Inconvenient truth

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:51 am

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Freez ... urope.html

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/New_S ... orgia.html

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Europ ... Again.html

Let me prefetch the rhetoric:

When there is a data point about warmer-than-average temperatures, it is 100% concrete evidence of "global warming".

When there is a data point about colder-than-average temperatures, it is merely "an abberation".

Do I have the rhetoric correct?

goates · Post by **goates** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:54 am

corporate joe wrote:Please stop using that argument, it is false. With the ice example I only gave you one out of many more. Let me give you another one that will hopefully allow you to understand that science allows scientists to know what the earth's temperature was for tens of thousands of years without actual measurements.
Mosquitoes along a mountain side: mosquitoes will only attack mammals living in mountains up to a certain height a (relative to temperature, higher you go, colder it gets, till it gets to cold). For the last thousands of years they ranged at a certain height, in the last 15 they've gone higher then they ever were. Many villages were created in the mountains at a specific height where the inhabitants were high enough to avoid the mosquitoes. These people have been there for thousands of years and at no time in collective memory or according to the researsches has there been mosquitoes there.
Species, especially arctic species, when they die, leave something behind called bones. Scientists can look at these bones and estimate the positions of these species and where they have lived for the last hundreds of thousands of years. NEVER have they gone so far from their point of origin as they have in the last 15 years. In some cases it's their food that dies because of melting ice, in others it's them that find it too warm. Nonetheless, there isn't only temperature measurements that scientists can base themselves on. The media is the one that is misleading. I've lived in the east but I was raised in the west. You would not believe the difference in ideology and the difference the media makes. Science though is mathematical whether you're in the east or the west. There are so many things pointing towards one direction, so much that if you dig only a little you'd be amazed that something like this is still being denied.

How much of the global warming is caused by humans, and how much is natural? The climate is always changing, so what happens if we completely remove all human influence, and the planet still warms up? will we try to cool it down just because people near the coasts will be affected? It was possible to live comfortably on Greenland not that long ago.

The link I posted previously points out that the sea levels around Denmark having been rising steadily for centuries. Up until a hundred years ago, there wasn't much in the way of CO2 produced by people.

corporate joe · Post by **corporate joe** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:27 pm

Hedley wrote:http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Freez ... urope.html

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/New_S ... orgia.html

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Europ ... Again.html

Let me prefetch the rhetoric:

When there is a data point about warmer-than-average temperatures, it is 100% concrete evidence of "global warming".

When there is a data point about colder-than-average temperatures, it is merely "an abberation".

Do I have the rhetoric correct?

What is important here to understand is the average temperature over the world and not region specific temperature. Global warming will cause some places to be warmer and others to be colder. However, on average temperatures rise.

corporate joe · Post by **corporate joe** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:45 pm

goates wrote:
corporate joe wrote:Please stop using that argument, it is false. With the ice example I only gave you one out of many more. Let me give you another one that will hopefully allow you to understand that science allows scientists to know what the earth's temperature was for tens of thousands of years without actual measurements.
Mosquitoes along a mountain side: mosquitoes will only attack mammals living in mountains up to a certain height a (relative to temperature, higher you go, colder it gets, till it gets to cold). For the last thousands of years they ranged at a certain height, in the last 15 they've gone higher then they ever were. Many villages were created in the mountains at a specific height where the inhabitants were high enough to avoid the mosquitoes. These people have been there for thousands of years and at no time in collective memory or according to the researsches has there been mosquitoes there.
Species, especially arctic species, when they die, leave something behind called bones. Scientists can look at these bones and estimate the positions of these species and where they have lived for the last hundreds of thousands of years. NEVER have they gone so far from their point of origin as they have in the last 15 years. In some cases it's their food that dies because of melting ice, in others it's them that find it too warm. Nonetheless, there isn't only temperature measurements that scientists can base themselves on. The media is the one that is misleading. I've lived in the east but I was raised in the west. You would not believe the difference in ideology and the difference the media makes. Science though is mathematical whether you're in the east or the west. There are so many things pointing towards one direction, so much that if you dig only a little you'd be amazed that something like this is still being denied.
How much of the global warming is caused by humans, and how much is natural? The climate is always changing, so what happens if we completely remove all human influence, and the planet still warms up? will we try to cool it down just because people near the coasts will be affected? It was possible to live comfortably on Greenland not that long ago.

The link I posted previously points out that the sea levels around Denmark having been rising steadily for centuries. Up until a hundred years ago, there wasn't much in the way of CO2 produced by people.

Sea levels rising are one thing and CO2 in the atmosphere is another. The sea rising has not yet occured. First the ice caps need to melt enough for the ice that is on land (and not in water) to collapse, which will, in theory, eventually happen with global warming. Sea levels being steady prove nothing.
You need to research that Greenland statement. Greenland has never been lush because of temperatures being warmer. I think what you are refering to is the past vinkings trying to colonize it and failing because the soil was too dry. It was one king I forget his name who called it "greenland" to make it seem more attractive to settlers, but it has never been "green". People have tried living on it, but couldn't and had to give up eventually. Temperature has NOTHING to do with it. Ironically Greenland has never been greener than it is now, the soil being uncovered and analysed proves it.
Finally as for human activities with CO2 no one can agree what percentage exactly is human caused. However it doesn't take a genius when looking at the first graph I found (first one cause I am lazy and annoyed with this) to see the spike is always at the same place for many different effects. For crying out loud, it's right in front of you, like the claims the earth was round was right in front of everyobody. Nevertheless, people still came out with arguments to say it wasn't. It took close to 400 years for it to become something almost unanimous (because some people still don't believe it). It's a free country, you can think what you want, time will prove us wrong or right.
http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/200 ... /02.01.jpg

EDIT: erik the red was his name, and he was an outlaw not a king, my apologies, even though some consider him a king.

goates · Post by **goates** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:54 pm

corporate joe wrote:
Hedley wrote:http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Freez ... urope.html

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/New_S ... orgia.html

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Europ ... Again.html

Let me prefetch the rhetoric:

When there is a data point about warmer-than-average temperatures, it is 100% concrete evidence of "global warming".

When there is a data point about colder-than-average temperatures, it is merely "an abberation".

Do I have the rhetoric correct?
What is important here to understand is the average temperature over the world and not region specific temperature. Global warming will cause some places to be warmer and others to be colder. However, on average temperatures rise.

Kind of like how Antarctica is losing ice around some of the coastal ice shelfs, but is gaining more ice in the interior. Apaprently many glaciers in New Zealand have also been growing since 2002. It is definitely not a clear cut issue.

goates · Post by **goates** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:26 pm

[

Did you read the link I posted before at all? There are still questions about what exactly the ice cores show in terms of CO2 levels.

corporate joe · Post by **corporate joe** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:45 pm

I am sorry but the only link I saw you posted does not load on my browser. Nevertheless, suppose that link proved the ice bubble examination was not unanimous, there are so many more ways from different sciences to come to the same conclusion.

goates · Post by **goates** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:53 pm

corporate joe wrote:I am sorry but the only link I saw you posted does not load on my browser. Nevertheless, suppose that link proved the ice bubble examination was not unanimous, there are so many more ways from different sciences to come to the same conclusion.

It links to a PDF file.

What other methods do they have? I am curious more than anything.

shimmydampner · Post by **shimmydampner** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:21 pm

So many stupid people, so little patience.

Intentional Left Bank · Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:53 pm

I find it amusing that while many purport to believe in the "science" of climate change (formerly known as global warming), not ONE of you is willing to do your part to actually make a difference. Let me emphasize, not ONE. Oh, you're willing to pay verbal homage to the altar of conservation, you're quite ready to defend your theories and belief with vehement rhetoric, but to actually do something, to lead by example, nay, that would mean giving of all modern conveniences, and NO ONE is willing to do that. Which lends some credibility to the notion that the "green-earth-evironmentalist" idea qualifies as a religion, complete with a whole range of adherents, from the casual to the fundamentalist.

shimmydampner · Post by **shimmydampner** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:09 pm

How would you know who is doing what? Tard.

Intentional Left Bank · Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:59 pm

How would you know who is doing what? Tard.

I don't know who is doing what. I can reasonably infer though who isn't doing what. What I mean is that while I don't know what Al Gore does (to make the debate less personal), I can reasonably infer what he doesn't do.

Allow me to elaborate. I think we can assume that Al Gore does not live in a windowless 500 square foot home, which would be all he would NEED to have if he were serious about energy conservation. I think we can also assume that the vehicle he drives is equipped with air conditioning and it is put to use. We can also assume that he does not carpool whenever it is convenient and inconvenient. We can assume that he does not ride his bicycle where possible, and he does not ride coach class on aircraft so as to reduce the amount of fuel required per seat through higher density seating.

We can safely assume that he consumes more electricity than necessary by watching more TV than necessary. He probably has the heat turned up higher than absolutely necessary in the winter. He probably does not use a waste hot water recovery unit, or better yet, forgo all but a weekly bath to be shared with his wife. He probably does not live off the electricity grid, even though with his money it would be easily accomplished.

He probably does not use a 12 volt refrigerator that would use much less energy than a conventional 110 volt one.

He probably consumes more food and drink than is absolutely necessary, he likely forgoes water for more tasty beverages (even though they take more energy to manufacture).

Of course, you might argue these measures approach the absurd. But I say, is the problem truly serious or not? If it is serious, lead on! But his action (or inaction) speaks volumes. You might argue that all that conservation is more than necessary, but I say if Al Gore wants to lead, then lead by example. One of the techniques of leadership is to do more than the bare minimum, thus drawing and inspiring the folks up to the minimum standard.

I for one will sit on the sidelines, waiting to be convinced. By the way, in my neck of the woods, the winters are getting longer. By my computer models, we won't have any summer at all in 5000 years.

McPhoo · Post by **McPhoo** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 10:57 pm

When a beaver cuts down some trees and makes a goddamned mess, it's "natural" and "harmonious". When a homo sapiens cuts down some trees and makes a goddamned mess, it's "unnatural".

Hedley, I can't think of where to start your education. I think it would take years. If you don't understand, maybe just read and learn and let others debate who are informed. Obviously the whole global warming thing has two sides and I won't get into that but your knowledge of basic ecological principles has been made obvious by your post. You usually have very lucid coments. What happened here?

quicksilver · Post by **quicksilver** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:23 am

corporate joe wrote:

The claims that global warming is real and present is almost UNANIMOUS (a thousand to one) in the scientific community, but not in the media

Who ever said it isn't getting warmer? The real argument is: are we causing it? Hells nah! Some scientists think we are. Others have proven we aren't. Sitting in traffic in my SUV burning 70L to drive 500km I could care less about the environment as long as the ac is working. Think about all the cars in Canada in traffic burning only god knows how much gas, then look back to "cave man age" and imagine how much more of the same waste gas is barfed into the atmosphere from Volcanic eruptions. Its a proven fact that the planet was much more volatile 1,00,00,00 years ago. How much more green house gas did Mt St Helens spew into the atmosphere compared to cars and other waste gas generating machines?

Global warming, ment to happen. Just watch out for the soon to follow ice age. You know, since by then we would have burned all the fossil fuels...

quick

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:36 am

quicksilver wrote: Its a proven fact that the planet was much more volatile 1,00,00,00 years ago. How much more green house gas did Mt St Helens spew into the atmosphere compared to cars and other waste gas generating machines?

We weren't around millions of years ago, so you point about past volcanic activity is irrelevant. Human activity releases nearly 50 times the CO2 that volcanic eruptions do each year.

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:43 am

corporate joe wrote:Sea levels rising are one thing and CO2 in the atmosphere is another. The sea rising has not yet occured. First the ice caps need to melt enough for the ice that is on land (and not in water) to collapse, which will, in theory, eventually happen with global warming. Sea levels being steady prove nothing.

Actually they are rising, at between 1-2mm per year.

quicksilver · Post by **quicksilver** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:15 am

We weren't around millions of years ago, so you point about past volcanic activity is irrelevant. Human activity releases nearly 50 times the CO2 that volcanic eruptions do each year.

Come on, they've taken core samples from glaciers and proven that CO2 gasses where higher back when fred flinstone was around... I saw it in a movie once so it has to be true.

quick

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:36 am

Back when Fred Flintstone was operating his Bronto-excavator, there were alot more forests. Dino-times were warmer (hence the abundance of cold-blooded creatures). Then there was the ice-age. Then things warmed up again. Climate change is a natural process, it's cyclical. The introduction of grasses millions of years ago is a direct result of climate change. Grasses are an incredibly effieicent plant, they have only roots and 'leaves'. Nearly 50% of the plant is dedicated to the production of food through photosynthesis. No usless trunks or branches to waste energy. This makes them highly adapted to survive in a low CO2 environment. (that's right, lower) Grasses prove that the bio-sphere adjusts to changes in climate.

The problem is not that climate change is occuring, it is that we (humans) have accelerated it to a rate where the earth and it's eco-systems cannot adapt through natural processes.

My big question is why do some of you fight so fiercly against the very notion of climate change? What do you have to loose by admitting that humans pollute and damage the earth? It's like someone told you your sports team sucked.

The benefits of cleaning up our act are not just to the environment. By switching to renewable energy we will all save money (in the long run). It will never be an instant change so there is no need to worry about your airplane being grounded cause it pollutes, you won't loose your job in the oil patch, we'll still need oil-based products for years (probably centuries). there would be less smog and in turn your kids might not have asthma problems, you could eat that fish you just caught from that river cause it's not laced with mercury. You won't have to bitch about gas prices. I'm not seeing the bad part.

So why fight to keep the status quo? Why fight to NOT make the world a better place? Regardless whether you believe in global warming or not, making 'greener' choices can't really hurt you. I really don't see a need to argue this.

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:30 pm

Nice post, mellow.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

-istp

Intentional Left Bank · Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:20 pm

mellow_pilot wrote:Regardless whether you believe in global warming or not, making 'greener' choices can't really hurt you. I really don't see a need to argue this.

So exactly what convenient or inconvenient tangible steps are you taking in your own life towards a 'greener' earth?

bij · Post by **bij** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:33 pm

Is that really what's at issue? Is it that petty? If someone believes that we are slowly destroying the planet with our lifestyles, they need to live an entirely green life or quit complaining? Am I naive enough to think that even the small sacrifices we make will at least not lead to the further depletion of ozone?

I think it has taken a long while for us as a society to even begin to accept the damage we are doing to our own environment. I think it will take an even longer while for us to stop contributing to our own detrement. To those who live the greenest of lives...kudos, but I couldn't do it. Does that make me a hypocrite? I like to think not. I try not to judge others, and I hope others don't judge me based upon lifestyle.

corporate joe · Post by **corporate joe** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:28 am

As far as doing your share it's not a black and white thing. If doing your share is holding on to that pop can a little longer and not throwing it in the first garbage you see but rather keeping it a little longer to be able to recycle it then you are doing something. Something is better than nothing. No need to change your lifestyle, but the first step is acknowledging something has to be done. Hopefully everyone doing little things all over will be sufficient. It's nice to do things when you still have a choice. If the effort wasn't substantial enough then we won't have a choice anymore and the sacrifices will be imposed.

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:08 am

corporate joe wrote:Something is better than nothing.

Sounds like the Conservative argument for scrapping Kyoto and getting on with making enviromental law that accomplishes something.

Icebound · Post by **Icebound** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:13 pm

Nothing is going to reverse the population growth on the planet, unless the planet stops supporting population growth.

And increasing population will result in ever increasing use of energy and of resources to support it.

Probably 75 percent of individuals from Western populations would not survive two weeks if they had to live in the "green" spaces of this planet, anyway, even if they do champion them so much. Probably more like 95 percent of the under-30s...

So, like it or not, left-leaning though I may be, I have resigned myself to believe that science will ultimately come to the rescue... the planet will slowly divide (already IS dividing to some extent) into the habitable and the inhabitable. The habitable will be shared by the food-producing areas and the human-population areas, and the rest will be the mines, the garbage dumps, and the nuclear power generators.

If the air gets too bad or the sun gets too hot, we will filter them artificially. If the natural water becomes impotable, Zenon's membrane bioreactor and similar technologies will clean it. We will lose our patience with wild predators and nuisances, so urban geese, racoons, skunks and squirrels will lose their protected status. If we lose the ability to produce food in a "natural" environment , we will do it hydroponically.

We are talking already about building such self-contained worlds on the moon or on Mars. We will be forced to start right here instead, but so what?

Ultimately, to a large portion of the population, "nature" is a luxury. Only the rich can afford "nature". The rest NEED food and shelter, and if you provide it better, cleaner, and cheaper, they won't much care what you destroy to do it.

As a playground, "nature" is only available to the rich-people's polluting SUV's anyway, not your average slob working in the city for minimum wage. Hundreds of times more people get their entertainment from a video screen, rather than from Lake Louise.

It will make a nice remote landfill.

...

2R · Post by 2R » Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:01 pm

Kyoto ,another broken promise.

If the Lieberals did not keep the Liberal promises .Why would anyone who does not live in a looney bin think or expect the Conservatives should keep promises that the liberals had no intention of keeping ????
Maybe that was the hidden agenda that the Martin camp was fearmongering about ,A politician that actually does what he said he would do if elected by the people.
It should be interesting to see what happens the next time a CSL ship is stopped with large amounts of drugs onboard .It might make the newspaper next time .