• New threads will not be visible until approved by a moderator.
  • Customize your forum experience with the xenForo-G-1-0 browser script.
    For additional information, see: Useful Custom Forum Script: xenForo-G-1-0

  • Welcome to the forum!
    You must activate your account in order to post and view all forum content
    Please check your email inbox & spam folders for our activation email, then follow the link to validate your email address.
    Contact Us if you are having difficulty posting or viewing forum content.
  • You are viewing our forum as a guest, with limited access.
    By joining you will gain full access to thousands of Videos, Pictures & Much More.
    Membership is absolutely FREE! Registration is FAST & SIMPLE.
    Register Today to join the first, most comprehensive and friendliest communities of nude celebrity fans on the net!

Environmental Issues

mindido

Respected Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
714
endymion said:
Hey Min,
Does that mean Jon Stewart and Al Franken are out of the politics thread? They're half the fun!

Endy,

Heck no! They are half the fun and at least keep the discussion lively and interesting. They just have to be taken with a grain of salt.

And Duke,

I'm not quoting the comedians, i'm quoting the scientists on their show. If you've seen the show then you know they take top experts on both sides of a subject. Just watch it if you get the chance.

I've seen their show a few times (just not that episode) so I'm somewhat familiar with their format. They do make some interesting points at times but they also leave some valuable info out (such as the "quality" of a forest.) If that info was not included front and center in the discussion then my suspicions are raised about the "quality" of the show. Any realistic discussion on the subject would raise that issue as its so basic.

And yes a few of the last 20 years have been almost half a degree warmer, we know this.

A few? Lets look at that chart a bit closer.



As you can see, every year since 2000 is in the top 11 warmest years. All of the 20 warmest years have occurred since 1980 except one (1944).

You know, this really puzzles me. Why is it so hard to believe that humans cannot effect climate when we all recognize that we pump millions of tons of pollutants into the air daily? There is no doubt that we're doing that. Right? Is there ANY question we're doing that? And since the effects can be demonstrated in a lab and on a computer; and about 90% of scientists that study the subject agree, what is really the discussion here? Its simple. Politics and economics.

Politicians to continue the smokescreen as long as possible so that the oil and auto industries don't have to change.

Thats what we're really talking about here.
 

Texan

The Gunhand
Staff Alumn
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
1,382


I guess politicans have been somkescreening for 2 billion years
 

mindido

Respected Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
714
Ugh Tex,

Where's that from? References! References! Anybody can make a graph.
 

Duke E. Pyle

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Messages
998
Reaction score
90
min you'll come around. It might take 5 or ten years but one day you'll see the light. You think you are working against the man but you are just working along side him. It'll hit you like a fucking lightning bolt one day.
 

mindido

Respected Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
714
Duke E. Pyle said:
min you'll come around. It might take 5 or ten years but one day you'll see the light. You think you are working against the man but you are just working along side him. It'll hit you like a fucking lightning bolt one day.

Duke,

It'll never happen. Why? I've worked with quite a few environmental activists and very few of them have much money. They do it because they believe in it and the science behind their concerns is now well accepted. Now, what are the motivations behind the other side?

Well, first off, who are they? Oil companies, coal companies and the utilities, the auto industry, plus a few more. What are their motivations? Simple! Profit at any cost. So the longer they can keep a smokescreen going (aided by their buddies, the Bushies) the larger their profits are (at least thats what they keep telling themselves).

So, I'll stick with the good guys. Those people that want to make life better for everyone.

And Tex,

Will have to check the link out. I know I've seen that before, but I can't remember at the moment.
 

Texan

The Gunhand
Staff Alumn
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
1,382
There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.

There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.

First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.

On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.

As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution.

Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?

• Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research


Link to story here
 

endymion

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2004
Messages
238
Reaction score
8
There's a new, upcoming film coming out on the threat of Global Warming. It's called An Inconvienient Truth, and the trailer has just come out:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount_classics/aninconvenienttruth/trailer/

Nothing like Al Gore's voice mixed with glaciers vanishing to give you the chills.

I do agree with part of that article Tex, the idea that everyone should be investing less time and money to study whether or not global warming is happening, and use the money to find alternate fuel sources and finding ways of reducing pollution. That way, the Yes/No argument could be made void.

But I disagree with the idea that the Kyoto Protocol was a costly flop, it could have been a massive success if the larger polluters in the world had agreed to sign. The flaw lay in the governments, not the ideal. As is usually the case.

Lastly, any scientist that comes from Queensland should be completely, immediately, ignored. They're all nuts up there, trust me. They're like the backwoods folk in Deliverance.
 

Iceberg

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2004
Messages
515
Reaction score
10
Texan said:
There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

Bullshit! 2005 was warmer than 1998, and there was no El Nino in 2005. In 1998, there was one of the strongest over the last two centuries. (El Nino usually leaves the planet warmer than normal.)

Also, Bob Carter, the guy you cite, is an absolute douchebag when it comes to climatology. He has no idea what he's talking about.

See:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/bobcarter/
 

mindido

Respected Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
714
Stu,

With today's energy prices there are a lot more options available. Solar and wind should start picking up.
 

RichieTBaum

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
261
Reaction score
57

mindido

Respected Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
714
Richie,

Interesting article. I used to go up to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area outside Ely Minnesota for over 20 years, every year. The canoeing and fishing were great, probably some of the best in the world. Then a few articles made it into the newspapers and tourism went through the roof. It was probably good for the people in Ely (to some extent) but my friends and I quit going there. Far too many people.

And P.S.

When you go on vacation, isn't the idea to be on vacation? I just don't understand the idea of cell towers in national parks. Makes no sense to me.
 

Iceberg

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2004
Messages
515
Reaction score
10
Texan, the hurricane season may be slower so far, but you neglect to remember that we are not even close to the "prime time" for hurricane development. September and October are the two most active months. Also, in terms of home runs or RBIs in a season in baseball, such statistics can be predicted using "on pace" methods, but it is far more difficult to use such a method in an infinitely more complex field as tropical meteorology.

You also neglect to acknowledge the fast-paced Eastern Pacific (i.e. west coast of Mexico, Central America, and Baja California) hurricane season. This region's active season may be stealing some of the thunder, so to speak, of the Atlantic season.
 

Texan

The Gunhand
Staff Alumn
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
1,382
Ice, what about the lower sea level surface temps? If the earth is indeed warming wouldn't the surface temps be warmer?
 

Iceberg

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2004
Messages
515
Reaction score
10
The truth of the matter is that SSTs (sea surface temperatures) are higher than normal. Check this out:

Atlantic region SSTs:

atl_anal.gif


Atlantic region SST anomalies:

atl_anom.gif


If you're not familiar with the Celsius scale, one degree Celsius equals 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit.

The above maps show that the Atlantic region's SSTs are about 0.6 to 0.7 degrees Celsius (about 1.1 to 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than normal on a whole compared to the 1971-2000 average. See this for further information:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsst.shtml
 

JimE

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
25
Reaction score
5
Conman said:
And before we even begin to start this debate, I hope you're not Anerican coz you guys are the biggest contributor to Global Warming and Pollution and are refusing to do anything about it (your government at least). The US has several times, rejected pleas from the UN to reduce waste from their industrialization and also refuses to accept proposals for reducing pollution levels on a global scale. .........We all know that the US government is being held by the balls by industrial big wigs and we know what happens when one party doesn't play ball. So while these industrialists and politicians play their game, the world, our only world, dies..........
Been there, done that, industrialists and their money always win. We're fucked. End of debate.
Just starting to read this hugue thread and I must admit that I'm lucky not to be an US citizen, allthough we Europeans agree at least there has to be done something.... Good point of view Conman but it doesn't bring solutions. I say let's first get rid of one of the most dangerous clowns America has ever known.
 

Texan

The Gunhand
Staff Alumn
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
1,382
JimE said:
. I say let's first get rid of one of the most dangerous clowns America has ever known.

I agree getting rid of Hillary would be great
 
Top