Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 140

Thread: Looming Climate Disaster: Hold on to you butts.

  1. #1
    Name Retired.
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Her Hot Dreams
    Posts
    2,417

    Looming Climate Disaster: Hold on to you butts.

    Hello all,

    Confused about global warming? Is it real? Is it just a lot of "hot air". Past threads on this board have shown we hold opposite entrenched opinions. Well, this may end your confusion. It seems that global warming has often been counter-balanced by global dimming. The first warms the atmosphere while the second cools it because denser clouds, containing much more water vapor captured by billions of pollution particles, reflect solar heat back into space. The combined effect is something of a balance between the two effects. Here`s the problem. Reducing the pollution we produce, would greatly reduce global dimming. As global dimming recedes the extra solar heat will combine with the effects of greenhouse gases already warming the planet and cause a rise in temperatures well beyond current worse case scenarios. The catch 22 we have created is that without global dimming through air pollution, global warming will accelerate far beyond what we have already noticed if we do not reduce both in in balance with each other. Doesn`t that sound like fun??? .

    Well, I am sure the extreme doubters will continue in their ways no matter what is proven.

    http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/forum.php?lecture_id=235

    NOVA: Dimming Sun
    https://merb.cc/images/blank.gif
    NOVA presents NOVA: Dimming Sun, airing April 18, 2006 on PBS. In a stunning investigation, Nova reports on the discovery that the sunlight reaching Earth has been growing dimmer a big surprise given all the international concern over global warming. At first glance, less sunlight might hardly seem to matter when our planet is stewing in greenhouse gases. But the discovery of global dimming has led scientists to realize that they`ve miscalculated their models of the climate and how fast it`s changing. And if their models are wrong, it means the worst-case warming scenario could be a lot worse than anyone has predicted. To find out what global dimming means for the fate of the planet, Dimming Sun reveals the findings of the world`s top climate detectives, including an American scientist who found a grim but crucial opportunity on Sept. 11, 2001, when the entire US airline fleet was grounded. Nova unravels this baffling climate conundrum and the implications for Earth`s future.

    Global Dimming Research

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=105

    Sleep tight,

    Korbel
    Last edited by korbel; 09-08-2007 at 01:59 AM.
    Korbie: of the Boston Red Sox Nation...the NBA Champion Boston Celtics Pride...and...the New England Patriots Dynasty!

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Korbel

    Well, I am sure the extreme doubters will continue in their ways no matter what is proven.
    I doubt that.

    Thanks for the informative piece.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    241
    Interesting stuff. Do you know the saying about all the monkeys with the typewriters? Substitute scientists and laboratories, and you'll get the same result. Every day science says XXXX is bad for you. The next week, someone else's science says that SOME XXXX is actually good for you. Amazing how scientists will contradict themselves around funding time. I'd much rather tell the world I was wrong, than have to go and find a real job because 5000 other "experts" are researching the same thing.

    As for cleaning up the enviornment being a bad thing after all: WOO HOO! IN YOUR FACE TREE HUGGING HIPPIE ASSHOLES!

    Excuse me now, while I go drive my V8 dinosaur, and REALLY do something to save the planet.
    Shorter of breath...One day closer to death. Pink Floyd

  4. #4
    The global warming debate has become as problematic as evolution: There is a debate where there should be none. Its a sad state of affairs when the northern polar ice cap is melting and instead of being alarmed, countries like Canada and Russia are fighting over whom gets to drill for oil in the newly melted areas. With this kind of attitude, the bbc article I read yesterday claiming that polar bears will be extinct in 43 years comes as no surprise!

  5. #5
    Name Retired.
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Her Hot Dreams
    Posts
    2,417
    Quote Originally Posted by mtwallet
    Interesting stuff. Do you know the saying about all the monkeys with the typewriters? Substitute scientists and laboratories, and you'll get the same result. Every day science says XXXX is bad for you. The next week, someone else's science says that SOME XXXX is actually good for you. Amazing how scientists will contradict themselves around funding time. I'd much rather tell the world I was wrong, than have to go and find a real job because 5000 other "experts" are researching the same thing.

    As for cleaning up the enviornment being a bad thing after all: WOO HOO! IN YOUR FACE TREE HUGGING HIPPIE ASSHOLES!

    Excuse me now, while I go drive my V8 dinosaur, and REALLY do something to save the planet.
    Hello Mtwallet,

    There is no contradiction at all and there is no possible reason to think so. What we have here are two extremely threatening conditons with opposite hazardous consequences that create a very dangerous defacto near nullification of each other that is ready to explode either way. No one said anywhere that any part of this was positive, and there is nothing good about being caught between two demons, each trying to dominate the other and send us all into an ecological catastrophe. So you are guilty of severe mischaracterization with an obvious agenda.

    Anyway, thanks for your post. Too bad you discredit yourself by imposing such an indisputable right wing bias. Thanks for taking the time to vent your feelings. Maybe next time you might wish to contribute with facts instead of a rant.

    Cheers friend,

    Korbel
    Last edited by korbel; 09-09-2007 at 08:01 PM.
    Korbie: of the Boston Red Sox Nation...the NBA Champion Boston Celtics Pride...and...the New England Patriots Dynasty!

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    241
    Korble, the latter half of my post was not meant to be taken seriously. It's too bad that you did. I didn't get into exact time and date facts simply because that makes for a long winded, and boring post. However....

    Scientific research from the University of Edinburgh Scotland "proved" global warming was contributed to, by "Bovine flatulance". That's cow farts boys and girls.

    E85, the enviornmental saviour fuel of the future. Too bad that research has proved that even if the entire continent of North America was one big cornfield, it would only yield enough to cover less than 12% of the fuel demand of the United States.

    Bio diesel made from used vegetable oil. Absolutely useless in Canada and most of the US, simply because it congeals into a lard-like substance in cold weather. It has to be mixed with regular diesel. 90%. Kind of defeats the purpose.

    The sun will cause cancer, however we require the vitamin (correct me if I'm wrong) E produced by sunlight, to be healthy.

    For years we heard how cholesterol was bad for us. Now we find out that there's such a thing as "good cholesterol"

    Chocolate will make you obese. Odd how the American Journal of Medicine now says that some dark chocolate EVERY DAY is good for you. Not if you have a really slow metabolism.

    The point I was trying to make, is that science can, and is, manipulated to produce whatever results people want. Science therefore "contridicts" itself continuously. When Al Gore made his enviro movie, I forget the name, a lot of the science was accepted as fact. Now, just one or two years later, some of those same facts have been called into doubt as products of "junk science". There is no doubt that the world is polluted. I don't like not being able to swim in the same lakes I did as a kid. That's why I recycle. Will the polar bears all be dead in my lifetime. Maybe. Maybe it's just part of Darwin's theory of evolution though. All the publicity about the hole in the ozone has gone away, so has public interest in it. With no public to feed, I doubt that there's a ton of funding now. In my opinion, when the public gets tired of hearing about global warming, the levels of interest, concern and research will drop too. Mother Nature has ways of fixing herself, but there's nothing wrong with giving a helping hand : recycling, car pooling, solar panels etc.


    PS: You mentioned an obvious agenda? A little help please.
    Shorter of breath...One day closer to death. Pink Floyd

  7. #7
    Working rage-aholic
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    a rocky planet with one moon
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by rollingstone
    The global warming debate has become as problematic as evolution: There is a debate where there should be none. Its a sad state of affairs when the northern polar ice cap is melting and instead of being alarmed, countries like Canada and Russia are fighting over whom gets to drill for oil in the newly melted areas. With this kind of attitude, the bbc article I read yesterday claiming that polar bears will be extinct in 43 years comes as no surprise!
    Let's face it, many, if not most people, are myopic, selfish and prone to denial, especially when it comes to things that don't affect them today.

    Between the people who work for companies whose profits would be damaged by more regulation, people who don't want to make any lifestyle sacrifices (that's most of us) and people who are just plain in denial or flatly don't care, little will be done until there's a crisis...Americans, unfortunately, have a long history of ignoring problems until they're a crisis, a la, the New Orleans levees, the terrorist plot on 9/11, Pearl Harbor, etc.

    Personally, I don't give a shit about Polar Bears, but I don't think people realize that things that affect other species will eventually affect us or our children.

    Mtwallet, I don't know to what extent you were being tongue in-cheek, but I find your argument that scientists provide contradictory studies all the time somewhat disingenuous. You can cling to dishonest studies (often funded by special interest groups) to show a contrary argument for most any position, but that doesn't make it so.
    I might be able to dig up some obscure studies showing archaic health benefits to being morbidly obese, but I'm not about to argue that it's healthy to be 60lbs overweight because I know it isn't.
    Or maybe I can find another study showing how unhealthy it is to eat broccoli, but I'd be suspect of it, especially if the study was funded by Snicker's
    Why are homely people discriminated against...we're the majority

  8. #8
    Working rage-aholic
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    a rocky planet with one moon
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by mtwallet
    Mother Nature has ways of fixing herself, but there's nothing wrong with giving a helping hand : recycling, car pooling, solar panels etc.
    I agree 'mother nature' will be okay. Even if all of us made a concerted effort to destroy the earth as much possible, even if we launched every nuke on the planet, or drove the biggest trucks possible and eliminated all regulations, etc, the earth would still be fine. Hell, life would still probably exist, in some form, because the earth, unlike other planets, is wonderfully suited to support life...we're just the right distance from a star, we've got an atmosphere, and water, etc...earth would be fine. And eventually, the pollution will be 'fixed', even if it takes tens of thousands of years.

    It's us I'm worried about, because when, and not if, sea levels rise, and CO2 levels get high enough, etc, etc, it's going to hurt us and our lifestyle. I don't mean to preach, I just think many of us are missing the point-it's not the earth that is hurt by pollution at all, and the only animals I'm interested in saving are the ones I'm planning to eat. The ony motivation for reducing pollution (within reason) is long term preservation of the species
    Why are homely people discriminated against...we're the majority

  9. #9
    I would think Canadians would welcome global warming. I don’t know about you, but its about that time when those of us in the Northeast are gonna start freezing our butts off.
    Some might think that selfish (if you believe it is man/women made) but its all about the sun, and the earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years. I say shed them cloths and enjoy it!

  10. #10
    Name Retired.
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Her Hot Dreams
    Posts
    2,417
    Quote Originally Posted by beautydigger
    I would think Canadians would welcome global warming. I don’t know about you, but its about that time when those of us in the Northeast are gonna start freezing our butts off.
    Some might think that selfish (if you believe it is man/women made) but its all about the sun, and the earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years. I say shed them cloths and enjoy it!
    Hello Beautydigger,

    That's a very positive way to look at things. Good for you. HOWEVER! Since prolonged extreme warming of the Northrn Hemisphere would dump billions of tons of formerly frozen water into the ocean and shut off the Gulf Stream the "warm" climate you could geg might be more like Arabia than Miami. Then of course the populated areas of Canada on the coasts and the St. Lawrence River would be deep under water. But bring your san tan lotion if you wish...lol.

    Happy swimming,

    Korbel
    Korbie: of the Boston Red Sox Nation...the NBA Champion Boston Celtics Pride...and...the New England Patriots Dynasty!

  11. #11

    Exclamation Satellite observations show Arctic sea ice melting faster

    Arctic sea ice melting faster
    'Best answer is warming,' say researchers, who predict trend to continue

    The Associated Press
    Updated: 8:39 a.m. ET Sept. 29, 2005

    New satellite observations show that sea ice in the Arctic is melting faster while air temperatures in the region are rising sharply, scientists say.

    Since 2002, satellite data have revealed unusually early springtime melting in areas north of Siberia and Alaska. Now the melting trend has spread throughout the Arctic, according to a national collaboration of scientists.

    The latest observations through September show that melting in 2005 began a record 17 days earlier than usual.

    The observations showed 2.06 million square miles of sea ice as late as Sept. 19. That’s the lowest measurement of Arctic sea ice cover ever recorded, the researchers said. It’s also 20 percent less than the average of end-of-summer ice pack cover measurements recorded since 1978.


    At the same time, average air temperatures across most of the Arctic region from January to August 2005 were as much as 5.4 degrees warmer than average temperature over the last 50 years, said the team of researchers from two universities and NASA.

    “The melting and retreat trends are accelerating,” Ted Scambos, of the University of Colorado at Boulder’s National Snow and Ice Data Center, said in a statement released by the university. The results have not yet been published in a scientific journal.

    “The one common thread,” Scambos said, “is that Arctic temperatures over the ice, ocean and surrounding land have increased in recent decades.”

    'Best answer is warming'


    The scientists stopped short of directly blaming the melting trend on global warming but said they have few other explanations at this point.

    During the 1990s, a cyclical atmospheric circulation pattern called the Arctic Oscillation was believed to have been pushing sea ice out of the region and into adjacent waters. But the oscillation has weakened in recent years, and yet the melting continued and even accelerated.

    “Something has fundamentally changed here, and the best answer is warming,” said Mark Serreze, another researcher at the snow and ice data center.

    Sea ice records in the Arctic are sketchy before 1978. Since satellite observations began in earnest, researchers said Arctic ice has been retreating at a rate of more than 8 percent per decade.

    And, they suspect, the melting may only contribute to even higher arctic temperatures in the future. That’s because the bright white ice tends to reflect more of the sun’s radiation. With more of the dark ocean exposed, the seawater tends to absorb more heat and reduce the amount of solar energy reflected back into space.

    The researchers used satellite data from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Defense Department, as well as data from Canadian satellites and weather observatories.

    The Colorado institute led the study that also involved two NASA laboratories, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Washington.

    © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9527485/

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by rollingstone
    The global warming debate has become as problematic as evolution: There is a debate where there should be none.
    Really? I think the problem is exactly the opposite. Science does not advance thru certainties, concensus and lack of debate. Quite the contrary. The real problem here is that Global Warming has become a religion and the "alarmists" are acting like religious zealots who quickly shun or dismiss studies that contradict their findings. And much of the blame lies on the media, who just keep trumpeting the popular point of view and completely ignore science that contradicts it. Shame on them. I'm reminded of a quote from an article about the media constantly nitpicking on the "facts" in Michael Moore films.

    "The problem isn't that the media is so quick to doubt Moore. It's that they're so trusting the rest of the time.

    And that certainly applies to Global Warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by btyger
    Mtwallet, I don't know to what extent you were being tongue in-cheek, but I find your argument that scientists provide contradictory studies all the time somewhat disingenuous. You can cling to dishonest studies (often funded by special interest groups) to show a contrary argument for most any position, but that doesn't make it so.
    Sorry but I think you are the one being disengenuous. Your argument is simply a knee-jerk reaction (which I'v heard a thousand times) that lumps all contradictory studies in the camp of "dishonest studies funded by Big Oil and special interests groups." And if you really think about it, and when you understand how funding for science works, this argument also (if not more so) applies to studies that support the "alarmist" point of view. Do you know how much money is being funneled into global warming research? Billions. Do you realize how much pressure scientists face to come up with conclusions that support the "popular opinion" if they want to keep receiving said funding? A number of reputable scientists have seen their funding cut off simply because their studies questionned that "popular opinion". Moreover, there are several reputable scientists who not only participated in the latest UN IPCC report but were also on the review board, that complained about the way their studies were being used, i.e. that excerpts were used without context and that words were changed to fit the "popular opinion". In a word, there's as much disinformation going on as their is information.

    Quote Originally Posted by mtwallet
    The point I was trying to make, is that science can, and is, manipulated to produce whatever results people want. Science therefore "contridicts" itself continuously. When Al Gore made his enviro movie, I forget the name, a lot of the science was accepted as fact. Now, just one or two years later, some of those same facts have been called into doubt as products of "junk science". There is no doubt that the world is polluted. I don't like not being able to swim in the same lakes I did as a kid. That's why I recycle. Will the polar bears all be dead in my lifetime. Maybe. Maybe it's just part of Darwin's theory of evolution though. All the publicity about the hole in the ozone has gone away, so has public interest in it. With no public to feed, I doubt that there's a ton of funding now. In my opinion, when the public gets tired of hearing about global warming, the levels of interest, concern and research will drop too. Mother Nature has ways of fixing herself, but there's nothing wrong with giving a helping hand : recycling, car pooling, solar panels etc.
    I agree with this completely. Yes, let's not put our heads in the sand and let's do what we can to give our environment a helping hand, but let's do it for tangible reasons. For example, the number of smokers has decreased dramatically in the past 25 years, and yet, the number of cancers due to chemical pollution has increased dramatically. That's tangible.

    To quote Richard Lindzen, yes a "skeptic":

    On scientific concensus and the argument that there should be no debate:

    "Picking holes in the IPCC is crucial. The notion that if you’re ignorant of something and somebody comes up with a wrong answer, and you have to accept that because you don’t have another wrong answer to offer is like faith healing, it’s like quackery in medicine – if somebody says you should take jelly beans for cancer and you say that’s stupid, and he says, well can you suggest something else and you say, no, does that mean you have to go with jelly beans?"
    Last edited by JustBob; 09-15-2007 at 02:32 PM.

  13. #13
    Hey, and now we are starting to indoctrinate children!

    I don't know how many of you have seen Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth", but his key argument relied on a chart showing a direct correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and rises in temperature. So he said:

    “The relationship is very complicated. But there is one relationship that is more powerful than all the others and it is this. When there is more CO2, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun …”
    Well unfortunately for Mr Gore, this has been proven false. If he had used a proper scale (one in hundreds or thousands of years, instead of 150,000 years) he would have clearly seen that the relationship is reversed, i.e. it's not CO2 that drives temperature but the opposite, and that temperature increases generally precede increasing CO2 by several hundred to a few thousand years.

    And now, the film's producer Laurie David has just published a children's book on Global Warming, that not only perpetuates this myth, but where the actual temperature curve in the chart was switched with the actual CO2 curve. That is, the authors mislabeled the blue curve as temperature and mislabeled the red curve as CO2 concentration...

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ot...bookerror.html

    And...

    On page 103 of their book, David and Gordon cite the work of Siegenthaler et al. (2005), for their written and graphical contention that temperature lags CO2. However, Siegenthaler et al. clearly state the opposite:

    “The lags of CO2 with respect to the Antarctic temperature over glacial terminations V to VII are 800, 1600, and 2800 years, respectively, which are consistent with earlier observations during the last four glacial cycles.”

    (Siegenthaler et al., 2005, Science, vol. 310, 1313-1317)

  14. #14
    Quite the performance, JustBob, for one who recently made the promise to never again discuss the issue of global warming on this board.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Korbel
    Hello JB,

    There are a lot that is hypothesis and conjecture in science, but to say "science does not advance thru certainties" is not only dead wrong, it's the equivalent of a lie. Science, when successful, builds on one small certainty after another. How could it ever advance otherwise. How could we know or have anything that science has brought us...medicines, cell phones, etc, if science never proved anything was certain as you imply. We operate within a certain law of physics we have applied to create all we have and if there were no certainties, how could it all be.
    Note the bolded words, and note the word "advance". You are totally misrepresenting what I said. Yes, science advances thru a series of small certainties, often one step back, two steps forward, three steps back, two steps forward, etc... And contradictory science is KEY to this scientific process. Hypothesis are put forth, validated or proven false, leading to more hypothesis, and the process repeats itself until the number of valid hypothesis becomes smaller and smaller, and larger certainties emerge. This is certainly not the case with Global Warming where the process has been reversed, i.e. where a larger certainty has been put forth which we are supposed to believe largely based on faith, and contradictory studies are shunned or ignored. Sorry, but that's not the way the scientific process is supposed to work.

    After reading many of your replies on global warming I think you should face something...or admit to what you probably already know so well. Your mind is CLOSED on this matter and would remain so if you were sitting on the top of Mt Everest and drowning under a mile of ocean water. I have plenty of healthy skepticism about science and many other things. But I am open to evidence....even if it isn't quite perfect. YOU ARE NOT!!! THAT IS A FACT!!! Your view is characteristic of a religious "True Believer" who is eternally entrenched on one belief and can never be dissuaded from it or convinced of anything that clashes with that core belief. You are closed minded...at least on this. To say "science does not advance thru certainties" is not just indicative of an opposing point of view, it's cognitive shut down, pure denial and totally illogical. A lot of things you say are intelligent and true. But here you are carrying your opposition into "incredible".
    Please Korbel, I respect you and your opinion, but attacking the poster instead of his arguments is just incredibly lame. It's anti-debating 101 and it's usually the stuff of people who are not knowledgable enough on issues to be able to debate them intelligently.

    So, as for your close-mindedness and "true believer" accusations, I think you have this backwards. This applies to those who have lost the ability to critically think, and blindly adhere to whatever popular opinion is spewed by the media. I'm not anti Global Warming, and I'm perfectly capable of evaluating the science on BOTH sides (note that there isn't a single "skeptic" that believes that Global Warming does not exist, the issues in contention lie elsewhere). And since the popular opinion is the one which is overwhelmingly presented by the media, I choose to make people aware of the other side of the coin. That would make me rational, logical and open-minded. It is those who blindly accept "certainties" put forth when there is so much contradictory evidence, and use knee-jerk reactions to dismiss other opinions when their own are threatened that are close-minded and rely on "blind faith".
    Last edited by JustBob; 09-15-2007 at 03:54 PM.

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •