·  News ·  Travel ·  Food ·  Arts ·  Science ·  Sports ·  Advice ·  Religion ·  Life ·  Greensboro · 

The Truth about Global Warming

by RebelSnake | Published on September 26th, 2006, 7:59 am | Science
AOL:

Earth Headed for Warmest Temps in a Million Years
Scientists Also Rebuke Popular Author Michael Crichton

By CLAYTON SANDELL and BILL BLAKEMORE, ABCNews.com

(Sept. 26) - In about 45 years, temperatures on Earth will be hotter than at anytime during the past one million years, says the U.S. government's top climatologist in a new report released today.


This is one record I really don't think we want to break.
 
 
The Discovery Channel has a little report on a new idea to battle global warming.

It's so utterly stupid on so many levels that I expect the folks in Washington will fall in love with it and start tossing money at it immediately.
January 4th, 2007, 8:04 am
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
Linky brokey... Try this...


Sunshade

Didn't Mr Burns do something similar in The Simpsons?

Yeah, this is typical of the current American thinking.. lets not fix the root of the problem, lets fix the symptoms. Washington will eat it up. I can't wait to hear that trained monkey tell everyone he was "the decider," who "asked congress to spend a billion on some cool shades". You know, shades "like I wear when clearing brush. Earth OAK-Leaves (Okleys)" LMAO!
"You can't put the civil rights of a minority up for a majority vote."
January 4th, 2007, 8:42 am
User avatar
Sanjuro
Expert...on everything...
 
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:The Discovery Channel has a little report on a new idea to battle global warming.

It's so utterly stupid on so many levels that I expect the folks in Washington will fall in love with it and start tossing money at it immediately.



And republicans and pres. Bush will get the blame for it.
January 4th, 2007, 8:46 am
User avatar
RebelSnake
 
Location: Greensboro
So would all the makers of sunscreen have to adjust their SPF ratings???
January 4th, 2007, 9:06 am
User avatar
rumface
 
Location: Triad Area
After the tint is installed, all we have to do next is hook up the earth with some sweet rims and drop the suspension. 8)

I'm only buying into this if Xzibit pimps it out.
January 4th, 2007, 9:13 am
User avatar
Sanjuro
Expert...on everything...
 
It's been on alot of people's minds lately, and I think for the first time in a long time the consensus from almost everyone is Global Warming is indeed happening.

They've been talking about it the last few days on the Radio here locally, and I appreciate it, as I've been a firm activist of saving the world for sometime. I haven't always felt this way, but when I had my kids, when I realized that there might be a remote possibility that the world we live in, might be destroyed by my actions, I would try to change. It began with simple things like switching our light switches in our home to motion switches. With the first 3 switches I ended up saving $30.00 a month in electricity. We've added fluorescent bulbs in our lighting fixtures, and water saver nozzles on our sinks and showers. Our bills have gone down, our showers stay warm even after several people showering, and most of all we reduced the resources our family uses.

In the last few months, I've learned about electric conversions for my combustion car. The cost is significant, but not unreasonable, especially in light of the savings in gas, and more importantly the world. I'm convinced now, this is the path I should follow.

My beliefs were firmly reinforced when I sat down and watched Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" last night. It's not as if anything in the movie is new if your already acquainted with the situation, but it's the first time someone has laid it out in a way that will hopefully convince the non-believer, the skeptic, and the uneducated. It's a wake up call, that our time here on earth may not be measured in centuries, or decades but in only a few years. It's the "canary in the coal mine", as Gore says. It's the warning, the final warning that if we don't change our ways, if we don't stop the process of Global Warming, our home, our earth will change, many lives will die, and our lineage, our existence is in question.

Perhaps it's time to make a change, because the risks of doing nothing are so great?
March 1st, 2007, 8:51 am
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
I saw where Al Gore's electric bill was well over $2000+. That must have been a bit embarassing for him.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second,it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
March 1st, 2007, 1:18 pm
User avatar
BecauseHeLives
 
You've been listening to Rush Slime-ball again haven't you.... That's gore's turn of the century farm. Which comparatively is on average with the everyone else.
March 1st, 2007, 3:52 pm
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
Liv wrote:You've been listening to Rush Slimeball again haven't you.... That's gore's turn of the century farm. Which comparitively is on average with the everyone else.


I never listen to Rush. I actually read it on the front page of the very liberal cnn.com website yesterday.
March 1st, 2007, 3:57 pm
User avatar
BecauseHeLives
 
The furore was as a result of this article from The Tennessee Center for Policy Research (a Free Market Policy 'research' association.

But they seem to be on the mark. Gore's response os not to deny the numbers but to claim how much worse he could be if he didn't purchase 'green' energy and use flourescent lights.

Doesn't that make you feel good?
March 1st, 2007, 6:59 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
Well you got to give the guy a break, I'm sure running all those lights on the marijuana plants costs tons of money.
March 1st, 2007, 7:04 pm
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
I want this looked into more closely:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html

Seems if enough data is present, it would warrant serious investigation.
March 2nd, 2007, 1:48 pm
User avatar
Sanjuro
Expert...on everything...
 
the problem is that Global Warming® has become so politicised that it's gone far beyond the science.

(By Global Warming® or GW® I mean the generally presented model that catastrophic global warming is occurring as a direct result of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.)

Anyone who is perceived as criticising or questioning is labelled a 'denier'. While there is now little doubt that global warming has occurred, that anthropogenic CO2 is very likely to have contributed to this, the idea that this is the whole story is simplistic.

Unfourtunately environmentalists and politicians want simplistic answers.

The National Post (Canada) carried a good series on the 'Deniers' http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/stor ... 8763c6&k=0
but even that is misleading when it says: 'Some scientists deny global warming exists' that snappy line needs to be something like "Some scientists do not believe that the measured global warming is attributable solely to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, or that the net effects will be as catastrophic as has been suggested"

Unfortunately this version of Pascal's wager means that if GW® is correct we have to do something now - before all the data is in and the science confirmed

Code: Select all
                      Global Warming®
                          True            False
Do nothing now         -ve Big               0

Seriously commit
to significant 
CO2 reduction          -ve Small        -ve Big


My personal view (and I am employed in the fossil fuel industry) is that the GW® is overstated, but that we should immediately start 'no-regrets' CO2 reduction strategies for other very good reasons. However I am pessimistic that it will happen. Everyone wants other people to make the reduction. The 'tragedy of the commons' is that too many people will cheat. Al's rationalization is typical, electrons are electrons, it doesn't matter that his are 'green' - by consuming them there are fewer available for everyone else and so more carbon fuels will be burned. The average American Joe does not want to give up his truck and air conditioning. The average Chinese Wong does not want to give up his manufacturing job and only chance at prosperity.

And without population stabilisation or reduction, any CO2 cutbacks will be quickly eaten up by new demand.
March 2nd, 2007, 2:47 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
Sanjuro wrote:I want this looked into more closely:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html
Seems if enough data is present, it would warrant serious investigation.

I can't seem to make that link work, Sanjuro. Is there another we could try?
March 2nd, 2007, 3:07 pm
Questioner
 
Location: Colorado
Questioner wrote:
Sanjuro wrote:I want this looked into more closely:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html
Seems if enough data is present, it would warrant serious investigation.

I can't seem to make that link work, Sanjuro. Is there another we could try?


Looks like its offline now for some reason. Basically it claimed that solar changes were causing the climate to warm on mars and might likely be the cause for some of the warming on earth too. However, it is not an accepted theory. Most scientists think the warming is caused by the wobble of mars' orbit. Interesting stuff.. just don't know how valid it is.

Its so hard to seperate reality from politics with this. :(
March 2nd, 2007, 3:23 pm
User avatar
Sanjuro
Expert...on everything...
 
If you go to the link I provided you'll find that the Mars thing is #IX and a copy of the article is here http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/stor ... c7f723&k=0
March 2nd, 2007, 7:43 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
The only way we would know for sure that we are not headed toward total destruction though is to test the two theories and reduce cO2... if temperatures go down, Global warming wins and we save ourselves from a horrible demise, if the other is correct then we're all going to die anyways, so who cares?
March 2nd, 2007, 8:46 pm
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
Not neccesarily. That is a false dichotomy. All sorts of scenarios are possible (but not equally probable0. GW® may be real but not as disastrous as thought. Solar forcing may be true and we will see a drop in temperature no matter what happens with CO2. GW® and solar forcing could both be true, one offsetting the other. While the 'experiment' is not possible we can determine which scenarios are most likely and plan accordingly.

But there are other good reasons to control population and reduce emissions so why not do that anyway
March 2nd, 2007, 9:15 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
Liv wrote:The only way we would know for sure that we are not headed toward total destruction though is to test the two theories and reduce cO2... if temperatures go down, Global warming wins and we save ourselves from a horrible demise, if the other is correct then we're all going to die anyways, so who cares?

The cycle of warming and cooling that has been recorded in the past doesn't mean we are all going to die. Humankind survived the ice age, which was a particularly severe cooling period. But if cooling happens and is anywhere nearly as severe as the ice age, then a huge number of humans will indeed die. Current world food production will be hit hard, and America will certainly not be spared.
March 3rd, 2007, 7:50 am
Questioner
 
Location: Colorado
Just watched "An Inconvenient Truth". Very, very well done.
March 7th, 2007, 11:56 pm
User avatar
Sanjuro
Expert...on everything...
 
I thought so too... I think it's a good primer for the "non-believer". It's not in your face, but offers some nice suggestions of facts.
March 8th, 2007, 8:07 am
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.


I've always thought the sun was responsible for global warming and cooling. After all, the sun is the single most important factor to consider in any global climate change scenario. Go and read the entire article and see what actual scientists have to say about the whole thing.
March 8th, 2007, 8:28 am
User avatar
RebelSnake
 
Location: Greensboro
Honestly, you need to look at some data on the matter. Get your head out of the 'political debate' people have made out of this. Indeed there have been ups and downs in global temps. HOWEVER, take a look at the trends in conjunction with C02 emmissions.

People denied we had anything to do with the ozone hole, till we changed our laws cutting chlorofluorocarbons and it began to repair. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1050495.stm

I think certainly there are many factors to the warming trend. However, I also think its obvious we are speeding it along at an expedential rate. Its interesting you of all people Rebelsnake would skoff at the science of this with the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
March 8th, 2007, 8:42 am
User avatar
Sanjuro
Expert...on everything...
 
Liv wrote:The only way we would know for sure that we are not headed toward total destruction though is to test the two theories and reduce cO2... if temperatures go down, Global warming wins and we save ourselves from a horrible demise, if the other is correct then we're all going to die anyways, so who cares?

Sounds like a version of Pacal's Wager :twisted:
March 8th, 2007, 9:26 am
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.

Return to Science