82 replies to this topic

[cjb]

k2$kier, on Apr 1 2008, 04:30 PM, said:

NA$A, N$IDC and NOAA

And they have nothing to gain by ignoring the natural cau$e$ of routine warming trend$!

[k2skier]

cjb, on Apr 1 2008, 07:18 PM, said:

And they have nothing to gain by ignoring the natural cau$e$ of routine warming trend$!

Ignorance is bliss, educate yourself.

http://www.ipcc.ch/i...rts/ar4-wg1.htm

excerpt from FAQ from above link

120
Frequently Asked Questions
Frequently Asked Question 9.2

Can the Warming of the 20th Century be Explained by Natural Variability?

It is very unlikely that the 20th-century warming can be explained by natural causes. The late 20th century has been unusually warm. Palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the second half of the 20th century was likely the warmest 50-year period in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 1300 years. This rapid warming is consistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should respond to a rapid increase in greenhouse
gases like that which has occurred over the past century, and the warming is inconsistent with the scientific understanding
of how the climate should respond to natural external factors
such as variability in solar output and volcanic activity. Climate models provide a suitable tool to study the various influences
on the Earth’s climate. When the effects of increasing levels of greenhouse gases are included in the models, as well as natural external factors, the models produce good simulations
of the warming that has occurred over the past century. The models fail to reproduce the observed warming when run using only natural factors. When human factors are included, the models also simulate a geographic pattern of temperature change around the globe similar to that which has occurred in recent decades. This spatial pattern, which has features such as a greater warming at high northern latitudes, differs from the most important patterns of natural climate variability that are associated with internal climate processes, such as El Niño.
Variations in the Earth’s climate over time are caused by natural internal processes, such as El Niño, as well as changes in external influences. These external influences can be natural
in origin, such as volcanic activity and variations in solar
output, or caused by human activity, such as greenhouse gas emissions, human-sourced aerosols, ozone depletion and land use change. The role of natural internal processes can be estimated by studying observed variations in climate and by running climate models without changing any of the external factors that affect climate. The effect of external influences can be estimated with models by changing these factors, and by using
physical understanding of the processes involved. The combined
effects of natural internal variability and natural external factors can also be estimated from climate information recorded in tree rings, ice cores and other types of natural ‘thermometers’ prior to the industrial age.
The natural external factors that affect climate include volcanic
activity and variations in solar output. Explosive volcanic
eruptions occasionally eject large amounts of dust and sulphate aerosol high into the atmosphere, temporarily shielding
the Earth and reflecting sunlight back to space. Solar output has an 11-year cycle and may also have longer-term variations.
Human activities over the last 100 years, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, have caused a rapid increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Before the industrial age, these gases had remained at near stable concentrations
for thousands of years. Human activities have also caused increased concentrations of fine reflective particles, or ‘aerosols’, in the atmosphere, particularly during the 1950s and 1960s.
Although natural internal climate processes, such as El Niño, can cause variations in global mean temperature for relatively short periods, analysis indicates that a large portion is due to external factors. Brief periods of global cooling have followed major volcanic eruptions, such as Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. In the early part of the 20th century, global average temperature rose, during which time greenhouse gas concentrations started to rise, solar output was probably increasing and there was little volcanic activity. During the 1950s and 1960s, average global temperatures levelled off, as increases in aerosols from fossil fuels and other sources cooled the planet. The eruption of Mt. Agung in 1963 also put large quantities of reflective dust into the upper atmosphere. The rapid warming observed since the 1970s has occurred in a period when the increase in greenhouse gases has dominated over all other factors.
Numerous experiments have been conducted using climate models to determine the likely causes of the 20th-century climate
change. These experiments indicate that models cannot reproduce the rapid warming observed in recent decades when they only take into account variations in solar output and volcanic
activity. However, as shown in Figure 1, models are able to simulate the observed 20th-century changes in temperature when they include all of the most important external factors, including human influences from sources such as greenhouse gases and natural external factors. The model-estimated responses
to these external factors are detectable in the 20th-century
climate globally and in each individual continent except Antarctica, where there are insufficient observations. The human
influence on climate very likely dominates over all other causes of change in global average surface temperature during the past half century.
An important source of uncertainty arises from the incomplete
knowledge of some external factors, such as human-sourced aerosols. In addition, the climate models themselves are imperfect. Nevertheless, all models simulate a pattern of response to greenhouse gas increases from human activities that is similar to the observed pattern of change. This pattern includes more warming over land than over the oceans. This pattern of change, which differs from the principal patterns of temperature change associated with natural internal variability,
such as El Niño, helps to distinguish the response to greenhouse gases from that of natural external factors. Models and observations also both show warming in the lower part of
(continued)

This post has been edited by k2skier: 01 April 2008 - 08:21 PM

[k2skier]

cjb, on Apr 1 2008, 07:04 PM, said:

The signature is a sarcastic response to another member saying 'all snowboarders are dirtbag druggies that don't care about anything'

So how about responding to the statement that there is 'no cost' to fighting global warming (a futile fight against a natural phenomenom, we might as well try to stop the sun from setting) other than large corporations bottom line.

You mis-quote me, I never said "no cost". I stated, we can either error on the side of caution or ignore the warning signs of something that may become out of contol if it reaches a tipping point. This doesn't mean running around screaming the end of the world is coming, but doing a little something each day to conserve energy and natural resources, which in turn reduces ones impact on our planet. The largest burden of financial impact wont be on you or I (but of course there will be some), but on larger companies. But to out right claim that global warming is false or a myth is being completely ignorant. I sure wish I was 100% wrong.

"Do we continue to displace the carbon molecule (from under the ground to our atmosphere) to which in turn can cause climate forcings', or do we take the precautionary route which can do no harm except hurt large corporations bottom line?"

[hyak.net]

It is rather simple, just follow the money. Govt pays for Global Warming research, they do not pay for research that says there is no global warming. There is a reason you find goverment sponsored institutions support the man-caused GW theory and private institutions not so much..... GW is big business and ther are thousands of scientists riding the GW GRAVY TRAIN.

[liftmech]

Whether you agree with the theory of human-caused global warming or not, consider this: In the long run it's still a good idea to conserve resources instead of waste them. We know that oil, natural gas, coal, and such are finite resources. Once they're gone, they're gone. I personally didn't participate in Earth Hour, I thought it was a feel-good publicity stunt for a few large corporations. However, using less electricity will lower demand so that less coal is burned. That in itself isn't a bad thing, is it?

[hyak.net]

liftmech, on Apr 1 2008, 08:24 PM, said:

Whether you agree with the theory of human-caused global warming or not, consider this: In the long run it's still a good idea to conserve resources instead of waste them. We know that oil, natural gas, coal, and such are finite resources. Once they're gone, they're gone. I personally didn't participate in Earth Hour, I thought it was a feel-good publicity stunt for a few large corporations. However, using less electricity will lower demand so that less coal is burned. That in itself isn't a bad thing, is it?

I agree.

[WBSKI]

liftmech, on Apr 1 2008, 08:24 PM, said:

Whether you agree with the theory of human-caused global warming or not, consider this: In the long run it's still a good idea to conserve resources instead of waste them. We know that oil, natural gas, coal, and such are finite resources. Once they're gone, they're gone. I personally didn't participate in Earth Hour, I thought it was a feel-good publicity stunt for a few large corporations. However, using less electricity will lower demand so that less coal is burned. That in itself isn't a bad thing, is it?

I also agree, thats a pretty fair argument.

[cjb]

k2skier, on Apr 1 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

You mis-quote me, I never said "no cost".

You are right, I mis-quoted you literally by saying cost instead of harm, however since the 'harm' you referred to was in relation to a companies bottom line the two terms are I think, identical in this case.

[cjb]

liftmech, on Apr 1 2008, 08:24 PM, said:

Whether you agree with the theory of human-caused global warming or not, consider this: In the long run it's still a good idea to conserve resources instead of waste them. We know that oil, natural gas, coal, and such are finite resources. Once they're gone, they're gone. I personally didn't participate in Earth Hour, I thought it was a feel-good publicity stunt for a few large corporations. However, using less electricity will lower demand so that less coal is burned. That in itself isn't a bad thing, is it?

I also agree. I am actually pretty green, although not exactly for that purpose. I drive a 4 cylinder truck, ride a bike much of the summer, never litter, and am careful with power and conservation. However, I think that it is a personal choice to be decided by individuals and the free market, NOT government. Right now there is legislation in California to make the sale of incandescent light bulbs illegal, require remote control access of thermostats in houses by the government, and outlawing fire places other than those burning natural gas. Any body think this is overboard? Or are we ready to give up our freedoms so easily? These among many other, usually ignorant, ineffective and often dangerous actions are grandstanding to make everyone think they are doing some good and the big picture is unnoticed or worse ignored.

[cjb]

I even released that fish in my avatar, and probably picked up the trash at the spot too!

[SkiBachelor]

This thread sure opened up a can of worms, although I too have to agree with CJB's how it's ridiculous it's starting to get that we are loosing our freedoms to become more sustainable. I would consider my family to be pretty sustainable. We buy recycled material, recycle ourselves and do our part when needed. Let's face it, we can't fight global warming if the population is still increasing at the rate it is, unless we all want to start living like we are in a third world country. However, my family doesn't plan on getting rid of our SUVs and I'm so sick of people telling me how I should start living. I just want to go up to people and tell them that they should stop breathing if they want to fight global warming!

[Emax]

cjb, on Apr 2 2008, 07:29 PM, said:

I also agree. I am actually pretty green, although not exactly for that purpose. I drive a 4 cylinder truck, ride a bike much of the summer, never litter, and am careful with power and conservation. However, I think that it is a personal choice to be decided by individuals and the free market, NOT government. Right now there is legislation in California to make the sale of incandescent light bulbs illegal, require remote control access of thermostats in houses by the government, and outlawing fire places other than those burning natural gas. Any body think this is overboard? Or are we ready to give up our freedoms so easily? These among many other, usually ignorant, ineffective and often dangerous actions are grandstanding to make everyone think they are doing some good and the big picture is unnoticed or worse ignored.

Yup - and predictably there is another fanatical group alerting us to the hazardous waste disposal problem caused by getting rid of burned-out compact fluorescent lamps (the "solution" to incandescents).
What, I wonder, do they have to say about all of those "dangerous" burned-out tubular fluorescents we've been tossing out for the past sixty years?
No doubt, this is at the root of the global warming problem... not to mention the erectile disfunction epidemic.

This post has been edited by Emax: 03 April 2008 - 06:20 AM

[cjb]

[quote name='k2skier' date='Apr 1 2008, 07:56 PM' post='73583']
Ignorance is bliss, educate yourself.
[url="http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm"]
<a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm[/url]</a>

I'll find another source of education, thanks.

Article: 'Has the IPCC lost all credibility'. An article about one of the many scientist who resigned from the IPCC after seeing their work distrorted and misrepresented. Some had to file lawsuits to have their names removed from the reports because they did not want to be associated with such a biased and scientifically flawed piece of work.



[url="http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-03-24/ipcc.htm"]http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2wee...-03-24/ipcc.htm[/url]

[cjb]

Emax, on Mar 30 2008, 09:25 PM, said:

overpopulation. We've known about the population bomb since I was a young child - and all of the dire predictions I heard then have come to pass with mathematical precision. Any idiot with a calculator can figure out where this is headed.

Which predictions?

The Environmental Fund saw population growth and available food supply as co-factors in the "overpopulation" problem. In 1975 it ran a full-page ad in leading American newspapers announcing: "The world as we know it will likely be ruined before the year 2000 and the reason for this will be its inhabitants' failure to comprehend two facts. These facts are: 1. World food production cannot keep pace with the galloping growth of population. 2. `Family Planning' cannot and will not, in the foreseeable future, check this runaway growth." Wall Street Journal, October 30, 1985.Note In other words, nothing could be done to prevent a major catastrophe because food production was declining on a per capita basis, and this catastrophe would strike "before the year 2000." We have almost reached the year 2000 and this prediction seems no closer to coming true today than it did in 1975. If anything, it now seems unlikely ever to come true!

Famine everywhere

The Environmental Fund was not alone in its dire forecasts. Many others also saw a crisis looming. William and Paul Paddock, in their book Famine--1975!, published in 1967, said that some nations were so far past salvation that a triage system must be instituted: Haiti, Egypt, and India, for example, could never be saved, and must be left to starve to death. William and Paul Paddock, Famine--1975! (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967), p. 222.Note Again, the mass starvation they predicted for these countries has not taken place, and there is no reason to believe that it will any time in the near future.

Paul Ehrlich, the father of the overpopulation myth, has regularly predicted mass world starvation (among other catastrophes) ever since the early 1960s. Ehrlich confidently wrote in 1968 in The Population Bomb that there would be a major food shortage in the United States and that "in the 1970s . . . hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." He also claimed that by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million, less than 10 percent of its actual population as of 1994. He forecast that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989. He also thought that the oceans would be destroyed by 1979 and that fishing would collapse. For instance, he said that world fishing production in 1977 would be 30 million metric tons, whereas in reality it was 73 million metric tons, or well over twice what he predicted. Poor England fared even worse than the U.S. in Ehrlich's scenario: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Julian Simon, Population Matters (New Jersey: Transaction Publications, 1990), pp. 364-365.Note

[k2skier]

cjb, on Apr 2 2008, 07:29 PM, said:

I also agree. I am actually pretty green, although not exactly for that purpose. I drive a 4 cylinder truck, ride a bike much of the summer, never litter, and am careful with power and conservation. However, I think that it is a personal choice to be decided by individuals and the free market, NOT government. Right now there is legislation in California to make the sale of incandescent light bulbs illegal, require remote control access of thermostats in houses by the government, and outlawing fire places other than those burning natural gas. Any body think this is overboard? Or are we ready to give up our freedoms so easily? These among many other, usually ignorant, ineffective and often dangerous actions are grandstanding to make everyone think they are doing some good and the big picture is unnoticed or worse ignored.

This is what I was referring to when I said "no harm." It can do "no harm" to buy a 4 cylinder car instead of a V-8, it can do "no harm" to conserve electricity and natural resources.

Do you believe that the planet is warming at all? Or all the scientists in cahoots to scare us?

This post has been edited by k2skier: 11 April 2008 - 12:30 PM

[hyak.net]

k2skier, on Apr 11 2008, 12:30 PM, said:

Do you believe that the planet is warming at all? Or all the scientists in cahoots to scare us?

It is not "all scientists" that are in the Al Gore camp. The earth has NEVER maintained any temperature since the beginning of time so I don't know why anyone thinks we can force it to do so now. Even if humans could control the earth's temperature, who is to say what that optimum temperature should be?

[k2skier]

hyak.net, on Apr 11 2008, 01:53 PM, said:

It is not "all scientists" that are in the Al Gore camp. The earth has NEVER maintained any temperature since the beginning of time so I don't know why anyone thinks we can force it to do so now. Even if humans could control the earth's temperature, who is to say what that optimum temperature should be?

It's not what temperature it should be. It's why is the temperature increasing so fast recently? No, not all scientists, there is 1% of the scientific community that doesn't believe we're heating up too fast, IE; doesn't believe in global warming. You're correct, he earth has fluctuated from frozen to the warm condition it is in now, but it has never been "hot" and supported life as we know it.

[hyak.net]

k2skier, on Apr 11 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

It's not what temperature it should be. It's why is the temperature increasing so fast recently? No, not all scientists, there is 1% of the scientific community that doesn't believe we're heating up too fast, IE; doesn't believe in global warming. You're correct, he earth has fluctuated from frozen to the warm condition it is in now, but it has never been "hot" and supported life as we know it.

The earth has been much warmer then it is now and had human life on it. Also, the earth has not been warming in the past decade. It stopped in 1998 and is on a cooling trend. Read historical hysteria on weather and man's involvement, it is rather funny.
In 1976 pollution was going to cause a global ice age and all of those doom and gloom scientists said we need to do something NOW. 30 years later we are going to boil if we don't react NOW.

This post has been edited by hyak.net: 11 April 2008 - 02:51 PM

[Peter]

Let's remember that the earth is 6 billion years old, and no temperature changes have ever happened as quickly as those in the past 100 years. The global warming concept makes sense to me, however I really don't think it matters because people really aren't going to stop using fossil fuels until they run out anyways.

This post has been edited by Skier: 11 April 2008 - 07:01 PM

[Emax]

cjb:
Which predictions?
Famine everywhere

Chuck, I think you misunderstand me. I am not of like mind with Nostradamus - or anyone like him. I do not deal in unsupportable assertions or predictions of any kind.
What I think I said was that not only are our numbers increasing, but the acceleration of human population is accelerating. In physics, this phenomenon is (aptly) called "jerk".

Consider: It took from the dawn of man until the year 1800 to achieve a world population of one billion. The second billion was achieved in 1925; the third in 1960; the fourth in 1974; fifth in 1988 and the sixth in 1999. The seventh billion is scheduled to occur in 2015. You're an intelligent man - why not plot a simple graph of world population vs. date using this valid (and predicted) information. Begin with the year 1600, when world population was 500,000,000. That was only 408 years ago. Your graph will look like one side of a good half-pipe.

Experiment:
Try filling a flask with a combustible fluid like gasoline - then put a 1-hole stopper in the top. Run a glass tube from the stopper to a point about 2 inches below the bottom of the flask. Put an alcohol burner under the flask and light it. Soon the fluid boils and emits combustible vapor - which flows through the tube to the end under the flask... and gently ignites. The flame from the tube soon boils the gasoline even harder, which produces higher pressure vapor - producing and even more violent flame. Eventually, the flask explodes. The whole thing takes less than thirty seconds from the time the gas begins to boil. The population bomb is a bit like that.

Just how or when this all ends is hard to say, but I think that it's a fairly safe bet that it's checkmate.

This post has been edited by Emax: 11 April 2008 - 03:36 PM