Environmental Issues

[Texan]

Still an assumption.

 

[t3sqr]

Iceberg, I suggest that you go and read the ICPP report again. Specifically, look at chapter 2.4 and look at Figure 2.22 real closely. You will see that the earth has a natural temperature flux about every 100,000 years. The tempreature cools off to about 10 deg (c) below present temperature. Then has a radical rise to about 3 deg.(c) Above present temperature. When this happens, CO2 increases by 50%, Methane increases by 200% and the temperature rises by about 12 deg(c). Now, according to this report, it appears that we have just started to come down from this peak, say in the last 10,000 years or so. If this report is the Guide Book/Bible/Road Map whatever you want to call it, then we have nothing to worry about...Right??

 

[cableguy]

berg, tex AND mindido (though he will disagree) are 100% correct... this is exactly the point i have been trying to make for however many pages this thread is long... you have correlation, but you have ZERO proof of causation... any claim of such is based on supposition, making the claim of global warming a belief system, or a religion, if you prefer... modelling is based on supposition as well... bottom line, there is nothing that is reproducable here... you have facts, a correlation, and a belief that global warming is unnatural, bad, and caused by humans... add all this up, and you have the grounds for a persuasive argument that involves some science, but proof of nothing... global warming is, bottom line, an UNPROVEN hypothesis... nothing more... the means to prove it simply do not exist...

the reason we are still having this disagreement is that no one will admit to having an inferior belief system... i believe mine is the best and most accurate, you believe yours is... each of us is trying to persuade the other to switch... this does sometimes happen... if it does, the newly adopted belief system supplants the old one as the "best" in its holders belief...

 

[mindido]

Gee cable,

The Pentagon doesn't even agree with you. Ever read their report? Seems like its down to you and gw, I know gw's motivation, how about yours?

 

[Texan]

Gee cable,

The Pentagon doesn't even agree with you. Ever read their report? Seems like its down to you and gw, I know gw's motivation, how about yours?

You have taken the Pentagon report out of context. Further evidence that liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

[mindido]

Tex,

Specify. How did I take their report out of context?

 

[Texan]

Pentagon operates on a doomsday type scenario for their reports. It is sometimes refered to a contingency plan.

 

[mindido]

Tex,

All reports are doomsday? Man, talk about pessimists.

 

[Iceberg]

Pentagon operates on a doomsday type scenario for their reports. It is sometimes refered to a contingency plan.

Have you actually read the whole report?

It is no contingency plan. It is a report on the calamities that will likely occur as a result of climate change (at least not now, but within some of our lifetimes).

If the Pentagon "operates on a doomsday type scenario," how can you call the IPCC scientists "alarmists"? It would be the Pentagon people who are the "alarmists" and the scientists as the low-emotion people, who methodically explain the likely effects of global warming in a calm fashion.

 

[Texan]

"Imagining the Unthinkable
The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United States national security.
We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.
We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately.

The research suggests that once temperature rises above some threshold, adverse weather conditions could develop relatively abruptly, with persistent changes in the atmospheric circulation causing drops in some regions of 5-10 degrees Fahrenheit in a single decade. Paleoclimatic evidence suggests that altered climatic patterns could last for as much as a century, as they did when the ocean conveyor collapsed 8,200 years ago, or, at the extreme, could last as long as 1,000 years as they did during the Younger Dryas, which began about 12,700 years ago."

Is the earth warming, yes, is it becuase I drive a 1-ton truck, no. Maybe yall should read the report.

 

[Iceberg]

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050701123028-71010.pdf

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=167

 

[cableguy]

yep... ask a legitimate question, and get called names for it... (both links)

this could be looked at as the functional equivalent of the flat earth society demanding hearings on whether the earth is flat or not, or some group demanding hearings on whether the moon is made of green cheese... if you wholeheartedly believe something to be complete crap, would you waste your time and other peoples money talking about it?? would you seek to legitimize by discussion, something that is flat out wrong??

someone writes something opposing the "conventional wisdom" that global warming is a threat that is caused by humans, and is once again derided as evil, or as having done something "unfortunate."

berg, there are two sides to this story, and the other side isnt all about oil... perhaps it would be educational to find out who has been funding these pro-global warming folks... perhaps the answer MIGHT end up revealing the source of funds to be those opposed to oil companies... naturally, you believe that being opposed to oil companies is a good and virtuous thing, but when a result funded by those folks ends up being something that goes against the oil companies, wouldnt that make the oil company studies no less valid than those funded by "big anti-oil?" im just saying it is a legitimate question... if the source of funding for one side determines the validity of the results, it should for the other side as well...

 

[Conman]

All I wanna say is that where I'm at, the temperature here now is 1.7 degrees (ave) higher than last year and almost 7 degrees higher than what it was 18 years ago. We'd better find out why this is happening and what, if anything, is causing this alarming increase. We're starting to fry in tropical Asia and if this goes on, I'm forcing cableguy to move here!

 

[cableguy]

only if the taxes are low, the freedom is high, i can drive what i want, fish, hunt, and target shoot at will, and have a well paying job... sort of like the circumstances i find myself in now... 1.7 degrees, huh??? you better pack it in, the oceans will surely rise and inundate your home in the next week... the time to panic is now!!!! OR, you could look for the words "hottest year since..."



*****ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATE*****

environmental groups are suing some california power companies... this is to be expected until you learn that the problem isnt pollution, it is windmills... windmills that kill a LOT of birds, many of them raptors, and some of them protected or endangered species... renewable energy isnt always a good idea, and every action has consequences... i found this to be rather amusing... eco-groups suing because of the actions of other eco groups... the war against the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil oil companies apparently isnt going well, so the greenies have turned french in their efforts to post a win--any win--and have declared war on each other... i shall sit back and enjoy watching the fratricide...

http://www.insidebayarea.com/timesstar/localnews/ci_2842322

 

[Iceberg]

Head of the National Academy of Sciences says global warming is caused by human activities:

http://us.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/07/21/global.warming.ap/index.html

 

[cableguy]

we are very happy for him... this changes nothing, however...

 

[Iceberg]

http://healthandfitness.sympatico.m...show=True&number=6&showbyline=False&subtitle=

 

[Iceberg]

Europe's cities are getting hotter, study shows:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4140606.stm

Siberia's rapid thaw causes alarm:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4141348.stm

Toronto has 40th smog day: doubles old record:

http://www.torontoenvironment.org/node/277

 

[Iceberg]

More required reading, especially for skeptics and contrarians:

"Another climate-skeptic argument bites the dust"

http://www.grist.org/news/daily/2005/08/12/3/index.html

"Climate argument solved? Technical errors blamed for mismatch in temperature readings."

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050808/full/050808-13.html

"Errors Cited in Assessing Climate Data"

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/s...1b8c5cc5d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

"New Observations And Climate Model Data"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050814164823.htm

 

[mindido]

Ice,

"Intelligent Warming Theory"

Loved that one!