Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Danoff]

Yeah , it would be real nice if the highway ended in a precipice , that would teach us a lesson about how we should have made & sold cars as flying vehicles initialy . sure, the market has alternatives in it , but the world economy as a whole cannot afford abrupt transitions , the cost would be incalculable . It's not that i worship oil it's just that , if you compare it to it's alternative rival ; Hydrogen , you will begin to see that per weight calorific value , containability and ease of production have lulled us into thinking that energy in any form in the bounds of the solar cell called Earth is Cheap when it IS NOT , it has a hefty price tag ; Responsible Usage & Aggressive Foreplanning.​

I don't think you really understood what I was saying. Sure, large abrupt changes in supply of ANY kind will generally result in bad things. I am also well aware of the fact that alternative energy is more expensive. I am aware of this because if it were not - we would use it instead (nobrainer). But the higher priced oil gets, the more attractive alternatives look.

 

[Zardoz]

We all really need to ignore subversive crap like this:


Don't read this...

...or this, either!


And don't look at this:

Arctic ice in 1979 and 2005


This is just more tree-hugger BS from them eco-nazis, right? We don't have to change anything at all about the way we live. We can just rock on forever, living just like we're living now.

There's no way human activity can have anything to do with this, dammit! Sure, the arctic hasn't been ice-free in the past million years, but its just a crazy coincidence that its going to be that way again about 200 years after we started burning fossil fuels!

Its a coincidence, I tell you! We didn't do this!! It isn't our fault!!!

 

[Danoff]

We all really need to ignore subversive crap like this:


Don't read this...

...or this, either!


And don't look at this:

Arctic ice in 1979 and 2005


This is just more tree-hugger BS from them eco-nazis, right? We don't have to change anything at all about the way we live. We can just rock on forever, living just like we're living now.

There's no way human activity can have anything to do with this, dammit! Sure, the arctic hasn't been ice-free in the past million years, but its just a crazy coincidence that its going to be that way again about 200 years after we started burning fossil fuels!

Its a coincidence, I tell you! We didn't do this!! It isn't our fault!!!

Think with your head rather than your gut. Go back and re-read some of Famine's posts. Global warming isn't what's being questioned here, the cause is what's being questioned and I think Famine made a very strong case. You'll certainly never be a scientist with this kind of draw-conclusions-because-you-feel-like-it-attitude.

 

[Zardoz]

...the cause is what's being questioned and I think Famine made a very strong case...

Right. I agree with you, Famine, and Swift that its all those damned volcanoes that went off in the last fifty years that are doing this:

More eco-nazi so-called "data" for us to deny

Just because it started happening at the close of the same century in which we started burning fossil fuels is strictly coincidental. The dates they cite on that chart ("since the '80s", "since 1961", "past 20 years") are put there just to make us feel guilty.

I mean, Famine's data has to be correct, right? How could it be wrong?

 

[Danoff]

Right. I agree with you, Famine, and Swift that its all those damned volcanoes that went off in the last fifty years that are doing this:

More eco-nazi so-called "data" for us to deny

Just because it started happening at the close of the same century in which we started burning fossil fuels is strictly coincidental. The dates they cite on that chart ("since the '80s", "since 1961", "past 20 years") are put there just to make us feel guilty.

I mean, Famine's data has to be correct, right? How could it be wrong?

I don't dispute most of what's put forth in those articles. Your entire argument is based on timing... Famine explained why that is not valid. You haven't been able to counter that. Those articles certainly don't.


http://www.env.leeds.ac.uk/envi2150/oldnotes/lecture9/lecture9.html
http://www.ras.org.uk/images/stories/ras_pdfs/Solanki.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/295/5552/15c
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/varsun.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1045327.stm
http://homepage.eircom.net/~gulufuture/future/weather02.htm
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles 2004/Winter2003-4/global_warming.pdf
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/greenhouse-00f.html
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=294
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3999
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2873
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3901
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4167
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3956
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4249
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4273

Give these a read. ^^

 

[Zardoz]

So its the sun's fault, and not the volcanoes. Hard to keep up around here.

The Cato Institute. Certainly they can be believed. An organization with a mission, and an agenda:

http://www.cato.org/about/about.html

I'm sure some Cato folks belong to this outfit, as well:

http://www.cei.org/pages/about.cfm

After all, if you can't trust organizations backed by corporate interests, who can you trust?

So I guess we're making way too much of a fuss about this. After all, Famine says its all a myth:

Global warming is a myth put around by "have-nots" to get at "haves". Deal with it.

Which means this is all mythical data...:

Goddard Institute Data

...and the melting of the Arctic ice and Siberian tundra is all an illusion, like the NASA conspiracy that faked the moon landings. It isn't really happening after all, as some guys said in those links you posted, Danoff.

And its trees, volcanoes, and the sun that are really responsible. Oh wait: It isn't even happening. Right. Got it.

No! Wait! It IS happening, but its not our fault, or it certainly isn't caused by the emissions the internal combustion engines of the world are producing. Its all part of the natural climatic cycles, or its the fault of the powerplants of the world, or the cattle herds, or the sun, or volcanoes, or trees.

Man. This is tough to digest! I guess I'll just take your recommendations, Danoff, and go with the opinions of Lyndon LaRouche and the corporate-backed institutes, and ignore those folks at the Goddard oufit and these guys, as well:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4616431.stm

After all, like somebody said earlier, all of those guys were under political pressure to spout that crap. I mean, its common knowledge that Lord May is a stooge for Tony Blair, and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences just reads right off the Bush administration's punch list. That makes sense to me, somehow...

Yeah, Danoff, I'll just hit web sites like this one you cited from now on:

http://www.globalwarming.org

After all, they posted this link that exposes the truth about how the Inuits are going to cash in on the melting of the artic, and how one of them blames wind for the warming, and not us:

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=138

Inusiq Nasalik says to not worry about global warming, because the world is coming to an end, anyway. Now, where else could you find a link to an expert opinion like that, except from "GlobalWarming.org"? And look at those happy kids on the GlobalWarming masthead. They're sure not worried about anything!

Yeah, I've got to consider my sources better, don't I? Thanks for the guidance, D.

 

[Famine]

Here's a couple of issues for you.

• You don't seem to understand what "Global Warming" is.
• You don't seem to understand how "Global Warming" is separate from "Global Climate Change", or how both are separate from the change in average global temperatures.
• You don't seem to want to understand that the change in average global temperatures does not correlate with human carbon dioxide emissions, but it does seem to correspond with global forest cover (and the numbers of pirates).
• You don't appear to be able to accept any other explanation than "SUVs do it", despite the facts - never contradicted by ecological organisations or any source you have posted yet - that internal combustion engines account for ~0.25% of global carbon dioxide emissions and man accounts for ~8% of global carbon dioxide emissions. And man's share is STILL falling.
• You don't appear to notice that no source you've posted has a graph of average global temperature which starts before 1840. Even if you're a Young-Earth-believer, that's a rather short time (165 years out of 6,000, or 4.5 billion) to draw any conclusion at all.
• You have a belief. This makes your scientific judgement flawed.

If you analyse the data yourself you would see that not only is mankind unlikely to be (solely or even partly) responsible for the change in average global temperature - thus rendering "Global warming" a myth - but that is would appear to be a long term natural trend. The decay of the Earth's orbit, combined with the Sun's aging (and consequent increase in temperature and flaring) is also a factor, though how big of one - almost none, insignificant or slight - is a matter of some debate.


For reference, what are your opinions about the hole in the ozone layer?

 

[Joey D]

You don't appear to be able to accept any other explanation than "SUVs do it", despite the facts - never contradicted by ecological organisations or any source you have posted yet - that internal combustion engines account for ~0.25% of global carbon dioxide emissions and man accounts for ~8% of global carbon dioxide emissions. And man's share is STILL falling.

Guess I'm to blame then since I bought one of the damned SUV things.

 

[Zardoz]

...For reference, what are your opinions about the hole in the ozone layer?

The "conventional wisdom" about ozone depletion is that chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFCs), which do not exist in nature and are strictly man-made chemical compounds, do this:

The overall cause of ozone depletion, in the antarctic and elsewhere, is the presence of chlorine-containing source gases (primarily CFCs and related halocarbons) which in the presence of UV light are dissociated, releasing chlorine atoms which go on to catalyze the destruction of ozone. The Cl-catalyzed ozone depletion can take place in the gas phase, but it is dramatically enhanced in the presence of polar stratospheric clouds.

What do you think is depleting the ozone in the atmosphere, or do you believe it isn't even happening?

(BTW, I keep bringing up internal combustion engine emissions because so many of us want to believe they are having no effect on anything at all. Of course they're just part of the problem, but many of us want to deny even that.)

 

[Danoff]

And its trees, volcanoes, and the sun that are really responsible. Oh wait: It isn't even happening. Right. Got it.

You really get worked up about this stuff don't you. The whole purpose of my post is, I don't know what to believe. I'm not sure what the cause is and until more conclusive evidence comes in, I'm not going to trust what one scientist says over another.

I'm not totally sure it is happening, though I've seen evidence to support it. If it is happening I'm not sure it's not normal. If it isn't normal I'm not sure what the cause is. If I were sure what the cause was I wouldn't be sure what the proper course of action would be. You seem to have made up your mind about all of this despite a substantial contraversy in the scientific world. I have yet to see you support your claim that CO2 is causing rising temperatures.

By the way, your argument that my sources have vested interest is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem circumstantial . Your argument that the timing of fossil fuels and an increase in global temperatures correspond is a logical fallacy known as post hoc (I created a thread on that one).

Edit: And your continuing claim that I'm arguing that temperatures are not changing despite what I have written is also a logical fallacy, called a straw man argument . Because you're switching my argument, and then arguing that what I'm not saying is incorrect.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

Arctic ice in 1979 and 2005

This Thread is about the term Global Warming & the resource Fossil Fuels , Right ?
Then Zardozes two images here , a massive 26 years apart are a bit more on topic than let's say.. Telomeres . Look at the topleft quadrant , what do we see? Ice hugging a coastline and then Lovely blue water at the coastline ... precisely where the second largest known deposits of the fossil fuel called Oil reside . F global warming , this is what we've been waiting for ; a vastly cheaper way to access our national resources just as when we're allowed to profit individually from it and when our thirst for the stuff shoots through the roof ! Forget John Cabot and the Canadian NorthWest passage , that's old pirate stuff . Here we can afford to giveaway a complimentary tank'o'wonderfuel with every bright new Tamora !
Can't you see what is really going down? , what really matters is not whether you believe scientific evidence pro or con 'global warming' Rather what does occur en par , what is about to occur because of that and how human economically motivated events have a minute time frame compared to Gaia's (or the industrial rock formation called earth if you're that way inclined) Development & Maturation cycles.
She is not a Young Planet , our Sun ( which is also Gaia , inseperable ) is not an infant sun . The amount of solar radiation reaching us at present is considerably greater than when 'Life' was 1st mooted by the being ( or random materialistic event if you play for the other team) that now retains quite a complex record of lifeforms using this particular fusion powerpack . Global Warming should be happening because energy should be retained in a system that can Utilize , Harmonize and Develop it . To think that climate change is something to avoid is to completely miss out on the intellegent processes that have been the mainstay of flux for a billion or more years .
The confusion arises when you start to scale things 26 to 1,000,000,000 . To say , us ( man , whatever , i theorize we are actually an harmonic integral & a malignant intruder ,i.e double-natured ) , we have no effect on a strange phenomenon called Atmosphere ( more accurately Biosphere ) is just as absurd as saying that the planet should not be in a state of energetic flux . Both Denial of our huge growth and presence and Constipation of energetic fluxes be they mathematically Catastrophic ( i.e linear curvature to perpindicular breakaway ) or whatever are fundamentally wrong approaches to the requirements of Responsible Action scaled to fit Narrow Time Frames & Massively Complex Systematics .
Not every planet has an atmosphere , the case in hand ; CO2 & O2 are exclusively the productals of Living Organisms , the fruition of Genetic Labours Dwarfing our Own Codes in therms , especially , of Time . The 'Weather' hot or cold , is inextricable from Life , the weather cannot be viewed as dead mathematical cycles void of Agency . The sole Agent for weather are the Lifeforms past&present . Hand-in-Hand with Agency there is Concious Decision-Making Responsibility.
If Governments represented life on earth for millions and millions of years then why would they require election . There is no human harmony with the agency that created the one&only Biosphere . Simple trust in the economy is not sufficient , & for the magnitude of our current presence our conceptua are woefull errant , bordering on the psychotic ; we 'hear' voices from god or our particular self-image that Exonerate & Do Not Underline ; Responsible , Infinitely Considerate Activities
​

 

[Famine]

The "conventional wisdom" about ozone depletion is that chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFCs), which do not exist in nature and are strictly man-made chemical compounds, do this:

The overall cause of ozone depletion, in the antarctic and elsewhere, is the presence of chlorine-containing source gases (primarily CFCs and related halocarbons) which in the presence of UV light are dissociated, releasing chlorine atoms which go on to catalyze the destruction of ozone. The Cl-catalyzed ozone depletion can take place in the gas phase, but it is dramatically enhanced in the presence of polar stratospheric clouds.

What do you think is depleting the ozone in the atmosphere, or do you believe it isn't even happening?

(BTW, I keep bringing up internal combustion engine emissions because so many of us want to believe they are having no effect on anything at all. Of course they're just part of the problem, but many of us want to deny even that.)

It doesn't matter what I believe or don't believe. Facts don't lie (though they can, as you demonstrate, be abominably misinterpreted).

But that wasn't my question. My question was "What is your opinion about the hole in the Ozone layer?" not "What is causing the hole in the Ozone layer?"


For instance, I found it intriguing that it formed primarily over the Antarctic - the continent with the lowest emissions of anything on Earth.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

For reference, what are your opinions about the hole in the ozone layer?

The Hole in the Ozone Layer That was identified as being the product of human CFC production & Abuse was addressed in affirmative actions by the scientific community and some of the worlds political structures . It is now suturing itself shut and should be back to initial record levels within the same time frame as it's identification & remedy. An example in a simple set of what should be happening across the board .

You have a belief. This makes your scientific judgement flawed.

Assaying in terms of the scientific method is based on human induction ( reproducibility ) and commutation ( representability ) . Conclusions , theories and other constructs arising , are Interpretative based though and as such almost entirely rely on specific Beliefs at specific junctures . Your Logical Positivism today could be Fundamentalist Optimism Tomorrow ( or Further than Victoria's Handbag )

 

[Famine]

Interesting. Second point first - science does not test belief. Science tests disbelief. You come up with a theory, based on available evidence. You then test to see if that theory is just down to pure chance - NOT if you're right or not.

First point second. How would you feel if I told you that there never was a hole in the Ozone layer?

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

No Ozone Depletion ? I feel fine , thanks. Let's move on very rapidly to the next deflation of phantom menaces.

 

[Danoff]

First point second. How would you feel if I told you that there never was a hole in the Ozone layer?

I'm interested.

 

[Famine]

Good.

I'm going to leave it at that for the time being, and watch Zardoz explode.

 

[Zardoz]

...How would you feel if I told you that there never was a hole in the Ozone layer?

Another myth, huh? Please elaborate.

 

[Famine]

There's not really that much to elaborate on. There never was a hole in the Ozone layer. Really.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

For instance, I found it intriguing that it formed primarily over the Antarctic - the continent with the lowest emissions of anything on Earth.

And the continent with a polar wind vortex with no parallel , a direct suck from the upper atmosphere at the pole like a frigging bath sinkhole.

Good.

This is Famine going home with the ball ( )- but i have a question ; Which is your forte Scientifical Disbelief or Media Pyrrhonism i.e let's see your Hoax Demolition Stats.

 

[Famine]

Just the facts, ma'am.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

Just the facts, ma'am.

Which you have in you're panties , Lass .

 

[amp88]

This thread has been an interesting read. I agree, in general, with Famine's opinions and interpretation of fact on this matter.

 

[Jay]

This thread has been an interesting read. I agree, in general, with Famine's opinions and interpretation of fact on this matter.

Indeed, I feel the same. I also agree with Famine's opinions and interpretation of fact on this matter.

 

[Zardoz]

This thread has been an interesting read.

Seems to be deteriorating rapidly in the last few minutes, though...

 

[Zardoz]

There's not really that much to elaborate on. There never was a hole in the Ozone layer. Really.

So this is all nonsense, and these people have no idea of what they're talking about:

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Key_Topics/The_Ozone_Hole/index.html

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/jds/ozone/


Their data is flawed, or their interpretation of it is bad? They're wrong, and you're right?

 

[ZAGGIN]

For instance, I found it intriguing that it formed primarily over the Antarctic - the continent with the lowest emissions of anything on Earth.

does it matter where the hole formed? the fact that it has formed at all is alarming. the earth has a global eco/weather system, what happens in one place can directly affect what happens somewhere else.
anyone remember the nuclear meltdown in chernobyl? that happened in the former ussr, so why where sheep in wales contaminated with radiation? pollution like the wind travels.
you often hear of stories about bottles being thrown into the sea someplace, and turning up thousands of miles away somewhere else. how did it manage to get there? the same is true for pollution.
im sure (though not positive) that if you studied the worlds weather system you would find that there are 'highways' in the upper atmosphere. these 'highways' act independantly of the lower atmosphere that we inhabit, and can probably transport anything (especially pollution) anywhere in the world.

anything that spins on an axis has a tendancy to send things to its outer limits. try standing on the edge of a merry-go-round when it is in full swing. its hard to stay where you are because the force of the motion tries to throw you off. the closer you get to the axis (ie the center of the merry-go-round), the less force you feel. the same applies to the earth, with one important inclusion - gravity. just as gravity keeps our feet on the floor, it also keeps the atmosphere close to the earth, so therefore pollution (which is in the air) must also be kept close to the earth.
you will never find a hole in the ozone layer close to the equator because the force of momentum is too great, forcing the many millions of tons of pollutants to go where there is little force - either to the north or the south pole.

 

[Zardoz]

...For instance, I found it intriguing that it formed primarily over the Antarctic - the continent with the lowest emissions of anything on Earth.

More junk science for us to be in denial about

 

[Famine]

So this is all nonsense, and these people have no idea of what they're talking about:

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Key_Topics/The_Ozone_Hole/index.html

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/jds/ozone/


Their data is flawed, or their interpretation of it is bad? They're wrong, and you're right?

No. Their data is fine. Their interpretation of it is fine. Their choice of words is poor.

I'll say again, for the hard of thinking. There has never been a hole in the Ozone layer.

The issue is the presentation of complicated science to laypeople. I use the "Hole in the Ozone" as an exemplar for the very same reason as I say "Global Warming is a myth". Because the layperson can understand the simplified version, they then believe they know the issue and make humourous statements like "There's a hole in the Ozone layer", "Cars cause global warming - buy a hybrid and save the planet" or "E=mc^2". But the simplified version isn't true - it's true on a level that laypeople understand, in much the same way that we tell children that 1+1=2, but don't tell them that in binary it's 10. They don't need to know it, or they can't understand it.


ZAGGIN - No need to get shirty, petal. And yes - they're called the jetstreams. But they don't occur near the poles. And, using your merry-go-round example, I have to inform you that there's no such thing as centrifugal force (I know you didn't say it, but I can guarantee that most people reading it would have thought "A-ha! Centrifugal force!").

 

[Zardoz]

...I'll say again, for the hard of thinking. There has never been a hole in the Ozone layer.

What is it, then, and why is "hole" a poor choice of words?