Terry Posted June 5, 2002 Share Posted June 5, 2002 From rSkin241. I'd say we humans cover oh about 10% of the earth. If that 10% can significantly affect 90% then, wow! That's a non-seqitor! What does 'cover' mean? And what does that have to do with factory exhaust and auto emissions, etc.? If you come to a US city from the desert or country during the day, you can see the brown haze long before you see the people 1 volcano can spew out more atmostphere harming materials than humans can ever purduce. I'd be curious to see the paper that demonstrates that they spew cloroflourocarbons into the atmosphere by the ton, the way we do every year. Also, volcanic emissions tend to cancel themselves out. Some gases, such as carbon dioxide, contribute to global warming, while others, like sulfur dioxide, can cause global cooling. 2. We were putting up much more harmful chemicals doing much more damage to our atmostphere in the 1800's and early 1900's. Why wasn't there a big increase in global warming then? Show me a link to anything that says we did more atmospheric damage in the 1800s and early 1900. We didn't even know how to make aerosols and flourocarbons back then. 3. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, a 10 degree change in temp would be HUGE. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It sure would. But it won't happen in your lifetime. (or your childrens or childrens children) We are currently seeing a warming trend of 1 to 1.5 degrees celsius per decade in the lower atmospher and ocean surface waters. I'd say that our kids could see close to a 10 degree rise by the end of their lifetimes. 4. The earth and weather goes in cycles. (what goes around comes around litterally) Why can't we just be in a warming cycle? We've had a couple ice ages, why not have a couple warm ages? We very well could. But to shrug of the current warming trend and the increase of emissions due to our human productivity as coincidence would be dangerous and foolish. 5. What's with all the doomsday stuff?Whole cities would be under water! We'll go back to the stone age! Temperatures of 200 degrees! Hurrincanes with 300 mph winds! If it's one thing humans are good at, it's adapting. If all that stuff did happen...we'll survive. Maybe so, but millions in the densely populated low lying areas along coastlines will be forced to move or drown, millions will die because of famine and or disease. Pressure due to moving poputations will cauyse turmoil and war. Why go through alol that if it's something we might be able to control? New York is barely above sea level. Ditto for Houston, New Orleans, and other coastal US cities. Where do YOU think those populations should go? But...do you honestly believe it'll get that bad? Our air is already significantly improving. You'll have to show me something that proves that overall the air is improving. Look at the Ozone hole for example. It's shrinking. Again, show me the proof. The ice in antartica is getting thicker (despite all the icebergs). In other places it's melting and breaking up. We find that the core of Antarctica is mildly cooling while the perimiter is warming. I think people give to much power to humans. If we are able to destroy the earth we would have done it a long time ago. Why do you say that? Why is it not conceivable to you that the bill happens to be coming due in your lifetime? finally, the rate at which global warming is occuring varies greatly. Most instruments on the ground measure the temps in big cities. Of course they're going to be high, with the heat island effect and all. But more accurate satallites show the earth not warming as much as ground based instruments say they are. Not true. Measurements at the surface levels indicate a warimg, averaging 1 to 1.5 degrees celsius per decade (and not just be weathermen in the cities - give me a break!) Surface water measurement shows an increase of 1 to 1.5 degrees celsius per decade on average. True, satelites do show a cooling in the lower troposphere of about .05 degrees celcius per decade. But most scientists say that that's due to the simplicity of the models that the raw data is being fed into, not accounting for water vapor in the atmosphere, precipitation systems, and convection regions in the atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted June 5, 2002 Share Posted June 5, 2002 Sorry, Evil Genius, guess I got a little touchy...I tend to get a bit defensive about my beliefs, as you can tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 5, 2002 Author Share Posted June 5, 2002 Don't worry about it - I think we are get defensive about what we perceive to be right and wrong (I know I do). What is irrefutable though is...Dallas is not America's team. Unless you mean South America. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted June 5, 2002 Share Posted June 5, 2002 Originally posted by The Evil Genius I don't know why I bother, maybe its cause you ****ing people are too stupid to read... "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing global mean surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise," the administration said in its report." What would you call that ****ing quote from the Administration? What the **** do you think rising global mean surface tempartures are? Do I have to explain it on a 3rd grade reading level? What does this have to do what you said - well you said this I showed you the scientific error in your thought process with this Each greenhouse gas differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. HFCs and PFCs (which are mostly MANMADE) are the most heat-absorbent. Methane traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide absorbs 270 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide. Then you follow it with this quote Which even the BUSH administration contradicts now with their suprising support of the EPAs paper. Bush's own comments contradict you - his comments that Now I am no politician, but I think Bush doesn't throw the word out "significant" when he is just crying chicken little. Moreover, I would prefer that you list the "data that shows that madmade effects on the climate will not have the huge impact as once thought." Seems like the republicans, as well as, what did you guys call them?, oh yeah, the tree huggers, are crying chicken little then. I guess it won't matter anyways who's right - I don't plan on being here in 100 years when parts of NYC, New Orleans, and San Fran are under water Sorry but you should really take the "genius" out of your name... Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing global mean surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise," the administration said in its report. What would you call that ****ing quote from the Administration? What the **** do you think rising global mean surface tempartures are? Do I have to explain it on a 3rd grade reading level? Did Bush has this? NO!!! The EPA did! The EPA usually operates outside the policy of the President even thought the President selects the administrator of the EPA. Why? Because they don't want it to look like they have to much influence over the EPA. Do you have any reading comprehension skills? What does this have to do what you said - well you said this Anyway, what the article fails to mention is that we now believe man made emissions that contribute to the greenhouse effect will not have the impact on the climate as we once thought." I showed you the scientific error in your thought process with this Each greenhouse gas differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. HFCs and PFCs (which are mostly MANMADE) are the most heat-absorbent. Methane traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide absorbs 270 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide. Oh you really showed me the "scientific error" in my thought process Those are rates in labratory conditions slick. They are not valid measurement of what those trace gases would to in the atmoshpere because those gases can be absorbed back into plants, ground, water. Anyway this is besides the point. The point I was tryiny to make was that people in my field(about 80%) believe that changes in long term weather cycles are the more likely cause of the temp increase. The climo data shows that any change caused by man is a lot less then once thought. Tell me, where did you get your degree in Meteorology? Oh wait, you must have it in Climatology right? It would be wise not to try and comment on something you have no idea about ok. Which even the BUSH administration contradicts now with their suprising support of the EPAs paper. Bush's own comments contradict you - his comments that quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- acknowledge for the first time that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will increase significantly over the next two decades due mostly to human activities. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now I am no politician, but I think Bush doesn't throw the word out "significant" when he is just crying chicken little. Moreover, I would prefer that you list the "data that shows that madmade effects on the climate will not have the huge impact as once thought." Seems like the republicans, as well as, what did you guys call them?, oh yeah, the tree huggers, are crying chicken little then. I guess it won't matter anyways who's right - I don't plan on being here in 100 years when parts of NYC, New Orleans, and San Fran are under water Once again you show you have no reading comprehension skills whatsoever. The EPA were the ones that said this not Bush! Can you understand this??? Damn! :doh: If Bush was the one who said theis don't you think he would follow up and do something about it? Well, he isn't...Why is that? Because he didn't say it. Get it now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 5, 2002 Author Share Posted June 5, 2002 Well is appears you are partially right - Bush did not say it - it was his administration that said it - convenient if one does say. Would you settle for an impartial view - I give you the Christian Science Monitor... http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0605/p08s02-comv.html Warming Up to Warming Much of the developed world sees the United States as stubbornly uncooperative on global warming. But things are not quite that simple. The US just submitted a report to the United Nations that starkly acknowledges some of the negative effects warming could have on America, such as an increased likelihood of drought, and flooding in coastal areas. The report forthrightly admits that human activity partly lies behind such effects. This could seem an about-face for the Bush administration, which has opted out of an international treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, that mandates substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The administration, however, argues that it has never denied that global warming is a serious concern. It has only disagreed on how to address the problem. The disagreement is considerable. President Bush's climate plan, announced in February, calls for voluntary restraints on greenhouse gases by US industry, employing such incentives as emissions-trading schemes. This approach has sparked criticism from environmentalists and from European governments who think it's too slow-paced and indefinite. The European Union's 15 members ratified Kyoto May 31. If the US can own up to the effects of warming, as in its report to the UN, ask critics, why can't it take the next step and agree to clear-cut government curbs on greenhouse gases? That step could be taken by the US acting alone, if necessary. What's needed is a US policy on global warming that's integrated into the country's long-term energy plans. A firm national commitment to more fuel-efficient vehicles – culminating in pollution-free technology, possibly fuel cells – and cleaner, more dispersed sources of electricity would go a long way toward cooperating with the effort against global warming. It would also help move the US toward a future energy system that's less vulnerable to terrorist attack and less politically manipulated by a few big players. ------------------------------------ But hey., since my degree isn't in meteorology - I have no right to discuss this. Matter of fact, since I didn't play in the NFL - maybe I should even be here talking about the Skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted June 6, 2002 Share Posted June 6, 2002 Maybe so, but millions in the densely populated low lying areas along coastlines will be forced to move or drown, millions will die because of famine and or disease. Pressure due to moving poputations will cauyse turmoil and war. Why go through alol that if it's something we might be able to control? New York is barely above sea level. Ditto for Houston, New Orleans, and other coastal US cities. Where do YOU think those populations should go? Actually, all of New Orleans is below sea level. On average, 4 feet. Not because of rising Sea Level, but because some idiot thought it would be a good idea to put heavy buildings on top of a swamp. It continues to sink and one day, it'll be swallowed up. Weird place to live. If other costal cities go under water, they'll have to do what New Oreans did. Build a wall around the joint and invest in some water pumps. When a big, fast rain comes the streets flood. Then they kick the pumps up a notch and its like pulling the plug in the bathtub. SLURP! Its amazing to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted June 6, 2002 Share Posted June 6, 2002 Terry Terry Terry... :doh: We are currently seeing a warming trend of 1 to 1.5 degrees celsius per decade in the lower atmospher and ocean surface waters. I'd say that our kids could see close to a 10 degree rise by the end of their lifetimes. Riiiight... 10 degree rise? But to shrug of the current warming trend and the increase of emissions due to our human productivity as coincidence would be dangerous and foolish. No one's shrugging off anything... I'm just saying... Cycles and stuff... ... the Earth has repeatedly seen mini-cycles of warming and cooling of about 1,500 years duration, then any upward drift in temperatures we may be seeing now -- included scattered anecdotes of thinning arctic ice -- is likely to be the result of such cycles. ... ... The peat bog records both confirm Keigwin and demonstrate an even warmer period that lasted for 2,000 years. During this era, beginning some 4,000 years ago and running until the birth of Christ, temperatures averaged between 1.5 and 3 degrees Celsius higher than they do today. ... antartica: (and satellites) Temperatures in Antarctica, for example, have been falling for the last 20 years. The global satellite record of atmospheric temperature, confirmed by weather balloons, shows little change one way or another for the last three decades. Terrestrial temperature stations, on average, show more warming over the past century, but many are located in areas that were rural when the stations were established and are densely urban today, a change which causes local warming. Satellites don't just show a cooling in the lower troposphere... You wanted proof about the ozone hole: NASA USAToday CNN Want more? As far as volcanoes. I said they produce more harmful stuff than humans can (common knowledge). No that it increases the temp. As far as the industrial age look it up. (a little help) It actually did good and bring us out of the Little Ice Age. (another cycle...enhanced by man a bit though) As far as our air improving, look it up... (a little more help Improving... ) We aren't putting up nearly as much emmisions as the '80s. Acid rain is also decreasing. And you can see London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dchogs Posted June 6, 2002 Share Posted June 6, 2002 from rskin's article on "10 degrees rise?" a key method of measuring temperature change has exaggerated the warming rate by almost 40 percent. it goes on to say that scientists have been saying there has been a 0.5 degree celsius temp rise per year. if the 0.5 degree celsius has been exaggarated by 40%, the then real rise has been .3 degrees celsius. if this is true, then there could be a 10 degree celsius rise in the temperature of the earth in roughly 34 years. that is within our lifetime, well at least mine. i'm not so sure that really helped your cause rskin... good articles on cycles and the ozone though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted June 6, 2002 Share Posted June 6, 2002 You had me scared for a sec. there dchogs... The article was talking about over the last 100 years, not per year... Studies of temperature records dating back more than a century have seemed to indicate a rise in global temperature of around 0.5C, with much of it occurring since the late 1970s. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted June 6, 2002 Share Posted June 6, 2002 Originally posted by rskin24 Terry Terry Terry... :doh: Riiiight... 10 degree rise? No one's shrugging off anything... I'm just saying... Cycles and stuff... ... the Earth has repeatedly seen mini-cycles of warming and cooling of about 1,500 years duration, then any upward drift in temperatures we may be seeing now -- included scattered anecdotes of thinning arctic ice -- is likely to be the result of such cycles. ... ... The peat bog records both confirm Keigwin and demonstrate an even warmer period that lasted for 2,000 years. During this era, beginning some 4,000 years ago and running until the birth of Christ, temperatures averaged between 1.5 and 3 degrees Celsius higher than they do today. ... antartica: (and satellites) Temperatures in Antarctica, for example, have been falling for the last 20 years. The global satellite record of atmospheric temperature, confirmed by weather balloons, shows little change one way or another for the last three decades. Terrestrial temperature stations, on average, show more warming over the past century, but many are located in areas that were rural when the stations were established and are densely urban today, a change which causes local warming. Satellites don't just show a cooling in the lower troposphere... You wanted proof about the ozone hole: NASA USAToday CNN Want more? As far as volcanoes. I said they produce more harmful stuff than humans can (common knowledge). No that it increases the temp. As far as the industrial age look it up. (a little help) It actually did good and bring us out of the Little Ice Age. (another cycle...enhanced by man a bit though) As far as our air improving, look it up... (a little more help Improving... ) We aren't putting up nearly as much emmisions as the '80s. Acid rain is also decreasing. And you can see London. Bravo rskins24! You bring some real data to your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panel Posted June 6, 2002 Share Posted June 6, 2002 Every summer I hear "global warming will dround us all" and every winter I hear, "we are headed into another ice age!" I don't beleive a word of any of this crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montilar Posted June 6, 2002 Share Posted June 6, 2002 Interesting. What's funny is last night I had the TV on late, and discovery had a program on dealing a bit with this. Now I wish I had paid better attention . but, hey it was late. It was actually discussing large deposits of a form of methane gas under the oceans. And discussed research demonstrating that off of the coast of Norway (somewhere in that region) a couple degree change in the ocean temperature a couple hundred years ago cause the release of methane from one of these pockets. It stated that there was numerous times more methane in the under ocean deposits than is in the atmosphere and that rising water temperature in the oceans can cause the deposits to rupture or release the methane. Thus increasing the amount of methane gas in the atmosphere. The theory was that if a warm ocean current settled over the methane deposits, it could cause the release of the methane, resulting global warming of as much as 10 degrees in the next 100 years instead of the 1.5 to 2 degrees which is genreal predicted. Like I said it was late, I was about half asleep. So I could easily have left something out. Or jumbled some facts up. But that's basically what the program was about. I'm sure if your interested the Discovery web site has it somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted June 6, 2002 Share Posted June 6, 2002 rskin24: IN regard to the 10 degree temperature change: EPA You have your British University team, I have the EPA Your second link is from the chemical engineer with a political axe to grind. Who the hell is he? His comments about cycles are mostly correct, but what has that to do with today? Just because there are natural cylcles doesn't mean that man's own activities can't produce climate changes on their own. Pew Look at the volume of emissions that we put into the atmosphere, look at the amount of forest that we've wiped out in the past coupla centuries. We can shrug it off and say volcanoes do this or that, but we are getting damn close to what volcanoes can do. In your NASA link they say that this year, the ozone hole was the largest on record, and then it shrunk faster than expected. You gloat that this is somehow proof of something, and grasp at the result you want. More likely, the answer is that as a system starts to break down, it behaves more and more erratically. Spin a top. At first, everything is nice and smooth. Then it slows down and starts to wobble, the wobble getting noticably worse. But still it is within a predictable cycle, although one that is decaying. But at some point it reaches a critical stage where the action becomes chaotic before finally tipping over and stopping. Sure, the hole may be responding to external events. But is sure seems to be behaving less predictably. The other ozone links look like re-writes of the NASA report. You talk about Antactica getting cooler, as though that were justification that the earth isn't warming. But we know (and have sedimentary proof) that during warming events, some parts of the planet get cooler. For example, when things heat up, the metling poolar ice forms a current down into the north Atlantic that pushed the gulf stream further south, resulting in cooler temerpatures for the New England states and western Europe. Likewise in the Antarctic. We know that the temperature over the core is growing cooler, but we also know that the temperature over the perimiter, especially the area where the ice sheets overlay ocean rather than land, is warming. That's why the Ross ice sheet is breaking up. As far as volcanoes. I said they produce more harmful stuff than humans can (common knowledge). No that it increases the temp. Again, volcanos don't produce flourocarbons. Volcanoes do produce carbon dioxide. And hopefully the ocean and plants can absorb most of that. But warmer oceans absorb less carbon dioxide, and we cut down more forest every day. The problem isn't just the crap we put into the air, it's the sum of all our activities. The evidence is such that any prudent person would consider that we need to curtail some of that activity. And the problem isn't just a gradual creep into planetary warmth. We know that some ice ages and warming spells have come on very suddenly in some instances. We know that several events can combine and set of multiplier effects that then cause a rapid change. The real worry is not that we can't make changes. In some ways, global warming can help - increasing the growing period for crops, for example, and a gradual change might allow us to cope by moving populations and by expending agriculture. But a sudden acceleration of the warming trend could have catastrophic results. THAT'S the worry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted June 6, 2002 Share Posted June 6, 2002 Man, this could go on forever so...I'll be short... IN regard to the 10 degree temperature change: You have your British University team, I have the EPA From the link: Global mean surface temperatures have increased 0.5-1.0°F since the late 19th century Same thing I said... Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists expect that the average global surface temperature could rise 1-4.5°F (0.6-2.5°C) in the next fifty years, and 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) in the next century Sure anything is possible, but there is no proof that that will happen. No proof at all that it will accelerate that fast. Increaseing of greenhouse gases? Hmm...not lately. With all the new laws out now, if anything that are decreasing. Evaporation will increase as the climate warms, which will increase average global precipitation. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. lol! More rain... More rain which would mean more trees, plants, etc. which would mean less carbon dioxide. More rain would also, unless you live in tropical regions (see sun angles) mean slight cooling. More rain would also increase soil moisture, no? I thought rain was wet... ...too long already..sorry.... ozone hole- those #'s were '00. Pretty much the same last year. Bottom line: It's healing itself. cycles- it has everything to do with today. Nothing stays the same. You think the earth, with mans help, will just keep warming and warming til we all die? No eventually it will cool with or without mans help. What makes us so great that we can have complete control over nature? But a sudden acceleration of the warming trend could have catastrophic results. THAT'S the worry. That would be a worry, fortunatly that's not happening. With all the new laws out now, it's unlikely that it will ever happen. (unless there's a nuclear war or something) Even then(along with an astroid hit, etc.) the warming would be temporary (but extreme) before a major cooling. Is the earth warmer? yeah, I never said it wasn't. Are humans to blame? less than most people make it out (in the last 5-10 years) Is it getting better? The air, yeah. The warming, not really. Why? that cycle word again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dchogs Posted June 6, 2002 Share Posted June 6, 2002 You had me scared for a sec. there dchogs... The article was talking about over the last 100 years, not per year... right you are. sorry for the misinterpretation, and sorry for the momentary scare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted June 6, 2002 Share Posted June 6, 2002 Also, volcanic emissions tend to cancel themselves out. Some gases, such as carbon dioxide, contribute to global warming, while others, like sulfur dioxide, can cause global cooling. Terry you're a genius! The answer is not less pollution but more. We just need to start dumping extra sulfur dioxide. Brilliant :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted June 7, 2002 Share Posted June 7, 2002 No problem! Just leave a check for $10,000,000.00 on the desk, and don't forget to make an appointment with my secretary for your next consultaion on yer way out. NEXT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted June 7, 2002 Share Posted June 7, 2002 $10 million? In a governmental world of $1,000 coffee makers, 10 mill is way cheap. We're talking about saving the WHOLE WORLD man! You need an agent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted June 8, 2002 Share Posted June 8, 2002 Folks, What I find interesting is not the question of whether there is or is not a trend toward Global Warming caused largely by human activities. What I find fascinating is that normally and otherwise intelligent people can believe so thoroughly in the concept of Global Warming and the coming dangers based on computer modeling when no weatherman in the world can accurately predict Monday's weather pattern. We have around a century of actual scientific weather pattern collection. This is an awfully old planet to take a century of data and say anything with any certainty. May there be a trend toward Global Warming? Sure. There may also not be any such trend. The fact is, we won't have any clue about whether there is, or is not, for thousands of years so we can have a more accurate sense of what we're tracking. It is a legitimately powerful point to make that just 30 years ago the rage was talk of a new ice age coming. Now, it's global warming. It's sheer crappola. And every single one of us knows it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 8, 2002 Share Posted June 8, 2002 What a dangerous way of thinking. If one applied it to the terrorist situation think what may happen. The logic I just read was- since we do not know if enough information to state conclusively that something will absolutely happen then we can do nothing. Without absolute proof it is crapola. The one thing I know defitively about science is there is no absolute knowlegde. Everything we believe we know from theory to law is based on conjecture. Everything, if you dig deep enough is based on a hypothesis we must agree to be true. Therefore, scientists will always (good scientists anyway) qualify their conclusions. Doing nothing about global warming is foolish. If we can change our practices to better our lives we should. One concern I have always had with American policy is that it tends to be reactive versus preventitive. We are brilliant after the fact. However, we as a government and a historical group have done a poor job of anticipating and dealing with problems before they could occur. Examples: Reagan was told about an impending S&L crisis and informed if he could slide 10 million over it could be averted. THe administration didn't believe the crisis would truly happen or be as bad as it was and thus we had what we had. Many have blamed 9/11 on the lack of prevention, intelligence, and coordination-communication being done to anticipate these activities. I don't really buy this, as I think it would have been very difficult to stop and many of the ones that have been stopped we don't likely know about. Look at the resistance to medical prevention. Yesterday's thread examples of needle exchanges being the worst example, but an adequate one. Think WWII or our reticence to enter into it. If global warming is not real or extremely dangerous does that mean it is a bad idea to reduce the ammount of toxins that we throw into the atmosphere? Less than six months ago a chunk of antartica the size of Rhode Island broke off due to melting and dissolved into the ocean. Now, we don't know if that is a relatively common event from a geological standpoint, but it sure sounds big. Do we know if it can be directly traced to human emissions or warming. We do know that the rate of skin cancer is climbing at an amazing rate. This is despite the fact that we have sunscreens and much of us spend more time indoors or protected than in previous generations. Of course, it could be argued that it is impossible to know the occurence of skin cancer in the population of Ancient Etruscans, but that's the wonderful thing about science or politics. It is easy to make an arguement that allows for passivity. I think the New Orleans example was best about American genius and ingenuity. The city was mistakenly built four feet below sea level. The human solution was not to move to safer ground, but to build walls and pumps after the fact. This is functional and brilliant. Perhaps, that's what we'll do one day with CFL's. We'll pump them out of our atmosphere into space. Who knows? In the meantime, in the before time, wouldn't it be sweet if we could adapt before we reach crisis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted June 8, 2002 Share Posted June 8, 2002 Art: We have around a century of actual scientific weather pattern collection. Sometimes, I think you get so caught up in your role as board curmudgeon, you say stuff before you think it through. But you have your role to play, I suppose. But to enlighten you: We have tree ring samples going back centuries. We have ice core samples going back millennia. We have sediment core samples going back millennia. We have written weather accounts going back centuries (the Maunder Minimum being only one example). Form these and other examples (fauna migrations, flora migrations, Innuit language studies), we can use the scientific method to take a look at weather patterns a lot older than 100 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted June 8, 2002 Share Posted June 8, 2002 Burgold, reply within... "What a dangerous way of thinking. If one applied it to the terrorist situation think what may happen. The logic I just read was- since we do not know if enough information to state conclusively that something will absolutely happen then we can do nothing. Without absolute proof it is crapola. " It would appear you've entirely missed the point, Burgold. There isn't a computer modeling program in creation that can accurately tell me the weather in five days. Yet, based on some models of the coming 100 years, you would have the entire world adopt a treaty that would and could potentially ruin world economy? Talk about a dangerous way of thinking. The U.S. has spent more money than any country in the world studying climate science. We have poured billions researching and trying to understand what may or may not be an issue. We have adopted efficiency in our industry so that our pollution has decreased per economic output meaning that as we've grown more productive we've grown less polluting. We and other nations in the world have HARDLY done NOTHING about Global Warming. But, let me tell you what IS a dangerous way of thinking. Taking 100 years of data in a millions of year old planet and drawing a conclusion so certain and unwaivering that the ONLY method of repair is a treaty that has the vast potential of destroying many world economies with ours being foremost on the list of potential harm. That's dangerous. You can't apply this to the terrorism issue because we KNOW without a question that terrorism exists. We've been victims of it. Global Warming is a different animal entirely. It may exist. It may not. Humans are very self-centered beings you know. At one point, we believed the universe revolved around us. We believed at one point 30 years ago that there was a global cooling trend we were causing. Now we believe there's a global warming trend we are causing. The humans that believe these things are fine people, I'm sure. But, until there's some actual scientific data demonstrating this rather than computer projections based on always changing data and with just a centry in millions of actual data, is ignorant. Here's precisely what Global Warming is like. If you have a daughter, suppose I told you she would be abducted from your house at some future point. She would be taken from you, raped, and likely killed. I could be pretty persuasive given the number of girls this has happened to. But, what steps would you take to protect her? You'd be watchful. You'd be cautions. You'd spend dollars to offer her better security. You'd teach her about potential dangers. These are the things you do when you don't know what's to come. Whether it's probable or not probable. You don't adopt a radically ludicrous treaty that says the U.S. must stop doing what it's doing, but totally exempts great pollutors like Brazil because they are "growing". It would seem growth is an exception to polluting unless WE'RE the focus. "The one thing I know defitively about science is there is no absolute knowlegde. Everything we believe we know from theory to law is based on conjecture. Everything, if you dig deep enough is based on a hypothesis we must agree to be true. Therefore, scientists will always (good scientists anyway) qualify their conclusions." There is absolute scientific knowledge. And there's scientific guess work based upon 100 years of millions in data that model out global weather patterns for 100 years. Right. When you qualify what Global Warming science is, you'll discover it's nothing yet more damaging or more compelling as the global cooling conversations in the 1970s. It may be. And it's probably worth some study. But, simply put, it will take THOUSANDS of years to accurately determine whether there are trends up or down. I know the world revolves around humans. But, hell, I've seen studies that Kelp or some such actually produce pollutants that can be harmful. It's a big world. Mother Earth has a remarkable way of taking care of herself. "Doing nothing about global warming is foolish." Again, no one proposed doing nothing. We are doing something. We are the world leader in funding research into this. Our existing president has indicated he will design a plan that gives corporations reasons to lower harmful pollution. Trust me, this type of social engineering works. As a farmer where and how he disposes of chicken cr@p. It's in the IRS Tax Code that if he does so in a certain way, he gets a credit. Not a single farmer loses out on that credit. What IS foolish is doing EVERYTHING to fix a problem that may or may not exist. But, I'm positive with the daughter example, you would go beyond education, study and spending money to secure your home. You would actually do the only thing possible to protect her and that would be to be with her 24 hours a day in locked rooms or something. Doing Kyoto is foolish. Other countries signed it because other countries know they don't really get banged by it. They are either too small or too poor to have any impact caused by it. And if they grow in the future, they are exempt during their growth. "If we can change our practices to better our lives we should." Then change our practices. But don't legislate a poor science into regulation and law where it is nothing but a theory that over 25 years has totally changed from global cooling to global warming. Again, you can, as we've done, change our practices. We have more wildlife in this country than we did in the 1930s due to reforestation. We have increased the efficiency of our products so that they require less energy as we've grown than they used to. But, as soon as you sell your car and start riding a bike to work, while using only tree wood fallen from trees in the woods to heat your home, while letting your lawn grown into a thick weedy mess rather than use a mower, etc., then you can talk. I NEVER get why people who WANT something to be done don't START doing something. If the way we are living is presently wrong and you believe we are being led down the path of destruction, do something about it yourself. Quit driving your car and polluting the atmosphere while waiting for the government to change your life. Change it on your own so you always have the moral highground in any debate. Otherwise, how seriously do you even take this issue? If something should be done, shouldn't YOU be the first one doing something? "One concern I have always had with American policy is that it tends to be reactive versus preventitive. We are brilliant after the fact. However, we as a government and a historical group have done a poor job of anticipating and dealing with problems before they could occur." Fascinating. You mean to tell me that we have the sheer audacity to learn from the past? Wow. What are we thinking. We should absolutely adopt any off the wall, life-altering, completely ungrounded theory anyone throws out there so that we can start thinking ahead? To me, I prefer identifing an issue, studying that issue and coming up with commonly believed and believable answers and solutions that address the situation. Like with our friend Mr. Ozone, it would appear that our study and adaptation to what MAY have been harmful activities by us helped things regenerate. Or, perhaps the earth just does that naturally. Who knows. "Examples: Reagan was told about an impending S&L crisis and informed if he could slide 10 million over it could be averted. THe administration didn't believe the crisis would truly happen or be as bad as it was and thus we had what we had." Example: Burgold can't be told with any certainty what the weather will be like in five days, but, he's now heard enough about this global trend toward warming that is based upon 100 years of scientific data in millions of planetary years and computer modeling that generally can't tell me when I need an umbrella or not on Monday, but, we should adopt something that could possibly cripple us in order to be forward thinking and head things off at the pass? "Many have blamed 9/11 on the lack of prevention, intelligence, and coordination-communication being done to anticipate these activities. I don't really buy this, as I think it would have been very difficult to stop and many of the ones that have been stopped we don't likely know about." No one better be blaming 9/11 on the lack of prevention, intelligence and coordination-communication of our agencies being done. The blame is on the terrorists who committed the act. Could we have done a better job ferreting this out? Sure. But, we're not to blame for it happening. We could have prevented Pearl Harbor too. In hindsight EVERY negative thing in the world could have been prevented if only we'd done something else. Elizabeth Smart wouldn't have been abducted if only her family had taken their vacation this week. See how easy it is to solve that problem with hindsight? "Look at the resistance to medical prevention. Yesterday's thread examples of needle exchanges being the worst example, but an adequate one. " I couldn't even read that because of just what you said. A thread joking about Dems and Repubs became an actual conversation on needle exchange programs. MY LORD. I'll take your word for it though . "Think WWII or our reticence to enter into it." I gotcha Burgold. In hindsight, everything is SO CLEARLY preventable. Well, if only we had hindsight in which to view the best prevention. "If global warming is not real or extremely dangerous does that mean it is a bad idea to reduce the ammount of toxins that we throw into the atmosphere?" It doesn't mean we have to adopt a uniform treaty of policy that has the potential to cripple our economy and alter the very fabric of our lives and how we operate as a society. But, what you just said, "If global warming is not real or extremely dangerous does that mean it is a bad idea to reduce the ammount of toxins that we throw into the atmosphere?" is right on. Precisely what Bush is saying. He's saying, "Hey, I don't know if this thing exists or not. But, let's find a way to encourage these companies to be good world citizens by lowering some things." That's a good and positive first step. Some companies will listen. Others won't. And in the mean time we'll continue studying this issue and we'll be able to better understand whether governmental regulation is required or not. Personally, it's offensive to me to hear you continually say nothing is being done when, in fact, a great deal is being done as we are the world leader in the study of this climate theory, spending more money than anyone in the world on it, and we have a skeptical President agreeing that encouraging corporations to pollute less is reasonable. I find it foolish and lacking any vision to suggest we're doing nothing and to intimate that doing something means signing into law some federal regulation that has the potential of crushing this country. But, let me offer you a hypothetical on being forward thinking. President Bush believes signing Kyoto could lead to harmful economic problems at home. People being out of work. People not being able to survive on their own any longer. And so to head of a Great Depression, he has decided not to sign a treaty that could cause one. There you go, we don't even have to sign Kyoto, and in 50 years discover Global Warming is over, we're back to Global Cooling, and we've caused hardship, and economic chaos in our country. We wouldn't need hindsight to tell us we were foolish to sign Kyoto. We have foresight to tell us that. And we continue to do more about this than any other country in terms of study and increasing our industry and product efficiency. "Less than six months ago a chunk of antartica the size of Rhode Island broke off due to melting and dissolved into the ocean. Now, we don't know if that is a relatively common event from a geological standpoint, but it sure sounds big. Do we know if it can be directly traced to human emissions or warming. We do know that the rate of skin cancer is climbing at an amazing rate. This is despite the fact that we have sunscreens and much of us spend more time indoors or protected than in previous generations." It might just be that there's a lot of ice in that area of the world right? And perhaps the fact that we have satellites and people on site now lets us have a bit greater understanding of tectonic shifts in the plates of ice that surround our poles. You know, not too long ago, astronomers saw asteroids large enough to kill us coming roughly our way. That we just discovered it doesn't mean it just appeared. Space is a big place and we just never looked at that spot before. How about not overreacting everytime ice melts in water? "Of course, it could be argued that it is impossible to know the occurence of skin cancer in the population of Ancient Etruscans, but that's the wonderful thing about science or politics. It is easy to make an arguement that allows for passivity." You know what, no, it's really NOT easy. It's hardly even anecdotal. Is there more skin cancer now than there used to be? I don't really know and I don't really care. I do know that 100 years ago, there was no such thing as skin cancer (100 years being a completely pulled from thin air number). Clearly it exists, but, is it that prior to the first diagnosis it didn't? Or is it possible as we keep big braining things and finding illness we'll have trends upward to suggest there's more of it than before it existed. You know what? There are more kids today with attention deficit disorder than there were when I was in school. This must be directly attributed to MTV and the short attention span of our fast paced life or something? I remember in the 80s hearing that AIDS was growing at such a rate in this country that we'd soon be like parts of Africa are today. Has that happened? Trends are trends. There's talk, repair, adjustment, differences, etc. And back to our initial conversation, taking 100 years out of millions and basing a theory on it and demanding something more than already has been done about it is just laughable. "I think the New Orleans example was best about American genius and ingenuity. The city was mistakenly built four feet below sea level. The human solution was not to move to safer ground, but to build walls and pumps after the fact. This is functional and brilliant. Perhaps, that's what we'll do one day with CFL's. We'll pump them out of our atmosphere into space. Who knows? In the meantime, in the before time, wouldn't it be sweet if we could adapt before we reach crisis?" Good point. Future science and technology can solve and repair man made problems? Right. How about diverting our resources then into atmospheric pumps to do what you suggest? Why isn't that just as reasonable a goal as altering everything about us -- not that you've stated yet I'm betting? Let's view Global Warming like a good father protecting his daughter from a possible future threat of an intruder. Let's continue to fund study into it. Let's continue to encourage business to lower potentially harmful pollution. Let's continue to make our industry more efficient as we grow more productive. And, you can go an extra step. You can move closer to your job and sell your car and start making a difference and telling others of the difference you've made. You can do that on your very own. No one else needs to do it. But, if you start it, others will follow. Now, go forth and save us . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted June 8, 2002 Share Posted June 8, 2002 Terry, reply within..... "Sometimes, I think you get so caught up in your role as board curmudgeon, you say stuff before you think it through. But you have your role to play, I suppose." First, I thought Navy Dave played that role . Second, sometimes I forget you are a smart man and can take the statement that we have around 100 years of weather information and refute me with tree ring samples to demonstrate that we have weather information beyond 100 years old. "But to enlighten you: We have tree ring samples going back centuries. We have ice core samples going back millennia. We have sediment core samples going back millennia. We have written weather accounts going back centuries (the Maunder Minimum being only one example)." But, to enlighten you: Tree ring samples have nothing to do with the high and low temperature in the U.S. on June 8, 1541. We don't really have any scientific data for that from anywhere. Not even the Maunder Minimum. And, isn't that whole thing more related to the study of solar activity or something rather than a simple data chart with weather pattern information? Sediment core samples and ice core samples going back millenia prove precisely what I'm telling you. The planet has been around for a long time. We can prove it. We have core samples to show it. And, we still only have 100 or so years of actual global weather data being tracked and maintained and added to. When you hear on the news that a day is warmer or cooler than it's ever been on that day before, do you think that means in the history of the world, or do you think that means since the time man started tracking weather with dates? Cutting into a thousands of year old tree doesn't tell us whether it was warmer or cooler in 1400 than it was in 1800. Dinosaur bones don't tell us whether it was largely more steamy or substantially more cool. What was the trend when Jesus was killed? We don't know because we've only been recording this on a global level for about a century. So, again, the planet has been here for MILLIONS of years. It is constantly changing. Growing. Destroying. Regenerating. And the only real information we have on temperature patterns is some 100 years. Now, when we cut down our next California Redwood, we should all feel the inner rings and see if someone stuffed global weather trending into a hole or something, but, let's at least attempt to stay on point. Or is that more to ask than is proper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Diesel Posted June 8, 2002 Share Posted June 8, 2002 Evil Genius - Are you always this billigerent? You keep saying that "Bush said...". Then somebody points out that Bush didn't say it and you call them an idiot. Then they again point out that Bush didn't say anything, that it was an EPA report. You turn around and say, "Oh you're right, Bush didn't say it. His *administration* said it, how convenient...". Get it through your head this time bro, Bush didn't say it. THE EPA SAID IT. You can call that Bush's "administration" if you like, but that seems rather convenient on your behalf. If anything, Bush is in complete disagreement with this report. Perhaps you haven't seen the link to the two global warming articles on the front page of this board, but I'll link one of them here so you can read the REAL story behind that CAR report. I'm also going to post the relevant paragraphs below... The agency last week sent to the United Nations its "Climate Action Report 2002," blaming humans for altering global climate to cause a number of supposedly impending catastrophic events, including drought, heat waves and stormy weather. The ostensible scientific basis for CAR 2002 was the "National Assessment on Climate Change," a June 2000 report by the Clinton administration. But the National Assessment was little more than an advocacy document meant to help Al Gore in the 2000 election — as opposed to the unbiased scientific report originally mandated by Congress. So the non-profit Competitive Enterprise Institute, joined by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., Rep. Joe Knollenberg, R-Mich., and Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., filed a federal lawsuit against the Clinton administration alleging the National Assessment was unlawfully prepared. The lawsuit was settled in September 2001 by the Bush White House, which agreed to withdraw the National Assessment and acknowledge the report isn't official U.S. government policy. The EPA apparently didn't get the message. Neither did The New York Times, which ran news of the CAR 2002 on its front page without mentioning the report's background, as if it had caught the Bush administration with its global warming-pants down. The next day the president dismissed the EPA's effort to embarrass him. "I read the report put out by the bureaucracy," sneered the president. Some media even missed this message. The Associated Press inexplicably headlined its article, "White House Warns on Climate Change," though the article's first sentence was, "President Bush dismissed on Tuesday a report put out by his administration warning that human activities are behind climate change that is having significant effects on the environment." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,54676,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 8, 2002 Share Posted June 8, 2002 Art, I enjoyed your dissection of my response to your response. The only problem with it is, it wasn't on topic. Your email suggested that there is no concrete or absolute evidence of global warming. Given no absolute evidence, you suggested that we all know it is "crappola" My counterpoint was that to wait for absolute proof is being reactionary and potentially dangerous. While I agree overreaction can be dangerous too, I believe that twiddling our thumbs, ignoring circumstantial evidence or scientific evidence based on current methodology and study is bad. Your solution to effectively send it committee. We do more research is true and a better rebuttal. Never of us mentioned the Kyoto treaty. My concern was about the reality of toxins in the atmosphere and the tendency for this country to view prevention as a secondary approach. Yours was the seeming gullability of folk who rely on either poor research or research done with imprecise tools. I apologize if I misinterpeted there what you meant. Don't like to speak for others. However, I do like the way you attacked my argument. It was good, technique-wise and certainly some of your complaints are valid. When saying that prevention wasn't adequately used, I did use hindsight. Very hard to prove that prevention is or is not ably applied without looking back on history. Your repetition of the tree rings is good, although it relies on the same strength as my Etruscan example and thus the same weaknesses. Your citing of the weatherman's efficiency is nice too. And while chaos theory has improved our ability to predict patterns, we are a long way from being truly accurate. Anyway, I think it's pretty cool that I have merited a dissection. I think it unlikely that either will convince the other. I believe that if you put enough poison into a system eventually bad will come from it. I further believe that there is a tendency to be reactive in this country when it comes to hazzards or dangers and that we often act only after the event has become an emergency or at least perceived as an emergency. Further, I believe common sence (that phrase is certainly a land mine) steps should be taken on the micro, meso, and macro levels to reduce or eliminate some of the toxins that we produce. Bizzare fact, did you know that thirty percent of the pesticides that are produced in the United States are illegal to use in our country. They are designed to be shipped to third world nations. Apparently, the levels we consider too toxic for ourselves is at a satisfactory level for export. Don't know what that has to do with anything, but it is interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.