This is where Global Warming is headed

[Joe Schmoe]

As if the Ariel Atom is any different?

Oh, I didn't realize it was open-cockpit. Still safer than a motorcycle on wet or icy roads, though.

 

[annunaki]

Oil is not going to just run out one day.

It will slowly get more and more expensive as the supply dwindles and we resort to more expensive efforts to extract it (coal shale, deep ocean drilling, etc).

Eventually it will get so expensive, and alternatives get so inexpensive, that a switch will begin.

The problem is that the oil companies are creating artificial shortages now to increase the profits they receive.They will milk this along until they can get every last cent out of it they can. You heard it here first, they will significantly be tied into the next fuel source we use as well because they have so much involvement at the government level. To me, it is a way of control using a necessary commodity to do it.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

The problem is that the oil companies are creating artificial shortages now to increase the profits they receive.They will milk this along until they can get every last cent out of it they can. You heard it here first, they will significantly be tied into the next fuel source we use as well because they have so much involvement at the government level. To me, it is a way of control using a necessary commodity to do it.

Of course. If they could make us pay for the air we breathe, they would.

 

[Johnd]

The problem is that the oil companies are creating artificial shortages now to increase the profits they receive.

Yes, but make no mistake: it is nonetheless a LIMITED resource...and "they" are unquestionably in business whose bottom line is the dollar. Much akin to those that will happily drink from the mirage in the desert...for as long as the mirage is presented.

Yet another word to the wise: Conserve energy and our resources!

 

[mtrycrafts]

Good point. There are a lot of potential ecological crises worse than climate change. One is not having enough clean drinking water where it is needed. Another is deforestation (and the subsequent reduction of oxygen content in the air.) A third is pollution (some Chinese cities are already approaching the point of being unfit for human habitation due to air quality.) The worst may be the severe drop in the bee population (if bees are gone, all crops will fail.)
This list only scratches the surface.

And should wake up a few but nooo, that will not happen and will wait to extremes. End game or very difficult times.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I think the man made issue is a definite concern, but my poit would be how do we not know that is might be the natural cycle of the earth? I mean it happened before with an ice age and a "dethaw", who's say that we are doing some bad things? Scientist that weren't around when it happened before? Don't get me wrong I am not for pollution but just throwing another view point out there.

Well, ice records go back a very long time, 100,000 years at least?
It tells us important factors in the atmosphere, levels of certain gases like CO2. It seems to be higher now than ever before and the rate of change over the past 150+ years is rather fast and accelerating.
But, you cannot stop a battleship 2 ft from the dock when it is in an accelerating mode.

One can see how much the ice has receded over the past 50 years or 100.
Polar bears are close to being on the endangered list.

I rather save now for retirement than a week before I am ready to retire

 

[mtrycrafts]

The scientist authors of that paper are proposing that the conditions for any warming of the earth today were set in motion 800 years ago and human activity of any magnitude is unlikely to influence the result..

And the rest of the scientists have a different opinion on it.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Bush is doing an excellent job of destroying the US economy, without regard to global warming.

And he should care because? The history books will reflect badly on him? He'll be dead by then and could care less. But his buddies will be rich while he is alive. Now that matters more.

 

[tbewick]

Hi Davemcc,

I watched some of that programme as well. I think that it is possible to make some reasonable criticisms of the IPCC process, but the IPCC's physical science report does represent the work of respectable scientists. Therefore I think that the report, along with the other IPCC publications, are worth looking at. The Channel 4 programme discussed the correlation between solar activity and the global mean temperature on the Earth. Joanna Haigh, who is an atmospheric physicist at Imperial College, London, has said that solar activity can explain around one-third of the temperature record, but you need to include human activities to explain the record fully [1]. She also said that the apparently good correlation between cosmic rays and cloud cover depends on a rather selective interpretation of the data [2].

I didn't watch all of the Channel 4 programme, only the last half-hour or so. One issue which was briefly discussed was climate models. Meteorologist Prof. Richard Lindzen of MIT thinks that models are inadequate representation of the climate system's internal variability [3]. Thus you could take the view that the science is underdeveloped so no action should be taken to curb carbon dioxide emissions. Other climate scientists who work on producing climate models often take a different view. They think that despite the inadequacies of climate models, they are still good enough to inform government policy. The uncertainty in models is reflected in the IPCC report, where different models show different responses to changes in external forcings, e.g. carbon dioxide. The greatest confidence are in simulations of large (global and continental) scale, because these have the best signal (human-induced change) to noise (natural climate variability) ratio. My own view is that the scientific backing for the IPCC is strong enough to justify model findings being used in making policy decisions.

I think the stuff about the temperature record needs to be taken in the right context. It is unanimously agreed that the global mean temperature increased 0.6 degrees Celsius over the 20th century. Surface temperature reconstructions suggest that the rate of warming of the late-20th century is unusual when viewed over the past 400 years [4]. Reconstructions earlier than 400 years are less clear. It is sometimes said that the medieval period was warmer than it is today. What is important for attribution studies is the rate of temperature change, not the absolute level of temperature [5]. Therefore, even if temperatures were found to be warmer in medieval times than today, it would not necessarily affect the attribution of the recent warming to human activities. Palaeoclimate surface temperature reconstructions are useful for testing climate models and for learning about the Earth's natural climate variability. It is, however, the physical description of the climate system that is the primary evidence for human-induced climate change [4]. Physical descriptions are provided through climate system models and radiative forcing arguments.

The final issue raised in the Channel 4 programme was that of international development. It was argued that policies designed to slow climate change could hinder efforts to reduce poverty in developing countries. Clearly then, any climate policy needs to be economically efficient and allow for continued international development. As you'd expect, an economic analysis of climate change is very difficult, it is a long-term issue and requires all kinds of value judgements that are open to dispute. What I've read has lead me to believe that climate change is something that needs to be addressed because of its potential impacts on the poor.

[1] Prof. Joanna Haigh public lecture podcast 'Sunspots and Climate Change', at the University of Bath.
http://www.bath.ac.uk/podcast/lectures/008-podbath-sunspots.mp3
[2] Prof. Joanna Haigh written contribution in 'Scientific Response to The Great Global Warming Swindle', p5.
http://www.cpi.cam.ac.uk/gore/pdf/GWS Scientific Responses3.pdf
[3] Prof. Richard Lindzen written statement to the UK House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/5012506.htm
[4] 'Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2000 Years'. National Research Council.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html
[5] Prof. Hans von Storch testimony to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, US House of Representatives. p217.
http://w3k.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/Hearings_July2006.pdf

 

[Johnd]

And the rest of the scientists have a different opinion on it.

Haaa. Very good mtrycrafts. One can always find opposing scientific views in any field.

Simply put, the evidence is overwhelming that we have done irreversible damage to our ozone layer, and that the glaciers and ice masses are melting at an abnormal pace. I will await someone to proffer "scientific evidence" to contradict these facts...none exists. But I am sure a "scientific opinion" contrary to those facts is published somewhere...

 

[Johnd]

What is important for attribution studies is the rate of temperature change, not the absolute level of temperature [5].

Precisely.

Therefore, even if temperatures were found to be warmer in medieval times than today, it would not necessarily affect the attribution of the recent warming to human activities. Palaeoclimate surface temperature reconstructions are useful for testing climate models and for learning about the Earth's natural climate variability. It is, however, the physical description of the climate system that is the primary evidence for human-induced climate change [4]. Physical descriptions are provided through climate system models and radiative forcing arguments.

That does seem to be one of the favorite arguments proffered, doesn't it? (It was warmer back then). Good post thewick!

 

[Rickster71]

Hello all,
I'm all for helping our planet, and doing what we can as tenants of earth.
My dilemma is this:
Let's say we establish a timeline from the beginning of the universe, and extend it until the end of days.
As far as the age of our universe is concerned, the amount of total time any life whatsoever is on earth is a blink of an eye.
It's really hard to fathom millions, upon millions, upon..(you get the idea) of years.

Whatever side of the aisle we are on, one thing is true.
The scientists performing the environmental studies, are funded by one group or another. Each with a dog in this fight.
When you pay million$ for any type of study, one tends to get the results they want.

Is it mans unquenchable narcissism, that allows him/her to believe we can have influence over mother nature, one way or the other?

This is why it's a bit a of dilemma. (for me)
Rick

 

[Johnd]

Is it mans unquenchable narcissism, that allows him/her to believe we can have influence over mother nature, one way or the other?

This is why it's a bit a of dilemma. (for me)
Rick

You have a point. One always needs to verify the validity of any study. But not all studies or scientists are so self-serving...some are out only for the truth.

 

[Davemcc]

Simply put, the evidence is overwhelming that we have done irreversible damage to our ozone layer, and that the glaciers and ice masses are melting at an abnormal pace.

OK, where is this evidence that we are responsible for the damage? I would like to review it. At least you don't call it "fact".

I will await someone to proffer "scientific evidence" to contradict these facts...none exists.

Oh, darn. Look at that. Your "evidence" just turned into "fact". However, there is plenty of "evidence" to counter your "evidence" if you care to look with an open mind. But I already know that your mind is closed and any further comment or information on this issue is wasted.

But I am sure a "scientific opinion" contrary to those facts is published somewhere...

You have lumped two very different and significant issues into a single set of "facts". One could certainly agree that the temperature has risen, yet dispute that we have caused it, but not in the way you have framed the challenge. Further, your conclusion suggests that only opinion could contest your facts, when in fact your facts are only evidence and is perfectly countered by evidence.

You have bundled your argument into a "false dilemma" which is equally as disingenuous as the straw-man argument, irrespective of the deliberate confusion and unwarranted leap of logic from "evidence" to "fact".

 

[jonnythan]

Whoa whoa whoa.

You're saying that human output didnt' cause the damage in the ozone layer!?

You're confusing your issues here. If you attempt to make the claim that ozone depletion is not caused by human activity, then you immediately brand yourself as absolutely clueless and probably politically motivated.

It is a fact that ozone depletion is mostly caused by human activity.

 

[Johnd]

Whoa whoa whoa.

You're saying that human output didnt' cause the damage in the ozone layer!?

You're confusing your issues here. If you attempt to make the claim that ozone depletion is not caused by human activity, then you immediately brand yourself as absolutely clueless and probably politically motivated.

It is a fact that ozone depletion is mostly caused by human activity.

Succint. Direct. Accurate. All traits that I admire.

Very good jonnythan.

(Some will argue that the sun burned a hole in the layer! )

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Blah, blah, blah......

In the next 30-50-100 years, the same idiot environmentalist establishment will be warning/predicting of another approaching man-made ice age, global doom & gloom, billions of deaths.......Yadda,Yadda, Yadda,.......unless we take immediate action. They've flipflopped before, and they'll do it again. One thing is certain......they'll be calling for more government control and excessively restrictive-economic policy, again, to reverse whatever is the current trend of the day. ....and of course, the media and idiot establishment will completely forget/ignore their past incorrect, hysterical predictions as they jump onto the current bandwagon.

Considering the earth has experienced multitudes of natural ice ages/warming ages throughout it's history (billions of years).....to see how these tools can take a blink of an eyes worth of data in geologic terms to conclude "MAN_MADE" climate change............is beyond ignorant. Simple warming/cooling is the least of our worries!! There are many other naturally occurring & space based events that take place over long periods of time that will cause our certain demise. ....and sorry kook environmentalist.....mankind will be powerless to stop these catastrophic events.

With that said..... I too am an environmentalist!! The only thing that separates myself from those frantic/arm waving alarmists is that I limit my environmentalism to actions/policy/regulations to things we really can actually exude control....and of course... only those actions that make economic sense need apply.

Sorry......but I'm not willing to totally **** up the economy over something we can't even control. Besides....warming is a GOOD thing!!!!

 

[Johnd]

Blah, blah, blah......

In the next 30-50-100 years, the same idiot environmentalist establishment will be warning/predicting of another approaching man-made ice age, global doom & gloom, billions of deaths.......Yadda,Yadda, Yadda,.......unless we take immediate action. They've flipflopped before, and they'll do it again. One thing is certain......they'll be calling for more government control and excessively restrictive-economic policy, again, to reverse whatever is the current trend of the day. ....and of course, the media and idiot establishment will completely forget/ignore their past incorrect, hysterical predictions as they jump onto the current bandwagon.

Considering the earth has experienced multitudes of natural ice ages/warming ages throughout it's history (billions of years).....to see how these tools can take a blink of an eyes worth of data in geologic terms to conclude "MAN_MADE" climate change............is beyond ignorant. Simple warming/cooling is the least of our worries!! There are many other naturally occurring & space based events that take place over long periods of time that will cause our certain demise. ....and sorry kook environmentalist.....mankind will be powerless to stop these catastrophic events.

With that said..... I too am an environmentalist!! The only thing that separates myself from those frantic/arm waving alarmists is that I limit my environmentalism to actions/policy/regulations to things we really can actually exude control....and of course... only those actions that make economic sense need apply.

Sorry......but I'm not willing to totally **** up the economy over something we can't even control. Besides....warming is a GOOD thing!!!!

Utter genius. You've outdone yourself once again bnut.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Haaa. Very good mtrycrafts. One can always find opposing scientific views in any field.

I am just reading an article in SI that there is a microbiologist Peter Duesberg at University of California, insisting that HIV is harmless and all the nonsense to go with it, an AIDs denier And he teaches? At a university level?

 

[Davemcc]

Whoa whoa whoa.

You're saying that human output didnt' cause the damage in the ozone layer!?

You're confusing your issues here. If you attempt to make the claim that ozone depletion is not caused by human activity, then you immediately brand yourself as absolutely clueless and probably politically motivated.

It is a fact that ozone depletion is mostly caused by human activity.

To my knowledge, there has been a hole in the ozone for exactly as long as there has been a scientific instrument to detect the hole. One can only wonder how many millennia this hole existed before we had the ability and instrumentation to find it.

Nice argumentative tactic there, insult anybody in advance that might dispute your unsubstantiated claim. Throwing a great big "IF" into your sentence does not disguise that your whole argument rests on an ad hominem. When you guys are done bullying your way through the discussion with argumentative fallacies, perhaps you could contribute some civil discourse.

If the man made origins of the hole in the ozone is established "fact", it should be simple enough for you to post some link or information source to show it is fact, without resorting to challenging anybody's mental capacity or motives.