or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global warming becomes even harder to deny...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Global warming becomes even harder to deny...

post #1 of 278
Thread Starter 
...although I'm sure we have a few naysayers here, not to mention plenty of Republicans in government, who are up to the challenge!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science....ap/index.html
Quote:
The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."

A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is running a fever and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.

One Republican who apparently doesn't have his head completely up his ass about this, a House rep. from NY, Sherwood Boehlert (from the northeast, gotta be a "RINO" ) commissioned this report.

But of course, since this is science and not religion, the report and the research behind it are certain to be studded with words and phrases such as "likely", "probably", "according to the best available data" -- all of which translate into Right Wingerese as "I only have to pay attention if I want to, and I don't want to".

Maybe I should just relax. It's only possibly a global disaster. Probably isn't happening. Probably isn't our fault if it is happening. Probably won't be that bad if it does happen, and maybe we can't do anything about it anyway. I'm sure I can dig up something someone said somewhere that there's nothing to worry about, and since no one will be able to absolutely completely refute that person, and that'll be good enough for me.

No, no let's not rush into anything rash that might have untold terrible side effects like reducing our dependence on foreign oil, conserving natural resources, and making the air cleaner -- but just to be on the safe side, let's commission a few more reports instead.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #2 of 278
I wonder what George Bush thinks or is he still in denial?
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #3 of 278
How realistic is this scenerio?

1. Continuing release of CO2 continues to raise the average temparature of the globe.

2. As a result, the salinity of the arctic ocean drops, since the ice is melting and the there is increased flow from Siberian rivers.

3. The gulf stream stops flowing

4. With the gulf stream no longer suppling the deep ocean with cold/dense water, the hotter surface temparatures reach deeper, and the deep ocean shrinks.

5. Once the the ocean temparature reaches 18 C at 300-2000 feet, it triggers the release of methane from the continental shelves.

6. The methane accelerates global warming, pushing us into another thermal maximum event:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoce...hermal_Maximum
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #4 of 278
Much of the talk on global warming is fabricated by those who hate capitalism and want to destroy our economy.
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #5 of 278
Why are you such a f*cking liar! It's not very Christian of you.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #6 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by southside grabowski
Much of the talk on global warming is fabricated by those who hate capitalism and want to destroy our economy.

You're apparently forgetting that the most economically successful state in the country has emissions and fuel economy laws a good two times higher than federal mandates.
post #7 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by southside grabowski
Much of the talk on global warming is fabricated by those who hate capitalism and want to destroy our economy.


Hey Moe! Why would anyone believe someone who says he's leaving, and makes a big deal about it, and then comes back under a different handle?


Another link about the same report : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13474997/?GT1=8211

Of course Moe is so blatant about his conservative viewpoint I still kind of wonder if he's real.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #8 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
How realistic is this scenerio?

How "Al Goreish" of you. Thanks for posting it. In "An Inconvenient Truth" Gore explains this part (what you just posted) with pretty pictures.

I encourage everyone to go watch this movie. I've seen it 3 times with different people I invited. I plan on inviting as many as I can too.
post #9 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
With the gulf stream no longer suppling the deep ocean with cold/dense water

I'm a bit of a n00b on this topic so don't shoot me, but I was under the impression that the gulf stream actually provides warmth, not coldness.
post #10 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
I'm a bit of a n00b on this topic so don't shoot me, but I was under the impression that the gulf stream actually provides warmth, not coldness.

It moves warmth and coldness around, it doesn't add energy where there was none before or anything.

The flow starts out in the arctic, where water freezes, leaving denser saltier water which sinks. The cold water runs south along the bottom of the ocean, and later warm water comes back north along the surface.

Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
How "Al Goreish" of you. Thanks for posting it. In "An Inconvenient Truth" Gore explains this part (what you just posted) with pretty pictures.

I encourage everyone to go watch this movie. I've seen it 3 times with different people I invited. I plan on inviting as many as I can too.

I haven't seen it yet. "Al Goreish" - compliment or insult?

Actually, if we are in the process of recreating the Eocene, then more power to us. I doubt that we could stop the global warming trend, we should spend more time figuring out how to enter the eocene directly without a thermal maximum type extinction event. Maybe we could start harvesting and burning the methane? because CO2 is a lot less dangerous that mass releases of methane...
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #11 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
I haven't seen it yet. "Al Goreish" - compliment or insult?

Sorry, I thought it was clear it was a compliment. Go watch the movie. You'll enjoy all the information/data which you seem to be familiar with.
post #12 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by southside grabowski
Much of the talk on global warming is fabricated by those who hate capitalism and want to destroy our economy.

Much of the talk denying global warming is fabricated by those who hate climatic stability and want to destroy our civilisation.
post #13 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by southside grabowski
Much of the talk on global warming is fabricated by those who hate capitalism and want to destroy our economy.

Your right! pay no attention to those glaciers that have melted,pay no attention to the gulf stream temps or rising sea levels,pay no attention to the worst hurricane season on record,pay no attention to the billions of tons of crud we poor into the atmosphere and pay no attention that not for a tropical storm coming by where I live we wouldnt have had a drop of rain in 3 months. Your right its just a bunch of Liberals making stuff up. Bad Liberals.

Seems its the way Republicans deal with everything, just Spin & Lie do it enough people will think its gospel.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #14 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Much of the talk denying global warming is fabricated by those who hate climatic stability and want to destroy our civilisation.


Good one!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #15 of 278
Quote:
Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last 1,000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.

The scientists said they had less confidence in the evidence of temperatures before 1600. But they considered it reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.

Putting aside the obvious biast of CNN's article for a second, let's look at this quote. It all comes down to what I've been saying here for several months now.

We don't have confidence in temp data before 1600

We didn't have truly accurate temp readings before the middle of the 20th century (1/10th of a degree or better)

The Earth experiences warming and cooling cycles lasting hundreds if not thousands of years. Most recent examples are quoted above.

The article and report draw several conclusions that cannot be drawn with any certainty. If CO2 is responsible for warming, then how do we explain that warm period that lasted for nearly 400 years beginning in the year 1000? Answer: We can't. It happened on its own. Man made CO2 levels and "warming" may very well just be a coincidence. Given what we know about warming and cooling cycles, there is more evidence for it being a conincidence than not.

But as usual, most here on AI will dismiss these criticisms as seg did preemptively in his opening post. But SDW! IT's the National Academy of Sciences!!! will be the response. Never mind that it's a private organzation making sweeping claims with data that is essentially unknowable.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #16 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Never mind that it's a private organzation making sweeping claims with data that is essentially unknowable.

So you are saying it is like the church? 8)
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #17 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001

But as usual, most here on AI will dismiss these criticisms as seg did preemptively in his opening post. But SDW! IT's the National Academy of Sciences!!! will be the response. Never mind that it's a private organzation making sweeping claims with data that is essentially unknowable.

It is essentially unknowable, therefore, we will assume what is most conducive to lack of regulation. Good one.
post #18 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
It is essentially unknowable, therefore, we will assume what is most conducive to lack of regulation. Good one.

Why do you think I oppose regulation?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #19 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
So you are saying it is like the church? 8)

Let's assume I answer "yes" to that. This brings to mind some questions.

Does anyone question the church?

Are such inquirers mocked, or embraced by the liberal left?


Seems to me that global warming proponents, environmentalists and liberals in general are perfectly willing to question assertions that don't fit their worldview, but those that do? Well, those theories are accepted as fact.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #20 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Given what we know about warming and cooling cycles, there is more evidence for it being a conincidence than not.

I don't think you're qualified to make such a statement. The people who study this as their livelihood think the opposite. To them, the evidence is strong enough to favor global warming. Even if they are wrong about the conclusions, the evidence is on their side. Obviously, there is evidence and theories against global warming, but I don't think theres more against than for.
post #21 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001

You know, there is so much nonsense in what you post defending what every day becomes more indefensible that it's a waste of time to even address your lame excuses.

How ironic that you posted a thread entitled Gorebot when it's pretty clear that you're a big time apology propagandist. A REPUBLIBOT.
post #22 of 278
Fortunately,reliable folks are monitoring this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsvVppXSTWM
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #23 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by southside grabowski
Fortunately,reliable folks are monitoring this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsvVppXSTWM

Does that woman take herself seriously?
post #24 of 278
This is a good graph of the data. It shows that this larger study (right) confirmed the findings of the earlier study (left).

post #25 of 278
In the future, such graphs should be addressed the same way supposed screenshots from future OS X versions are. That is, we need an "IT'S FAKE!!" camp and a "CONFIRMED!!" camp, and we need lots of ridiculous reasons of why it must be true or can't be true, like pixel 4901 is off or the wrong color.

I'll start: the anti-aliasing of the "High confidence" is inconsistent between the left and right sides.
post #26 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
In the future, such graphs should be addressed the same way supposed screenshots from future OS X versions are. That is, we need an "IT'S FAKE!!" camp and a "CONFIRMED!!" camp, and we need lots of ridiculous reasons of why it must be true or can't be true, like pixel 4901 is off or the wrong color.

I'll start: the anti-aliasing of the "High confidence" is inconsistent between the left and right sides.

no need to actually look at the evidence in order to dismiss it. if it favors global warming, it was clearly fabricated by the vast left wing conspiracy, which is trying to force communism on us in order to destroy the economy. the only question left is, how many babies did these scientists eat before making up the graph?
post #27 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
This is a good graph of the data. It shows that this larger study (right) confirmed the findings of the earlier study (left).


Is it possible to get the data that was used to construct these graphs? Surely is it published somehere.
post #28 of 278
Write the authors of the study.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #29 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
no need to actually look at the evidence in order to dismiss it. if it favors global warming, it was clearly fabricated by the vast left wing conspiracy, which is trying to force communism on us in order to destroy the economy. the only question left is, how many babies did these scientists eat before making up the graph?

Those must be the same scientists who want to legalize gay marriage. Kill them!!!! (in christian sort of way!)
post #30 of 278
Still nobody has addressed my question, why not pretend global warming is definite and switch to alternative energies when, global warming or no global warming, we'll reduce oil dependence and increase the electricity available on the grid? You conservatives are just looking for an excuse not to.
post #31 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
Still nobody has addressed my question, why not pretend global warming is definite and switch to alternative energies when, global warming or no global warming, we'll reduce oil dependence and increase the electricity available on the grid? You conservatives are just looking for an excuse not to.

Because it would cost money in terms of research and infrastructure, and it would force many people to rethink.

People don't like to think, and even less, they like to rethink.

Unless it's really forced upon them. Which is gonna happen somewhere between the US adopting proper units and the UK adopting proper English.
post #32 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Is it possible to get the data that was used to construct these graphs? Surely is it published somehere.

Here's the actual study.
post #33 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Is it possible to get the data that was used to construct these graphs? Surely is it published somehere.

Unlike your dubious sources.
post #34 of 278
If global warming is a real phenomenon, and if it is caused by man, it is probably unstopable - even if you manage to reduce CO2 on a per-country basis, that just reduced the prices of carbon based fuels, and other countries burn more. Trying to convince the Republicans and trying to reduce emissions are both a waste of time.

We should spend our time and energy trying to predict the changes that will occur, and figure out our survival plans. The battle over conservation is mental masterbation.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #35 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
If global warming is a real phenomenon, and if it is caused by man, it is probably unstopable - even if you manage to reduce CO2 on a per-country basis, that just reduced the prices of carbon based fuels, and other countries burn more. Trying to convince the Republicans and trying to reduce emissions are both a waste of time.

It is, it is. And maybe, maybe not. If the alternatives are better and cleaner than carbon based fuels, and at the right price, people will adopt them. Change starts from within. As technology evolves, it will be a personal choice to rely on the electricity grid $$ or be independent from it 0$ for example.

It will be about a super fast electric car like Ian Wright's $100,000 (for now)Wrightspeed X1 that does 0-60 in 3 seconds and beats almost any exotic car that burns fossil fuel and is uber expensive....and slower and "dirtier" cars. In fact only the Bugatti Veyron with its $1,200,000 price is faster than the Wrightspeed.

You guys are thinking old school. At the pace technology appears to be moving, we will have very cool energy saving or even independent alternatives. It won't have to be the early adopters, hippies or the "treehuggers" embracing those alternatives. We will ALL have options.

Let me give you a recent example that's not really about energy alternatives completely, but about the change of people perception of things.

I'm a huge motocross fan. For a couple decades, most mx bikes had 2 stroke engines....a mixture of oil and gasoline. In 1997 Yamaha became the first major manufacturer to experiment with 4 stroke high performance engines. Doug Henry was the ONLY rider racing a four stroke bike.

Two stroke and four stroke bikes make distinct sounds so it was always easy to spot or hear Doug approaching at the races. It was a novelty. Something that would "never catch on". He was the underdog riding the funny sounding bike so everybody cheered him and his Yamaha YZF400 when he came by at the tracks.

In 1998...just a year later....Doug Henry won the 250cc motocross championship on...you guessed it...a 4 stroke bike. Fast forward to 2006. This year, every major manufacturer sells both two stroke and four stroke bikes. However, if you manage to go to a National Motocross race this year, you'll notice something very "strange". Not a single top 40 rider on what used to be the 125cc. or 250cc championships races two stroke bikes.

Let me repeat that. Not ONE top professional rider rides two stroke bikes anymore. In 5 years, 4 stroke motocross bikes went from novelties, to mainstream. That, thanks to new environmental laws that prefer the cleaner running 4 stroke engines.

We don't have unlimited reserves of fossil fuels so the price of them is not going to come down drastically. The days of $1.70/gallon are over. (I'm in California)

Thinking that convincing the Reps. and trying to reduce emmisions is a waste of time is defeatist. We will all be able to vote twice to make these changes happen faster. Politically and with our wallets.

I for one intend to make a LOT of money working to bring those choices to the marketplace. But that's another story.
post #36 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
It is, it is. And maybe, maybe not. If the alternatives are better and cleaner than carbon based fuels, and at the right price, people will adopt them.

Your electric cars are fueled by coal based power plants. Nuclear is only an option if we use breeder reactors, since we will run out of uranium otherwise, but we can't trust most of the world with breeder reactors (due to nuclear weapons). 85% of our power generation capacity produces CO2, and we have to quintuple that capacity in the next 40 years as the 3rd world westernises. Hydroelectric is close to being maxed out. Solar, wind, geothermal and tidal power are pipe dreams, not able to scale enough to make a difference.

Hope for fusion, plan for coal.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #37 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by southside grabowski
Much of the talk on global warming is fabricated by those who hate capitalism and want to destroy our economy.

how true
what about the medieval warming period?? all the stuff they talk about fails to explain why the mwp and why the little ice age started, why it stopped....they keep rehashing the same hash man. chicken littles.
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #38 of 278
We have to stop using oil now anyways, with Peak Oil and all.
post #39 of 278
What if they are right and global warming is really happening due to human activity? If we act now, we can help make the problem less; if we do nothing, then the cost of cleanup later will more than off-set any immediate impact on our economy, and might even be too late to correct the wrongs.

If they are wrong, so what, it might cost a little in the short term to change our ways, but we will be the better for it. When we are discussing survival, I for one hope we don't selfishly choose the wrong path.

There is plenty of money to be made in a "green" fashion; it's just that big business is too lame to act responsibly and wishes to complain about tthe cost of transferring over and government is controlled by big business (how many politicians are businessmen? how many are blue-collar workers? Cheney, for example, was chairman of which company? Bush owned what company?). Then they create the image of fear that attempts to act responsibly are a threat to our way of life, blahh blah blah. What they mean is it is a minor threat to THEIR wallets in the short term, and therefore is a crime against humanity. The sad thing is how many common folk actually fall for the story.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #40 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Your electric cars are fueled by coal based power plants. Nuclear is only an option if we use breeder reactors, since we will run out of uranium otherwise, but we can't trust most of the world with breeder reactors (due to nuclear weapons).

Right now they are for the most part...but what if your house was energy independent? Did you consider that? Then "my" superfast and efficient electric car would just be another appliance.
Quote:
85% of our power generation capacity produces CO2, and we have to quintuple that capacity in the next 40 years as the 3rd world westernises. Hydroelectric is close to being maxed out. Solar, wind, geothermal and tidal power are pipe dreams, not able to scale enough to make a difference.

I suggest you do more research. And I can't verify or challenge your figures right now. There's other technologies besides the ones you mentioned. I am drinking out of a cup made out of corn right now and you couldn't tell the difference between a plastic one and this one.

As inneficient as solar is right now, it's getting better and it will become more efficient. Like any technology. Like all those technologies you mentioned. New cheaper/materials are being developed all the time. How do you define a pipe dream by the way? All those technologies are available right now inefficient or not...at a higher price for now....and if you know they will never be able to "scale enough to make a difference"...well...send me tomorrow's lotto numbers if you don't mind.
Quote:
Hope for fusion, plan for coal.

What I hope for is for humans to make a responsible choice and do their part as individuals and not become defeatists. That's what I hope. But hey, most inventors heard how their inventions/experiments were nothing but "pipe dreams" and how they would never work. History is full of examples....of how the naysayers and defeatists were wrong.

Who would've thought 100 years ago that today we'd be communicating over these "internets"....wirelessly from our couches in our living rooms via portable laptop computers in front of our 42" LCD screens while watching overseas newschannels in real time?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global warming becomes even harder to deny...