67
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 12:56 pm
blatham wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Dont get what?

The fact that the earth is changing it climate? I have a flash, this is a normal cycle.

While enviromentalisats get their "panties in a twist" when logic is thrown at them, they certainly do little to rationally offer alternatives to the "things" that cause un-natural climate change, to which their are many.

Blatham, instead of sarcastic re-torts, why not take the lead and see if you can come up with realistic alternatives to those things that are cuasing you so much distress.


So far, your posts here are cliched, knee-jerk, and unthoughtful.

Your first post implies global warming is contra-indicated by evidence, and the evidence you offer is a local temporary phenomenon. That's not a good start.

Your posted quoted here heads straight for the knee-jerk "environmentalist in panties". The task force that released its findings, and which is chaired by a Republican senator and a former Blair cabinet member, don't fit your strawman and terribly silly derogation. So, that's not an impressive second post. I doubt you bothered to read the piece at all. I'm certain you haven't gone to find and read the full findings.


These reports are redundant and tedious. To echo McG, for each extreme report such as what you post, there are an equal number that question it's findings.

What I find humorous is that those extreme views of doomsday coming, never offer any rational discussion on how to slow the process. One poster in this thread "blamed" global warming on the fact that there are too many people on this earth.

Therefore Blatham, take your sarcasm and shove it in a nice warm place.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 01:01 pm
I still don't get the purpose of denying it's possible. What does one gain from saying it isn't true, rather than that it might be?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 01:03 pm
BM
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 01:05 pm
Woiyo,

Do you even understand what the term 'heat pollution' means? At all? Do you know what the effects are? You are really sounding foolish here. I mean, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Have you done any research, bothered to familiarize yourself with the concept? No.

It's foolish, uninformed people like you that hold back a substantive debate on the future of our environment.

If you want to continue discussing the topic, you should begin with simple articles, and then when your ability to understand logic improves somewhat, move on to some of the white papers and scholarly thought on the subject. But here's one I'm sure you can understand:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/12/16/urban.climate.ap/

Quote:
Urban heat, pollution found to mess up weather
Tuesday, December 16, 2003 Posted: 10:44 AM EST (1544 GMT)

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- The massive amounts of heat and pollution that rise from the world's cities both delay and stimulate the fall of precipitation, cheating some areas of much-needed rain and snow while dousing others, scientists said.

The findings support growing evidence that urbanization has a sharp and alarming effect on the climate, and those changes can wreak havoc with precipitation patterns that supply life's most precious resource: water.

"These are going to become big issues," said Steve Burian of the University of Utah.

Details were presented Thursday and Friday at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

In California, eastward-blowing pollution induces a precipitation deficit across the Sierra Nevada mountain range equal to about 1 trillion gallons of water a year, said Daniel Rosenfeld of Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

The Sierra Nevada is a major source of water for much of California, which relies on it to supply its cities and farms.

"It amounts to significantly less amounts of water," said Rosenfeld, who has noted similar pollution-linked deficits in Israel.

The warmth and grit generated in urban areas can have the opposite effect on local precipitation and actually boost rainfall levels in large cities.

During the past 60 years, while Houston has grown to become the United States' fourth-largest city, scientists have measured increased amounts of rain in areas downwind of the urban core during hot, humid summer months, Burian said.

"The majority of evidence is pointing to some sort of urban modification," he said, adding that more research is needed.

Cities produce large amounts of a class of pollutants called aerosols, which include tiny particles of dust and the byproducts of the combustion of diesel and other fossil fuels.

Atmospheric levels of the pollutant are closely tied to levels of human activity. In New York City, measurements made between June and September 2001 showed that aerosol levels regularly grew during the work week, with a noticeable spike on Wednesdays, then decreased on the weekend, said Menglin Jin of the University of Maryland at College Park. She attributes the midweek spike to a sharp increase in diesel truck traffic.

When hoisted skyward, the microscopic pollutants act as multiple surfaces on which the moisture in clouds can condense to form tiny droplets. That can prevent or delay the formation of larger raindrops that more readily fall from the sky as rain.

In southern California, a 24 percent decrease in the amount of rainfall measured since 1890 in the town of Cuyamaca appears linked to aerosol pollution wafting from San Diego, roughly 40 miles ( 64 kilometers) to the southwest, Rosenfeld said.

Cities also generate and trap tremendous amounts of heat and are on average one to 10 degrees warmer than surrounding undeveloped areas. That heat also changes the dynamics of clouds.

In more humid cities, urbanization appears to invigorate summer storm activity by allowing clouds to build higher and larger before unleashing torrential rains, Burian said. That appears to be the case in Houston.

The relative contributions that urban heat and pollution make to altering the climate remains unclear, scientists said. It's also unclear what, if any, effect smaller cities might have.

"How big does a city need to be? We don't know. The answer is still out there," said Marshall Shepherd, a NASA research meteorologist.


It isn't about raising the overall temperature of the Earth, it's about throwing instability into an extremely complex system. Not a good plan.

Before telling people to shove it you should at least attempt to have a f*cking clue.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 01:08 pm
blatham wrote:
McG

Aside from being seven years old now, this reference is not to an objective scientific organization, yes? Cato has as its mission...

" The Cato Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace..."

If you are willing to accept that industry-sponsored research and think tanks are less than satisfying sources for our data, I'll go to some trouble here. Willing to go that far?


I trust you read the extent of the "about us" regarding the Cato Institute. I have no doubt that you will provide prestigious articles from well known sources Blatham. It wouldn't be in your nature to do otherwise. This debate has been going on between scientists who specialize in this field for many years. I doubt anything you and I say here will do anything to alleviate this ongoing debate.

However, in the interest of doing something, I say "Let's get it on!"
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 01:19 pm
McG

OK. We'll do the best we can to find the data, and to acknowledge likely or possible bias. I'm doing a few things right now, so it may be a day or so.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 01:23 pm
Cyclo - Getting a little "frisky" are we??

Your post represents another in a series of hysterical information suggesting that PART of the reason for climate instability is over-population.

Yet, now where is there a solution to the so-called problem.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 01:47 pm
There's nothing hysterical about my post at all. Perhaps you should re-read it. I didn't claim that heat pollution would be the end of the world, or that extreme measures have to be taken; just that you don't know what the hell you are talking about, a comment which I stand by.

You're right in that PART of the reason for climate instability (allright! thanks for using the right term) is the massive amount of heat that is produced by human life, not only by our physical bodies, but by heating our buildings, fires, and heat that is reflected back into the atmosphere by concrete. This isn't even counting pollution or anything like that; simply realizing that a huge number of humans will over time begin to have an effect on the climate.

That being said, the very existence of so many people on the planet poses a risk to our current weather patterns (which we enjoy for the most part). We can't do anything about the massive numbers of people alive; therefore, we might want to start paying attention to the problem in the area where we can make a difference, namely, pollution and toxification of our environment.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 01:56 pm
You are correct that I have no scientific knowledge as to how to solve the problem of climate instability.

I find it sad that those who write these articles offer no realistic alternative, yet we know that the US has the technology that could help reduce the toxics in our atmosphere. If not the technology, the "ability" to develop that technology that should help.

Yet, for the past 20 years, for example, every administration has touted this subject as a campaign cornerstone. Yet to date, none of them has succeeded in providing incentives for the development and deployment of such technology.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 02:22 pm
Now THAT I completely agree with!

Heat pollution has the potential to be the biggest problem facing terrestial humans in the next century or two. There are few signs that global population is dropping (though it is levelling out in 1st-world countries, it seems to be rising in 3rd much faster), and we could be looking at a global population of 10-15 trillion within two centuries. If we don't plan ahead for all that heat/waste/toxins, we'll have real problems.

I was watching Hot Topic! or something to that effect on PBS yesterday, and the topic was Energy. One of the commentators stated that energy and environment are the exact same thing, and we have to take that approach not only in the regulation of our private businesses, energy utilities, and other currently existing enterprises; but also in our city and societal planning for the future.

It's too bad the green party can't get their act together; if they had a charismatic leader, we might see some of these ideas at least working their way into the mainstream.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 03:22 pm
Don't Like the Weather?
Don't Blame it on Global Warming


by David Ridenour

In recent years, advocates of the global warming theory have convinced many Americans that virtually any weather-related calamity is evidence that human-induced global warming is underway.

One has only to look at the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - the United Nations body tasked with coordinating a world response to the threat of global warming - to understand why global warming theory advocates have been so successful. Among the many gems in the report is this one: "Warmer temperatures will lead to prospects for more severe droughts and/or floods in some places and less severe droughts and/or floods in others."

The University of Virginia's Dr. Patrick Michaels has taken the time to translate this sentence for us. It means that global warming will be characterized by "more intense wet periods, more intense dry periods, more intense wet and dry periods, less intense wet periods, less intense dry periods, and less intense wet and dry periods." i Precisely how this is different than a world without human-enhanced global warming is unclear. From year to year, some areas of the world have always experienced more severe droughts and floods than others. Likewise, some areas of the world have always experienced less severe droughts and floods than others. With or without global warming, this process will continue in the future.

But because the symptoms of global warming as identified by advocates of the global warming theory are so ambiguous, so subject to change, virtually any weather event - at least any bad weather event - can be attributed to global warming. And therein lies the brilliance of the global warming theory and its advocates. Whether the weather is too hot, too cold, too dry, too wet or perhaps even too normal, global warming is always the convenient culprit.

The Clinton Administration knows this all too well. The Florida fires, the northeastern blizzard in 1996, the hurricanes of 1995, floods in South Dakota in 1997 and the heat waves in the South and West this year have all been cited by the Clinton Administration as evidence that global warming is occurring and that we need to act immediately to stop it.

Close examination of the scientific data and historical record, however, suggests far more plausible explanations for these weather events - they have nothing to do with global warming.

The rest can be found: HERE

Some very interesting data and graphs there, but try not to let the facts get in the way of your preconcieved notions.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 03:28 pm
Fedral wrote:

Some very interesting data and graphs there, but try not to let the facts get in the way of your preconcieved notions.


I'm convinced, these data from 1998 beat those from 2004.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 03:48 pm
Okay, I'm gonna ask one last time. I would really like to hear from one of the nay sayers.

WHAT GOOD DOES IT DO TO ARGUE THAT GLOBAL WARMING / CLIMATE INSTABILITY ISN'T HAPPENING?

WHAT DO YOU OR SOCIETY GAIN FROM THIS POSITION?

WHY THE RESISTANCE TO THINKING IT POSSIBLE?

It makes no sense to me to keep arguing over whether or not it is happening when I can't grasp the benefit of saying it isn't happening.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 04:04 pm
squinney wrote:
Okay, I'm gonna ask one last time. I would really like to hear from one of the nay sayers.


I don't look at myself as a 'nay sayer' just as a rational thinking human being.

squinney wrote:
WHAT GOOD DOES IT DO TO ARGUE THAT GLOBAL WARMING / CLIMATE INSTABILITY ISN'T HAPPENING?


Because it hasn't been conclusively proven to a lot of us that it IS happening. If it ISN'T all of this is just 'hot air'.

squinney wrote:
WHAT DO YOU OR SOCIETY GAIN FROM THIS POSITION?


How about peace of mind that all the facts are in before dreasically changing our lives and lifestyles.

squinney wrote:
WHY THE RESISTANCE TO THINKING IT POSSIBLE?

It makes no sense to me to keep arguing over whether or not it is happening when I can't grasp the benefit of saying it isn't happening.


Because if most of us listened to all of the Chicken Littles of the world who seem to be proclaiming "The Sky Is Falling" every month or so. Who would be able to live their lives in some happiness and joy?

There is a very remote chance that a de-orbiting sattilite might fall from the sky and crash onto my head, killing me, but I don't spend my whole life in my concrete bunker fearing that it will happen. Prove to me that on X date, at X time, I have to worry about a sattilite falling at X location, I will worry about it, but until I see provable, verifyable facts, I am going to just live my life.

The problem comes when people take a few items of data, spin a theory around it, package it for the masses, add in a little fear factor so the press will pay attention and then sell it as the "Next Great Callamity"

You may be selling, but I'm not going to buy it until I can see it.

I live here in Florida, so when the Atlantic Ocean is lapping up in my front yard and the Gulf of Mexico is washing up in my backyard, I will believe that there might be a problem. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 04:16 pm
Oh, and on a side note, if you don't think that the whole 'Global Warming' or 'Climate Instability' or whatever you choose to call it, is less about Science and more about some peoples private agendas ask yourselves THIS:

Why isnt this posting in a more appropriate area of the forums?

If it is about science, shouldn't it be in the:
Science & Mathematics Forum

If it is about the environment, shouldn't it be in the :
Wilderness, Wildlife & Ecology Forum

But it is not, because the whole issue is less about Science and more about advancing someones Political Agenda.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 04:20 pm
"Advancing someone's political agenda", fedral?

Your link goes here... http://www.nationalcenter.org/
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 04:50 pm
Fedral wrote:

Because if most of us listened to all of the Chicken Littles of the world who seem to be proclaiming "The Sky Is Falling" every month or so. Who would be able to live their lives in some happiness and joy?

There is a very remote chance that a de-orbiting sattilite might fall from the sky and crash onto my head, killing me, but I don't spend my whole life in my concrete bunker fearing that it will happen. Prove to me that on X date, at X time, I have to worry about a sattilite falling at X location, I will worry about it, but until I see provable, verifyable facts, I am going to just live my life.

The problem comes when people take a few items of data, spin a theory around it, package it for the masses, add in a little fear factor so the press will pay attention and then sell it as the "Next Great Callamity"Laughing


Question This coming from someone whom I suspect holds Bush's terrorism threat rants and the thrill-a-minute Homeland Security Yellow/Red Light brigade in high esteem.

You say the spectre of Global Warming is a Chicken Little wrecking your moments of joy & happiness, but what do you think about Homeland Security telling you what alert level you've got for the day?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 05:06 pm
Fedral - First, thank you for answering. I understand that is just your view and may not address the view of others that say global warming isn't happening, so if anyone else wants to jump in...

I take from your post that it's about not wanting to have to change your lifestyle until it's too late. Note that the ocean lapping at your door is a little late to change anything.

I don't worry about a meteor or any other space objects falling on my head. Neither do I worry about plane crashing into my house while I sleep. The difference is that those are things I / we can't control or do anything about. Polluting the atnosphere, using fuels that MAY be warming the earth and causing climate changes that affect our water and food supply, and not investing in clean energy IS something we can control.

Then, if it doesn't make any difference and the world still goes into a climatic tail spin, at least we did what we could and were able to breath, eat and drink cleaner while we did it.

That's how I see it. And, as far as any political agenda, I think you have it backwards. The oil companies are the ones with an agenda. If we go green, everyone wins. Stay with oil, gas and coal and only a few win.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 07:11 pm
squinney wrote:
Fedral - First, thank you for answering. I understand that is just your view and may not address the view of others that say global warming isn't happening, so if anyone else wants to jump in...


The more views the merrier, I always say. It's just when certain peoples refuse to consider the possibility that they may be wrong on this issue. I may be ... but it would be foolish or arrogant for you to believe that YOU may not be right.

squinney wrote:

I take from your post that it's about not wanting to have to change your lifestyle until it's too late. Note that the ocean lapping at your door is a little late to change anything.


Sorry if you dont recognize sarcastic comment when you read one .. hint for the future ... the laughing smiley face is a clue.

squinney wrote:

I don't worry about a meteor or any other space objects falling on my head. Neither do I worry about plane crashing into my house while I sleep. The difference is that those are things I / we can't control or do anything about. Polluting the atnosphere, using fuels that MAY be warming the earth and causing climate changes that affect our water and food supply, and not investing in clean energy IS something we can control.


My problem is when people are demanding something like Kyoto where all countries make pollution cuts ... whether you are already spending any money on pollution control or not ... unless you are one of those 'underdeveloped countries' who are exempt and can pollute all they want.

squinney wrote:

Then, if it doesn't make any difference and the world still goes into a climatic tail spin, at least we did what we could and were able to breath, eat and drink cleaner while we did it.


The problem is, if you try to enforce some of the environmental changes that the enviros are clammoring for, the industrial world will go into an ECONOMIC tailspin, and if you dont think THAT will effect many peoples lives, you are being follish.

squinney wrote:

That's how I see it. And, as far as any political agenda, I think you have it backwards. The oil companies are the ones with an agenda. If we go green, everyone wins. Stay with oil, gas and coal and only a few win


You see what you are doing, you are villifying certain companies because of your personal views...

I don't always like what certain companies do, or their policies, but you are anthropormizing these companies into some cartoonish villians, twirling their evil mustaches and figuring how they can tie the Polly Pureheart world to the railroad tracks.

Companies do what is in their economic best interests, those companies that don't, go out of business.

Government regulates how far these companies can go in serving their own interests, making them clean their pollution, not fix prices, and act within the bounds which the government decides are proper for businesses.

Governments should not regulate businesses to the point of which they can't compete in the world market.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 07:45 pm
squinney wrote:
Okay, I'm gonna ask one last time. I would really like to hear from one of the nay sayers.

WHAT GOOD DOES IT DO TO ARGUE THAT GLOBAL WARMING / CLIMATE INSTABILITY ISN'T HAPPENING?

WHAT DO YOU OR SOCIETY GAIN FROM THIS POSITION?

WHY THE RESISTANCE TO THINKING IT POSSIBLE?

It makes no sense to me to keep arguing over whether or not it is happening when I can't grasp the benefit of saying it isn't happening.


Squinney's questions are good and they deserve an answer. In brief it is this, If we accept the latest propaganda from the zealots of global warming and climatological instability, then we have about a decade in which to reverse an accumulation of greenhouse gasses that began well over a century ago, If the latest doomsday scenario about a "tipping point" at 400ppm CO2 and/or a 10 deg C rise is true (and it is not) then we have but a short time in which to reduce the production of greenhouse gasses by about half. Using all the available technologies at breakneck speed we would be unable to meet such a goal without severely reducing food production, the production of industrial goods and the transportation of people and materials all over the planet. Millions would starve and the quality of life for those who survived would be quite unlike what we have today. There is no power on earth that could force or persuade people in competing countries to accept such a program.

The reductions planned in the Kyoto treaty were the merest drop in the bucket compared to this requirement. The greatest increase in greenhouse gas production both in absolute and relative terms is occurring in India and China. Kyoto exempted these countries from any remedial action whatever.

We are being confronted with highly improbable doomsday scenarios by people who advocate remedies that are utterly trivial compared to the requirement, if we take their earnest forecasts to be true. The fact is these are but scare tactics designed to mobilize an ill-informed, malleable public into actions that will likely cause far more harm to humanity than the problem they are designed to address.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 07/08/2020 at 09:17:23