View Full Version : All This Crazy Weather Global Warming?
Is all the recent crazy weather global warming?
Record tornados. Record Snow. Record Heat. Record Wild Fires. Record Hurricanes. etc. etc.
As I understand Global Warming, it leads to an increase in all types of weather (not just every place all of a sudden being hotter). It leads to an increase in energy and activity, which means all types of weather become more extreme. So, it also means more winter storms, etc.
But, all I ever hear on the news is that we are having "record" this or that.....but no explanation as to if global warming is causing it.
Since the planet hasn't appreciably warmed over the past decade, it's hard to blame it on Global Warming. Stick with Climate Change, it's vague enough to cover everything.
loosechickens
7-22-11, 8:20pm
Scientists say that the scientific fact of global warming exists, and does cause wilder swings in weather, but there is no way to link a specific instance of violent or unusual weather to global warming, just as we know that cigarettes are causing cancer, but cannot say with specificity that any specific case of lung cancer is caused by cigarettes. Make sense?
I imagine there have always been these fluctuations on the earth, but man wasn't here to experience them or record them. Man has a hard time adjusting to these changes because its not what he planned on. I think other animals/organisms just go with the flow. But with man, its a huge deal because his possessions are damaged/destroyed or his crops are flooded, or he's too cold or too hot. Its sort of like with great floods and hurricanes........if man hadn't built homes so close to these areas, it wouldn't be a problem.
Man has been on the earth such a small amount of time. We view everything through a magnifying glass.
It doesn't really matter, does it? From what I've seen us humans will never give up our consumption oriented society in favor of sustainability. From an evolution perspective I wonder what the long term consequences will be? Extinction or some sort of species that resembles a cookie monster?
Peace
I think its cyclical. In our area, we are tying records in the 1930s and 40s.
ApatheticNoMore
7-23-11, 12:59pm
Yes, I think so. I'm not super hopeful of the possibility of things changing. Consumptive society well ... humans were not always so consumptive, so I don't think it's just human nature. But it does seem to be some kind of inevitability of the way things are now. Path dependence of some decisions made collectively long ago (for instance cars over public transit) that it would take a lot more commitment than seems to exist to ever break out of (of course if oil becomes scarce ....).
From an evolution perspective I wonder what the long term consequences will be?
We're all gonna die.
But, seriously, the caldera that is Yellowstone is overdue to explode. Now, if that hits before we either destroy the planet ourselves or get off the planet, I guess we'll have to see.
loosechickens
7-23-11, 3:05pm
Personally, since it looks as though we don't have the collective will to really address this issue, I've come to recognize that we probably will continue as we are doing until we can't do that any more, then change will happen, because it must. In the process, we will have made earth inhospitable to our species and many others, but waiting in the wings will be other forms of life just ready and willing to thrive under the new conditions.
Kind of like how when the dinosaurs were wiped out, mammals finally got their chance to come out and play.......maybe ****roaches are about to get their turn at dominance.............
I guess what I'm saying is that in a cosmic sense, the earth will keep trundling along (barring some catastrophy such as the sun exploding), and humans will eventually just be another one of many millions of extinct species, long forgotten.
Alan, you think the climate change is vague?!? The science is quite strong. What's vague about it to you?
Alan, you think the climate change is vague?!? The science is quite strong. What's vague about it to you?
It doesn't require measurable global warming and allows the failure of actual conditions to replicate climate models to be a moot point.
While the anthropogenic global warming theory has failed to gain further momentum due to the lack of verifiable warming conditions over the past decade, the blanket "climate change" argument has the potential to achieve the same desired result by attributing virtually any variance to man. It's sort of like plan 'B'.
Zigzagman
7-23-11, 10:17pm
Americans increasingly doubt global warming: Harris Poll
07/13/2011
A Harris poll (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/HI-Harris-Poll-Storms-Emergencies-2011-07-07.pdf) on disasters released yesterday shows that fewer Americans than ever believe in global warming: just 44%, down from 75% ten years ago.
Harris tries to see the positive in this, pointing out that:
These numbers do not suggest, however, that a majority now do not believe in global warming—just over one-quarter say they do not believe in it (28%) and the same number say they are not sure. Fittingly, among those who say there have been more natural disasters recently, there is no consensus whether this is a result of global warming or not (38% say it is, 28% say it’s not and 34% are not sure).
But as scientists like to point out in discussions of environmental indices, the trend over time is what matters, and the trend in this instance is clearly negative. The determination to see an American belief in global warming on the basis of this poll is peculiar, to put it politely.
Yes, in theory those who are not sure about the "theory" of global warming could be convinced, could join the plurality who do believe in global warming, and we could see an uptick in support for emisions-restraining measures. But one has to ask what it will take to convince us.
Hot years? Ten of the twelve hottest years ever occured in the last decade, according to NASA (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/).
The melting of mountain glaciers? Glaciers are in retreat worldwide, and will be virtually gone from Glacier National Park by 2030, according to the US Geological Service (http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glacier_retreat.htm).
Sea level rise (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futureslc.html)? The rate of SLR has doubled in the last decade.
On the other side of the coin, philosopher Gary Gutting at Notre Dame points out (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/on-experts-and-global-warming/?hp) that critics of the "theory" of global warming have a problem -- the experts are in agreement.
There is, moreover, no denying that there is a strong consensus (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm) among climate scientists on the existence of A.G.W. — in their view, human activities are warming the planet. There are climate scientists who doubt or deny this claim, but even they show a clear sense of opposing a view that is dominant in their discipline. Nonexpert opponents of A.G.W. usually base their case on various criticisms that a small minority of climate scientists have raised against the consensus view. But nonexperts are in no position to argue against the consensus of scientific experts. As long as they accept the expert authority of the discipline of climate science, they have no basis for supporting the minority position. Critics within the community of climate scientists may have a cogent case against A.G.W., but, given the overall consensus of that community, we nonexperts have no basis for concluding that this is so.
The consensus position was shown graphically here, from Skeptical Science (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm), based on a 2010 accounting (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract) of peer-reviewed climate scientists.
http://achangeinthewind.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c7b3653ef01538fdee321970b-500wi (http://achangeinthewind.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c7b3653ef01538fdee321970b-pi)
Three different surveys, using different methods, all found a remarkably strong consensus on the question -- over 97% of climate scientists believe in global warming.
Yet the American conclusion seems to be: Experts? We don't need no stinking experts!
loosechickens
7-23-11, 10:46pm
"Three different surveys, using different methods, all found a remarkably strong consensus on the question -- over 97% of climate scientists believe in global warming.
Yet the American conclusion seems to be: Experts? We don't need no stinking experts!" (zigzagman)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadly, the fairly large number of willfully ignorant citizens, the "ignorant and proud of it contingent", those determined to take a contrarian view just because, helped along by folks in the employ of the big polluters, or ideologically against any limits on the free market, even if it destroys us, will ensure that too little will be done, too late, and by the time we'd get to say "I told you so" with any finality, we'll all be dead.
When 97% of the world's climate scientists say it is happening, and that it is most likely that our human actions are fueling the greater part of it, and the big oil and coal companies and the scientists they employ, or the politicians who get their campaign funds from those polluters, are lined up on the other side, I know which side common sense leads me to accept. And (hint), it isn't the folks wanting to continue to spew the stuff into the atmosphere for profit....... ;-)
Sadly, the fairly large number of willfully ignorant citizens, the "ignorant and proud of it contingent", those determined to take a contrarian view just because....
It's not necessary to label everyone who disagrees with you in this way, over and over and over again.
When 97% of the world's climate scientists say it is happening, and that it is most likely that our human actions are fueling the greater part of it....
There is a difference between changing climate and man-made climate change. Earth's climate has changed many times over it's existance with or without man's help. The question is, how do you discern which is which? Who do you believe, the "folks in the employ of the big polluters, or ideologically against any limits on the free market" or the folks who are paid to promote the desired result and/or those ideologically against the free market?
I think a healthy dose of skepticism is prudent and doesn't necessarily represent "ignorant citizens", but then I'm not as judgemental as some others.
loosechickens
7-23-11, 11:42pm
Well, Alan....you certainly have a right to your opinion, AND your skepticism, but 97% of the world's climate scientists disagree, and I'll go with them.
I also go with the premise that even when we only "suspected" that cigarettes were connected with lung cancer, it behooved us to quit smoking.
And we should also be aware that the exact tactics that were used to muddy the waters, create doubts and prevent consensus regarding cigarettes and their connection to cancer, are now being used by the polluting corporations and those in their pockets to do the same. You can literally substitute "global warming" with "cigarettes" and see the exact arguments........
Carry on.....I'm heading to the pool..... g'nite....
While the anthropogenic global warming theory has failed to gain further momentum due to the lack of verifiable warming conditions over the past decade, the blanket "climate change" argument has the potential to achieve the same desired result by attributing virtually any variance to man. It's sort of like plan 'B'.
Neither the phrase global warming or climate change are scientific terms; they are shorthand for a significant body of research and theories, which are changing as the research broadens and builds upon itself. The phrase 'climate change' is a more scientifically accurate description of the patterns of weather and climate disruption we're observing, and the science is clear that human activity has a significant impact on climate change. What you call plan B is a growing body of scientific understanding; what you call a theory that "failed to gain momentum" (whatever that means) is how science progresses. It's not a theory popularity contest. Your skepticism of human activities' impacts on climate change is based upon what thinking?
Since our activities are the only things we can control, it's wise, IMHO to apply the Precautionary Principle and make sound, scientifically based choices about our activities to mitigate the exponential shifts in global weather patterns. The intense oscillations we've witnessed in the last few decades are alarming, and very very costly. The insurance industry has been worried for some time about the impacts of loss claims being filed, and were the first big business to look at the science seriously.
I understand that you're a conservative's conservative, Alan, and yet I am astonished that you count yourself among those who deny the science.
It's not necessary to label everyone who disagrees with you in this way, over and over and over again.
There is a difference between changing climate and man-made climate change. Earth's climate has changed many times over it's existance with or without man's help. The question is, how do you discern which is which? Who do you believe, the "folks in the employ of the big polluters, or ideologically against any limits on the free market" or the folks who are paid to promote the desired result and/or those ideologically against the free market?
I think a healthy dose of skepticism is prudent and doesn't necessarily represent "ignorant citizens", but then I'm not as judgemental as some others.
My mother in law used to say cigarettes didn't hurt you cause, of course she smoked and she knew plenty of people who smoked who didn't get cancer. She was wrong, of course, and ignorant. (and proud of it too)
It just blows me away how someone can see that 97% of scientist agree on this thing, yet they say, well, it isn't 100% is it. And even then I'm going to believe this politician/TV personality over here cause, you know, HE knows the truth! He said so!
I understand that you're a conservative's conservative, Alan, and yet I am astonished that you count yourself among those who deny the science.
And even then I'm going to believe this politician/TV personality over here cause, you know, HE knows the truth! He said so!
Is it simply the nature of liberals to go out of their way to denigrate their perceived opposition? It sure seems to be for the ones in this community.
Well, Alan....you certainly have a right to your opinion, AND your skepticism, but 97% of the world's climate scientists disagree, and I'll go with them.
And everyone else is just "willfully ignorant". Thanks, good to know.
By the way, do all of the 97% you mention agree that man is the predominate factor in the warming we saw between 1998 and 2005? Also, since our global CO2 output continues to increase, why did recent warming begin a decline 6 years ago?
It's complicated - it really comes down to questioning how much one dynamic factor in a sea of dynamic factors is affecting a climate that changes variably as these factors change. Humans make a measurable impact on the planet - we're still figuring out what that means but our lack of understanding doesn't make it inconsequential.
Zigzagman
7-24-11, 11:11am
It's pretty obvious to me that science vs politics is the issue. I prefer the science approach but the problem is that it is almost impossible to remove the political element from the equation. As long as our political heros are being influenced by corporate lobbyists in making decisions that could affect the profits of mega-industres then it is very likely that all we will get is more of the same. This not only applies to global warming but almost any problem. The other factor is that climate change is a global issue. From what I've read the issue of climate change presents major issues in terms of security, wars, air, and water. But it seems to be pretty low on the "concern radar".
We live and make political decisions from week to week, month to month, and at the most year to year. The idea of being able to fix something as it presents itself doesn't seem to be a workable solution for global problems. I have very little faith that we will be willing to make the hard decisions that might protect our environment. In fact, in Texas the majority would clearly love to totally eliminate the EPA in favor of more aggressive energy production.
Even a pig doesn't crap where it eats - makes you wonder how intelligent we really are.
Peace
I can accept the claim that human activity contributes in some measure to climate change. The truth is the truth even if some of it’s adherents may be self-interested, or even despicable. Evolution seems no less valid to me because of the stupidities perpetrated in its name by racial supremacists or Social Darwinists. The fact that various parties look at climate change as a tool to further their agendas for imposing new controls over our lives and property, doesn’t mean the science is bad.
But in my view, we need to hold the would-be imposers to demonstrate that handing them new power will actually make a practical difference. When a presidential candidate claims he can bid the seas to stop rising, for instance, it's legitimate to ask him how he will go about doing it, the likeliness of success and what it will cost us. The same level of scientific rigor should be applied to proposed solutions as to the original theory; otherwise we’re just establishing a new style of government by flapdoodle.
Is it simply the nature of liberals to go out of their way to denigrate their perceived opposition? It sure seems to be for the ones in this community.
No denigration intended on my part, Alan. Being astonished isn't a value judgement. My astonishment is because I believe you to be a thinker, and a smart guy; and the science is so demonstrably clear that humans are having a measurable effect on global climate change that I am surprised you disagree.
You question about CO2 output and global warming is a smokescreen question, and underlines the very reason that the popular shorthand phrase "global warming" has been retired. Your question is illogical.
Is it simply the nature of liberals to go out of their way to denigrate their perceived opposition? It sure seems to be for the ones in this community.
NO, is it the nature of conservatives to completely disregard overwhelming scientific evidence simple because it's politically inconvenient?
A belief is a belief, and facts are facts. We are coming from the basis of facts and you are arguing from the basis of a belief. If you were an uneducated person or one of diminished intelligence, then I suppose we could just chalk it up to that, but you are neither.
How often do 97% of any group agree on anything? You really can't say it's all political and all those climate scientist are anti-market or anti-business or anti-conservative. They are scientist. And the fact that an overwhelming majority say this tells me it must be true.
Why are conservatives anti-science? Really, do they think it gives them more credibility? With whom? And do they really want credibility with these people? I guess they know their audience.
You question about CO2 output and global warming is a smokescreen question, and underlines the very reason that the popular shorthand phrase "global warming" has been retired. Your question is illogical.
No, it's not an illogical question, although it may be inconvenient.
Why are conservatives anti-science?
Where do you get that idea? Science requires a through questioning of observed phenomenon. I'm very much in favor of that.
You're probably really asking "Why do conservatives not automatically accept what I believe to be the proper result of that observation?" To that, I'd reply that it's because the result is self-serving, with more than enough political/economic/ideological components to the debate to cause anyone lacking an inherent subjugation to authority to question the validity of the result.
I'm in the same school as 97% of climater scientsts. I thought the Harris poll results were really interestring. How could public opinion change so much in just a few years?! There really haven't been any new or significant changes in the climate studies, but there have been some shifts toward polotical conservatism. Is the public attitude on climate change more a factor of politics than knowledge?
One thing for sure, the recent hot weather certainly proves without doubt that we are not advancing into an ice age:)
I'm in the same school as 97% of climater scientsts.
Ever wondered where the 97% stat came from? I understand it's from an online poll which garnered 79 volunteer respondants. It's an impressive number though dontcha think?
Wiki has an interesting list of the various schools of science around the world and their official policy and opinion on climate change. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Here's an interesting paper (http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/f/fc/Argument_Against_Global_Warming.pdf)entitled "A Logical Argument Against Man Made Global Warming for the Layman".
At 51 pages it may require a little effort to get through, but it is very well referenced and makes some interesting reading for anyone interested in a non-political perspective on the subject.
Here's an interesting paper (http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/f/fc/Argument_Against_Global_Warming.pdf)entitled "A Logical Argument Against Man Made Global Warming for the Layman".
At 51 pages it may require a little effort to get through, but it is very well referenced and makes some interesting reading for anyone interested in a non-political perspective on the subject.
I thought it was a well written piece but I would hardly call a person in college writing a paper " as part of the completion of a BS in Journalism: Communication Studies from the University of Oregon" anything other than a layman.
My neighbor who has been a rancher for most of his 83 years tell me that it he believes that "global warming" is simply because we have more people on the planet and their body temp (98.6) would naturally make the temp rise. I think he might have a point but I hardly think it is a scientific conclusion.
I will always opt to the science community over individual citizens or politicians for anything concerning our environment. I do still believe that their are real "experts" on the subject.
Peace
I thought it was a well written piece but I would hardly call a person in college writing a paper " as part of the completion of a BS in Journalism: Communication Studies from the University of Oregon" anything other than a layman.
That's what I liked best about it, a "layman" researching point by point many of the scientific talking points regarding anthropogenic global warming and putting them into perspective. Very interesting.
loosechickens
7-24-11, 9:29pm
"I thought it was a well written piece but I would hardly call a person in college writing a paper " as part of the completion of a BS in Journalism: Communication Studies from the University of Oregon" anything other than a layman." (Zigzagman)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My neighbor here in this resort is firmly convinced that it's the contrails from aircraft that are causing it, and she's sent me emails that "prove" it. I'm sure she could write a paper, but that wouldn't make her a climate scientist.
loosechickens
7-24-11, 9:40pm
I see by the Google that Erik Bays, the journalism student who somehow has the scientific capabilities to analyze and dissect global warming is now turning his attention to medical marijuana in Oregon, and is soon going to present us with his views on that as well. I await his report with bated breath. He may or may not have more actual expertise about this subject....who knows?
I see by the Google that Erik Bays, the journalism student who somehow has the scientific capabilities to analyze and dissect global warming is now turning his attention to medical marijuana in Oregon, and is soon going to present us with his views on that as well. I await his report with bated breath. He may or may not have more actual expertise about this subject....who knows?
Isn't that typical. Ignore the work and belittle the author. Some things never change.
edited to add:
Just out of curiosity, could you point out any fallacies, evasions, mis-representations or untruths in the work presented?
I still don't understand the objections to the postulations the humans are significantly affecting global warming. What exactly are the concerns with the research? Alan? Others?
By the way, do all of the 97% you mention agree that man is the predominate factor in the warming we saw between 1998 and 2005? Also, since our global CO2 output continues to increase, why did recent warming begin a decline 6 years ago?
What is logical about this statement? Temperature decrease as a stand alone indicator is insignificant, and referencing it in this way is nonsensical.
I still don't understand the objections to the postulations the humans are significantly affecting global warming. What exactly are the concerns with this huge body of quite reputable research? Alan? Others?
Here's an interesting paper (http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/f/fc/Argument_Against_Global_Warming.pdf)entitled "A Logical Argument Against Man Made Global Warming for the Layman".
At 51 pages it may require a little effort to get through, but it is very well referenced and makes some interesting reading for anyone interested in a non-political perspective on the subject.
Alan, I read through the report, though my house was rather HOT and made it hard to concentrate. The points he brings up seem to be common in the global warming controvery and are probably well presented inspite of the guy's credentials as only a journalist. You can actually get a failry unbiased view of these by googling global warming controvery and reading the Wiki write up. A couple of issues that I had to disagree upon, among others, was that the IPCC studies were biased due to efforts for global control (?). There are several reports, some appearing in Scientific American, disputing his points on the hockey stick curve. And so on.
You know, something as big as this in the scientific world has more studies than those doen in the IPCC report and involves more than a handful of scientists. Probably a huge volume of work. There are a handful of scientists who hold onto the theory that what we are seeing is a historic variation in temperature, possibly unrelated to CO2 emmisions and human actions. Those scientists are in the small minority. Still, I don't think it's an open and shut case, but one of probabilties and risk analysis. The risk and probability is very high that global warming is real, a result of manmade activities, and dangerous. Until it happens, we really won't know for sure. I think the nay sayers are drawing to an inside straight and the rest are holding three of a kind and drawing to a full house. And everyone is "all in".
Here's an interesting paper (http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/f/fc/Argument_Against_Global_Warming.pdf)entitled "A Logical Argument Against Man Made Global Warming for the Layman".
At 51 pages it may require a little effort to get through, but it is very well referenced and makes some interesting reading for anyone interested in a non-political perspective on the subject.
haha, a paper dissecting Al Gore and the IPCC passed off as a logical argument against global warming. That is a lot of work to put into a practical joke but I thoroughly applaud the young man's efforts.
Reminds me of some of the better April 1st IETF RFC publications, like RFC 1149 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149)
Good find, Alan!
I still don't understand the objections to the postulations the humans are significantly affecting global warming. What exactly are the concerns with the research? Alan? Others?
If you're really interested in my two cents, I'll try to oblige.
The earth's climate has always shown natural variations and there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that any recent variations are not part of that natural cycle. Those who are absolutely certain that CO2 levels emitted by man are the driving force for these variations are using speculation, guesswork and computer models which have not been able to replicate what we're seeing in the natural world to justify their beliefs.
It seems imprudent to me to believe that humans are responsible for global warming when human experience, geologic data and history, and current cooling can argue otherwise. The so called "science is settled" consensus really represents the absence of definitive science and the AGW scare is being used as a political tool to increase government control over our lives, our incomes and our ability to make decisions for ourselves.
When you look at all the factors which contribute to climate, I think it's safe to say that attributing global climate change to human CO2 production is a little like trying to diagnose a problem with your car by ignoring the engine (analogous to the Sun in the climate system) and the transmission (water vapor) and instead focusing entirely, not on one nut on a rear wheel (total CO2) but on one thread on that nut, which represents the human contribution.
I believe former Canadian Environment Minister, Christine Stewart got it right when she said: "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits....climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
It seems to me that that pretty well sums up the driving force for representing this as a man made problem.
In my mind its simply time to apply a little common sense to the (suspected) problem, not that anyone in Washington has any to spread around. The term "human causes" is a little broad and vague for my taste so I narrow it down to something manageable like auto emissions knowing that the same rationale applies to myriad human actions. Are emissions from our vehicles contributing to global warming or climate change? My hunch is that they are probably a small factor, that human activity is to some degree exacerbating a perfectly natural process, but real documentation is hard to come by. Is that reason enough to act? Maybe not. But there is more to it...
Would I want to hang out in my garage with the door closed and the car running? Not really. And why? Because the emissions are toxic. Any skeptics of that statement are welcome to run the experiment for themselves (take a few Senators with you to verify the results). The exhaust from millions and millions of autos may or may not be insulating the planet, but aside from CO2 there are multiple poisonous compounds produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. It defies ALL logic to continue on a known destructive course without at least devoting all available resources to finding alternatives. Fix one problem and you automatically make great strides in addressing the other and avoid all the expensive additional studies along the way.
As I said before I doubt that laymen have any clue as to whether Global Warming is real or not, they simply look for justification to support their own beliefs which could be based on religion, common sense, politics, or just a hunch. I think science is real and has validity so I would always opt for people with real expertise on the subject.
What I find simply amazing is that citizens will take go to so much effort in order to discount the overwhelming majority of all scientists. I can understand someone in the petrochemical industry or a lobbyists or a politician looking for experts to support their claims but otherwise it appears to be just to support someone's forgone conclusion. Who knows it could be someone like a far-right talk show host that is telling them it is phony science? Or a religious leader? Or their neighbor?
Like Rogar said it is amazing that the Harris poll shows a drop from 75% to now just 44% - that shows that in the last decade their has been a very successful effort to convince people to ignore the science for one reason or another. That is pretty amazing!
Peace
it's willful ignorance Zig. They win the argument not because they have the better argument or science or reason or critical thinking on their side. They win because they simply wear you down! No matter what you say, no matter how big a pile of real scientific evidence you put in front of them, they will simply put their hand over their eyes and say, 'What evidence? I see no evidence!' It's that whole ignorant and proud of it thing. The same folks who say evolution is a gimmick! Or the moon landing was a trick of smoke and mirrors. Unfortunately the republican party, supposedly the best and brightest of the lot, ARE these people! Because this whole objection is being crafted/led by politics (i.e. big oil) on the right. And they know their demographic, which is how they can convince a whole voting block of folks to ignore real hard core data by real scientist (97% of them) and instead listen to Rush Beck, and a journalism student. Their demographic are people who think 'if I don't understand it then it must not be true'
I find it interesting that the most 'damning' argument of the right is that this 'plot' of climate change is an evil liberal master plan to bring..."justice and equality to the world"...oh horrors!!
Dharma Bum
7-25-11, 3:37pm
Actual the process is the reverse of what you describe. Rather then provide solid evidence, the proponents of AGW ginned up a false consensus by stifling dissent and tried to use that, instead of evidence, to silence critics. I think the "evidence" is still inconclusive. AGW may yet prove to be a correct hypothesis, but I cringe any time someone appeals to 4 out of 5 dentists believe in global warming.
it's willful ignorance Zig. They win the argument not because they have the better argument or science or reason or critical thinking on their side. They win because they simply wear you down! No matter what you say, no matter how big a pile of real scientific evidence you put in front of them, they will simply put their hand over their eyes and say, 'What evidence? I see no evidence!' It's that whole ignorant and proud of it thing. The same folks who say evolution is a gimmick! Or the moon landing was a trick of smoke and mirrors. Unfortunately the republican party, supposedly the best and brightest of the lot, ARE these people! Because this whole objection is being crafted/led by politics (i.e. big oil) on the right. And they know their demographic, which is how they can convince a whole voting block of folks to ignore real hard core data by real scientist (97% of them) and instead listen to Rush Beck, and a journalism student. Their demographic are people who think 'if I don't understand it then it must not be true'
I find it interesting that the most 'damning' argument of the right is that this 'plot' of climate change is an evil liberal master plan to bring..."justice and equality to the world"...oh horrors!!
Peggy, if only the science of AGW was as predictable and as easily duplicated as your responses, I'd be a true believer. :D
Until then, I'm gonna stick with a certain degree of skepticism regarding any attempts to explain how CO2, which makes up about 3% of the atmosphere in an open system with the vast majority of that 3% occuring naturally, is the cause of slight temperature variations over a short (geologically speaking) period of time. Especially since the models used to support the claim cannot account for all the other variables which exist within that open system.
Attempts to do so do not constitute science, but rather an ideology.
Until then, I'm gonna stick with a certain degree of skepticism regarding any attempts to explain how CO2, which makes up about 3% of the atmosphere in an open system with the vast majority of that 3% occuring naturally, is the cause of slight temperature variations over a short (geologically speaking) period of time. Especially since the models used to support the claim cannot account for all the other variables which exist within that open system.
Attempts to do so do not constitute science, but rather an ideology.
Alan, you rascal!! :0! I googled your comment about the 3% and guess what...I got links pointing back to Michele Bachmann. I'm thinking do I really want to listen to this (http://youtu.be/IAaDVOd2sRQ), well I did just for information sake and dude I have to share with everyone. I had never taken the time to listen to her but this speech on the House floor is an embarrassment to the country and to all women in general. And I thought Rick Perry was a moron.
“In Your Guts, You Know She’s Nuts!”
Peace
loosechickens
7-25-11, 6:07pm
o.k., so now we've got 97% of the world's climate scientists on one side, and Michelle Bachman, the big polluters and the folks in their pockets, a 26 year old U. of Oregon journalism student, plus a big slice of our nonscientific lay people (including my neighbor who blames the contrails of airplanes....and another one that I forgot who thinks the whole thing is being caused by man landing on the moon and upsetting some balance there), and our own resident, self described logical thinker on the other side.......
let's see.......who do I believe? Nope.....still gotta stick with the scientists....... ;-)
Honestly, I can't even believe we're having this discussion, when the "evidence" being presented is coming from 26 year old nonscientists and Michelle Bachmann. Who is nuts here? I'm thinking it's me.....I COULD be in the pool......
Who is nuts here? I'm thinking it's me......
Well, recognizing a problem is the first step to correcting it. >8)
Dharma Bum
7-25-11, 10:55pm
o.k., so now we've got 97% of the world's climate scientists on one side... Honestly, I can't even believe we're having this discussion, when the "evidence" being presented is coming from ... nonscientists .....
Here is a fair debate on those terms. So how does the evidence stack up against the manufactured "consensus":
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_wonder_the_warmists_hate_debate/
Maxamillion
7-26-11, 3:49am
The way I see it, if we take steps to reduce pollution and try to fend off global warming and it turns out not to be true, at least we have a cleaner environment (which is something I think we should strive for anyway). If we don't take steps and it does turn out to be true...well, up the creek without a paddle doesn't even begin to cover it. Think of taking steps now as insurance.
poetry_writer
7-26-11, 9:38am
What can we do about it either way? Nothing. There is basically nothing the average citizen can do about it. I dont know if global warming is real or not, but I know we had the coldest winter with the most snow ever last winter and this summer is hotter than hell. The worst I have ever seen in my life. Over 100 for a month. Little rain. what can i do? Pardon me while i crank up my ac!
It seems like when there is severe weather in one season, there is sort of an opposite over-reaction in another season. Maybe this is somehow just how the earth balances itself. With all this hot weather, I'm thinking the hurricane season is going to be awful. Maybe I mentioned this before, but I think before Katrina, we hardly had any rain around here in the midwest. Whenever we have an unusually wet spring, its usually too dry in the summer. Like I've said, none of this would matter much if humans weren't around. The earth just does what it needs to do. But I'm sure humans are having an effect on it and its trying to deal with us!
The so-called skeptic views of the science behind climate change aren't so much skepticism, as genuine skepticism about the science relies upon an educated understanding of the science; rather it's based in an ignorance of science and how to evaluate scientific information. It's a sorry state that this science is even in question.
Not to open another dramatic line of emails, but this reminds me of the claims about vaccines causing things they clearly don't cause. Emotions ran the circus for some time, and some other agenda besides the data was behind the specious claims. Ditto for the anti-science, climate change deniers. In a pluralistic society, we are all free to hold whatever beliefs we wish, and wishful thinking is a charming human activity. Wishing away the data isn't going to change the trajectory we're on, and stopping CO2 emissions is imperative.
Here are some interesting sites:
Reputable sites with reliable sources of scientific assessment information on climate change:
IPCC - http://www.ipcc.ch/ - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
WMO - http://www.wmo.ch/ - Nations World Meteorological Organization
UKCIP - http://www.ukcip.org.uk/ - Climate Impacts Programme
US Global Change Research Program- http://www.usgcrp.gov/
Environment Canada- http://www.ccsn.ca/index-e.html
ENSEMBLES - EU climate modeling project - http://www.ensembles-eu.org/
CSIRO - http://www.dar.csiro.au/impacts/future.html - Australian climate scenarios
The Royal Society - http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/trackdoc.asp?id=4085&pId=6229 - The Royal Society has produced this overview of the weight of scientific evidence on climate change.
Spencer Weart's Discovery of Global Warming - http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html - A historical perspective of the development of climate science from the American Institute of Physics. Contains numerous scientific references to the underlying science.
The following sites are an example of some of the reputable research and news sites on climate change:
Pew Center on Global Climate Change - http://www.pewclimate.org/
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research - http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre
RealClimate - Climate science by working climate scientists without the politics. - http://www.realclimate.org/
Climate Institute - http://www.climate.org/climate_main.shtml
The Heat is Online - news from investigative journalist Ross Gelbspan - http://www.heatisonline.org/main.cfm
A very reputable blog is Real Climate, run by top climate scientists from around the world. http://www.realclimate.org/
ECONOMISTS VOICE: http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol4/iss3/
Ten top myths about global climate change: http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/ten-myths.html
Zigzagman
7-26-11, 12:26pm
What can we do about it either way?
We can try as individuals to be as "green" as possible. The US comprises about 4% of the earth’s population, but emits about 25% of the total global greenhouse gases. We are the "evil empire" in terms of global warming.
http://www.thehcf.org/images/2007/5A_new2S.jpg
I am certainly no expert but I think we all as individuals on a day-to-day basis can be more energy efficient. When making purchases by as energy efficient as possible - CFL's, high mpg, Energy Star products. I also think that we should quit talking about being more energy independent and really do something. Significant rebates for solar panels and wind, raise the tax on gas to discourage usage, vote for elected officials that care about conservation and clean air and water. Quit subsiding dirty industries and have tough fines for major polluters. Demand action today and not 30 years from now.
http://www.thehcf.org/images/2007/5A_pieS.jpg
Peace
poetry_writer
7-26-11, 2:22pm
We can try as individuals to be as "green" as possible. The US comprises about 4% of the earth’s population, but emits about 25% of the total global greenhouse gases. We are the "evil empire" in terms of global warming.
http://www.thehcf.org/images/2007/5A_new2S.jpg
I am certainly no expert but I think we all as individuals on a day-to-day basis can be more energy efficient. When making purchases by as energy efficient as possible - CFL's, high mpg, Energy Star products. I also think that we should quit talking about being more energy independent and really do something. Significant rebates for solar panels and wind, raise the tax on gas to discourage usage, vote for elected officials that care about conservation and clean air and water. Quit subsiding dirty industries and have tough fines for major polluters. Demand action today and not 30 years from now.
http://www.thehcf.org/images/2007/5A_pieS.jpg
Peace
Not realistic. Many people are squeaking by on their incomes (if they have any at all) as it is. I dont have any control over "major polluters". I can demand till the cows come home. No one is listening.
In fact, not only can we as individuals do something, the only way anything WILL be done is by we, the individuals. As long as big oil owns Washington, we won't see much in the way of energy independence. They don't want us to be energy independent. They want to keep us absolutely dependant, on them.
I can't put an oil well in my backyard, (along with a refinery) but by golly I can put solar panels on my roof. Or wind turbines on my hill. So, not much in the way of R&D from the government to make them more efficient, and affordable. And if they ever do get more efficient and affordable through the efforts of us, then look for all sorts of regulations, taxes, and what not to slow it down and keep it out of the hands of the masses. An energy independent nation is a nation of independents. So why is the right so against this? Even though becoming energy independent would bring about all those things they keep saying they want? It would all but eliminate our problems with the mid-east, bring unprecedented growth and prosperity to this nation, and help clean up the environment (all though that isn't one of their goals, it's a happy by-product;)) Even the wealthy (job creators if they are republican, elite if democrat) would/could realize even more wealth! So why are they against this? Well, it goes back to who owns the republican party, lock stock and barrel. Plus it's something the liberals like so it must be evil..EVIL!
But here's the best part, (and there is a good part) We can do this ourselves. Sure we can voice our opinions/ideas to our government, (we are the government and the government is us) but considering that big oil has a larger lobby than mine, I'm not holding my breath:(. But these technologies are within our reach. They are the tinkerers technology. Every person who has an idea, or the desire to work on these can, in their own garages and on their own roofs. I firmly believe the major breakthroughs in efficiency and production will be achieved not in the laboratories of shell oil, but in Joe Blows workshop back behind his house. There are already many many very cool things coming out of our tinkerers shops, and each breakthrough, or tweak on design leads to many more solutions. Google it sometime. There is some seriously cool stuff out there!
We are capable of such innovation and creativity, I know we can do this. Even without Government sponsored R&D. It would go faster if we had it, but we can do this.:cool:
There are plenty of things an individual can do, many at little or no cost. For example:
> driving mindfully - accelerate gently, don't brake when you don't need to, freewheel down hills when it's safe to do so. My car runs on diesel and does around 55 miles per gallon (about 45 miles per US gallon) with local journeys on rural roads, but I managed to add a few extra miles per gallon by driving carefully. Diesel is £1.40 a litre, about $8.70 per US gallon, so it's worth the effort
> turn the heating thermostat down a degree or two; if you feel cool, put on a sweater rather than turn it up
> don't leave appliances on standby; wash up in the sink, not with a dishwasher; turn lights off; It's useful to measure what you use - I bought a plug in device for about £12 which shows you the power consumption of any kind of electrical device, so I know that the washing machine uses 0.7 kWh of electricity to do a load on the 'Eco' cycle, at 40 degrees, which isn't a lot, but that the TV uses almost as much power on standby as it does when it's switched on
None of it is rocket science, and if you don't feel you have to do it to save the planet then you can console yourself with saving a bit of money
Kevin
Not realistic. Many people are squeaking by on their incomes (if they have any at all) as it is. I dont have any control over "major polluters". I can demand till the cows come home. No one is listening.
P_W - I know you are a Texan so one thing you might consider is advocates of conservation and the environment when you go to the ballot box. Sadly, our wonderful state is the worst of the worst. Texas pumps more carbon dioxide into the air than any other state because of its scores of coal-fired power plants, refineries and other industrial facilities.Our present leaders not only fight every federal mandate but if they had their way would eliminate the EPA entirely. The name of the game is money and only the voters can change that - it is our world and I think we should demand a clean one.
Also, never give up. The capitalists have no conscience and will ignore or bypass any regulation if they are ignored. You might enjoy attending a local Environmental Defense Fund meeting - you will meet many like-minded people just like yourself.
Peace
Another way: stop using & buying plastic. Buy bulk food & shop at farmer's markets, and bring your own bags. Buy used stuff, including electronics.
Yes, we can each have an impact on ending CO2 production.
P_W - I know you are a Texan so one thing you might consider is advocates of conservation and the environment when you go to the ballot box. Sadly, our wonderful state is the worst of the worst. Texas pumps more carbon dioxide into the air than any other state because of its scores of coal-fired power plants, refineries and other industrial facilities.Our present leaders not only fight every federal mandate but if they had their way would eliminate the EPA entirely. The name of the game is money and only the voters can change that - it is our world and I think we should demand a clean one.
Also, never give up. The capitalists have no conscience and will ignore or bypass any regulation if they are ignored. You might enjoy attending a local Environmental Defense Fund meeting - you will meet many like-minded people just like yourself.
Peace
Isn't Texas the only state to produce all it's own electricity and operate it's own power grid at a cheaper kw price than anywhere else?
poetry_writer
7-26-11, 5:33pm
Its been 100 degrees plus for a month. Do not touch my air conditioner. I dont know Alan....I know our electric bills are through the roof (thankfully i dont pay my elec bill)
Isn't Texas the only state to produce all it's own electricity and operate it's own power grid at a cheaper kw price than anywhere else?
Well, we do have our own grid. It is called ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas) it doesn't actually cover all of Texas. El Paso is on another grid, as is the upper Panhandle and a chunk of East Texas.
The Texas Interconnected System (http://tx.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%2FFDCT%2FNTX%2F1979%2F19790130_0000007.NTX.ht m/qx) had another priority: staying out of the reach of federal regulators. In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Federal Power Act, which charged the Federal Power Commission with overseeing interstate electricity sales. By not crossing state lines, Texas utilities avoided being subjected to federal rules. "Freedom from federal regulation was a cherished goal — more so because Texas had no regulation until the 1970s," writes Richard D. Cudahy in a 1995 article, "The Second Battle of the Alamo: The Midnight Connection." (Self-reliance was also made easier in Texas, especially in the early days, because the state has substantial coal, natural gas and oil resources of its own to fuel power plants.)
We just love to think we have nothing to do with the rest of the US and it is true in many, many ways. We is a "whole nuther country" :0! Bottom line: Texas has its own grid to avoid dealing with the feds.
As far as price I think we rank something like 39th in the nation.
At some point I think it is pretty obvious that we need a "smart grid" in this country. We have had the technology for years and yet because of state independence and property rights issues it seems to be such a struggle.
As a retired EE, I can envision at some point a US grid that everyone (individual homes and businesses) can tie to create, distribute, and use our electricity. The biggest obstacle seems to be that each of the major power producers want to secure their own territory, contracts, and right-of-way issues. IMO, if we can't get over the states rights issues then the the power grid should be nationalized for the greater good. Our present system just doesn't make much sense in today's world.
Peace
The Texas Interconnected System (http://tx.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%2FFDCT%2FNTX%2F1979%2F19790130_0000007.NTX.ht m/qx) had another priority: staying out of the reach of federal regulators. In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Federal Power Act, which charged the Federal Power Commission with overseeing interstate electricity sales. By not crossing state lines, Texas utilities avoided being subjected to federal rules. "Freedom from federal regulation was a cherished goal — more so because Texas had no regulation until the 1970s," writes Richard D. Cudahy in a 1995 article, "The Second Battle of the Alamo: The Midnight Connection." (Self-reliance was also made easier in Texas, especially in the early days, because the state has substantial coal, natural gas and oil resources of its own to fuel power plants.)
We just love to think we have nothing to do with the rest of the US and it is true in many, many ways. We is a "whole nuther country" :0! Bottom line: Texas has its own grid to avoid dealing with the feds.
Peace
See, I knew Texas was a special place. I'm pretty sure we'll end up there in a few years, at least part of the year.
The capitalists have no conscience and will ignore or bypass any regulation if they are ignored.
That stereotyping hits a little close to home Zig. I try to listen to my conscience and at the same time I'm a dedicated capitalist (working in green tech, btw). Profit is not evil and neither is trying to attain it. I'm totally with you that there are some bad apples who act without conscience in the barrel, but I'd rather not get lumped in with them automatically just because I'm a capitalist.
IMO, capitalism is the only engine that has enough horsepower to drive a grass roots movement. Saving the planet is a fine and altruistic reason to pop a few solar panels on your roof. The market will still be mostly limited to hippies, prepers, the very rich, isolationists and a few Habitat homeowners, just like it is now. I know, its my business. A sales approach based on saving money would get a couple million times the number of panels installed vs. saving the planet. There are people and businesses out there ready to go if they can earn a profit from it. In the end the environment is better off, a couple million jobs are created, a few entrepreneurs get rich, the country is more secure and a lot of folks are more independent. What's not to love?
That stereotyping hits a little close to home Zig. I try to listen to my conscience and at the same time I'm a dedicated capitalist (working in green tech, btw). Profit is not evil and neither is trying to attain it. I'm totally with you that there are some bad apples who act without conscience in the barrel, but I'd rather not get lumped in with them automatically just because I'm a capitalist.
I believe in capitalism but also understand that without regulation and protections you quickly end up with feudalism: a small number of rich people ruling over a large number of impoverished people who have essentially zero rights under the so-called legal system.
That is pretty much the direction we are going in Texas. The push for energy without regard of environmental impact is simply poisoning us all. Those within close proximity of the coal, oil, and chemical plants enjoy the highest rate of cancer in the nation. The sulfuric acid from the coal-fired power plants is affecting our water, wildlife, topsoil, and quality of life and yet this battle was fought over 20 years ago, legislation passed, rules made and then systemically ignored by those responsible for enforcement at the local level. As I said at the local level most in Texas would like to eliminate the EPA entirely - they are in the grasp of the energy companies our largest employers.
I think it is very ironic that many talk about the gross air pollution of China, Mexico, and many of our now dominant manufacturing countries and yet ignore that the US is by far the worst polluter in the word simply based upon our endless desire to consume everything consumable in sight.
At some point I hope that everyone understands that GOD is not gonna fix this, only we can.
Peace
Dharma Bum
7-28-11, 9:54am
What exactly are the concerns with the research?
It's politically motivated and may be wrong?
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
"NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models."
UPDATE.
The news just did it again!
Their tag was "Ever wonder why all the extremes in weather? Tonight at 6!"
okay okay, finally, someone saying a reason!
I tune in and all they talked about were the extremes in the weather and the record breaking everything. Then "back to you Jill!"
and that was it.
Were they saying something without saying anything? UGH.
We just love to think we have nothing to do with the rest of the US and it is true in many, many ways. We is a "whole nuther country" :0!
Pretty much the way I feel whenever I'm there. I really like both Texas and Texans (always have), but I ask myself whether it really belongs in the same country as Maryland or Massachusetts every time I'm there.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.