference involving 2000 scientists from nearly 200 countries, the collective opinion was that man is 90% to blame for the warming and climate change we see today.

Mace2004

You say it doesn't matter if global warming is caused by man or not BUT we need to take steps to "reduce carbon emissions to safe levels to avert this disaster?" Are you insane? You're actually arguing with a straight face that even if man is not the cause of global warming we still need to do something to counteract it???

That's EXACTLY what I am saying! - except that I don't believe I'm insane.  

Think back to the burning house analogy. If you saw that a piece of coal had fallen out of an open fire onto the hearth rug and threatened to cause a fire, are you saying that you'd do nothing to prevent that fire because you were not the one who put that burning coal on the hearth rug and therefore didn't feel you bore any responsibility for the fire that might start as a result? Are you insane???! And - are you under 25 by any chance? - just curious

Angus isn't seeing the results of global warming, he's seeing his local weather.

No, he has also posted pics of Arctic meltdown taken from space, and which cover an area of hundreds of thousands of square miles, if not more.

There is a huge difference between local weather and global climate

I don't think that scientific conference was held to discuss the local weather - do you?


Lazs2

Those are excellent questions... Ones that your doom and gloom scientists will not answer because the answers do not exist or... they are really really "inconvienient".

No Lazs2, the answers are already forthcoming. Of course, we must wait to see if the world population as a whole is prepared to listen. If the people in this thread are anything to go by, I'd say there's a 50-50 chance.

[john9001]

""Think back to the burning house analogy""

all analogies are stupid. lose the analogy.


edit.. if i had a choice between global warming and a ice age, i pick warming. but i don't think we have a choice.

if you look into recorded history, times of warming were times of prosperity and growth, cold periods were times of famine, sickness, war.

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by john9001
""Think back to the burning house analogy""

all analogies are stupid. lose the analogy.


edit.. if i had a choice between global warming and a ice age, i pick warming. but i don't think we have a choice.

if you look into recorded history, times of warming were times of prosperity and growth, cold periods were times of famine, sickness, war.

Well his analogy is stupid for sure, comparing global warming to a burning house on the info we have is rather alarmist and silly. In fact it is just more scare mongering.

The analogy should be this.

AN electrician/heater repairman tells you if you don’t do something soon the heater in your house is going to malfunction and cause a fire. Sometime in the next 50 to 100 years.

He can't tell you exactly why. He can't give you evidence that his competitor cant refute, and he wants to sell you a 5 million$ heater to fix it. His track record for heater scare mongering is bad, and has proved false in the past.



Sadly fastfwd seems to come from the extremist Islam like branch of the church of global warming. I would be careful; he may blow himself all over you if you aren’t properly deferential towards his gods. .