There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[rushmc 18]

As opposed to those just in the norhteast?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[masterblaster72 0]

Hey Rush, here's something you can make a t-shirt from and wear proudly.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[rushmc 18]

What a hoot but,

I don't get Fox News where I live!

I will take a XXXL (and that is just to get it over my head)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>If I believed that catostrophic GW was being caused by human
>actions I would be on board. I think that most of the theory is
>coming from bad science and incomplete models.

That's a perfect example of not separating the science from the politics.

The following are statements based on science:

-On average, the world is warmer today. Average planetary temperatures rose .5C over the past century.
-We emit large amounts of CO2, sufficient to increase the atmospheric concentration of this gas by 50% in the past 200 years
-We are emitting more and more CO2 every year.
-CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and has the effect of preventing re-radiation of infrared radiation.
-Increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase temperatures overall.
-Increased temperatures will alter weather patterns and ecosystems.

You can debate the above, but they're all pretty well founded in science. Note the absence of words like "catastrophe" or "liberal" or "expensive."

The following are statements based on politics:

-Global warming is a catastrophe.
-We must spend oodles of money to stop global warming.
-Global warming will be good for us!
-The whiny liberals are using fear to try to control us.

Climate change is an important topic because it has the potential to affect a great many people on this planet, some very negatively. A rise in sea level, for example, may result in tens of millions of homeless people - and rising sea levels are one potential effect of a warmer climate. That may mean we want to consider a) mitigating the amount of warming (so we have more time to deal with the problem) b) relocating those people or even c) figuring out how they can continue to live in a below sea level area.

Now, a scientific strategy to deal with the above issues would involve better analysis of the rates of glacier loss, better cartography of low-lying regions, estimates of cost for relocation, analyses of CO2 emission mitigation strategies etc. And many of those things are happening now.

A political strategy would look not at outcomes, but at whose party might benefit from the perceptions that arise from the problem. If it was deemed bad for the party, political strategies might include:

-discrediting scientists working on the issues listed above
-encouraging bad science to 'refute' the above
-latching on to any negative reporting about climate change and touting it
-abandoning any such negative reporting once proven false
-encouraging rhetoric over science fact
-mischaracterizing debate over issues as "no one can agree"

That's why it's a mistake to combine politics and science. Science should work first; politics should then decide what to do with the science. Using politics in an attempt to skew the science towards a more favorable outcome is like voting to make skydiving safer, rather than improving training programs or equipment. (Hey, after all, if everyone votes that you won't have a mal, you won't have a mal!)

[rushmc 18]

You state at the end the "science should come first..." and I totally agree but before that you post

"Now, a scientific strategy to deal with the above issues would involve better analysis of the rates of glacier loss". There are scienctists that are saying that there no net loss. The edges are pulling back but the centers are becoming thicker because of record cold winters.

There is also agruments against the statement that man has increased the CO2 in the last 200 years with researchers saying that tree and ice studies indicate concentrations that far exceed todays levels. (many years before man could have an impact)

To you this may be a cut and dried issue but to many (and many scientists who stay silent) and to me this is far from a settled issue.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

And a sticker for you...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,400]

>"Now, a scientific strategy to deal with the above issues would involve
> better analysis of the rates of glacier loss". There are scienctists
> that are saying that there no net loss. The edges are pulling back
> but the centers are becoming thicker because of record cold winters.

Right. And they submit to Nature, their articles are reviewed by their peers, and published if they are valid. If it's controversial, then other researchers review their work, and attempt to duplicate their measurements. If they validate their work, it stands. If they don't, then their work is shown to be erroneous. That's how science works.

How politics work is that someone publishes an article in the Des Moines Register about how they don't think the ice caps are dwindling, and it becomes the centerpiece of the latest "there's no global warming!" political ads.

>There is also agruments against the statement that man has
> increased the CO2 in the last 200 years . . . .

There is simply no question about that. (Or, to be more accurate, that's about as uncertain as whether the earth is round or flat.) We know how much it _should_ have increased by calculating how much fossil fuel we've burned, and it has increased by that amount.

>with researchers saying that tree and ice studies indicate
>concentrations that far exceed todays levels. (many years before
>man could have an impact)

Oh, that's certainly true! At least once before, the earth has seen planetwide ice ages that result from meteor impacts. (Dust clouds reflect the sun, and temperatures plummet.) When the whole planet is covered in ice, albedo increases sharply, and temperatures drop even further. All CO2 emission and sequestration processes stop - except for vulcanism. Over the course of millions of years, CO2 builds up to very high levels, levels that would be fatal for humans. Finally the greenhouse effect of all that CO2 overcomes the increased albedo effect of the ice, and the ice melts. Plants grow again and CO2 comes back into balance.

This all happened around half a billion years ago. The resulting melting of the waters, rapid temperature rise, and increase in oxygen is one possible cause of the "Cambrian Explosion," the event that resulted in most of what we know as modern life.

Needless to say we would not have survived either event. Fortunately, the amounts of CO2 we're dealing with now are far less. They won't be fatal to us, but they will change our climate, just as they did back then.

>To you this may be a cut and dried issue but to many (and many
>scientists who stay silent) and to me this is far from a settled issue.

Many parts of it are settled - the anthropogenic CO2 thing, for example, is not really open to argument. We have the real, actual measurements; we were there when it happened. There are still a lot of open issues, like how much warming we will actually see, or what the exact effects on ocean circulation will be (for example.) It will be science, not politics, that answers those questions, no matter whose political party the answers are good for. The real world around us doesn't care about politics, and all the votes and high rhetoric in the world won't stop the engines that drive our climate.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

And a sticker for you...

THANKS!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

>The real world around us doesn't care about politics, and all the votes and high rhetoric in the world won't stop the engines that drive our climate.

On that you and I agree and with that you will get that last word.

In this thread anyway

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

And a sticker for you...

I've repeated many, many times here that I am not a democrat, nor will I ever be.

But I suppose if you think along such binary terms it's difficult to resist projecting that thinking to others. It's ok, I understand.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[smiles 0]

It was strictly in the interest of science whereby the US Geological Service teamed up with BP, the British oil giant and Statoil, a huge Norwegian oil conglomerate, to do a survey on global warming especially in the Arctic.

Since they believe they might find some oil under the ice they decided, apparently as an afterthought, that as long as they were there anywhere, they might as well look for a little oil while they were at it. (If you believe that I have a lovely bridge just waiting for you to buy.)

The US Geological Survey estimates that ¼ of the worlds petroleum reserves lie under the Arctic Ocean. And there are other players like Russia involved big time. When I heard about the scientific front for this undertaking I couldn't help thinking of Japan slaughtering hundred of whales each year for “scientific purposes.”

Here is the good news. Oil exploration will become more and more feasible in the Arctic as the ice cap recedes and the companies can do their drilling on dry land. And in fact, the news here is very cheery because it’s estimated that the Arctic Ocean will be free of ice in summertime by 2060. Now here’s where you come in.

Global warming, as we know, is dependent on emissions from cars and others exploiting the universe as a huge garbage dump so conveniently put there for the consequences of our greed. Think of what we could do if we all just added, say, 10% to our fossil fuel consumption and waste expulsion!

Why I bet we could lower the time for an ice free Arctic back to 2050, or maybe, 2040! All we need do, really, is concentrate on buying all those SUVs that GM and Ford have overstocked. We could have bumper stickers saying “save the Arctic from the bears and Inuit – buy a gas guzzler.”

Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. The gods must have been working overtime on this generation of earthlings. As Stephanie Tumore from Greenpeace said, “why are we going looking for more fossil fuels when what’s happening in Polar Regions just proves that it is devastating and we cannot continue to do that?” Why indeed?

I can see some benefits that Greenpeace and others have overlooked. On the assumption that even in summer there will be some ice at the North Pole, we could put in an airport and fly tourists in to look at the zoo where the last of the polar bears live alongside the last remaining walrus, narwhals and caribou. At this tourist sight there would be a real live imitation Inuit Village where, when the tourist come, the inhabitants put on their old sealskin clothes and rush to the airport to rub noses with the visitors. I mean, what a tourism experience for those who have been everywhere!

But as I say, folks, the good old oil companies can’t do it all by themselves so rush out today, get the gassiest of gas guzzlers and help get rid of that stupid ice cap that’s getting in the way of the oil barons who so badly want to put more and more fossil fuels in our hands. Let’s all keep that neat cycle where gases clobber the environment enabling the oilmen to get oil more easily to clobber the environment and so. Moreover, with lovable old Petrocan in there carrying the flag for us, surely it’s our patriotic duty to pitch in and help. We can do it, folks, we can do it!


SMiles

eustress. : a positive form of stress having a beneficial effect on health, motivation, performance, and emotional well-being.

[billvon 2,400]

Looks like there will may have to be a further update to the title of this post:

>There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 2005 2006

---------------
First half of 2006 warmest on record in U.S.
Globally, January-June was sixth warmest on record

January through June was the warmest first half of any year in the continental United States since records began in 1895, U.S. government scientists reported Friday.

The average January-June temperature was 51.8 degrees Fahrenheit — 3.4 degrees above the 20th century average, according to preliminary data reported by scientists at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

Five states — Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas — saw record warmth for the period. No state in the continental United States was near or cooler than average, the report stated, although Alaska was 0.55 degrees cooler than the 1971-2000 average.
------------------

[Gawain 0]

Since man is not the sole cause of warming, I'm not certain that man could be the sole cure of it.

Can we help, yes. Are we slowly making progress, depends on who you ask, but I haven't seen us "reverse" course.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[vortexring 0]

I seen a documentary once about global warming. Scientists in America noticed quite a remarkable thing immediately after 9/11. Luminousity or light levels reaching the earths surface significantly increased - this was due to the reduced levels of hydrocarbons in the upper atmosphere as all the airliners were grounded. (Normally some light would reflect of the said carbons back into space.)

However, this in itself increased the surface temperature. In a nutshell, significantly reducing these pollutants would actually increase global warming.

Mad!

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Since man is not the sole cause of warming, I'm not certain that man could be the sole cure of it.

Can we help, yes. Are we slowly making progress, depends on who you ask, but I haven't seen us "reverse" course.

And I do NOT see us having any effect on reversing a trend that nature is in complete control of.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Since man is not the sole cause of warming, I'm not certain that man could be the sole cure of it.

Can we help, yes. Are we slowly making progress, depends on who you ask, but I haven't seen us "reverse" course.

And I do NOT see us having any effect on reversing a trend that nature is in complete control of.

That's true but irrelevant. We are discussing global warming here.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,400]

>However, this in itself increased the surface temperature.

Nope. Contrails do what clouds do - they decrease temps during the day (by reducing insolation) and increase them at night (by blocking re-radiation.)

>In a nutshell, significantly reducing these pollutants would actually increase global warming.

Again, no. Contrails have little to do with pollution. Contrails are caused by the primary exhaust from a jet engine - water vapor. You could do the same thing by flying a big glider around and spraying water to make contrails.

The CO2 (which is the second largest part of an airliner's exhaust) does increase temps in the long run per the mechanisms that have been discussed a dozen times now. But that's a pretty separate issue. Air travel is one of the more minor contributors to CO2 increases.

[kallend 1,623]

www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020511/fob1.asp

The biggest effect of contrails is to act as nucleation sites for clouds (rather like cloud seeding). 90% of the condensate in contrails is from atmospheric water vapor that couldn't nucleate homogenously, but could nucleate heterogeneously as a result of the engine exhaust.

In this sense a high flying aircraft can have an effect on insolation far in excess of the actual amount of H2O in its exhaust.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Since man is not the sole cause of warming, I'm not certain that man could be the sole cure of it.

Can we help, yes. Are we slowly making progress, depends on who you ask, but I haven't seen us "reverse" course.

And I do NOT see us having any effect on reversing a trend that nature is in complete control of.

That's true but irrelevant. We are discussing global warming here.

Not irrelevant as I am speaking to what I believe more and more is the hoax of "man made" global warming

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>Since man is not the sole cause of warming, I'm not certain that man
>could be the sole cure of it.

I agree that we're not the sole cause of it, but we're causing at least 70% of it. And mitigation steps can, if pursued hard, go beyond our own effects and start to mitigate some of the natural reasons as well.

You can break the effects down into three general categories:

1. Natural reasons for warming. These include massive asteroid impacts, massive vulcanism (releases CO2) and insolation changes. The sun naturally goes through an 11-year cycle, and the earth also naturally goes through several precessional cycles that vary the amount of light received in any one area. For example, currently we hit perihelion during our winter; this tends to moderate our winters and summers but exacerbates Australia's temperature swings.

Taken all together, these effects account for 5 to 30% of the warming we are seeing, depending on who you talk to and what time frame you're discussing.

Note that many of the mitigation steps we are considering for our contribution would affect these forcings as well. If you plant a lot more forests, then more CO2 is trapped - even if we didn't create the CO2 to begin with.

2. Anthropogenic reasons. These account for 70-90% of the warming we are seeing today. These are primarily emissions of CO2 and methane, but are also loss of the sinks that ordinarily absorb CO2 and methane (like forests.)

3. Positive feedback effects. These are not man-made sources of greenhouse gases, but rather occur as a result of our warming of the environment. Some examples:

-As the planet warms, forest and brush fires become more likely. These fires put more CO2 into the atmosphere.

-As the permafrost near the poles melts it releases methane. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas.

-If the sea warms significantly, the methane clathrates trapped below the sea floor may start to melt. If this happens, then massive amounts of methane will be released, almost certainly causing a global disaster. (They contain many orders of magnitude more methane than we're emitting now.)

> Are we slowly making progress, depends on who you ask, but
>I haven't seen us "reverse" course.

?? What does this mean? We emit more and more CO2 every year, so we haven't reversed course - but that's also the opposite of progress.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Since man is not the sole cause of warming, I'm not certain that man could be the sole cure of it.

Can we help, yes. Are we slowly making progress, depends on who you ask, but I haven't seen us "reverse" course.

And I do NOT see us having any effect on reversing a trend that nature is in complete control of.

That's true but irrelevant. We are discussing global warming here.

Not irrelevant as I am speaking to what I believe more and more is the hoax of "man made" global warming

Fortunately for mankind, even the White House now disagrees with your belief.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Since man is not the sole cause of warming, I'm not certain that man could be the sole cure of it.

Can we help, yes. Are we slowly making progress, depends on who you ask, but I haven't seen us "reverse" course.

And I do NOT see us having any effect on reversing a trend that nature is in complete control of.

That's true but irrelevant. We are discussing global warming here.

Not irrelevant as I am speaking to what I believe more and more is the hoax of "man made" global warming

Fortunately for mankind, even the White House now disagrees with your belief.

Glad you are the all knowing one on this site.

But as for the statement about the White House. I know what they are saying but I don't know if they agree with the premise. Political posturing comes to mind and, it is not what you say but what you do......don't you think?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>Political posturing comes to mind and, it is not what you say but
>what you do......don't you think?

Dude - they're politicians. 99.99% of what they do is talk.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Political posturing comes to mind and, it is not what you say but
>what you do......don't you think?

Dude - they're politicians. 99.99% of what they do is talk.

Ahh, OK, thanks for pointing that out??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[brianfry713 0]

Some of you reading this thread may find Michael Chrichton's 2004 book "State of Fear" entertaining. It's a fiction novel based around the concept that global warming is mostly a natural phenomenon and the Earth is going through a normal phase between ice ages.

Extremely well written like all his novels and backed up with plenty of facts and references.