Is man causing global warming?
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:35:11 AM
permalink
I'm a natural skeptic. Does the Wizard have an opinion on the validity of arguments that global warming exists and that man is the cause? Have you seen enough data to make any conclusion from a mathematical basis?
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:16:53 PM
permalink
I would certainly agree that global warming exists. How much of it is caused by man is the harder question. I lean towards believing that carbon based pollution, including livestock, is positively correlated to global warming, but there are other factors at play. Even without global warming reasons, I favor efforts to use less energy. I think a good start would be a tax system that is based on what we consume, not what we create.
As a disclaimer, I don’t consider myself an expert on this topic by any means.
As a disclaimer, I don’t consider myself an expert on this topic by any means.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
February 18th, 2010 at 9:55:29 PM
permalink
There was a former project called Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate or ATOC where a steady low frequency hum is sent through the deep sound channel. Because the speed of sound is dependent on the temperature of the water it should change over time if the water is increasing in temperature even a fraction of a degree.
The advantage of this temperature measurement is that it is a single measurement over a large global region, and the deep ocean is below the effects of weather which only effect the surface miles.
The ongoing research is called NPAL .
The advantage of this temperature measurement is that it is a single measurement over a large global region, and the deep ocean is below the effects of weather which only effect the surface miles.
The ongoing research is called NPAL .
February 18th, 2010 at 10:07:52 PM
permalink
I agree with the Wizard (which is a good bet on this site). The power of statistics is pretty good however at pretty much showing a trend which will agree with your beliefs, and I lived the consequences of not going along with the prevailing beliefs.
In 2nd year university I was able to highly correlate global temperature fluctuations with volcanic eruptions and sunspots. During my final summer I was on an NSERC study with a professor who wanted to prove that there was a relationship between a Cepheid's magnitude fluctuations with another factor (I think it might have been temperature). My research disproved her theory and I was quietly held in disfavor for the following year.
That said, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to conclude that the earth's current temperature us strongly related to the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. It is highly probable that our use of fossil fuels contributes to the presence of these gases.
Even if not true, what is true is that the earth's resources are finite and we have a duty to conserve what we can and to invent technologies to use these resources at a slower rate and to diversify out energy use so that our children can grow up with the same opportunities that we did.
In 2nd year university I was able to highly correlate global temperature fluctuations with volcanic eruptions and sunspots. During my final summer I was on an NSERC study with a professor who wanted to prove that there was a relationship between a Cepheid's magnitude fluctuations with another factor (I think it might have been temperature). My research disproved her theory and I was quietly held in disfavor for the following year.
That said, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to conclude that the earth's current temperature us strongly related to the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. It is highly probable that our use of fossil fuels contributes to the presence of these gases.
Even if not true, what is true is that the earth's resources are finite and we have a duty to conserve what we can and to invent technologies to use these resources at a slower rate and to diversify out energy use so that our children can grow up with the same opportunities that we did.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
February 19th, 2010 at 8:08:52 AM
permalink
Quote: marksolbergI'm a natural skeptic. Does the Wizard have an opinion on the validity of arguments that global warming exists and that man is the cause? Have you seen enough data to make any conclusion from a mathematical basis?
I think a bigger question is how can we prove a trend with so little data. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. The USA has kept temperature records for about 150 years. Most og the world has kept them for far less time. The temperature records we do have are not totally comparable since before the 1950s or so they took temps in the cities, since then the airport. In places lie Vegas and Phoenix the airport is close in, but in many places it is 20-30+ miles away, enough to make a difference.
Even if we skip all that 150 years of 4.5 billion is .0000033%. This like asking 100 people in the USA who they want for POTUS and projecting that. That is based on 300MM population and not taking into account those < 18 years old and non-voters. It gets worse when you look at this is the 150 years of USA temps and places like Africa may have no reliable records. So it would be like asking 100 people in just say San Francisco and New York who they would vote for and projecting off that. Yikes!
I freely admit my math is on a level of Algebra I and a few statistics courses. So the exacts may be off a little, but the premise is the same--we don't have a long enough data set to prove a meaningful trendline. "Tree Ring" data will not give anything near an accurate enough reading to go back further since there are more varriables than temperature in tree growth.
Look at all the data problems and "lost" records we have discovered. Something literally does not add up!
But if all of this doesn't make you a skeptic, ask yourself why more taxes and less freedom is the "answer."
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
February 19th, 2010 at 9:15:00 AM
permalink
Quote:I think a bigger question is how can we prove a trend with so little data. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. The USA has kept temperature records for about 150 years. Most og the world has kept them for far less time. The temperature records we do have are not totally comparable since before the 1950s or so they took temps in the cities, since then the airport. In places like Vegas and Phoenix the airport is close in, but in many places it is 20-30+ miles away, enough to make a difference.
The earth has tons of records that establish links between atmospheric carbon dioxide with temperature, in carbon-dating, soil samples, and other methods. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been measured over time and the temperature has also been measured. Of course all of the measurements is scientific theory and since we weren't alive to take the records, it could all be a pile of bull.
The science behind the amount of radiation retained in the atmosphere as a result of increased greenhouse gases is well established. The less radiation that is reflected back into space results in temperature increase. The radiation equation can accurately predict the global temperature of the earth and explains the effect that the presence of our atmosphere has on our temperature.
Now, are there feedbacks that enhance or negate these effects? Absolutely! The radiation received by the earth is not constant because the sun has different outputs. The reflectivity of the earth (its albedo) changes according to the cloud cover and ice content on the oceans. Volcanoes and our activity spew dust into the atmosphere, lowering the radiation received.
Quote:Even if we skip all that 150 years of 4.5 billion is .0000033%. This like asking 100 people in the USA who they want for POTUS and projecting that. That is based on 300MM population and not taking into account those < 18 years old and non-voters. It gets worse when you look at this is the 150 years of USA temps and places like Africa may have no reliable records. So it would be like asking 100 people in just say San Francisco and New York who they would vote for and projecting off that. Yikes!
You are relying and disputing on one set of records (temperature readings). It has been proven that even with the airport and discrepancies taken into effect, the temperature records still show a warming trend.
Quote:But if all of this doesn't make you a skeptic, ask yourself why more taxes and less freedom is the "answer."
AZ, the scientists don't work for the government. The overwhelming consensus of scientists all over the world (who are funded independently) pretty much concur that global warming is the real deal.
There are plenty of other arguments to support using less fossil fuels: reliance on other neutral and or unfriendly governments that control the world's supply and the reduction of the supply of these fuels.
--
And as for the question of more taxes and less freedom, if your household is in debt, you have two choices: increase income or reduce spending. Clearly, the government, under Clinton, Bush, and now Obama, aren't really interested in reducing spending, so the only choice (to them) is to raise taxes.
And what is less freedom anyway? The fact that small businesses have to provide health insurance and that citizens without health insurance have to pay into a government plan based on income? How does that relate to less freedom? I would think that giving the 40 million Americans the ability to live a healthy life without having to declare medical bankruptcy would result in more freedom.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
February 19th, 2010 at 9:41:33 AM
permalink
Quote:AZ, the scientists don't work for the government. The overwhelming consensus of scientists all over the world (who are funded independently) pretty much concur that global warming is the real deal.
Actually the scientists do in fact work for the government. NASA is government and universities are government funded. The UN is government funded worldwide. And 30 years ago the "consensus" was we were having "global cooling." What would be more rational to say is that the temperature of the earth is not constant; the radiation of the sun is not constant; and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not constant. We know warming and cooling trends last up to thousands and tens of thousands of years. This is not something humans can control.
Quote:There are plenty of other arguments to support using less fossil fuels: reliance on other neutral and or unfriendly governments that control the world's supply and the reduction of the supply of these fuels.
The market can sort that out. If we were serious about using less "imported" oil we would be drilling in ANWR and offshore. We are not. Dik Cheney made the totally correct point that conservastion may be noble, but it will not make us energy independent. The population grows, the economy grows, old wells produce less, thus we should be drilling.
It is not for "the government" to decide we need to move off of oil. The government didn't get Drake to drill a well in 1859. If solar and wind are so good, someone should develop them. "Global Warming" is proving to be a fad and fake what with all the lost records and spoofed numbers we are finding. I don't want to destroy our economy based on it.
Quote:And as for the question of more taxes and less freedom, if your household is in debt, you have two choices: increase income or reduce spending. Clearly, the government, under Clinton, Bush, and now Obama, aren't really interested in reducing spending, so the only choice (to them) is to raise taxes.
Has been the case for far too long, but if you look around people are finally saying "enough." NJ will be a big test. New govenor says "no new taxes, let teachers take a pay cut." Can he stand up is the question.
Quote:And what is less freedom anyway? The fact that small businesses have to provide health insurance and that citizens without health insurance have to pay into a government plan based on income? How does that relate to less freedom? I would think that giving the 40 million Americans the ability to live a healthy life without having to declare medical bankruptcy would result in more freedom.
Simple. Right now I have the freedom to choose to not buy health insurance or buy a minimal plan and use that money for something else I prefer. Requiring small businesses to buy more health insurance for employees will just mean fewer small businesses and fewer jobs at those that remain. If the 40MM want health insurance they should buy it and give up something else. HEALTH INSURANCE IS NOT A "RIGHT."
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
February 19th, 2010 at 9:43:40 AM
permalink
Just wondering how many of you have heard that the UN Global Warming Committee has recently announced that the Himalaya glaciers will not have melted in 25 years as previously stated. It is major news in Europe but has gotten very little press in North America. Apparently the Indian scientist from whom they had accepted the data has now admitted he fugded his numbers.
I admit to being a sceptic on climate change but will believe good science. This is at least the second admittance of fudged data in the last year. I think the issue has become too much of a religion for many people now. The additude for far too many people on both sides of the issue has become my mind is made up don't confuse me with facts.
I admit to being a sceptic on climate change but will believe good science. This is at least the second admittance of fudged data in the last year. I think the issue has become too much of a religion for many people now. The additude for far too many people on both sides of the issue has become my mind is made up don't confuse me with facts.
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
February 19th, 2010 at 9:46:56 AM
permalink
Good thing that your opinion is now clear, AZ. Let me say however that I do like you as a fellow citizen of the world. I don't want to get into an argument with you online as there are facts to support both sides of the equation. And this Canadian whack-job lefties don't want to get into any discussion online about the merits of government funded health care.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
February 19th, 2010 at 10:01:58 AM
permalink
I look at it as a risk/reward thing. The risks of not changing our way of living are high, and the rewards of changing them are also high even if global warming is not caused by our mechanized way of life.
However... despite that my opinion is that what was sustainable on a small scale becomes unsustainable on a large scale, I believe that the reality of it is that nothing will change. There are too many vested interests, not individual interests but national and cultural interests that will not be changed. Rational arguments do not get aired; only the shrill denunciations of the fringe of the anti- crowd and the apocalyptic scenarios of the fringe of the pro- crowd get any air time.
I get my only real chance to have my voice heard once a year, at the polls. I take it. It's all I can do.
However... despite that my opinion is that what was sustainable on a small scale becomes unsustainable on a large scale, I believe that the reality of it is that nothing will change. There are too many vested interests, not individual interests but national and cultural interests that will not be changed. Rational arguments do not get aired; only the shrill denunciations of the fringe of the anti- crowd and the apocalyptic scenarios of the fringe of the pro- crowd get any air time.
I get my only real chance to have my voice heard once a year, at the polls. I take it. It's all I can do.
A falling knife has no handle.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:25:27 AM
permalink
Quote: boymimboGood thing that your opinion is now clear, AZ. Let me say however that I do like you as a fellow citizen of the world. I don't want to get into an argument with you online as there are facts to support both sides of the equation. And this Canadian whack-job lefties don't want to get into any discussion online about the merits of government funded health care.
It's never anything personal. I do often warn people, "you ask my opinion you will yget it." Ah, the benefits of not running for office.
Cheers
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
February 19th, 2010 at 3:16:12 PM
permalink
The Wizard is wrong! If he is correct then the Chinese are the villans here. Their population is 4X ours.
To briefly illustrate: The Chinese produce 4X the amount of greenhouse gases than the U.S. just in flatulance for starters. India is a close second at about 3X more than us. Both are continuous and ongoing without any relief in sight.
Lastly when Mt. Saint Helens erupted the "pollution" spewed forth exceeded our total output of greenhouse gases by a huge number, yet there were not any real adverse effects globally that were permanent or still remain. It seems that this good old earth of ours can cope with real natural disasters quite well, thank you.
tuttigym
To briefly illustrate: The Chinese produce 4X the amount of greenhouse gases than the U.S. just in flatulance for starters. India is a close second at about 3X more than us. Both are continuous and ongoing without any relief in sight.
Lastly when Mt. Saint Helens erupted the "pollution" spewed forth exceeded our total output of greenhouse gases by a huge number, yet there were not any real adverse effects globally that were permanent or still remain. It seems that this good old earth of ours can cope with real natural disasters quite well, thank you.
tuttigym
February 19th, 2010 at 3:25:36 PM
permalink
Global warming is a red herring. It's a distraction from the real problem: oil is finite and we're running out.
The world produces 84 million barrels of oil per day, and 5 million of that comes from one single oil field: Ghawar in Saudi Arabia. Ghawar went into production in 1951, and no other oil field on the planet even comes close to its size: it originally had reserves of 170 billion barrels. (For comparison, the most optimistic estimate of the size of ANWR in Alaska is 11 billion barrels. The pessimists believe ANWR has only 5 billion.)
All of us Americans alive after 1951 owe our modern lifestyle (cars, airplanes, fertilizers, plastics, WalMart) to Ghawar. If (God forbid) Ghawar dried up next week and oil production dropped from 84 million to 79 million overnight, I assure you that gas will no longer be $2.75 per gallon. A six percent decline in supply will not magically produce a six percent rise in price: inventories are way too tight and oil demand is inelastic (people still need to commute to work). The price spike will be MUCH higher!
Ghawar has been in decline since 1981, and it will probably take another century or so before it's completely dry. But the point is that it can't continue to produce 5 million barrels per day forever. As it slowly declines to 4 million then 3 million then 2 million barrels per day, other oil fields will have to boost output just to fill that gap. It's like running to stand still.
The problem is that Ghawar isn't the only field drying up. For example, Alaska's Prodhoe Bay field production is down 75 percent from its peak in 1987, Mexico's Canterell field is also down 75 percent from its peak in 2004. Texas' oil production peaked in 1974 at 3.5 million barrels per day. Today, Texas produces less than 1 million barrels per day. The oil fields in Venezuela, Indonesia, Syria, Egypt, Malaysia, Norway, Britain, Iran, Yemen, and Columbia are all in decline.
Sarah Palin and the GOP keep chanting "Drill, baby, drill!" as if Alaska's 11 billion barrels were somehow enough to solve the problem. It's not. The nicest thing I can say about the pro-drilling crowd is that they're not good at math. The heroin junkie won't conquer his addiction by finding a new dealer.
And did I mention that in 2009, more cars were sold in China than in America? This isn't sustainable...
The world produces 84 million barrels of oil per day, and 5 million of that comes from one single oil field: Ghawar in Saudi Arabia. Ghawar went into production in 1951, and no other oil field on the planet even comes close to its size: it originally had reserves of 170 billion barrels. (For comparison, the most optimistic estimate of the size of ANWR in Alaska is 11 billion barrels. The pessimists believe ANWR has only 5 billion.)
All of us Americans alive after 1951 owe our modern lifestyle (cars, airplanes, fertilizers, plastics, WalMart) to Ghawar. If (God forbid) Ghawar dried up next week and oil production dropped from 84 million to 79 million overnight, I assure you that gas will no longer be $2.75 per gallon. A six percent decline in supply will not magically produce a six percent rise in price: inventories are way too tight and oil demand is inelastic (people still need to commute to work). The price spike will be MUCH higher!
Ghawar has been in decline since 1981, and it will probably take another century or so before it's completely dry. But the point is that it can't continue to produce 5 million barrels per day forever. As it slowly declines to 4 million then 3 million then 2 million barrels per day, other oil fields will have to boost output just to fill that gap. It's like running to stand still.
The problem is that Ghawar isn't the only field drying up. For example, Alaska's Prodhoe Bay field production is down 75 percent from its peak in 1987, Mexico's Canterell field is also down 75 percent from its peak in 2004. Texas' oil production peaked in 1974 at 3.5 million barrels per day. Today, Texas produces less than 1 million barrels per day. The oil fields in Venezuela, Indonesia, Syria, Egypt, Malaysia, Norway, Britain, Iran, Yemen, and Columbia are all in decline.
Sarah Palin and the GOP keep chanting "Drill, baby, drill!" as if Alaska's 11 billion barrels were somehow enough to solve the problem. It's not. The nicest thing I can say about the pro-drilling crowd is that they're not good at math. The heroin junkie won't conquer his addiction by finding a new dealer.
And did I mention that in 2009, more cars were sold in China than in America? This isn't sustainable...
February 19th, 2010 at 3:57:02 PM
permalink
Quote: reno
Sarah Palin and the GOP keep chanting "Drill, baby, drill!" as if Alaska's 11 billion barrels were somehow enough to solve the problem. It's not. The nicest thing I can say about the pro-drilling crowd is that they're not good at math. The heroin junkie won't conquer his addiction by finding a new dealer.
[q/]
Nobody expects one field such as ANWR to solve the problem, at least no one on the pro-drilling side. Here is "being good at math." Since 1970 the world has pumped more than was proven reserves in that year. Yet there are more proven reserves now than there were in 1970. (You can check George Will's aarchives for the exact numbers. Fot the math challenged, it would be as though on monday I was worried I was running out of milk in my fridge, having just 1/2 gallon left. Then drinking a gallon on T-W-Th, and having 3/4 gallon in there on friday. A pro-drilling person realizes what happened: someone bought more milk.
The point is you may not believe "drilling will solve the problem" but NOT DRILLING will definately make the problem worse. For now we have yet to check over half the world's surface for oil (via the deep oceans) plus have 500+ Billion barrels in the oil sands of Canada plus possibly a trillion more in the oil shale here in the USA. Add to that some geologists are thinking the earth keeps producing oil over hundreds and not millions of years.
I'll put it this way. Make an electric car with the range of my gasoline car; that charges in the same time I take to fill the tank; plus cost the same or less; and then I'll consider buying it. Until then there is minimal reason for the average buyer to switch to electric.
And I could go on for hours about all the other products made from oil. This is the age of oil and no one on the planet will outlive it. For 35 years now I have been told we will run out in 30.All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
February 25th, 2010 at 6:29:44 PM
permalink
The power of economics is that it will "solve" the problem for us. Unfortunately, the outcomes of increasingly scarcer petroleum resources range from a renaissance of technology as alternative fuels are developed, to a "Mad Max" scenario as those with power take resources from those without. Is Nevada going to be able to keep the nuclear waste dump out of Yucca Mountain forever? No. It might not be our generation, but it will have to be dealt with eventually.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
February 27th, 2010 at 1:50:08 PM
permalink
I would just like to say, in general, that global warming is both real and false- it is real in the sense of the average global temperature is going up, and has been going up steadily since man arrived on the planet, but false in almost every single way it is popularized and exploited by political environmentalists. It is very fun to explain to people that global warming is totally real, but that Al Gore is a clueless, manipulative ass who has exploited this topic for personal gain.
Also, pretty much anything that the media says on the topic, one way or the other, is wrong or at least grossly misleading. That is a group of people who don't know any better picking up the same misinformation from each other, treating it like it is science, and circulating it. Most of them don't even know the difference between the words "weather" and "climate" (I'm looking at you, FOX). Every year there is a new article based on something taken grossly out of context. Take, for instance, the "global warming will cause an ice age" fiasco. Reporters saying "see, scientists said earlier that global warming would make the earth hotter and now they've flip-flopped." The truth behind all this comes from a single TIME article, where a scientist discusses how, because of so many variables, it is unclear as to what will ultimately happen because of temperature increases, and that if the environment is effected in certain ways by higher global temperatures, such as creating excess deserts, reflecting more sunlight out, it may eventually reverse the cycle, bringing about an ice age.
This has always been true. Climatology is so complex that increasing temperatures could cause a positive, negative, or neutral cycle and, while there has been speculation, only political heads and the media have been so crude as to say they know what will happen. On youtube, there is a series of informative videos on potholer54's YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54) that discusses these matters greatly. If you are interested in the topic, it is worth a glance. He also discusses the most recent media stupidity, involving the "global warming is a hoax!!!" e-mails and how disgustingly misunderstood they are. It's, unfortunately, all politics to the general public. Nobody seems to actually know anything about real climatology and most people don't care to know because it's difficult. I, personally, became fascinated with the topic when we had to learn about it for academic decathlon years ago.
***SHORT VERSION***: sorry for talking so much, global warming is real, though what it means to our future is unknown, check out the vids I linked, and don't listen to pundits, especially not on scientific matters.
Also, pretty much anything that the media says on the topic, one way or the other, is wrong or at least grossly misleading. That is a group of people who don't know any better picking up the same misinformation from each other, treating it like it is science, and circulating it. Most of them don't even know the difference between the words "weather" and "climate" (I'm looking at you, FOX). Every year there is a new article based on something taken grossly out of context. Take, for instance, the "global warming will cause an ice age" fiasco. Reporters saying "see, scientists said earlier that global warming would make the earth hotter and now they've flip-flopped." The truth behind all this comes from a single TIME article, where a scientist discusses how, because of so many variables, it is unclear as to what will ultimately happen because of temperature increases, and that if the environment is effected in certain ways by higher global temperatures, such as creating excess deserts, reflecting more sunlight out, it may eventually reverse the cycle, bringing about an ice age.
This has always been true. Climatology is so complex that increasing temperatures could cause a positive, negative, or neutral cycle and, while there has been speculation, only political heads and the media have been so crude as to say they know what will happen. On youtube, there is a series of informative videos on potholer54's YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54) that discusses these matters greatly. If you are interested in the topic, it is worth a glance. He also discusses the most recent media stupidity, involving the "global warming is a hoax!!!" e-mails and how disgustingly misunderstood they are. It's, unfortunately, all politics to the general public. Nobody seems to actually know anything about real climatology and most people don't care to know because it's difficult. I, personally, became fascinated with the topic when we had to learn about it for academic decathlon years ago.
***SHORT VERSION***: sorry for talking so much, global warming is real, though what it means to our future is unknown, check out the vids I linked, and don't listen to pundits, especially not on scientific matters.
February 27th, 2010 at 10:14:07 PM
permalink
I know enough about global warming and climatology (with a major in Physics, post graduate work in Meteorology, and studying the phenomena on my own) and know enough honest people in the 'industry' to know that the phenomena of global warming is more than likely quite real. I understand how radiation enters and leaves the atmosphere and what the major factors of the global energy equation are. I really can't see any better fit in causes of the average temperature rise trend than the increase of Carbon Dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere and you can easily link the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere to our industrial activity. And there is enough evidence to show that the science is changing.
Gore may be a buffoon and have had personal gain from it, but he popularized the idea and put enough scare in anyone to at least keep thinking about it. True scientists never say "it is real" unless they are 100% sure. They say "likely" "very likely" "with a xx degree of confidence" to back their ideas. Politicians say they are sure without really knowing the facts.
When scientists say that the earth will likely rise xx degrees in temperature by the year xxxx, they are assuming a steady-state atmosphere without other factors and are just looking at the radiation equation. What will actually happen is not totally understood; it is just their honest best guess based on what they know (which is very little because they've only had one planet to study).
That said, if your brightest and best said that the plane has a 95 in 100 chance to crash unless the plane was fixed, would you get on the plane? This is the same. You can only hide under the uncertainty for so long before you do something about it.
Gore may be a buffoon and have had personal gain from it, but he popularized the idea and put enough scare in anyone to at least keep thinking about it. True scientists never say "it is real" unless they are 100% sure. They say "likely" "very likely" "with a xx degree of confidence" to back their ideas. Politicians say they are sure without really knowing the facts.
When scientists say that the earth will likely rise xx degrees in temperature by the year xxxx, they are assuming a steady-state atmosphere without other factors and are just looking at the radiation equation. What will actually happen is not totally understood; it is just their honest best guess based on what they know (which is very little because they've only had one planet to study).
That said, if your brightest and best said that the plane has a 95 in 100 chance to crash unless the plane was fixed, would you get on the plane? This is the same. You can only hide under the uncertainty for so long before you do something about it.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:53:29 AM
permalink
I believe purely as a wager, the side of man made global warming is the best bet.
As far as I can tell, the worse case scenario of the skeptics is expensive costs of retooling industry, the costs to oil producers, although other industries could gain. Or that it's a big waste of time.
The worse case scenario of man made global warming, is the flooding, displacement of populations and all the possible chaos that could cause. And least case -- maybe we invest in green technology long before we really need it, but otherwise a big waste of money or effort.
So which is the better bet?
I suppose if you're a dedicated skeptic you can claim all references that we might be sailing on the Titanic (worst case) is just ridiculous. But is a skeptic postion so overwhelmingly sure that any of them can make such a powerful claim that we can dismiss all calls for alarm and sit back and laugh at people like Gore? I get the feeling the skeptic position may poke problematic holes here and there at best but it's not so strong, that we can be so dismissive.
But that's my layman's perspective.
As far as I can tell, the worse case scenario of the skeptics is expensive costs of retooling industry, the costs to oil producers, although other industries could gain. Or that it's a big waste of time.
The worse case scenario of man made global warming, is the flooding, displacement of populations and all the possible chaos that could cause. And least case -- maybe we invest in green technology long before we really need it, but otherwise a big waste of money or effort.
So which is the better bet?
I suppose if you're a dedicated skeptic you can claim all references that we might be sailing on the Titanic (worst case) is just ridiculous. But is a skeptic postion so overwhelmingly sure that any of them can make such a powerful claim that we can dismiss all calls for alarm and sit back and laugh at people like Gore? I get the feeling the skeptic position may poke problematic holes here and there at best but it's not so strong, that we can be so dismissive.
But that's my layman's perspective.
Sanitized for Your Protection
March 3rd, 2010 at 8:27:33 AM
permalink
Quote: rxwine
I suppose if you're a dedicated skeptic you can claim all references that we might be sailing on the Titanic (worst case) is just ridiculous. But is a skeptic postion so overwhelmingly sure that any of them can make such a powerful claim that we can dismiss all calls for alarm and sit back and laugh at people like Gore?
Yes. I for one and many others realize man cannot change the climate of the earth at will. We also realize that historically warmer is better in any case. Finally, we realize that the earth has warmed and cooled over time naturally and everything is still here.
As a skeptic what really POs me is the hysteria. Rmemeber that movie? "The Day After Tomorrow?" Complete with a Dick Cheney look-alike VP it was pure science-fiction. But I knew college-educated people who took it as real. As if someone saw a 1950s "Mars Invades" type movie and thought the Martians were coming. Or that they shoud sell their WWE Stock when a storyline had Vince McMahon kinned onscreen.
Then there is the media who jump on Hurrican Katrina and scream "GLOBAL WARMING." (A German Government Offical joined in there.) Same for *any* weather pattern that is something other than what happened the last few years. Even with record snowfalls here in the northeast the AGW crowd said, "SEE, It's happening!"
At some point the sky isn't falling, it was just an apple that hit you onthe head.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:05:23 PM
permalink
AZDuffman, I'm sympathetic to your complaint that scientists in the 1970s made some dire ecological predictions that later turned out to be completely wrong and therefore these scientists lose their credibility in your eyes. But that's how science works: new data is collected, new interpretations are made, and theories change. Either a hypothesis withstands the test of time, or it is discarded. Yes, scientists made mistakes in the 1970s, they make mistakes today, and they'll continue to make mistakes in the future. But the competent ones will learn from their mistakes, and science will continue to progress.
National Geographic magazine has been measuring the size of the polar ice cap in the Northern Hemisphere since 1980, and the numbers don't lie. The ice cap is shrinking:
1980 - 3.01 million square miles of ice
1985 - 2.66 million square miles
1990 - 2.39 million square miles
1995 - 2.36 million square miles
2000 - 2.43 million square miles
2005 - 2.16 million square miles
2007 - 1.67 million square miles
2008 - 1.81 million square miles
Yes, ice ages come and go, and perhaps the shrinking ice cap has absolutely nothing to do with the millions of tons of CO2 that humans are adding to the atmosphere year after year. Perhaps it's all just a coincidence. NASA reports that atmospheric CO2 went from 285 parts per million in 1950 to 388 ppm in 2010. The scientists at NASA seem to believe that the warming can't be a coincidence, because one of the properties of CO2 is that it traps heat very very well. (I encourage every curious skeptic to spend some time at http://climate.nasa.gov). If I were a betting man, I'd wager that these rocket scientists know what they're talking about.
*****************
In my earlier post, I mentioned that I was actually more concerned about finite oil supplies than I am global warming. That's because I think the finite oil problem will be unavoidable within the next 10 years, whereas climate change might not be catastrophic for humans in my lifetime.
AZDuffman: "plus have 500+ Billion barrels in the oil sands of Canada plus possibly a trillion more in the oil shale here in the USA."
Agreed. Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming probably have over a trillion barrels in oil shale. The problem is that separating the oil from the rock requires MASSIVE quantities of water (at least 3 barrels of water for each barrel of oil). I'm not suggesting it will be impossible to achieve daily production of, say, 2 million barrels of oil in a dry arid place like Utah. But it won't be easy, and it won't be cheap.
National Geographic magazine has been measuring the size of the polar ice cap in the Northern Hemisphere since 1980, and the numbers don't lie. The ice cap is shrinking:
1980 - 3.01 million square miles of ice
1985 - 2.66 million square miles
1990 - 2.39 million square miles
1995 - 2.36 million square miles
2000 - 2.43 million square miles
2005 - 2.16 million square miles
2007 - 1.67 million square miles
2008 - 1.81 million square miles
Yes, ice ages come and go, and perhaps the shrinking ice cap has absolutely nothing to do with the millions of tons of CO2 that humans are adding to the atmosphere year after year. Perhaps it's all just a coincidence. NASA reports that atmospheric CO2 went from 285 parts per million in 1950 to 388 ppm in 2010. The scientists at NASA seem to believe that the warming can't be a coincidence, because one of the properties of CO2 is that it traps heat very very well. (I encourage every curious skeptic to spend some time at http://climate.nasa.gov). If I were a betting man, I'd wager that these rocket scientists know what they're talking about.
*****************
In my earlier post, I mentioned that I was actually more concerned about finite oil supplies than I am global warming. That's because I think the finite oil problem will be unavoidable within the next 10 years, whereas climate change might not be catastrophic for humans in my lifetime.
AZDuffman: "plus have 500+ Billion barrels in the oil sands of Canada plus possibly a trillion more in the oil shale here in the USA."
Agreed. Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming probably have over a trillion barrels in oil shale. The problem is that separating the oil from the rock requires MASSIVE quantities of water (at least 3 barrels of water for each barrel of oil). I'm not suggesting it will be impossible to achieve daily production of, say, 2 million barrels of oil in a dry arid place like Utah. But it won't be easy, and it won't be cheap.
Last edited by: reno on Mar 4, 2010
March 3rd, 2010 at 1:25:57 PM
permalink
Enjoy reading everyones comments here. I believe in Climate Change. It has never been static in the history of this planet. The only constant is change when you look at things over any long term. By the way, I am a Forester that recieved extensive education in meteorology and how mans activities can affect the environment.
That said, the best advice I can give anyone is to seek as much information as possible from as many sources as possible and never rely on info from anyone with an agenda unless it can be independantly verified from different sources.
Long term supply of oil is a serious problem. We need to utilize the resources we have now and develop new technology to tap what we have (oil sands and shale) more efficiently. At the same time we need to expand nuclear power and, most importantly, expand research and development of new power sources for the future.
I know that man does alter his environment, but to what extent on a global scale? Many people bring up the Arctic Ice shrinking, but ignore the unprecedented growth of Ice in the Antarctic. The Antarctic has always contained a great deal more ice than the Arctic. Please research this yourself. You will be amazed at how much more ice has always been at the South Pole.
Foresters make extensive use of statistical analysis. This has taught me that anyone can make selective use of facts to prove what they want.
It has taught me to be a very skeptical and practical person except when I throw all this away and Gamble and just have fun!!!!!
That said, the best advice I can give anyone is to seek as much information as possible from as many sources as possible and never rely on info from anyone with an agenda unless it can be independantly verified from different sources.
Long term supply of oil is a serious problem. We need to utilize the resources we have now and develop new technology to tap what we have (oil sands and shale) more efficiently. At the same time we need to expand nuclear power and, most importantly, expand research and development of new power sources for the future.
I know that man does alter his environment, but to what extent on a global scale? Many people bring up the Arctic Ice shrinking, but ignore the unprecedented growth of Ice in the Antarctic. The Antarctic has always contained a great deal more ice than the Arctic. Please research this yourself. You will be amazed at how much more ice has always been at the South Pole.
Foresters make extensive use of statistical analysis. This has taught me that anyone can make selective use of facts to prove what they want.
It has taught me to be a very skeptical and practical person except when I throw all this away and Gamble and just have fun!!!!!
October 23rd, 2014 at 12:11:21 AM
permalink
This is a real shame for the GW people. The
co-founder of the Weather Channel, one of
the most qualified meteorologists in the world,
says GW is an outright lie. So sad..
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder
co-founder of the Weather Channel, one of
the most qualified meteorologists in the world,
says GW is an outright lie. So sad..
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
October 23rd, 2014 at 2:07:26 AM
permalink
GW is an outright lie.
winning streaks come and go, losing streak never ends.
October 23rd, 2014 at 2:34:56 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThis is a real shame for the GW people. The
co-founder of the Weather Channel, one of
the most qualified meteorologists in the world,
says GW is an outright lie. So sad..
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder
The global warming salesmen are a bit like the preaches on TV, "Things are bad, but give me some money and all will be OK, oh and you must live a modest life though I get to live much better!" The people who laugh at the believers of the preacher willingly hand over money and freedom to combat "global warming" even as Algore lives in a mansion, flies private jets, and has his drivers idle his SUVs so they are nice and cool or warm when he has to leave his function.
A look at the many reasons to question is should make anyone want to question it. A look at how it fits the agendas of those who are pushing it should make anyone question it. Hopefully more and more people are getting "GW Fatigue" and will move past it instead of just believing.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
October 23rd, 2014 at 4:43:00 AM
permalink
Global warming doesn't exist.
October 23rd, 2014 at 5:55:12 AM
permalink
So I assume you will take the over on 6,000 years old?Quote: AZDuffmanThe earth is 4.5 billion years old. "
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
October 23rd, 2014 at 5:55:55 AM
permalink
Michael Bluejay started a climate change thread a couple years ago. 89 pages and pretty entertaining reading. He's a smart guy with some compelling arguments. It's funny to me what people will believe. The earth will tire of us one day and gobble us up. Then start over.
Stupid is a choice
October 23rd, 2014 at 8:43:32 AM
permalink
Quote: texasplumrMichael Bluejay started a climate change thread a couple years ago. 89 pages and pretty entertaining reading. He's a smart guy with some compelling arguments. It's funny to me what people will believe. The earth will tire of us one day and gobble us up. Then start over.
My issue with Michael is when a denier makes a point his reply is along the lines of "shut up and listen to the scientists." Of course ths is what most believers return to when people are thinking for themselves. Right out of "Animal Farm."
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
October 23rd, 2014 at 9:15:42 AM
permalink
Quote: AZDuffmanActually the scientists do in fact work for the government. NASA is government and universities are government funded. The UN is government funded worldwide. And 30 years ago the "consensus" was we were having "global cooling." What would be more rational to say is that the temperature of the earth is not constant; the radiation of the sun is not constant; and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not constant. We know warming and cooling trends last up to thousands and tens of thousands of years. This is not something humans can control.
"
The consensus was never global cooling in actual scientific literature. Time magazine published an article about global cooling in 74 but Times is a popular magazine not a peer reviewed scientific journal. Most papers at the time either were neutral or talked about warming. Again only 10% of papers published in scientific journals at the time was for global cooling. In 1976 the WMO published a report detailing warming trends due to CO2 levels. First paper about global warming was published in 1970. You keep hearing this tired old canard trotted out by deniers as though some massive proof that scientist don't know anything. This is fallacious on fronts the first is sciences is refined as new data is taken and our understanding progress so of course the conclusions now would have changed that does not mean the conclusions now are wrong second and more importantly there was never a consensus. There was never a majority or even a plurality of climate scientist who believed in global cooling.
In closing pop science is bunk and you shouldn't get your ideas of science from Time magazine if you want to be even remotely informed.
October 23rd, 2014 at 1:24:34 PM
permalink
Quote: Twirdman
In closing pop science is bunk and you shouldn't get your ideas of science from Time magazine if you want to be even remotely informed.
I get my ideas from a multiple of sources and a lifetime of education. I point out the "Time" article for the same reason other do, to show that opinions change. "Consensus" changes over time. The global-warming believers act as though the world is 1,000 years old and 130 years of measurable data is enough to draw a trend. Our low-information public laps it up. No thanks.
As I have said, I see far more to question rather than believe global warming and even less to believe it is man-made. I am not going to change my opinion because the masses are chanting "FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD.........." until I give up.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
October 23rd, 2014 at 1:34:39 PM
permalink
Obama just proclaimed this summer that
GW is real and the argument is over.
With the wave of his imperial hand, he
can make anything happen. We used to
call people like this a 'tool', now we call
them sock puppets. They have no real
ideas of their own.
GW is real and the argument is over.
With the wave of his imperial hand, he
can make anything happen. We used to
call people like this a 'tool', now we call
them sock puppets. They have no real
ideas of their own.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
October 23rd, 2014 at 1:55:42 PM
permalink
Is man causing global warming?
Top Contributors EvenBob posts 16029
One is sure doing his part with the hot gas.
Top Contributors EvenBob posts 16029
One is sure doing his part with the hot gas.
Sanitized for Your Protection
October 23rd, 2014 at 1:55:49 PM
permalink
Since the current cooling period is longer than the original warming period, shouldn't we now be referring to it as global cooling?
People should worry less about global warming and more about the weakening of the earth's magnetic field.
People should worry less about global warming and more about the weakening of the earth's magnetic field.
October 23rd, 2014 at 4:13:43 PM
permalink
The .01% that want everyone to pay carbon taxes are certainly making "global warming" +EV for themselves
October 23rd, 2014 at 4:44:34 PM
permalink
man made global warming is nonsense of the highest order.. end of story..
All this is , is a way to transfer huge sums of money from developed countries to
countries that never will be developed because of government control.
If you took this global warming nonsense out of the picture how else would you get to
make the world gladly give this type of money away.... you cant.
So you have an Al Gore perfect storm..... lets make part of the world feel bad because of
what has not happened in the rest of the world and I can just get in between and get rich.
We had a presentation at our college recently about global warming and I attended. They were
talking about it being a 100% for sure thing, settled science and the whole ball of wax.
I asked the guy, now your sure of this... no doubt about it. I said ok I asked him how
much is 2 +2 and he said 4... I asked another guy how much is 2+2 and he said are your sure, they both said
yes, I said is there any chance your wrong....none based in fact, I said I agree..
I picked up my cell phone and I said, it says here it is 54 degrees outside.... you agree, the guy said
yes must be true, I asked the guy what was the weather like today, he said it was partly cloudy, a little
windy and in the 50's.... I asked how do you know that, he said I was here I saw it. I said ok.
Now lets ask you a question.... if no human being had ever set foot on the face of the earth what would the
weather be like today and what temperature would it be??????
He looked stumped.... period and then after some time he laughed a little. he said there is no way I can tell you that, this
is a trick question..... i said well if you don't know for sure what it should be like today, you have no idea that it is not
already like that, and all this crap about man made global warming is just crap based on what you want us to think it
is.
debate over....
dicesetter
All this is , is a way to transfer huge sums of money from developed countries to
countries that never will be developed because of government control.
If you took this global warming nonsense out of the picture how else would you get to
make the world gladly give this type of money away.... you cant.
So you have an Al Gore perfect storm..... lets make part of the world feel bad because of
what has not happened in the rest of the world and I can just get in between and get rich.
We had a presentation at our college recently about global warming and I attended. They were
talking about it being a 100% for sure thing, settled science and the whole ball of wax.
I asked the guy, now your sure of this... no doubt about it. I said ok I asked him how
much is 2 +2 and he said 4... I asked another guy how much is 2+2 and he said are your sure, they both said
yes, I said is there any chance your wrong....none based in fact, I said I agree..
I picked up my cell phone and I said, it says here it is 54 degrees outside.... you agree, the guy said
yes must be true, I asked the guy what was the weather like today, he said it was partly cloudy, a little
windy and in the 50's.... I asked how do you know that, he said I was here I saw it. I said ok.
Now lets ask you a question.... if no human being had ever set foot on the face of the earth what would the
weather be like today and what temperature would it be??????
He looked stumped.... period and then after some time he laughed a little. he said there is no way I can tell you that, this
is a trick question..... i said well if you don't know for sure what it should be like today, you have no idea that it is not
already like that, and all this crap about man made global warming is just crap based on what you want us to think it
is.
debate over....
dicesetter
October 24th, 2014 at 4:21:47 AM
permalink
To a certain degree you have to respect the science. In a laboratory, the Co2 and the Methane are going to do what the scientists have reported. This far I can go.
I've never been too comfortable with "modeling" in science, however; this is probably the best they can do with anything as complicated as the planet as a whole, and clearly this is what has failed to prove as accurate.
We keep hearing we have to wait a little longer, then we will see. Then we see stuff like this latest report.
I've never been too comfortable with "modeling" in science, however; this is probably the best they can do with anything as complicated as the planet as a whole, and clearly this is what has failed to prove as accurate.
We keep hearing we have to wait a little longer, then we will see. Then we see stuff like this latest report.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
October 24th, 2014 at 7:50:13 AM
permalink
Idiouis
there is no science. all there is a bunch of people that want to find some reason to support
their theory that people have to be harmful....
The scientists that actually look at raw unfettered data suggest there is no correlation between
weather changes and man....yet there are trashed.... so science does work both ways,
In addition even if you accept the nonsense of Gore and Kerry and Obama and we are going to
have an increase of 2-3 degrees every hundred year instead of 1 and that man is responsible for
25% of that. Then what you going to kill every man. women and kid to save between 1/4-1/2 degree
increase every 100 years.... or say lets just kill half the people on earth and save half of that.
Kerry asked the other day " what is climate alarmists are wrong, what is the worst that can happen
from more regulations and higher taxes"..... now that is the American government saying that...
The worst that can happen is our people get poorer, the coal industry is destroyed along with all the
hundreds of thousands of families that work in that replaced by jobs the government wants you to
have. I have read the constitution, I missed the part where it says life, liberty and the persuit of
happiness ( as long as you work where the government tells you part"
Sorry the only thing people like Obama want is a transfer of wealth....period and global warming
is the only way they can do it,
dicesetter
there is no science. all there is a bunch of people that want to find some reason to support
their theory that people have to be harmful....
The scientists that actually look at raw unfettered data suggest there is no correlation between
weather changes and man....yet there are trashed.... so science does work both ways,
In addition even if you accept the nonsense of Gore and Kerry and Obama and we are going to
have an increase of 2-3 degrees every hundred year instead of 1 and that man is responsible for
25% of that. Then what you going to kill every man. women and kid to save between 1/4-1/2 degree
increase every 100 years.... or say lets just kill half the people on earth and save half of that.
Kerry asked the other day " what is climate alarmists are wrong, what is the worst that can happen
from more regulations and higher taxes"..... now that is the American government saying that...
The worst that can happen is our people get poorer, the coal industry is destroyed along with all the
hundreds of thousands of families that work in that replaced by jobs the government wants you to
have. I have read the constitution, I missed the part where it says life, liberty and the persuit of
happiness ( as long as you work where the government tells you part"
Sorry the only thing people like Obama want is a transfer of wealth....period and global warming
is the only way they can do it,
dicesetter
October 24th, 2014 at 8:02:13 AM
permalink
Quote: dicesitterThe worst that can happen is our people get poorer, the coal industry is destroyed along with all the
hundreds of thousands of families that work in that replaced by jobs the government wants you to
have. I have read the constitution, I missed the part where it says life, liberty and the persuit of
happiness ( as long as you work where the government tells you part"
Have you seen the disgusting weather in Beijing?
You want that here?
wow
I prefer not breathe in a gazillion particles of disgusting polution.
Its disgusting.
cmon, have some common sense.
When somebody doesn't believe me, I could care less. Some get totally bent out of shape when not believed. Weird. I believe very little on all forums
October 24th, 2014 at 9:24:42 AM
permalink
Quote: terapinedHave you seen the disgusting weather in Beijing?
You want that here?
wow
I prefer not breathe in a gazillion particles of disgusting polution.
Its disgustig
cmon, have some common sense.
Common sense would tell a person that Beijing is spewing pollution. 50 years ago Chicago, Pittsburgh, and many other cities looked the same. CO for one is deadly so we cleaned it up. CO2 is plant food and will take its place in nature. Man is responsible for <5% of CO2 which alone should be enough to make an intelligent person question what the believers are selling.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
October 24th, 2014 at 11:54:05 AM
permalink
There is much of this agenda that is non-scientific
Scientists outside their own field seem to be some of the worst
Scientists outside their own field seem to be some of the worst
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
October 24th, 2014 at 1:39:01 PM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitThere is much of this agenda that is non-scientific.
Man is only a part of nature. You can't stop nature. Up and down, and back again. Enjoy the ride.
Nonsense is a very hard thing to keep up. Just ask the Wizard and company.
October 16th, 2015 at 11:56:46 AM
permalink
Uh oh
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/612369/SHOCK-CLAIM-World-is-on-brink-of-50-year-ICE-AGE-and-BRITAIN-will-bear-the-brunt
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/612369/SHOCK-CLAIM-World-is-on-brink-of-50-year-ICE-AGE-and-BRITAIN-will-bear-the-brunt
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
October 16th, 2015 at 12:04:46 PM
permalink
Yet Britain's ice age is being caused by global warming. The warming of the polar area is causing more fresh water to flow into the northern gulf stream and therefore stopping it from reaching England. Most people don't realize just how far north London is.
