Global Warming - Moved

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,051
Credit: 109,214,337
RAC: 54,519
Topic 194378


[aside]
I have a neighbour who didn't understand that his hybrid car has to get electricity from somewhere, or that there is such a thing as an end-to-end or full lifetime cost of device manufacture. Alas his discovery of the hiding of costs elsewhere in space or time ( outside of his personal horizon ) has deflated his 'green' pride. And he's a bit grumpy with me too for telling him. The environmental 'badge' that he wears got tarnished rather than polished. Sigh. What a lousy neighbour I am. I fear global warming induced by all the hot air generated by talking about it ..... :-/
[/aside]

That is funny ! Almost as humorous as last spring when AL Gore

had to cancel his Global Warming Seminar on the east coast of the U.S.

due to the Ice storms !

Regards,

Bill

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Blaise Pascal

Simplex0
Simplex0
Joined: 1 Sep 05
Posts: 152
Credit: 964,726
RAC: 0

Global Warming - Moved

I would say that the really funny, or tragic, thing is that there are still guys that believe that the lobby paid by Exon have anything to do with scienence.

The good thing is that this group are shrinking faster then the polar ice;)

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,051
Credit: 109,214,337
RAC: 54,519

RE: The good thing is that

Message 93044 in response to message 93043

Quote:
The good thing is that this group are shrinking faster then the polar ice;)


Err, which pole is that? ;-)

Cheers, Mike.

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Blaise Pascal

Simplex0
Simplex0
Joined: 1 Sep 05
Posts: 152
Credit: 964,726
RAC: 0

RE: RE: The good thing is

Message 93045 in response to message 93044

Quote:
Quote:
The good thing is that this group are shrinking faster then the polar ice;)

Err, which pole is that? ;-)

Cheers, Mike.

It stars with an 'N' ;)

mikey
mikey
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 5,148
Credit: 518,765,793
RAC: 28,837

RE: RE: RE: The good

Message 93046 in response to message 93045

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The good thing is that this group are shrinking faster then the polar ice;)

Err, which pole is that? ;-)

Cheers, Mike.

It stars with an 'N' ;)

Isn't the 'S' one shrinking too?

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,051
Credit: 109,214,337
RAC: 54,519

*****************************

****************************************************************************

Moved from Crunchers Corner - as there is likely an interest in continuing this topic. Keep it civil! :-)

Cheers, Mike.

****************************************************************************

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The good thing is that this group are shrinking faster then the polar ice;)

Err, which pole is that? ;-)

Cheers, Mike.

It stars with an 'N' ;)

Isn't the 'S' one shrinking too?


No, it's getting bigger. And that's the rub in the debate on climate/anthropogenic change/warming etc. As you can choose example and counter-example to suit the stance, opposing sides then often defer to 'playing the man and not the ball', and eventually wind up reading only their own output. Simple factual stuff get's lost, and conclusions then pivot on preconceptions rather than any realistic input. Just like litigation, if an adversarial debate continues there is a hardening/polarization of attitudes with time - and particularly groupthink ( ie. what matters is that we think alike, rather than be right ) evolves.

So while Al Gore says that the Greenland ice sheet is a key indicator of warming, he didn't complete the sentence by mentioning that it's over 1 metre thicker and several thousand square km's broader than ~ 20yrs ago. Oh, and by the way - he is carbon credit broker.

Similiarly the concept of 'clean coal' is proposed by those who sell it, obviously, but the true CO2 output of burning depends on the method as well as the coal itself. So if you have coal with a high water content then you could either leave it to dry for a while before chucking it in the firebox, or throw it in straight away - thus some of the coal is burnt merely to dry out the remainder, which is less efficient and hence leads to more coal use ( and CO2 emission ) for a given power delivery.

Proponents of climate change like to use the vision of melting ice, but don't like to mention the very same Antarctic ice ( deep drilled cores ) have shown far greater variations in all the climate parameters of mention ( temperature, CO2 et al ) - all preceding any human ancient/dug-up carbon use. Neither is there the theory put forward, no more or less soundly based, that humans have knocked off quite a few enormous herds of farting methane producers without inducing cooling. For consistency of argument IF carbon up -> temperature up THEN carbon down -> temperature down.

Conversely the idea that one can keep pumping ancient carbon into the air and not affect long term weather patterns is patently absurd. It must. First principles alone requires this ( quantum properties of molecular electronic states ). Energy carried by incoming light from the Sun gets down converted in frequency ( by 'greenhouse' gases ) to remain under the atmospheric blanket rather than readily re-radiated to space.

Then there's the Chicken-Little/Cry-Wolf Factor : if you run around saying the sky is falling, and then it doesn't : you quickly acquire a credibility problem due to short attention spans of the audience. Terrific to talk of future generations, great nobility and what-not but in the end "all politics is local" applies in time as well as space.

But one can't say nothing will go wrong if mankind keeps pumping the well dry as there is no shortage of better supported examples from history. Chernobyl, Silent Spring, American Midwest Dust Bowl in the 1930's, Easter Island, deforestation disasters .... and remember those CFC's?

Cheers, Mike.

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Blaise Pascal

Ver Greeneyes
Ver Greeneyes
Joined: 26 Mar 09
Posts: 140
Credit: 9,562,235
RAC: 0

In my (admittedly limited)

In my (admittedly limited) experience with the climate debate I have found Al Gore's points to be crude at best (i.e. he brings things up that sound good and leaves things out that would actually prove his point), but I've seen climate change opposers blatantly change the facts. (i.e. The Great Global Warming Swindle, though that may be too infamous to mention)

I do agree that climatic science is still very much in flux, but there are some things that are hard to ignore.
1) CO2 content in the atmosphere has gone up by about 20% due to industrialization - whether this affects temperature directly in a significant way is debatable, but it is true that a change of this magnitude hasn't happened for half a dozen millennia. (certainly there have been greater variations in the distant past, but it's a stretch to compare conditions then directly to conditions now)
2) It's only recently become clear that global temperatures have risen more and more quickly than statistical variance would allow. This was not clear 30 or even 20 years ago, as temperatures essentially stabilized for a variety of reasons from the 40s to the 70s. (a dip in temperature could be seen at the poles, hence the 'Global Cooling' scare of the 70s, but this isn't mirrored in global data)

What all this will end up doing to our climate is less clear, although as far as I'm aware there are at least strong indications that variance in weather patterns will increase.

Rod
Rod
Joined: 3 Jan 06
Posts: 4,396
Credit: 811,266
RAC: 0

In my humble opinion the

In my humble opinion the earth is quite capable of taking care of itself. It is the height of hubris that some how we must save the planet.. it really boils down we must save this technological/ free market lifestyle.

When the human population is reduced to 500 million or a billion in the next 500 years and the humanity returns to its hunter gather status the planet will be fine.. Of course I am being sarcastic :-)

edit:
As George Carlin once said..(I am paraphrasing) This planet is quite capable of shaking us off like a bad case of fleas..

edit again:-) If every citizen on the planet who wants find a life style of the average US citizen It would require three planets of resources. Thats the Crux of the problem climate change is just the side show

There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold

Bill592
Bill592
Joined: 25 Feb 05
Posts: 786
Credit: 70,825,065
RAC: 0

RE: RE: RE: RE:

Message 93050 in response to message 93047

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

Isn't the 'S' one shrinking too?


No, it's getting bigger. And that's the rub in the debate on climate/anthropogenic change/warming etc. As you can choose example and counter-example to suit the stance.......

Cheers, Mike.

All excellent points.

Well, the weather here in Minnesota U.S. is acting very strange.
Today June 9 it is 59 degrees F outside. ( 15 degrees Celsius )
Much cooler than normal for this time of the year.
Long range weather forecasters have said this may be a year without summer . We had one of these back in the late 1980’s when mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines. Pinatubo put so much material into the atmosphere that it reduced the amount of sunlight .

Several years ago, a German scientist said that Mars also had global warming. For the same reason as the Earth. Because the Sun had increased it’s output slightly for a decade or two.
Now, things seem to have reversed. Sunspot activity and solar output are the lowest in a century.

Actually, I Like it ! I like the cooler weather. I don’t need to waste electricity on air conditioning and, my DC crunching machine is running nice and cool. I hope it stays this way all summer.

Bill

Simplex0
Simplex0
Joined: 1 Sep 05
Posts: 152
Credit: 964,726
RAC: 0

I would not regard Al Gore as

I would not regard Al Gore as an expert in this isue
but this guys are...

"
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 80% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."[80]
"

Bill592
Bill592
Joined: 25 Feb 05
Posts: 786
Credit: 70,825,065
RAC: 0

RE: I would not regard Al

Message 93052 in response to message 93051

Quote:

I would not regard Al Gore as an expert in this isue
but this guys are...

"
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. "

What happened to the 7,111 earth scientists who did not respond ?

Were they running to Home Depot to buy up the last remaining stock of air conditioners? :-)

Regards,

Bill

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.