Bush Hurricane Conspiracy

[wesmorris]

That is a strange way to tackle this situation -- to proclaim that because the evidence is there that the warming is occuring AT A MUCH FASTER RATE than it has over the last 1000 or even 500 years in the last 100 years doesn't hint that humanities activities has exasperated this effect is to me, rather bizarre.

You haven't presented anything but a claim! Can you understand now? Do you think that scientists don't have agendas? There are plenty of scientists claiming plenty of things, but I understand enough about statistics and science to know how easy it is to baffle people who don't with it. It just takes good PR.

Please read this. It's well put. My position is summarized perfectly in it. I was shocked to see it put so well with only a few minutes of searching.

If it is not humanities doing, then what else could it be that the earths average temperature is increasing at a much more rapid rate than ever recorded according to records.

The earth is approx. 4 billion years old and was perhaps more than once a solid ball of ice. Prior to the breaking apart of Pangea, the surfact temperature in the center (along with the intensity of weather) was likely extremely more insane than current climate offers. The point is that it's an old, violent planet. The typical violence offered by non-human events over the history of the planets simply dwarfs current apparent negative effects. The magnitude of such events makes humanity look pretty insignificant in comparison to the forces the earth/solar system offers us without our input.

Does the increasing amount of Co2 in the atmosphere NOT account for this in your opinion?

It probably does yeah, but that doesn't mean it isn't natural, or that it won't be correct itself without further directed effort regardless of environmental policy. Again, prevenative policy is probably best given our apparent ignorance as to the potential long term impact of humanity on its environment.

Please explain what other phenomena BESIDES human activites could account for this, before you tackle what current science is pointing at.

Volcanoes, animals, vents. That kind of thing.

We're not the sole source of Co2 in the atmosphere, but we are increasing it muchly with the global Co2 factory we have going here on earth.

You breath too much you dirty bastard. Hehe. Teasing. Pardon.

There is no evidence to suggest that volcanoes or underwater "bubbles" of Co2 have suddenly, in the last 100 years been filtering into the atmosphere, not sure what other ideas you have for this there.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Volcanoes have always contributed to the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as far as I know. I could be mistaken. I get the names of stuff wrong sometimes and I'm sometimes distracted when watching that stuff on the science channel. I'm pretty sure the reason offered that the earth recovered from the spiraling snowball effect was due to the greenhouse effect offered by the planet's volcanic activity, taking several hundred thousand years to build up enough gasses to warm up the "snowball earth".

I would say we can say our estimates of our contributions are realistic - there is good info on file, at a pretty good guess, of how many cars there are for example in our cities.

So in your completely unscientific opinion, you're right? I mean for the purposes of casual conversation I might lend your claim credence, but for the purposes of making scientific claims I don't think you're making the cut. Hehe. Pardon, but seriously man.. think about what you're saying here. There might be good estimates, but how accurate are they? How can you even say for sure? You can't really I'd think... well, maybe in the last 20 years or so there might be good records (with satellites and all). Regardless, how it compares in volume to other earthly contributions is of paramount importance. If you don't know how much mother nature put out, you don't have a goddamned clue if we're doing it or if it's just a thing that seems to be happening for reasons we're not quite sure about.

We have good info on how polluted our cities get on a still day.

Certainly, but does that impact global warming? You mean air pollution? Are you sure it impacts global warming or are you just spewing environmentalist dogma? I don't say that to goad, but to ask you a serious and very important question regarding our ability to have a "scientific" conversation on this topic.

We have good info on how much forestland, such as that in Brazil, is being cleared every year.

The logging corporations there will catch a clue soon enough if they are clear cutting land, as they will soon find themselves with no product to sell. It's in the best interest of logging companies to ensure an adequate supply of trees. The investment in comparison to the potential loss makes it a "no brainer". American companies have learned that long ago, hence all our trees now.

We have good info on how many coal & oil powerhouses we have here on earth. Those "guestimates" we are making is based on good solid info.

You seem pretty certain but I have a sneaking feeling you're only saying that because it seems to make sense. I agree that it seems to make sense on the surface, but I'm not so sure you're correct. I'd like to see a 95% confidence on max human yearly CO2 input for the last hundred years, and then read the paper on how they can be so confident (given that there is no single database and I'd imagine many countries have fraudulent records).

To answer your last question - human understanding about the gases is actually quiet advanced - we understand how Carbon Dioxide traps more heat than Oxygen does. That can be demonstrated repeatedly in tests.

Gasses is one thing. Bournouli did that up a while back and it kicks ass, however.. global climate is much more involved that "gasses".

Good on 'yaz! The Aussie government doesn't care too much for the old growth Tasmanian forests unfortunately. And I'd say we have less trees in this country that we ever have.

I'm sure they'll get a clue. I'd guess as an industry finds itself on the brink of failure due to their stupidity, they'll remember "oh shit, seeds! that's the solution!".

The natural processes that remove Co2 are the forests and the oceans, not rain afaik.

Here is a pretty graphic to clear it up. Thanks for the correction.

Not sure how to interpret your last question, as we will never be beyond the limit -- every step we take in the right direction is what we need to be looking @, not merely ignoring it and covering it in mud.

That sounds more like indoctrination that good sense. What is "the right direction"? What if 1,000,000 people starve to death because of resources redirected to stop global warming? I'm just trying hard to make the point that "the right direction" is not particularly clear.

My credentials are as much as armchair enthusiast, however I think that's enough with all the evidence surrounding us in every corner.

With all due respect, maybe someone is telling you what to believe? It's kind of easy to put complex issues in simple terms that seem to make sense if you lack the proper tools to see the over-simplification.

It seems you are diverting the attack to the arguer here, not the theory behind it.

You said "This is all proven science at work here."

Perhaps I should have said "you have provided no evidence to support that claim."

I don't believe that you agree with the idea that global warming with human assistance is taking place, and I think that's an issue and it's unsettling that people are willing to put 10 million dollars on teh betting table and think this way.

I do agree it's possible, but I'm not convinced that it's proven or even very likely. I'm hovering around 50/50 until I see some studies that address the unknowns or offer irrefutable connections. Slide me a link if you have it and don't mind. I can't promise I'll read it because I'm easily distracted and sometimes busy, but I'll read until I smell bullshit.

Personally, I think that given small shifts in our way of thinking and handling this we will be taking steps in the right direction.

Easier said than done. Competing values complicates the scenario immensely.

We should be saying, at this relatively early age in this process that is taking place "well, lets set ourselves some targets -- in the next 20 years or so we want all automobiles to be non-reliant off our (limited) supply of fossil fuels.

That's a good idea for other reasons. For the specified purpose it is simply premature.

Remember that once oil supplies come to a hault - there won't be ANYTHING left for us to use, this will collapse the manufacturing industry COMPLETELY, no more appliances for you and me or your grandchildren!

That's not necessarily true at all. An oil-free economy could definately support manufacturing. My guess is that regardless, my children will have appliances. Of course that's just a guess.

So is it not prudent to start considering these matters NOW, and to forget about blindly intruding into other countries that have done no wrong doing "for our precious economy" and consider some priorities!

It's definately prudent to consider them, but premature to take drastic action. I will not forget about intruding into other countries to ensure world-wide economic stability, especially when there are other reasons that justify it. To insinuate that Iraq was "innocent" is most revealing as to whom has their proverbial head in the sand.

I am sort of, to an extent. I beleive that the big corporations are robbing the smaller guys and there is loasds of uncompetitive behaviour going on with the large corporations.

Big corporations are just like the smaller guys in general. They try to (at least give the impression) satisfy their customers in order to prolong their existance (remarkably similar to a survival instinct) and continue to thrive.

There is so much money embezzlement bullshit going on, I mean for one, let's just say you're a poor man software developer and you bring out a program to display slide shows quickly and easily. Nowadays you can get your little arse sued by the company that believes that you stole some companies millions of $ of research in how to create a drop-down box.

In business there are risks. If you are not willing to take them, you work for someone who is. Your complaints are no excuse. I really think tsun tsu should be taught profusely in all educational systems so people can understand the nature of competition better than they seem to.

Okay that example may be a little far fetched but it's pretty close.... The rich lawyers out there have merely set up a franchise there for themselves to protect their own interests and the interests of the big corporations. Nice.

Do you blame them? Isn't it the most human of all things to protect your interests? I take issue with the corrupt for sure, but corporations are made up of people. Some of them are corrupt. Welcome to humanity. The rich lawyers, while pretty much disgusting, are apparently necessary for now or they wouldn't exist. Hopefully we'll discover a better way as we plod into our future, but I can imagine a thousand worse scenarios quite easily.

A McDonalds in every village -- sweet!! Lovely, my face just lights up every time I see that great reminder of global homogeneousness.

*shrug* The consumers don't have to eat it.

Why do I get the feeling that you are somehow involved with large corporations yourself. Sounds like your not such a "little guy" to me.

Because you're a corporate conspiracy theorist and I'm defending corporations. I don't hate corporations in general any more than I hate you. You're a hater and if you get down to it I'd bet you can't really defend your hate, you're just kind of in on the whole "power to the people" thing, which to an extent I'm down with... but I refuse to go back to the dogmatic mindset "corporations suck!" because in fact when I give them a fair shot, I'd say they are really the most important things in the world and have spearheaded the advance of humanity. In essence, I owe any semblance of prosperity I feel (in a material sense) to corporations. While I'm not entirely materialilstic, I'm certainly ecstatic to be able to talk to people all around the world on my keen computer here.

And I AM a little guy. I'm the quality manager/ IT director for a small company who works a lot for a large one. I really love my little company and hope to foster it into a big small company over time. I want to do it such that we are the better solution because we are more efficient.. because we do better work, because we're more dependable... because we respect the limits of planetary resources and want to honor them by not wasting them. I also wish to ensure the economic prosperity of my family and those of my co-workers by doing so.

Did you find any graphs like this :

Yeah. Your graph doesn't say much in the big picture though. Have you looked at a graph of the stock exchange up close like that? You can't establish long term traits based on local phenomenon, it's that simple.

SOunds like you're burying your head in the sand mate.

Or perhaps you simply haven't thought this through as clearly as you think you have.

1 billion years of evidence would be a little hard to pull considering we don't even have 1 billion years of ice core to drill through..

That makes long term prediction kind of tough eh? Get it?

Attacks aside here, it seems to me that you are refuting the evidence that SCIENTISTS have been pulling out of their clackers... Pull another one !

Scientists are people. They have egos and careers. That some or even a lot of scientists are saying something doesn't mean it's definate. It's a theory at this point with some supporting evidence, but discering human impact from environmental hasn't been done clearly that I'm aware of.

Further, and to the ends of the link article above, I'd guess what you've been reading isn't particularly scientific to begin with. Further, not all scientists are good statisticians, which makes interpreting data pretty tough. I'd say there is evidence to support the claim that humans contribute to global warming, but nothing concrete. As such, there's not much to be said about the topic at this time other than "precautionary measures".

Ciao

Cya.

 

[Stryder]

CO<SUB>2</SUB> isn't just the problem, but the other chemicals/gases like C<SUB>x</SUB>H<SUB>x</SUB>, H<SUB>2</SUB>S, NO<SUB>x</SUB> and other CO<SUB>x</SUB> varients.

For instance H<SUB>2</SUB>S can be generated from Volcanoes that much is known from a blast that once occured above Crete which wiped out the population of the island as well as causing a tidal wave and Acid cloud.

However H<SUB>2</SUB>S can also be generated from the biodegrading of organic material. For those of you that don't know H<SUB>2</SUB>S (Hydrogen-Sulphide) can in quantity be lethal and is one of the gases to check for when working in the biomass field.

C<SUB>x</SUB>H<SUB>x</SUB> (Acetylene, Methane, Butane etc) can be generated from the Biodegrading of Organic matter, however it can also come from the Chemical production industry like household cleaning fluids and even acids used for cleaning metal of corrosion. This gas can be burnt off rather than vented, and even used in conjunction with power-regeneration to Burn the gas so it's exhaust might become the lesser of two evils while also producing power.

There is also all the pollutants created by the petrolleum industry through their flares, that burn at a high temperature but can create NO<SUB>x</SUB> as a side effect.
(Nitrogen-Monoxide/Nitrogen-Dioxide)

When these gases are in the atmosphere they can alter molecular state due to photonic energy bombardment which can cause change in molecular bonding.
This has been observed by NASA satellites that monitor the amount of CO<SUB>2</SUB> & C<SUB>x</SUB>H<SUB>x</SUB> in the atmosphere, if I remember correctly it was shown that depending on the time of year and the planets alignment to sun the chemical reactions in the atmosphere would ebb and flow between some chemicals being in higher densities than others, as elements from the molecules would switch their bonding partners in relationship to photonic energy.

Therefore it's suggested that too much of one particular chemical in the atmosphere would cause the increase in the wrong types of chemicals, and the Kyoto agreement was destined to help prove if man has such a deriving factor on the earth by asking all the countries of the world to lower their emission. If man has played such a factor on the globes ecological state it would be made known by NASA's scans over the decline in emissions through policy up until Kyoto's original agreement comes in in 2010 (or 2015 as the US agreed)

 

[ElectricFetus]

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html

Lets not also forget how the ice caps and glaciers everywhere are melting at an alarmingly faster rate.

Did anyone read that article in national geographic about global warming, that was good.

 

[Persol]

Lets not also forget how the ice caps and glaciers everywhere are melting at an alarmingly faster rate.

I've got to ask, so? The largest danger is the disruption of underwater currents and the relocation of heat.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Sure sea levels have resin only 1.7in in the last 50 years, but at this rate of warming sea levels could be up by 400ft by the year 3000! A foot or two increase withing the next 100 years would cause incredible amounts of damage.

 

[Persol]

I doubt it... how much ice do you actually think is above sea level? Not all that much.

On top of this, a melting of the glaciers means a cooling of the ocean's thermal belt, and a cooling of many northern/southern pieces of land. Most ice would simply move... that which melted is mostly below the sea level anyhow.

 

[Marsoups]

You haven't presented anything but a claim! Can you understand now? Do you think that scientists don't have agendas? There are plenty of scientists claiming plenty of things, but I understand enough about statistics and science to know how easy it is to baffle people who don't with it. It just takes good PR.

This topic is in the wrong section, this is hardly "pseudoscience" that we're talking about here ay
I think your argument that I haven't presented anything but a claim is a laugh, since anything anybody says is a claim, of course, sometimes it comes with results, but in this case I don't believe it is too difficult to locate and link to some hard data.

Please read this. It's well put. My position is summarized perfectly in it. I was shocked to see it put so well with only a few minutes of searching.

I'm sorry but I can't bare to read through so much drivel (opinionated armchair biases extraordinaire)... No point in arguing with people who think they know what they're talking about is there

The earth is approx. 4 billion years old and was perhaps more than once a solid ball of ice. Prior to the breaking apart of Pangea, the surfact temperature in the center (along with the intensity of weather) was likely extremely more insane than current climate offers. The point is that it's an old, violent planet. The typical violence offered by non-human events over the history of the planets simply dwarfs current apparent negative effects. The magnitude of such events makes humanity look pretty insignificant in comparison to the forces the earth/solar system offers us without our input.

That is true, however, the earth has been a VERY stable place for the last coupla thousand years. Without that level of stability I don't believe we could have such a great diverse level of life here on earth - admit it, the world as we know it today is extremely well "nourished"..

It probably does yeah, but that doesn't mean it isn't natural, or that it won't be correct itself without further directed effort regardless of environmental policy. Again, prevenative policy is probably best given our apparent ignorance as to the potential long term impact of humanity on its environment.

100% agreed. Have you noticed that your president isn't at all interested in doing something about this ? What's the last policy that President Bush implemented in order to somehow curb Greenhouse gas emissions ? Come on, be truthful ? Does perhaps, Exxon etc. have something to do with this ?

Volcanoes, animals, vents. That kind of thing.

True, apparently farting cows contribute to about 5% of Greenhouse gases.. Now only if they can, like Ali-G said in one episode, somehow contain said farts!

You breath too much you dirty bastard. Hehe. Teasing. Pardon.

I have plants outside that are able to handle the amount of breathing I do!

I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Volcanoes have always contributed to the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as far as I know. I could be mistaken. I get the names of stuff wrong sometimes and I'm sometimes distracted when watching that stuff on the science channel. I'm pretty sure the reason offered that the earth recovered from the spiraling snowball effect was due to the greenhouse effect offered by the planet's volcanic activity, taking several hundred thousand years to build up enough gasses to warm up the "snowball earth".

Well, I disagree with your opinion that it is volcanoes, that suddenly over the last 50 or so years, have suddenly lifted the amount of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere exponentially. We can be relatively assured that our industries are contributing a whole lot, along with deforestation etc.
If you look at the graphs of estimated readouts of total Co2 in the atmosphere in the latest National Geographic magazine, you will see that before the middle of this century the graph was pretty much flat!
It is only recently that Co2 levels have been on the increase, and there are not many things that can explain for that - no new volcanoes etc.,
All this, we would hope is constantly being checked by scientists... We kind of rely on their research for any further policy changes at the moment I guess..

So in your completely unscientific opinion, you're right? I mean for the purposes of casual conversation I might lend your claim credence, but for the purposes of making scientific claims I don't think you're making the cut. Hehe. Pardon, but seriously man.. think about what you're saying here. There might be good estimates, but how accurate are they? How can you even say for sure? You can't really I'd think... well, maybe in the last 20 years or so there might be good records (with satellites and all). Regardless, how it compares in volume to other earthly contributions is of paramount importance. If you don't know how much mother nature put out, you don't have a goddamned clue if we're doing it or if it's just a thing that seems to be happening for reasons we're not quite sure about.

Well, if I'm not arguing with a scientist then I assume that we are having a friendly debate about this. As was said, there is much evidence around us to support the theory that things are warming up FASTER than they ever have, and if it is a natural cause, as you suggest, then we better the hell check it out because it's really going to nail the biodiversity of this place, and endanger the lives of millions of people... Have you ever imagined how we will deal with a city of 20 million running out of water supplies?... If the world can't adapt as fast as the weather changes then we are going to be dealing with a lot uglier planet in the future. Unfortunately the world famous coral reefs of Australia are going to be going through bleaching due to current temperature increases, not much we can do about it I guess, but it is really pretty sad...

Certainly, but does that impact global warming? You mean air pollution? Are you sure it impacts global warming or are you just spewing environmentalist dogma? I don't say that to goad, but to ask you a serious and very important question regarding our ability to have a "scientific" conversation on this topic.

When I talk about pollution here, I'm talking about how much CO2 we're throwing into the atmosphere in a big city. Air pollution consists largely of greenhouse gases mate.. Otherwise where does air pollution come from ?
Cars, buses, trucks, power stations, fires, all are lending a hand here! I don't think you need a degree in science to see that!

You seem pretty certain but I have a sneaking feeling you're only saying that because it seems to make sense. I agree that it seems to make sense on the surface, but I'm not so sure you're correct. I'd like to see a 95% confidence on max human yearly CO2 input for the last hundred years, and then read the paper on how they can be so confident (given that there is no single database and I'd imagine many countries have fraudulent records).

heheh I think we know a lot more than you think about how every country in the world generates its electricity, considering most of it was brought into said small countries by the west. Sounds to me like you may misunderestimate how much we really know about what's going on in the world.
Still, though, even if there are a few fraudenlent records there and here that is not going to make much difference to the calculations -- the calculations should always consider that it may need to "give or take a few". We have an approximate idea of how many coal stations would be pumping how much into the sky, therefore can estimate how much that particular industry is contributing.

Gasses is one thing. Bournouli did that up a while back and it kicks ass, however.. global climate is much more involved that "gasses".

Sure, but it seems to me that you may be in denial that we can actually grasp how these things interact to a certain extent...
Remember that weather prediction is one thing - it's like tapping into a noise generator and trying to make sense of it, but there is a median which one can tap into to get an overall drift of where things are heading.

That sounds more like indoctrination that good sense. What is "the right direction"? What if 1,000,000 people starve to death because of resources redirected to stop global warming? I'm just trying hard to make the point that "the right direction" is not particularly clear.

That is the catch 22 - we don't want to take that risk because we don't know for sure, yet it is possible that there will be a risk so the conclusion that most seem to come to is that we'll deal with it when it happens (when it may be too late to work out how to deal with it effectively).
I was quiet impressed with something I read on the news the other day - apparently Governor Schwartnneggar is keen to get motor industries within California adhering to a certain standard by the year 2015. Light motor vehicles will have to cut emmissions by up to 25%. That is the best thing I have heard since this Global Warming thing started hotting up and it puts a huge smile on my dial. Much respect to the Terminator !

With all due respect, maybe someone is telling you what to believe? It's kind of easy to put complex issues in simple terms that seem to make sense if you lack the proper tools to see the over-simplification.

I trust what the scientists have been reporting to us over the last few years, I don't have to believe every detail , but I can ask somebody how much the ice caps are retreating, or what other weather changes have they noticed during the last 20 years of their 80 year lives ?

I do agree it's possible, but I'm not convinced that it's proven or even very likely. I'm hovering around 50/50 until I see some studies that address the unknowns or offer irrefutable connections. Slide me a link if you have it and don't mind. I can't promise I'll read it because I'm easily distracted and sometimes busy, but I'll read until I smell bullshit.

Check out the article in National Geographic
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/feature1/

Easier said than done. Competing values complicates the scenario immensely.

I don't know, if the State that I live in made some changes, and it is succesful, I feal that other States would want to follow suite.

That's not necessarily true at all. An oil-free economy could definately support manufacturing. My guess is that regardless, my children will have appliances. Of course that's just a guess.

Hmmmm, apparently all the products around you that have some sort of plastic attached to it which relies off oil to be manufactured. If you are keen to chase this up - I can start a new topic in another section and we'll take it to the *experts*, how about that?

It's definately prudent to consider them, but premature to take drastic action. I will not forget about intruding into other countries to ensure world-wide economic stability, especially when there are other reasons that justify it. To insinuate that Iraq was "innocent" is most revealing as to whom has their proverbial head in the sand.

No weapons of mass destruction where discovered in Iraq. People in Iraq, are in general, to a certain degree, inherently violent people in my opinion , it is their way of life. To assume that we are going to guide them to a peaceful democracy, is in my opinion, great guesswork! The future of Iraq is by no means looking good at this point and I fail to see the country simply accepting the American way as a new way of life for their people. There will be much violence and much turmoil in that country - mark my words and remember this conversation every time you hear about trouble in Iraq and the massive failure to understand the true nature of what the people in Iraq wanted, or didn't want!
Saddam was a dictator, an evil man, but guess who put him in power! We want to interfere too much with their politics, they're not easily going to accept what we have to offer, especially with the turmoil and indecisiveness that has occurred around the world due to that puppet that you have ruling your nation. I could go on, but we'd be getting way off topic
Just one more thing -- how does the U.S. plan to stave off any other future anti-americanism which is rife in Iraq ? I could see them planning to build real nuclear weapons just to piss u guys off! Guess we'll be seeing America involved with Iraq for a long, long time
It was so not worth it imho.

In business there are risks. If you are not willing to take them, you work for someone who is. Your complaints are no excuse. I really think tsun tsu should be taught profusely in all educational systems so people can understand the nature of competition better than they seem to.

I understand the basics of competition However I do think there is too much unfair practice out there. For eg., does Microsoft really need to charge the ludicrous amount of money they do for a copy of their O.S. , if they are the one and only leader in the industry ? We are almost forced into buying their mucky software at unrealistic prices... Why should we trust Microsoft more with that extra money than on ourselves ? It is unfair practice unfortunately, and a lot of big corpos subscribe to this. It is this sort of behaviour that really needs a third body to look into things and sort those things out -- cutting Microsoft into 3, that was the biggest load of bullocks I'd ever heard. How about, cutting the cost of their OS to about $30 a unit ? Would that really hurt them too much ? Do you honestly think they're a great and honest, loving company to charge us such steep prices, even though they fully recognise they are the major leading company in the industry?

Do you blame them? Isn't it the most human of all things to protect your interests? I take issue with the corrupt for sure, but corporations are made up of people. Some of them are corrupt. Welcome to humanity. The rich lawyers, while pretty much disgusting, are apparently necessary for now or they wouldn't exist. Hopefully we'll discover a better way as we plod into our future, but I can imagine a thousand worse scenarios quite easily.

*shrug* The consumers don't have to eat it.

That does not make them any prettier... Unilaterism in design principles and ethics can be quite disgusting in some far off corners... But I guess that is an issue for the individual..

Because you're a corporate conspiracy theorist and I'm defending corporations. I don't hate corporations in general any more than I hate you. You're a hater and if you get down to it I'd bet you can't really defend your hate, you're just kind of in on the whole "power to the people" thing, which to an extent I'm down with... but I refuse to go back to the dogmatic mindset "corporations suck!" because in fact when I give them a fair shot, I'd say they are really the most important things in the world and have spearheaded the advance of humanity. In essence, I owe any semblance of prosperity I feel (in a material sense) to corporations. While I'm not entirely materialilstic, I'm certainly ecstatic to be able to talk to people all around the world on my keen computer here.

Yeah. Your graph doesn't say much in the big picture though. Have you looked at a graph of the stock exchange up close like that? You can't establish long term traits based on local phenomenon, it's that simple.

Hmm well it depends largely how far back we can take the graph back to give you a better idea. If there has been an upward trend for the last 50 years, and before that a certain level of stability, chances are that the next phase will be a continued upward trend. If there is, as stock exchange indexes go, large amounts of fluctuations in the graph, that is more suggestive of a level of randomness. Unfortunately, that graph for me, looks like pure and simple mathematics to me.

That makes long term prediction kind of tough eh? Get it?

Hahahaa smartass I'm talking about going back 20 000 years worth of history -- in this particular epoch, we can get a good guess of how things have been running and at what sort of pace.

Scientists are people. They have egos and careers. That some or even a lot of scientists are saying something doesn't mean it's definate. It's a theory at this point with some supporting evidence, but discering human impact from environmental hasn't been done clearly that I'm aware of.

Are you talking about the presentation of said data? There is a shitload of work that's been put in , and even upon analysing one small facet - for eg. aerial photographs going back 30 years - scientists are reporting the "signs".

Further, and to the ends of the link article above, I'd guess what you've been reading isn't particularly scientific to begin with. Further, not all scientists are good statisticians, which makes interpreting data pretty tough. I'd say there is evidence to support the claim that humans contribute to global warming, but nothing concrete. As such, there's not much to be said about the topic at this time other than "precautionary measures".

How can you say that what I've been reading isn't scientific ? It is from the word of scientists themselves! Even you clearly don't have much authority on the matter, considering that you haven't devoted your life to science, so I don't think you're one to speak for that.

Anyway, I just take it we are having a friendly debate here and the consequences of our discussion is not going to have much of an overall bearing on the matter, unless of course, your uncle works in Enron or something of its nature :lol:


Take care
Daniel


Cya.

 

[Marsoups]

Sure sea levels have resin only 1.7in in the last 50 years, but at this rate of warming sea levels could be up by 400ft by the year 3000! A foot or two increase withing the next 100 years would cause incredible amounts of damage.

I heard we're talking about 3 or 4 meter differences.

Regardless, I think I prefer the world the way it was.....There is obviously going to be large amounts of suffering going on in the next 50 - 100 years in many places around the world, due to the damage we're causing...

 

[wesmorris]

I think your argument that I haven't presented anything but a claim is a laugh, since anything anybody says is a claim, of course, sometimes it comes with results, but in this case I don't believe it is too difficult to locate and link to some hard data.

But yet you didn't bother to present any. You just make claims and assume them correct and then defend it with "it's not too hard to find data". Find it or your claim shall remain baseless.

I'm sorry but I can't bare to read through so much drivel (opinionated armchair biases extraordinaire)... No point in arguing with people who think they know what they're talking about is there

Ah, so you won't even listen to a counter-argument. Looks like you describe yourself well. It's good that completely unqualified, unscientific people like yourself can formulate an opinion and stubbornly promote it until my ears bleed... bleeting "but scientists say!!!".

Do you even remotely understand that touting the "last 30 years of data" or anything is basically meaningless in the big picture? Do you know that you're trying to base your model on a sample of less that 0.0000000075% of the data? Statistically, do you have a clue how stupid that is? Seriously? Convince me you have the first clue as to the scientific process and I'll listen. Otherwise the fact that you read National Geographic is nice but un-impressive.

 

[Marsoups]

n remotely understand that touting the "last 30 years of data" or anything is basically meaningless in the big picture? Do you know that you're trying to base your model on a sample of less that 0.0000000075% of the data? Statistically, do you have a clue how stupid that is? Seriously? Convince me you have the first clue as to the scientific process and I'll listen. Otherwise the fact that you read National Geographic is nice but un-impressive.

Erm, please, you're making many many claims yourself...! Where is your long list of credentials then Mr. some-guy-who-works-in-an-office ? So it's all right for you to shoot your mouth off, obviously you have some supreriority complex about yourself...

Funny that you make these comments when your counterarguments have no backing either :lol:

I've pointed to some very informative evidence yet you still can't see the picture... There are MANY links out there describing what's going on here .... I'm not going to be your nanny and try to show you how it's quite evident that's what happening here is EXTREMELY unkosher....

Your arrogance is not surpising. Too many people in the U.S. like you who are too dam arrogant to read the signs.. WAsting my time arguing with such stupidity!

Oh well... Back to the grind...

 

[Marsoups]

It's not hard to tell from the above posts exactly who has the "temper tantrum" problems and can't seperate the topic at hand and their own personal "temper restraint" mechanisms

 

[wesmorris]

Erm, please, you're making many many claims yourself...!

So you're not even paying attention? My claim is that your claims are unfounded. Der duh. It requires that I discredit your argument, which I have. Thanks for playing.

Where is your long list of credentials then Mr. some-guy-who-works-in-an-office ?

If I told you would you believe me? I have a BS in Industrial Engineering. It's not much, but science and statistics were a big big part of it. Certain things about statistics I had to learn at great labor. One of first points made was how easy it is to mislead with them. I mean scientists misleading themselves, or journalists misleading themselves based on scientific data that they don't really understand. I mean that with claims of that magnitude, stiff skepticism is paramount to advancing science. While it does seem that many agree that humans are the cause, there stills exists no definitive answer.

So it's all right for you to shoot your mouth off, obviously you have some supreriority complex about yourself...

I keeps it real. I see problems with your thinking. I offer you your fault and alternatives to your reasoning based on the fault I percieve with it.

Funny that you make these comments when your counterarguments have no backing either :lol:

My counter-argument is very simple. You can't base long-term models on short-term phenomenon. It's common sense. It's about resolution. How can you compute a 1000 year average from a 30 second sample of data? Your confidence could only be like 0.000002 percent or something (totally guesstimated).

I've pointed to some very informative evidence yet you still can't see the picture... There are MANY links out there describing what's going on here .... I'm not going to be your nanny and try to show you how it's quite evident that's what happening here is EXTREMELY unkosher....

None of them that I've run across address my concern. It isn't presented because people.... apparently people just like you don't understand to ask the question in the first place... so why report it?

Your arrogance is not surpising.

LOL. Look in the mirror man. You haven't addressed the point, you keep saying "there's plenty of evidence, look at the articles"... but you don't, and the articles don't answer the question. I ask again how do you account for the fact that you can't base long term trends on short term trends? How about, have you accounted for all natural phenomenon and completely isolated humanity as the certain source of global warming? If you're not certain, then exactly what is the confidence offered by your model? How do you verify that confidence?

Too many people in the U.S. like you who are too dam arrogant to read the signs.. WAsting my time arguing with such stupidity!

So who has the superiority complex here? I think it's you.

Oh well... Back to the grind...

Grind on grinding grinder.

You can pretend if you'd like, that I deny global warming. You're wrong. I have valid questions regarding the methods used to reach these conclusions. I have a very difficult time understanding how such broad assertions can be made on such a small sample of the data. It seems quite un-scientific. Of course I might be wrong. I don't deny global warming, I'm simply not convinced as to the cause or that human activity impacts it significantly. It's also a matter of scale. I'm not certain the seemingly humongous amounts of junk we spew has much predictable significance given the scope of the biosphere (which if separated from humanity might dwarf it for all i know) and planetary geothermal kind of activity.

 

[Marsoups]

Okay, wesmorris, let me ask you a question :

How far will you let the gaia system stuff us over before you start taking precautionary measures ? Sounds to me like you're going to wait too long, perhaps when it's too late.
What I'm saying is that we should be looking in DETAIL at the evidence that is surrounding us, as the earlier we start properly analysing the details, then our chances of probably doing more damage than we had hoped, is minimalised. I say, we shouldn't have to wait for earth to turn itself on us, as in, drought, famine, changing weather systems or whatever, if we want to look after the future of this vulnerable planet that has been taken over by the humans, we should be noting every single detail that we can pick up, and if necessary, take action. Trouble is, that people are STILL not convinced.. Many scientists ARE convinced... Some aren't...
Where are the facts that tell us exactly how many scientists are convinced and how many are not ?

Oh btw, check out this thread :
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=41159

 

[wesmorris]

Okay, wesmorris, let me ask you a question :

How far will you let the gaia system stuff us over before you start taking precautionary measures ? Sounds to me like you're going to wait too long, perhaps when it's too late.

Well, the US has what we call the "EPA". I believe there are a ton of international agreements in effect. To say "you aren't taking any precautions" is simply alarmist dogma.

What I'm saying is that we should be looking in DETAIL at the evidence that is surrounding us, as the earlier we start properly analysing the details, then our chances of probably doing more damage than we had hoped, is minimalised.

That is already happening. Saying that we should start now sound again to me like alarmist dogma.

I say, we shouldn't have to wait for earth to turn itself on us, as in, drought, famine, changing weather systems or whatever, if we want to look after the future of this vulnerable planet that has been taken over by the humans, we should be noting every single detail that we can pick up, and if necessary, take action.

The Earth will not "turn on us". It will perform its function. We should hope to survive it regardless of our affect on that function. The Earth could well destroy us while executing its function, regardless of our impact. It's a very violent planet.

Trouble is, that people are STILL not convinced.. Many scientists ARE convinced... Some aren't...

IMO, it's good that those people don't buy the alarmist dogma. It's as of yet unwarranted to my knowledge, as I've explained a number of times.

Where are the facts that tell us exactly how many scientists are convinced and how many are not?

That's a good question. I would also like answers to the questions I raised.

 

[Stryder]

Just for information purposes the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) isn't just US based, there is pretty much one in every developed country and some in the developing countries (Admittedly to help enforce that their development is clean).

The EPA can deal with anything from Flytipping, to Tribunuals against Industry giants that have been disposing of chemicals wrongly to dealing with lowering greenhouse imissions. If there is every a major fire at a chemical plant, or a chemical spill you can be sure that the EPA will have guys juggling numbers to do the math to check what sort of impact has been made.

 

[Persol]

You'd think... but I've had interaction with the EPA. They are standard government workers. If the situation is in any way different than the status quo, and not deadly, they completely ignore it.

 

[Marsoups]

Well, the US has what we call the "EPA". I believe there are a ton of international agreements in effect. To say "you aren't taking any precautions" is simply alarmist dogma.

Hmmmm I don't know about dogma. Mate you are ignoring the facts that tends of thousands of scientists around the world have proposed. Do you still not believe that Aerosoles are more than likely responsible for the gaping hole in the ozone layer? If that isn't the case, why aren't we using Aerosoles freely ?
The same applies for global warming. If there are tens of thousands of scientists around the world requesting that we take heed, I think that's important that we do.

So... You say, it will cost the lives of millions of people to do so. Simply use our brains,we wil surely figure out a way to keep more intelligent industry going -- it's not really hard when we put our minds to it and stimulate an economy with doing so. People are just lazy and too happy with the constant rate of $$$$$$$ getting deposited in their pockets and getting their dicks sucked by gorgeous women.

The Earth will not "turn on us". It will perform its function. We should hope to survive it regardless of our affect on that function. The Earth could well destroy us while executing its function, regardless of our impact. It's a very violent planet.

Not in this day and age - I'd say its a relatively calm planet now. Throwing a few more hickups...

IMO, it's good that those people don't buy the alarmist dogma. It's as of yet unwarranted to my knowledge, as I've explained a number of times.

I'm not sure I understand your way of thinking however. I'm telling you, that the evidence is there around us, in the magazines, websites, enviromentalists, governments (the Russian government is now included in this as they have signed the Kyoto protocol). There are large chunks of ice melting off the Antartic, the ice belt in Greenland is retreating, glaciers in Canada are doing so as well, the poor polar bares are getting threatened, bleaching is taking place on coral reefs, 5 cyclones in 6 weeks in Florida, different temperatures and salinities in well understood ocean currents, increased average temperatures across the planet over the last few years, weather patterns changing around the world, more CO2 in the atmosphere.....

That's enough evidence for me. I resent the negative dogma attached to these theories, it almost feels that people are too arrogant out there to heed the signs...

That's a good question. I would also like answers to the questions I raised.

You want links ?

An antartic research station link :
http://theice.org/

Check out the article...

Headline :
Gigantic Iceberg Breaks Loose!!!

I guess this might seem arbitrary to you. But metling at this rate has not been noticed by us before recent times.. Even though we've got data pointing back about 100 years.

Anyway, some more theory for you,....,.,.,.,.,.,.



ASK A SCIENTIST- Cause for Global Warming/Hole in Ozone Layer - discusses "urban warming", rather than "global warming"...
The physics of El Nino
A simple picture of how El Nino works
The myth of global warming (opinion)
Natural Life Magazine- Global Warming: A Reality
The Source of Half the World's Oxygen gets little credit
The Remarkable Ocean World - The Gaia Hypothesis
Guide to philosophy and the Environment
The Gaian Mind

 

[Persol]

Not in this day and age - I'd say its a relatively calm planet now. Throwing a few more hickups...

Talk of 'this day ang age' is idiotic on the scales in question.

I guess this might seem arbitrary to you. But metling at this rate has not been noticed by us before recent times.. Even though we've got data pointing back about 100 years.

This follows my previous comment. It's like a new born thinking the birds are flying south because it cried. After all, it 'has not been noticed by us before recent times'. We have evidence that this has happened before, and on a scale MUCH MUCH greater

If there are tens of thousands of scientists around the world requesting that we take heed

And this is what your entire discussion is founded on. If you ask them flat out, they'll admit that they have no idea if it's us or a natural cycle (except for the most stubborn). There are scientists on both sides of the fence.... the media just tends to focus on the death and destruction side.

 

[Marsoups]

Talk of 'this day ang age' is idiotic on the scales in question.
This follows my previous comment. It's like a new born thinking the birds are flying south because it cried. After all, it 'has not been noticed by us before recent times'. We have evidence that this has happened before, and on a scale MUCH MUCH greater

Haha!! Yeh there was one that arrived in Sydney Harbour a few years back!!

The place we find outselves in, is, we're noticing that the ice shelves are constantly retreating, and now possibly possibly even more so due to the help we're giving it. We should consider the environment. Take action I'd say if we can prove that we can be somehow contributing to it.

And this is what your entire discussion is founded on. If you ask them flat out, they'll admit that they have no idea if it's us or a natural cycle (except for the most stubborn). There are scientists on both sides of the fence.... the media just tends to focus on the death and destruction side.

LOL. If you get a bump on your arm. And then another bump on the other arm. And your sisters life is threatened, living on an island. Is this not a cause for concern ? Sounds to me that you will get on happily with the bump until it gets more painful, before you take action. It's a viable theory to work with, but it is certainly not a preventative manner with which to approach the situation.

BTW, did you @ all bother to read the links I sent you ? Doesn't sound like it..

Here are some quotes to save you the click:

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/environ/ENV032.HTM

Cause for Global Warming/Hole in Ozone Layer

Author: pam
Text: What causes global warming and the hole in the ozone layer?

Response #: 1 of 11
Author: Eric Dallman
Text: Pam, such a seemingly simple questions require unfortunately
elaborate answers. Since you have asked two questions, I will split my answer
into two sections: *** What is causing global warming and what can we do to
stop it? Well, first of all, it is not exactly clear if there is indeed global
warming at all. The phenomenon of global warming was discovered when data from
various weather stations was compared from year to year. There seemed to be a
trend of increasing temperatures at most of the data collection points. This
indicated that the planet was warming at an alarming rate. If you think about
it, a rise in temperature of a few degrees or so at 50 or 100 points on the
earth does not mean that the earth is getting hotter. It means that the data
points are getting hotter. Most of the original data was collected in the
forties and fifties at locations in or adjacent to urban areas. As time went
on the areas of data collection became more urbanized. Logically, more people
and buildings produce more heat. Data collection at remote sites that did not
become urbanized did not indicate any warming at all. However, when all the
data was averaged, a very frightening picture emerged. The planet seemed
doomed. Because of the uncertainty of the original data (due to changes in
population at the data collection points), many new weather stations were set
up and an international committee was established to study global warming.

Unfortunately, it takes many years of data collection before a trend can be
established. The last reports I have read have disproved the very existence of
global warming, showing instead that URBAN warming (an increase in temperature
in areas of increasing population) does occur. If you think about it, a
weather station set up outside Chicago at an airport by some corn fields over
40 years ago cannot compare to the same station at what is now O'Hare airport.
Most weather stations set up in remote areas that still remain in remote areas
show no significant increase in average annual temperature. Well, theories
abounded about global warming, yet the fact remained that the data did indeed
show a trend of temperature increase, hence the formation of various
investigative groups. Now that I have given more than enough information
biased toward the lack of global warming, I will address your question. Global
warming is thought to occur by the green house effect. Light radiates from the
in many different wavelengths or colors. Light of very short wavelength (i.e.,
ultraviolet) passes through the earth's atmosphere, stopped only partially by
the ozone layer, and is reflected back into space. As it is reflected, the
light loses some of its energy (imagine light waves as a ball bouncing with
less force than you threw it after it hits the ground) and does not return
with as much energy as when it came in. Gases within the earth's atmosphere
(most notably carbon dioxide or C02) trap the reflected light (now having less
energy) and does not it escape into space. The low energy waves are reflected
back toward earth, becoming heat. A simple experiment to demonstrate this is
to leave your car parked in the sun on a summer day. Light enters the windows
and is reflected off the seats, etc. The light waves lose some of their energy
as they are reflected and cannot escape past the same glass widows they came
in through. Do not leave your dog in the car if you try this, it can get very
hot inside the car. Not all ultraviolet light gets to the earth. A large
portion is stopped by the ozone layer before it has a chance to reach us at
all. A hole in the ozone layer would let more ultraviolet light through,
causing more energy (energy) to reach the earth's surface. This may contribute
to global warming as the ultraviolet energy reaching the earth is ultimately
converted to heat after it is reflected. Ozone layer holes (depletion) are
addressed in the answer to your second question. Increasing the amount of C02
in the atmosphere will increase the amount of reflected energy capture and
lead to a temperature increase. Where does the C02 come from? Two things
really: Industry and destruction of trees (in rain forests, for example).
Industries typically burn things which produce C02 directly. Trees use up C02.
Cutting them down reduces the amount of C02 "sucked up" from the atmosphere
and leads to an overall increase. If global warming is indeed a fact (and
though it has not been proven, it also cannot be shown not to occur), it could
pos. possibly be prevented by reducing the amount of C02 put into the
atmosphere from burning hydrocarbons and by stopping the destruction of the
rain forests. *** What is causing the hole in the ozone layer? Your second
question is, once again, based somewhat on speculation. You see, the first
time anyone actually looked at the structure of the ozone layer they
discovered a hole. If that hole had always been there is a matter of debate.
Some people believe that the ozone layer has always had a hole in it and that
the hole was only recently observed because studies of the ozone layer
structure were not given high priority. Without giving you the same lengthy
explanation I gave the first question, the ozone layer hole is being caused
(theoretically) by the release of chlorinated fluorocarbons into the
atmosphere. Chlorinated Fluorocarbons (CFCs, from now on) are chemicals
typically used in air conditioners, refrigerators, and as propellants in
aerosol cans. These compounds rise into the atmosphere and, when stuck by high
energy Light waves (such as ultraviolet light), form highly reactive compounds
which destroy ozone. You will remember from the last question that ozone
reflects harmful ultraviolet rays back into space before they reach earth. If
more ultraviolet light reaches the earth (say from a loss of ozone) the earth
stands a greater chance of warming up. The USA and several other countries
have recently taken a very strong stance against ozone depleting agents such
as CFCs (there are other ozone depleting substances, CFCs are the most widely
used). The biggest contributor of ozone depleting CFCs, however, remains car
air conditioning units. These things leak by nature and most cars made within
the last 10 years have them. To give fair time to the other side of the story,
it cannot be proven if the hole in the ozone layer was always there or if it
always there but only recently discovered. Also, the supposed "hole" is at the
polar regions of the earth where it would be expected that the ozone would be
thin (due to such things as the earth's rotation). If industrial chemicals
(i.e., CFCs) which are not found in nature really contributed to an ozone
layer hole, would not the hole be found over the areas where such chemicals
are released? Though hypothetically CFCs get into the upper atmosphere and
destroy ozone, there is not a clear cut model that can show how or why they
only reach the polar regions. ******* CONCLUSION ******** The crux of the
matter is that in the case of both your questions, much more research is
needed before a definitive answer is had. Given the magnitude of the situation
of either global warming or an ozone layer depletion, the possibilities of
neither should be dismissed.

Response #: 4 of 11
Author: Mark Fernau
Text: Reply to Don Libby. It may be true that only 10~ of the annual
carbon emissions come from humans, but if one looks at the amount by which the
atmospheric carbon loading is INCREASING every year, people who study the
carbon cycle feel that this increase is almost entirely due to humans. Your
que sera attitude toward global warming is certainly a valid response but I am
not sure people who live in Bangladesh or the Pacific Islands who are in
danger of being inundated or the corn farmers or sugar maple producers whose
livelihood could migrate north or become extinct would share your lack of
concern. Finally, ground-level air and water pollution are certainly a more
immediate threat to human health and certainly take priority in most policy-
maker's minds. For that matter, at this time just trying to improve the
economy or provide food, shelter, and health services are taking the front
seat over any environmental concerns for eastern Europe, Africa, South
America, etc. Our biggest challenge as developed countries is to get these
other countries over this hump in a way that does not repeat our mistakes and
allows them the LUXURY to worry about the environmental effects of their
actions to better themselves.

Response #: 5 of 11
Author: Mark Fernau
Text: Note to students from Mark Fernau. After reading Eric Dallman's
explanation of the greenhouse effect more closely, I believe he has made a
common error. He talks about ultraviolet radiation being reflected by the
Earth's surface and then trapped, leading to heating. What actually happens is
that the W light is ABSORBED by the Earth's surface, and then RADIATED back to
space as INFRARED radiation by the Earth. It is IR and not W because the
Earth's surface is much cooler than the sun. Some of the IR radiation that is
headed to space is trapped by the greenhouse gases, leading to a warmer Earth.
This is the greenhouse effect. What we are worried about today is the increase
in this greenhouse effect caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, not
the greenhouse effect itself. If there were no greenhouse effect at all, the
average temperature of the Earth would be 0 degrees Fahrenheit and life as we
know it might not exist at all! Note: W radiation is the kind that comes from
a "blacklight". IR radiation is the kind that you feel as heat from a warming
light at McDonald's or around a campfire.

 

[Persol]

Take action I'd say if we can prove that we can be somehow contributing to it.

But you haven't proven that this is more than a drop in teh bucket of Earth's natural cycle.

If you get a bump on your arm. And then another bump on the other arm. And your sisters life is threatened, living on an island. Is this not a cause for concern ?

If you had evidence showning that bumps have been appearing on arms for millions of years (global warming/cooling), then no.

Did you @ all bother to read the links I sent you ?

Here are some quotes to save you the click:

The funny thing is that they support what I said... specifically....

What is causing global warming and what can we do to
stop it? Well, first of all, it is not exactly clear if there is indeed global
warming at all.

What is causing the hole in the ozone layer? Your second
question is, once again, based somewhat on speculation. You see, the first
time anyone actually looked at the structure of the ozone layer they
discovered a hole. If that hole had always been there is a matter of debate.

And then some of the comments are flat out dishonest

It may be true that only 10~ of the annual
carbon emissions come from humans, but if one looks at the amount by which the
atmospheric carbon loading is INCREASING every year, people who study the
carbon cycle feel that this increase is almost entirely due to humans.

There have been several people studying the cycle who think that humans have barely any effect.


And then there is the reason we SHOULD be concerned:

Finally, ground-level air and water pollution are certainly a more
immediate threat to human health and certainly take priority in most policy-
maker's minds.

We know what these chemicals do to our health... the argument for global warming is unsupported and not nearly as important.