BS: Where's the Global Warming

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 May 06 - 01:10 PM

What we are trying to do is curtail so much wasting of resources as is going on right now. We are trying to do so through such efforts as pushing for better fuel economy. It's good to know that you need no such incentive as the threat of global warming to do the right thing--which is to support such efforts. However there are people who are unwilling to sacrifice anything--including multiple gas-guzzling SUV's in one family. If the threat of global warming can force government--even, through public pressure, the benighted Bush maladministration, to support better fuel economy, it is worth publicizing.

2 other small illustrations about wasting resources in the US--

1) gas-powered leaf blowers--why does every person with a yard seem to think they are necessary? They are a classic waste of resources.

2) "cigarette boats"--big article in the WSJ yesterday, stating among other things that "owners say that gasoline for a single day of racing (these boats) can cost up to $5,000".

The fact is that those who deny global warming are frequently those who refuse to take any steps at all toward conservation--and fight all attempts to do so.

You may or may not believe that global warming is heavily influenced by human activity--but I hope you are not opposing conservation measures on the basis that they are not necessary since global warming is not a proven fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 27 May 06 - 12:55 PM

It is 'likely' that there is a natural cycle entering a warmer phase, but exacerbated by human activity. CO², Ozone, 'heat sinks' over cities, rain forest reduction, etc..are all PROVEN causes of various changes.

The real point is that, with the stakes being as high as they are, we cannot afford to wait until the worst happens, then analyze a lot of data and nod wisely and say "so THAT's why we are in trouble!"

When it is LIFE we are dealing with, the only sane way is to err on the side of caution. Unfortunately, that's not a popular business model.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 27 May 06 - 12:34 PM

Ron,

"You are assuming that human activity is not a main cause of global warming."

Nope.

I assume nothing. I am looking for facts. Then we can all make the conclusions. That is step two. The third step is to look for solutions. Again,   facts > conclusions > solutions.

Reducing polution is a worthy goal in it's own right. So is energy conservation. I have never seen a single statement by anyone advocating pollution or wasting resources. If you have seen such articles, please post . Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 May 06 - 12:22 PM

PDQ--

You are assuming that human activity is not a main cause of global warming.

As I have indicated, if you are right, and we needlessly try to curtail human contributions to global warming, it will do little harm.

If you are wrong, and we do not try to curtail human contributions to global warming, it means world disaster--not in your lifetime, but I would hope you would have some concern for the world we leave behind.

And there are indications--not a certainty, but many indications--you may well be wrong.

If we wait until it is clear to all that human activity is worsening the problem--and it will not resolve itself---it will be far too late for the world.

It seems clear the prudent--therefore conservative--thing to do--is to do something--starting now about the human contributions to global warming.

Not to do so is a reckless gamble--with the wellbeing of the entire world. That is not a conservative approach.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 27 May 06 - 11:08 AM

"It is concluded that temperature measurements carried out away from human influence show no evidence of global warming."

Tell that to the Polar bears who are losing cubs to broken up ice floes and not finding seals at the usual times. Tell that to the scientists who are WATCHING glaciers melt & recede. Tell that to the Inuit who have centuries of experience with the Polar weather, and find many aspects of their life changing.

I don't know what this guy from New Zealand is measuring, but most scientists who do LOTS of this work are, in fact, finding rising temps.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 11:06 AM

Where's the Global Warming? Well, have a look at the top of Mount Kilimanjaro or have a look at what's happening to the ice packs and glaciers, and you will see where it is quite plainly.

It is of some comfort to me to realize that all the hot air blown off on these ludicrous internet debates is not contributing to it, however...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 27 May 06 - 10:18 AM

Global warming is a phrase that should be forgotton. Climate change is more accurate.

We know the climate is changing, as it has been doing for a very long time, but it would seem to be changing fast, and we seem to be involved. Anything more than that is little better than a Wild Ass Guess. But lets hope someone in charge notices London and Washington are at sea level before they end up under it....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 27 May 06 - 09:37 AM

OK, Ron, but how can you solve a problem if you blame it on the wrong causes?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 May 06 - 09:30 AM

2 possibilities:

1) global warming is a part of a natural cycle--and will therefore eventually solve itself.

2) global warming is in large part a human-generated phenomenon. It will therefore continue worsening as long as drastic change by humans is not made.


Exactly why is it the prudent course to assume the first possibility when the second both means world disaster and is something humans can in fact do something about?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 27 May 06 - 09:16 AM

Maybe we can discuss 'global warming" and leave out the Algorerhythms.

Most discussions cover the period from around 1860 to date. About 140-150 years. One reason is that the methods of measuring thempertature were primative before that time.

Here is a statement from a New Zealand scientist:

"...surface measurement at weather stations, gives an averaged mean global rise of a mere 0.6°C over 140 years, but is intermittent and irregular. Individual records are highly variable, regional, and sometimes, particularly in remote areas, show no change, or even a fall in temperature.

It is concluded that temperature measurements carried out away from human influence show no evidence of global warming.

The small and irregular rise shown by many surface stations must therefore be caused by changes in their thermal environment over long periods of time, such as better heating, larger buildings, darkening of surfaces, sealing of roads, increases in vehicles and aircraft, increased shielding from the atmosphere and deterioration of painted surfaces."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Crowbar
Date: 07 Jan 06 - 04:43 PM

Who saved the animals and the waterfront the last time sea levels and C02 spiked?

How does the emissions and fuel consumption of Barbara Striesand's personal jet or John Travolta's 707 compare to a Hummer?

Even dumb assed Ralph Nader realized he could not own a car while bazhing auto makers.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 07 Jan 06 - 01:01 PM

Here is a bit of the article to which John Rouse has linked:


"It may be that the ocean is warming and that's causing the ice to melt, but there may be other reasons as well; for example, there's lots of volcanism in that area and so that could change how much heat is delivered to the underside of the ice sheet."


I have posted several articles on ocean warming on other Mudcat threads about Global Warming. No proponents of that theory have answered this question: By Global warming, do you mean warming of the Earth's land, oceans, atmosphere or all three? Anybody want to attempt to answer it now?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: danensis
Date: 07 Jan 06 - 12:32 PM

Here's a nice balanced view:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4315968.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 07 Jan 06 - 10:13 AM

Heat could kill delicate coral; January 8, 2006

RECORD temperatures last year could kill up to 40 per cent of Australia's coral. The University of Queensland has warned that above-average sea temperatures on the Great Barrier Reef were causing coral bleaching, which could make much of the famous coral die within a month. The university's researchers have designed a protection system that involves placing huge sun shades over the coral in summer.

Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg said his team wanted to avoid a repeat of 2002, where more than half of the reef was bleached and 5 to 10 per cent died. "Bleaching events usually occur about four to six weeks after the high temperature anomalies begin," he said. "This year we are worried because we have higher [temperature] anomalies, which may result in greater damage."

Source: The Sun-Herald

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 11:23 AM

The polar ice cap has shrunk by half
If it is a lie it doesn't matter
I have never been there and have no plans to go.

Ethelene dibromide billows out of jet engines
covering the sky with thick spreading trails many miles wide.
If it is a lie it doesn't matter.
Its up there, I'm down here.

The land is deforested by 5% every year.
If it is a lie it doesn't matter
I see trees everyday.

They say we are making our military bullets, shells and bombs out of deadly uranium.
True or not, our enemy should have thought of that before they attacked us during the prememptive invasion.

I heard that my neighbor's daughter was killed in Iraq last weekend.
True or not I best not go over and ask, she might be touchy.
My kids are fine.

The bird flu has killed a few people in Asia and Turkey
in such small numbers its just like the numbers who died of bird flu in 1917.
If 70 million died in 1918 of bird flu it doesn't matter.
That was then, this is now.

Suicide bombers do not value human life, just like the Emperor worshipping Japs who made suicide charges or smashed the skulls of their mothers and sisters rather than surrender.
True or not it doesn't matter.
At least we still value human life.

People who leak so called truth are being investigated and are sent to jail.
True or not, I'm outraged by ranting Bush bashers like Cindy Shehan who are a disgrace to this great nation of faith.

They changed the broadcast times of American Idol.
If it is true it doesn't matter,
but its still pure torture to reprogram a TIVO.






http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/BLISS.jpg

(Message edited by Don Hakman on January 06, 2006)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 11:14 AM

Absolutely the Earth goes through natural cycles.

BUT:

a) what if this is not a natural cycle? if 95% of scientists were to say that some product is potentially dangerous to our children, it would be yanked from the shelves immediately. But our president (and his crowbar supporters) say we need to wait for the other 5% before we act.

b) "natural cycles" have led to many mass extinctions. If we are contributing in even a very small way, shouldn't we do something? Or are we willing to take a chance that we will be among the 5 to 30 percent (based on past mass extinction numbers) of species that survive? Hmmm, let's see, is the Hummer worth it to me.....

Hummer, children's survival
Hummer, children's survival
Hummer, children's survival

Damn, this is a tough call.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,DB
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 05:55 AM

I suspect that Bush and his cronies DO know about global warming and are fully aware of its consequences. They just don't care, that's all! They figure that they'll all be dead before it has any effect. In the meantime they just want to go on appropriating as much as possible of what remains of the planet's resources. Let future generations sort out the mess. I predict that this will go on happening until there are no future generations.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Barry Finn
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 01:53 AM

The smart thing to do is to wait, do nothing, then ask & then wait again on answers that won't come, at least not soon enough then walk out on a world summit meeting where 129 other nations are trying to figure what to do & then ask for more time & money for research & then fire the government funded researchers that say the doomsday word. Ask a polor bear if something's wrong. All the new waterfont property will be up for grabs, real cheap, the remaining animals, if there'll be any, won't need to compete with us frail humans, either.
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Crowbar
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 01:19 AM

So what's your point Peace?

What caused the CO2 to spike 150,000 years ago? Where was the industry to cause it then?

Could it possibly be that the planet goes through cycles?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Jan 06 - 08:54 AM

And the warming of the Arctic Ocean (undisputed even by the wing nuts) shuts down the deep Atlantic thermohaline return flow - which means no more Gulf Stream, which means a northern Europe deep-freeze with mass displacements of populations... a scenario that the US Pentagon is already gaming.

Believe It.


But don't worry. Crowbar's got his chart.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jan 06 - 06:41 AM

Re Crowbar's chart.
CO2 not been higher for 120 000 years.

The dangerous increase due to industrialisation has only occurred over last 100 years and can not be seen on the chart because the time scale is so large.

There is now no scientific dispute about the reality of global warming due to human activity.

The fear now is of reaching a tipping point wherafter reduction in emmissions will not prevent a runaway catastrophic change. The Amazon forest becomes savannah and millions of tons of methane are released by melting permafrost.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,just a guest
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 08:38 PM

I predict that when we run out of oil in about five years, global warming will no longer be a problem. I wonder if we will survive as a nation without oil. Others might. The USA may not. Perhaps we will witness something like Mad Max...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 07:35 PM

I don't wish to side-track a thread as important as this one, but I have had it to here with serious for today. You folks better get a grip. OK, so maybe global warming is going to make life on Earth extinct. Well, SHIT HAPPENS.

There is a fellow in England who figures that global warming is screwing up his three-minute eggs. That would piss me off, too. FYI.

Have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 11:32 AM

the corporate party line

there is no global warming
CO2 is fine
hole in the Ozone, nope
there is no mass atmospheric spraying going on
Whatever we do is fine, God and the sun control the weather.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 10:59 AM

SOS call as island nations go under; By Cynthia Banham and Richard Macey; January 5, 2006 Sydney Morning Herald

AUSTRALIA is being pressed to come to the rescue of drowning Pacific islands which face a homeless crisis due to rising sea levels caused by global warming. With predictions sea levels could rise by up to 32 centimetres by 2050, a number of Pacific islands could be rendered uninhabitable within a decade. The Federal Government, which has twice refused requests from Tuvalu to resettle its population, could risk isolation in the region if it does not take a more proactive stance on Pacific climate change. New Zealand and Canada have already responded to the environmental crisis afflicting many Pacific Islands countries. New Zealand has agreed to accept migrants from Tuvalu, which experts believe will be completely submerged by mid-century, and Canada is funding the relocation of residents of parts of Vanuatu affected by global warming.

The alarm bells were rung as Australia experienced its hottest year on record. Temperatures were so far above normal last year that it was as if many towns had been moved more than 100 kilometres north, the Bureau of Meteorology said yesterday. ..

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 24 Dec 05 - 02:31 PM

True to that, d'van. However, there have been natural rises and falls over the millenia (sp?), and it seems to be about to drop again. Or am I interpreting the chart incorrectly?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Dec 05 - 02:24 PM

The important thing about that chart is that it shows when the CO2 levels rise; so does the temperature and the water levels.

That is a very good argument for reducing CO2.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:36 PM

Here's a link to Crowbar's chart, BTW.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: robomatic
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:30 PM

I feel it getting hotter in here.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 07:04 PM

And your point is?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Crowbar
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 07:02 PM

Look at this chart of global temperatures, CO2 levels and seaa levels.

The CO2 level is not higher than it has ever been.

http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/publications/nswmanual/images/b12-1.gif

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Metchosin
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 03:25 AM

Depends which part of Canada you're talking about. Yesterday the temperature on the southern part of Vancouver Island was 13 C or over 55 F and this evening a passing thunder storm caused a small fire when the local Wal-Mart was struck by lightning. Thunder storms are not common in Victoria, particularly in December.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 08:49 PM

"RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming"

Not in Canada right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 08:00 PM

Ahhhhh, not to beat the dead horse (Bush) yet agian but I umderstand that he has sought out the "scientists" who have the the greatest level of "Don't worry, be happy" thinking when it comes to global warming...

This is a disgrace to our nation... He, as everyone's president, should be more interested in a cross section of scientific thought...

Yes, we've seen piccures of the polar ice caps and they have been shrinking remarkably fast... Their melting I would surmise has something to do with keeping the temperatures from rising quickly, especially along coastal regions...

What I am most concerened about is that under the crrent administartaion, the Earth has lost perhaps 8 precious years where scientists could feel supported in trying to figure out where the Erath is and waht man can do to preserve it for future generations...

Hiring a bunch of yes-scientists, then openly ridiculing other scientists has not been helpfull...

I mean, where did mankind ever get this idea that there's always time to solve alot of the problems that mankind is creating here on this Earth???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 07:37 PM

This line of reasoning goes all the way back to mid-2004:

From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3589662.stm)

-snip-

Professor Andreae, of the Max Planck Institute in Mainz, Germany, told the 13th World Clean Air and Environmental Protection Congress that the overall cooling effect was, in his view, currently dominant and offsetting the warming brought about by greenhouse gases.

"We've been in an accelerating car with one foot on the brake and one foot on the gas," he told the BBC.

The scientist said the "climate protection" provided by aerosols was likely to diminish in the future.

"The aerosol particles don't stay in the atmosphere for very long, so we don't expect their concentration - their effect - to grow over the next century.

"The greenhouse gases, on the other hand - carbon dioxide and methane - they keep accumulating in the atmosphere because they have long lifetimes.

"Whether we want it or not, the warming forces are going to overpower the cooling forces and the big question now is just how strong that effect is going to be."

Predictions of the rise in global temperatures may therefore have to be revised upwards, Professor Andreae argued.

The US space agency's Aura satellite was recently sent into orbit with a specific task to unravel aerosols' precise impact on the global climate."

-snip-

So particulate pollution may be masking the true extent of the effect of greenhouse gas pollution... and the good news is what? Shall we counteract global warming by pumping soot into the atmosphere?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 06:49 PM

...please don't read this if you already have a headache...


Pollution is protecting us from harsh rays of the sun
By Ian Sample in London
December 23, 2005

CUTTING air pollution could trigger a greater surge in global warming than previously thought, suggesting future rises in sea level and other environmental consequences have been underestimated.

Scientists have issued the warning after investigating the effect of aerosols on climate. Aerosols - particles smaller than 100th of a millimetre - are churned out from factories, the burning of fossil fuels and forest fires, although sea salt and dust particles from desert storms add to them.

Because the particles are so light they remain aloft for long periods, where they cool the earth by reflecting radiation from the sun back out to space. Higher levels of aerosols lead to the formation of clouds made up of smaller water droplets, which reflect still more of the sun's radiation. Cutting down on aerosols by improving air quality means the earth will be less shielded against the sun's rays.

Writing in the journal Nature, scientists at the British Meteorological Office and the US Government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report that climate models used to predict future global warming have badly underestimated the cooling effect of aerosols.

"We found that aerosols actually have twice the cooling effect we thought," said Nicolas Bellouin, a climate modeller at the British Meteorological Office. "The consequence is that as air quality improves and aerosol levels drop, future warming may be greater than we currently think."

Scientists had assumed that the amount of sunlight reflected by aerosols from human activity was tiny compared with the extra reflective cloud cover they caused, but Bellouin's research suggests they are equally important. Scientists will have to feed the new information into their models before they can be sure of the implications for global warming.

One possibility is that while the latest study shows scientists have underestimated the direct effect of aerosols reflecting the sun's rays, they may have overestimated the indirect effect they have on cloud cover, meaning the overall error of climate models would not be serious.

Earlier this year, Peter Cox at England's Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Winfrith, Dorset, warned that if the cooling effect of aerosols turned out to be greater, it could trigger faster global warming.

"It's quite a bizarre thing, because the last thing you want to suggest is that it would be a good idea to have dirty air, but as far as climate change is concerned, that's right. Everyone would be getting asthma, but the environment would be cooler," said Professor Cox.

"That said, the direct effects of air quality, particularly in urban areas, are so important to human health that it would be crazy to think of anything other than health damage."

If the Met Office calculations are right, they suggest the atmosphere's temperature is more responsive to carbon dioxide than scientists believed.

"If the cooling influence of aerosols is larger, it implies that the warming from the carbon dioxide must be larger than we think to match the warming we've seen in the past 100 years," Professor Cox said.

"And if that's the case, future climate change will be more than we have expected with air quality improvements."

The Guardian

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 06:46 PM

I guess the hottest year on record and the fact that polar ice caps are melting mean nothing.

And maybe that is so. But can we afford to ignore it??

What would be the harm of instituting measures to cut down on emissions that cause greenhouse gases compared to the possible harm that might result if we don't?

Well, it takes some money out of the pockets of shamelessly rich CEOs and it is Bush's job to cut them as much slack as possible. Hence, in his mind, there isn't global warming and he's the president--so there!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 06:33 PM

village flees for safer ground

A small island in Vanuatu is claimed to be the first in the world to have to move its community because of rising sea levels. Ben Bohane visits Tegua island.The sea has its own ways. We can't control it," says Chief Reuben Selwyn as he stands on a thin wall of coral which is all that now separates his little village from the invading sea.
The destiny of Tegua island, home to 64 people in the remote Torres group of islands in far north Vanuatu, has always rested on the sea.

The sea brought its first settlers at least 3000 years ago on bamboo rafts, its raiding enemies from nearby islands, the first beche-de-mer traders from Europe, "blackbirders" and Anglican missionaries. It brings bright rainbow-coloured reef fish and leatherback turtles, who build nests along a windswept coast, as well as colonies of football-sized coconut crabs, prized by the restaurants of the Vanuatuan capital of Port Vila. But for some years, the sea has been literally eating away this pristine coral island.

Chief Reuben, paramount head of the island and father of six boys and six girls, claims that at least once a year a combination of king tides and a surging sea whipped up by strong winds floods his village of Loteu. He remembers as a young boy he could walk 30 metres from his house and fish from a rocky beach platform. Now the platform is submerged and he has been forced to abandon his childhood home. "I'd say the sea has come up 10 or 20 metres [horizontally] since I was a boy," he says. "I can't say if it's because of humans or because nature has its own power. But for us here we have no choice; early next year we will move into a new village further inland."

seas rising across Island under global warming

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:05 AM

I thought the Caribou herd increased 300% since the Alaska pipeline was buiilt? (in its' vicinity)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Paul Burke
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 08:11 AM

"1000 years ago North America was warm enough that Lief Erikson found wild grapes growing on the Northern tip of Newfoundland."

Probably didn't, the evidence from the l'Anse aux Meadows site suggests that it's not Vinland, which was probably further south, perhaps as far as New York. And they don't have to be very big grapes to impress a Viking, who had mostly never seen them before- IIRC they didn't know what they were until someone who'd been to Germany identified them.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Redhorse at work
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 06:22 AM

Teribus: 'And it does not necessarily follow that, "If energy consumption has gone up by 45%, Co2 production will have gone up nearly as much."'

Not NECESSARILY, but:
In the last 1/3 century there has been no significant change in the efficiency of heat engines generating energy (and unless there's a change in the laws of thermodynamics there won't be one in the future). So a 45% increase in fossil fuel generated energy would give pro rata a 45% increase in CO2 emissions. I said "nearly as much" to cover changes in the balance of fossil-fuel to non-emission energy sources. Since the US hasn't exactly led the world in replacing fossil-fuel with renewables, and I haven't spotted a major increase in nuclear generation since 3-Mile Island, I don't think the balance has moved much in that 1/3 century.

I stand by my original comment

nick

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 05:09 PM

Pat, my interest in science is as an amateur with no great degree of formal training other than perhaps, some common sense. I do not dispute the theory , but I feel that the obvious is often overlooked in seeking the abstract. Between catostrophic climatic events such as volcanic eruptions and cosmic collisions there are climatic cycles and cycles within cycles. Changes occur for many reasons and human pollution is certainly a factor. When I hear a comment from a leading scientist that "last year was the warmest on record" I tend to question both his expertese and his motive. I can still recall the fable of Chicken Little and the falling sky. I do not wish to belittle the subject; only to state that we should concentrate our resources where they will do the most good.
Man by nature is a nomad and up until the last ice age we would migrate as nature dictated. 25 thousand years later we have boxed ourselves in with national borders and a society that tries to control nature. In the long term this will not work. We are driven by economics and greed and I am afraid that old mother nature will prove us all to be fools!
                              Obie

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: patmc
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 03:22 PM

Obie
I agree with TIA- as well as a background in geophysics I've spent the last decade in dynamics research- particularly paleoclimate. We need to be real careful using statistics- as they throw away a lot of the time order that things happened in stats tend to obscure dynamics.

Dynamically, systems do a weird thing called bifurcation (the Russians call it perestroika btw). Anyway at these bifurcations a system 'jumps' state. The way the system works at each side of the jump is utterly different. A topologist Rene Thom called these jumps 'catastrophes' back in the 70s. Funnily enough there are only 7 kinds of jump (they have weird/beautiful names). The reason climate warming might be very very nasty is that there is reason to believe that our present state is quite delicate- the ocean conveyor belt is totally interconnected. It didn't used to be. During the most recent glaciation (ended 9000 years back) Ireland and Britain were mostly iced over. However Florida was considerably hotter. Turtles that lived there then have died out due to the temperature drop. If the system goes back to the way it was (which has happened several times) the earth doesn't care but our arable land area drops big time. Figuring out exactly what these alternative climates are is the challenge.
So the earth does have different states (cycles is a rubbish word- they don't cycle- more jog). The worry is that we jog it into a nasty state- most of the other states that we have recovered are much tougher on living systems than the present very nice temperate one.

This stuff is not rocket science- rocket science is dead easy in comparison. I've yet to meet a politician with the requisite background to even follow the science and it gets WAY more complicated when the whole thing moves from the physics, chem and dynamics to the world of computer modeling the setup. This is where the action is- especially in Japan at the moment.

Personally I have mapped out some areas that survived with ecosystems relatively unchanged during the big shifts and bought some real estate there. I'm not the only one either. I don't think many of us modelers believe any of the governments can deal with this. They can't agree on farming!!!

Keep to the high ground ;-)

Pat

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 02:43 PM

Yes TIA but if our focus is in the wrong direction it will be of little help. As an example, some of the best and most fertile farmland in Canada is in the Toronto area. Every year many thousands of acres are bulldozed over to make room for condos. If we starve in the future it may be more of a result of losing arible land than a changing climate. My point is that we should concentrate most on the areas that we can enact the greatest change, and I remain unconvinced that climate is where it's at.
          Obie

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 02:28 PM

As a geologist with a very long view of time, I agree with much of what you say Obie. However, I believe that our power to change nature has become immense. We are in the middle of the greatest mass extinction in the history of the planet, and it is due primarily to human activity.

A good analogy for our current behavior might be the self-destruction of Earth's early anaerobic biota that generated so much oxygen that they extinguished themselves.

If we continue to alter our environment, life will certainly go on, but we may not be here.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 01:39 PM

My intent is not to argue that global warming is real but to question the cause. I offer no defence for environment polution and I support any possible reduction of any crap that we put into our living space.
That being said we must pause and take a (cough, cough) deep breath:
   We are being bamboozled by bad science that is ignoring many facts.
The Earth has been undergoing climate changes ever since its creation and it will continue to do so as long as time itself exists. To say a certain summer was the hottest on record means nothing if that record only goes back 100 years. We know that climate changes follow cycles that are far beyond our control. 25 thousand years ago most of North America was under a glacial blanket and woolly mammoths roamed it's perimiter. 1000 years ago North America was warm enough that Lief Erikson found wild grapes growing on the Northern tip of Newfoundland.
Today there are neither woolly mammoth or Newfoundland grapes. Tomorrow there may be neither polar bear or mankind. We must do what we can but before we take too big a guilt trip we must also understand that our power to change nature is limited.
                            Obie

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Crowbar
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:57 PM

This chart shows that the CO2 level was higher 150 thousand years ago.

I guess there was a Bush administration back then and all history of it has been lost.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:11 PM

the US report was from a conveniently chosen period between 2001-2003
when there was an economic downturn - so emissions were down slightly but certainly not because of any policy of the Bush WHite House
(who so called Clear skies act actually allowed more pollution than before)
also the way the emissions are calculated is misleading. The 20% increase in Canadian oil & gas exports to the US since 1990 is added to Canadas emissions - not the US's, go figure.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Raptor
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:32 AM

And Bush wants to drill in the Allaska wildlife refuge for oil to fund his war against the poor. Killing the last Carabou.
But youre right Terribus Bush is a friggin Saint!

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:14 AM

Sorry Teribus, "greenhouse gasses" and "air pollutants" are not interchangable terms. While your statistics on sulfur dioxide and lead emissions reductions may be true, they are completely irrelevant to global warming. Greenhouse gasses are up 16% since 1990.