# Global Warming

Status
Not open for further replies.

#### FredM

Joined Dec 27, 2005
124
Cockroaches are probably one of the most hardy creatures, most capable of survival, therefore "strongest" by your definition.. Is this idea of "strength" what we should still be using? We are able to manipulate the stuff of life, we have developed technologies which, it could be argued, have more influence on our evolutionary direction than genetics, we even have advanced plans for "Terra-forming" other planets..

I do NOT believe we are powerless, I do NOT believe we should entertain the FOLLY of inaction. THERE HAS NEVER IN EARTHS HISTORY (or at least history we know of) BEEN AS RAPID A RISE IN THE EARTHS TEMPERATURE.. It is no longer a matter of speculation or doubt .. GET THAT FACT INTO YOUR HEAD !!! DO SOME SERIOUS RESEARCH INTO THE MATTER, KEEPING AN OPEN MIND.

I have been at this for years - never quite sure whether our activities could cause an environmental disaster (I was more focussed on niceties, like keeping biodiversity)..

One only has to look at the huge lakes bubbling methane, or sail to the Nth pole for the first time in human history, or observe the exponential nature of the graph for the last 10 years, to KNOW that THIS IS NO JOKE!!

Nature may 'save' us.. It is possible that the increase in temperature will change the flow of the Gulf stream and usher in an ice age.. This would possibly be slightly less catastrophic than the other scenarios, but not much.

When thing 'tip' they do so extremely quickly.. we MUST act NOW to prevent any 'tip'.

#### HarveyH42

Joined Jul 22, 2007
425
My point is that we can't change or prevent what is going to happen. Focusing on banning fossil fuels, and low energy light bulbs will do nothing. If we have a good idea what to expect, we should be figuring out how to adapt to the changing enviroment. How are we going to live in higher temperatures, where are we going to get food? How long can we expect to endure before the next change?

#### recca02

Joined Apr 2, 2007
1,211
seriously listening to some ppl here makes me feel like we are fighting for a lost cause.
can any1 provide any statistics of green house gases natural sources Vs Human factors contributing to the same.(i tried but with little luck).this is the best i have found till yet.
not to forget humans are also responsible for deforestation thus disturbing the balance even further. seriously suggesting we must have technology to fight is one thing but preventing it is something we must not ignore. i'll try to gather some figures but i do think we are making a definite impact on the balance of the concentration of greenhouse gases.
atleast unless we're sure of the statistics its a bit reckless to say the co2 emissions do not amount to anything or global warming is a natural process.

#### HarveyH42

Joined Jul 22, 2007
425
Personally, I'd prefer the planet left in a more natural state. Deforestation, just clearing off the land, is wreckless. But consider that wildfires clear hundreds of thousands of acres every year, and we put a lot of effort into controlling those. Wildfires are also natural and necessary for a healthy forest. The land that is cleared off by man, isn't usually allowed to re-grow, but much is "saved" by fighting the fires. This also kind of puts the global warming efforts in perspective... It usually takes weeks to put out a forest fire, and a lot of land get scrorched, also usually the success depends on some help from the weather (winds shift, rain...). It's like a war zone, people work long and hard, very intense. On the ground, it seems the fire is huge, but as seen from space, its kind of a small patch. Global warming is out of context, I'm sure there are a bunch of other enviromental factors involved besides man made co2.

Seems to me, most of the earth's surface is covered with water, as the temperture rises, more water vapor in the atomosphere, more cloud cover. The temperature will fall, more rain. It'll all balance out, it's self-correcting. Seems like if with fiddle with the natural order, we are likely to make things worse.

We use to just fight the fires, but evetually learned that it was actually killing the forests, so we do controlled burns to clear out the deadfalls and underbrush, so new growth has room to survive.

I still believe that Global Warming is hype, a political fad, and nothing will come of it, and not much we could do to change it anyway. Even if there is some truth, it won't be the end of all life. Eventually, things will cool back down, perhaps another ice age will follow.

William Grey (the huricane guy from colorado), says its crap. Read a few other similar articles from scientists I've heard of outside of this topic, that weren't involved in the debate directly, pretty much the same. Like in any business, you get what you pay for...

#### FredM

Joined Dec 27, 2005
124
seriously listening to some ppl here makes me feel like we are fighting for a lost cause.
Supertramp: "If Everyone was listening you know, there'd be a chance that we could save the show" "If only we had listened then.. If we'd known just how RIGHT we were going to be.. - but we dreamed a lot, and we schemed a lot, and we tried to sing of love before the stage fell apart.."

The fact is that we have allready gone over the point of no return - Even if all human output of CO2 was stopped now, Earth will continue to heat up for the next couple of decades.. IF we stopped ALL CO2 output, then 20 years from now recovery MIGHT start.. but it is unlikely.

Without CORRECTIVE action, the cause is lost..
Facing the facts, it looks like the cause is lost whatever we do.
seriously listening to some ppl here, it looks almost certain that we may as well "Live it up and rip it up and lets go crazy!" (Supertramp again!) because love of money, and resistance to change, means we are doomed...

Which is why, somehow, MAKING MONEY (or at least, making the rich corperations and investors richer, no matter how galling and immoral this is) and getting massive investment (to be bourne by those least guilty, no doubt) in R+D using BIG science / technology 'toys' is the only possible hope I can see.. We may yet be able to "Terra-form" earth..

#### HarveyH42

Joined Jul 22, 2007
425
Resistance to change... Isn't that what the Global Warming movement is all about. The planet has never stopped changing. The changes predicted by Global Warming theorists, have been coming long before Henry Ford's Model T. The planet has, and will continue to change. We can learn to live in the new enviroment, find ways to protect ourselves from the dangers. Or we can futilely try to fight or change the the course of this huge planet.

Has anyone ever stopped a volcano from erupting, huricanes or tornados? How about floods or drought? Landslides? Earthquakes? Sinkholes? Not that I know of, definately not on a regular basis. Don't read much about research into stopping these events either, but in 40-50 years, we have to change the entire planet or die...?

#### FredM

Joined Dec 27, 2005
124
but in 40-50 years, we have to change the entire planet or die...?
If we are lucky, we may have that long..

#### FredM

Joined Dec 27, 2005
124
The planet has, and will continue to change. We can learn to live in the new enviroment, find ways to protect ourselves from the dangers. Or we can futilely try to fight or change the the course of this huge planet.
<The planet has, and will continue to change>
It is not change which is the main problem, it is the RATE OF CHANGE! .. The delta of the curves we are seeing for the last 10 year period is GREATER than ANY other time on record - and from data collected in ice-core and geological core samples, appears to be greater than at any time in the history of life on this planet.

<We can learn to live in the new enviroment, find ways to protect ourselves from the dangers.>
It is folly to believe we could adapt and survive the approaching disaster - We are NOT able to survive without an ecosystem which supports our minimum requirments - such an ecosystem WILL NOT EXIST.

<Or we can futilely try to fight or change the the course of this huge planet>
Changing is the only tiny hope for human survival - the 'nicest' fix would be if we stopped excessive consumption, stopped release of heat-trapping gasses, stopped our demand for economic 'growth', and if, with a lot of luck, the planet manages to restore equilibrium without us needing to attempt drastic technological interference to assist this process.

But I am a realist.. The USA and China will be pumping out more CO2 in the next 10 years than they did in the last .. Even this will, within the next 10 years, be dwarfed by the contribution of methane from the melting methyl hydride..

We have only 3 choices.. 1.) STOP CO2 production globally, almost completely, NOW. 2.) Start preparing NOW for the FACT that we will need to tamper with nature in a MAJOR way to have even a slight chance of human survival 3.) Do nothing, and humanity, in any form that we recognise today, will not exist on planet earth in 2100.

#### HarveyH42

Joined Jul 22, 2007
425
Well, considering that we've yet to confim that life has ever existed on any othe planet, it was amazing that we ever came to being in the first place. Not mention, surviving this long. Growing up (Cold War era), always imagined mankind would destroy themselves with nuclear, weapons or power plant accidents.

I still can't imagine that man could actually hope to have an influence over the course of this trend. Our time and resources would be better spent finding a way to protect ourselves, and what we will need to survive long enough for the 'Global Cooling' movement...

I don't believe it will be quite so dire as hypothsised. There will be other factors coming into play. The ice samples say we've never had such a rapid change, but doesn't say why. They don't really give a very broad picture of the world, just the polar regions. The trap gases, at estimated temperatures (thickness of layers), may not be that accurate, or coincidental. This whole Global Warming 'trend' is based theory and questionable data. The whole push is mostly based on the idea, that if the theory is correct, we haven't much time to do something. This really isn't the first time politics have jumped on a theory, to push another agenda. Basically, one country isn't going to do much of anything, it's a global problem, everybody needs to ban together, or no one survives. Isn't that sort of the way it went. when we entered the nuclear age and the Cold War. Nuclear energy is a dangerous thing, if used irresponsibly. Not theory, but an unfortunate fact. WWII proved it, various accidents have proven it. It can be easily tested in a lab, and probably tested on unsuspecting populations. The super-powers did rise to the challenge, and for the most part have kept us safe from badly used nuclear, but just barely.
With Global Warming, there are no lab experiments. It's all numbers on paper (well, likely a computer screen...), and open to interpretation. I don't expect there will be enough global support of this theory, least until the death and mass destruction is highly visiable, which of course will be much too late anyway...

#### Dave

Joined Nov 17, 2003
6,960
The whole push is mostly based on the idea, that if the theory is correct, we haven't much time to do something.
Harvey, isn't that the problem then? Given what we know and what information we have gathered, it is conceivable that we can take a risk based on the notion that the theory is *potentially* incorrect. What is the worse that can happen: if we change our habits it is a massive inconvenience to society; and if we don't change our habits the future of civilisations we know it is at stake. At what point do we draw the line?

Dave

#### HarveyH42

Joined Jul 22, 2007
425
We can't keep flying off into a panic everytime someone comes up with a doomsday theory. I just don't see the concrete proof, nor any solutions that might have any effect.

On another note, how is complete dumping all old, non-'green' technology, and buying all shiny new 'green' stuff going to be such a good thing? What's going to happen to all those gas and coal burning machines? How long did it take to convert the world to unleaded fuel anyway.

It's still just barely a theory, when it gets closer to being a fact, with repeatable lab experiments, then it's time to panic.

*Sorry, the UPS guy just drop off my parts... Kind of lost my train of thought. Got to finish a project.

#### Dave

Joined Nov 17, 2003
6,960
We can't keep flying off into a panic everytime someone comes up with a doomsday theory. I just don't see the concrete proof, nor any solutions that might have any effect.
Aside from the proof, which is wholly subjective, I agree that sometimes it is too easy to fly-off-the-handle at something new. For example, in the UK we get the doomsday rights on eating habits weekly,; eating X will both kill you instantly and cure you from cancer. No wonder people are so cynical.

It's still just barely a theory, when it gets closer to being a fact, with repeatable lab experiments, then it's time to panic.
Maybe this is the argument - it really just a theory? I can buy into the researchers peddling the funding argument, but really we are just so wasteful and this is the backbone of the Global Warming (Climate Change) argument. At what point does it stop just being a fringe theory and starts being scientific fact?

*Sorry, the UPS guy just drop off my parts... Kind of lost my train of thought. Got to finish a project.
Lol! Enjoy!

Dave

#### FredM

Joined Dec 27, 2005
124
At what point does it stop just being a fringe theory and starts being scientific fact?Dave
That point is never easy to accertain.. and anyway, there is no such thing as a "scientific fact" - All theory is there to be tested and disproved.. but some theory stubbornly refuses to be disproved! - it is these theories we rely on, and base all our science and technolgy on.

As for being a "fringe" theory - the fact that this planets temperature is increasing at a rate never seen before is not theory - it is observed fact.. Theory only applies to interpretation of the reason for this - and the present predominant theory on this is FAR from "fringe".

Look at the names who are now (after having evaluated the EVIDENCE) coming out and speaking about impending disaster.. These are people who, a few years ago, may have had enough doubt to err on the side of 'caution' (ie.. did not want to get branded as sensationalist and end up with egg on their faces and diminished careers if the wind changed) - These people are now coming out IN DROVES.

Look at the qualifications and expierience of the researchers producing these "alarmist" predictions, and compare them against the (few) scientists who despute them.. Also, check the personal incentives which apply to those in both catagories.

And finally - Check the data for yourself.. There is plenty on-line. Study the required science if you dont understand it..

This is one of the defining moments in human history.. We will either have humans who will remember their ancestors (us) with respect, and have an example to revere .. or we are likely to (soon) either go extinct, or at best lose all the culture and civilisation which we have attained over thousands of years..

Perhaps it doesnt matter so much if you dont have children, and perhaps one is less sensitive to this issue if one sees oneself as "strong" and capable of surviving the changes.. And perhaps I am personally more affected by these predictions because my children and I have damaged genes and require daily medication - so I know we stand no chance.. Perhaps it is all down to self interest.. But I honestly think that, even if you are one of the 'strongest', your chances of survival if even the more optimistic scenario presents itself, is slim... And the world you will be inheriting will not be a paradise like this one (by comparison) is.. you will inherit hell.

#### thingmaker3

Joined May 16, 2005
5,073
All of the fancy graphs and charts I've seen say we've had less than a degree of increase in 150 years. Delta temp over delta time was more steep in the 70s and 80s.

This is not "data." This is "noise."

Anybody got any charts or graphs of temperatures prior to the mid-1800s?

#### FredM

Joined Dec 27, 2005
124
Anybody got any charts or graphs of temperatures prior to the mid-1800s?
Yes, the data is there.. embedded in core samples.

This is not "data." This is "noise."
I recognise noise - you cannot be working with analysis of electronic data and biophysical data for over 30 years without knowing the difference between noise and data.. But sometimes one can still get it wrong.. And on this issue I sincerely hope you are right and I am wrong!

#### thingmaker3

Joined May 16, 2005
5,073
Yes, the data is there.. embedded in core samples.
Where can I go to look at this? (The data, I mean. I have no clue how to judge bygone global average temperature based on a core sample.)

#### FredM

Joined Dec 27, 2005
124
If I cannot find a link, I will scan find the relevant pages in he journals and scan them for you.. My answer was simplistic (and a incorrect) however - it is not actually temperature data which is stored in the core samples, it is CO2 levels, and rate of change on these.

I appologise if this was misleading - it was not intentional.. In fact, I have been muddling up CO2 and temperature a few times in my prior postings - and this has alerted me some sloppy assessment / presentation on my part - I believe that CO2 (and particularly human contribution therof) and temperature are directly related - but using them as if they were the same is bad science. Sorry.

#### HarveyH42

Joined Jul 22, 2007
425
Project went well, worked perfectly when power was applied and button pressed. Don't know about the rest of you, but this isn't a common experience for me. Nice to get lucky once in a while...

Been thinking about those core samples, and layers of ice... Now, if Global Warming is a normal occurance, and has happened many times... Wouldn't it melt away a few layers, or be little or no new strata? The core samples would only show half the story, some layers missing, or removed.

From back in the 70's, I believe the purpose of taking core samples was to look for organism frozen in time. Failing that, I suppose they needed something to justify further funding. Does the data in question come from multiple independant research groups? Are there people from different countries poking their own holes in the ice? Or is it just one set of samples, and everybody just sort of shares. Any chance the samples could have been contaminated while the were being extracted, sealed, packed for shipping? Hear it gets mighty cold at the poles, and don't propane heaters give off a ton of CO2? Were all samples handled the same, or as the bored deeper, did the find better, easier, safer methods?

Al Gore and his group contend that time is critically short, not time to think or argue, we must act now! Consider a well dressed man offers you a check for $100, for$20 cash, as didn't have any currency, and needed $20 cash in a hurry... Or how about the$2500 the new car dealer offers take off the sticker price, if you sign right now...
I'm just suspicious of of high pressure sales tactics. It's a trick to shut down your rational thought, and push you past thinking about it. Consider some of the public figures that are real push hard on this. Man are fairly wealthy, long history of high business, before going into politics. Maybe just friends and associates of Al Gore, just following the leader... The lawyers turned politician, does seem to have such a strong commitment.

#### thingmaker3

Joined May 16, 2005
5,073
Having been a Tennessee resident, and having several generations of Tennessee residents precede me, I can unequivocally state: Never ever trust a politician from Tennessee!!

#### FredM

Joined Dec 27, 2005
124
Having been a Tennessee resident, and having several generations of Tennessee residents precede me, I can unequivocally state: Never ever trust a politician from Tennessee!!
Just ONE Question .. Do ALL Politicians from Tennessee believe Global Warming is a serious issue ?

Status
Not open for further replies.