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

okie wrote:

I think it makes perfect sense to look at Mars as part of the system related to the sun, which likely varies slightly in terms of solar energy emitted.

How about the very significant change in population and land use, especially in and around cities, agricultural and otherwise, which influence humidity, absorption of solar radiation, and other inter-related factors, which of course influence temperatures? ... Oh Embarrassed

- I just noticed that you asked that already yourself.

0 Replies

http://www.extremescience.com/sun.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030926070112.htm

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pfsf/is_200105/ai_2291457771

Just a sampling of thoughts about only one factor, the sun, imagine that!, that influences climate, that we really do not know that much about.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:
I think it makes perfect sense to look at Mars as part of the system related to the sun, which likely varies slightly in terms of solar energy emitted.

How about the very significant change in population and land use, especially in and around cities, agricultural and otherwise, which influence humidity, absorption of solar radiation, and other inter-related factors, which of course influence temperatures? ... Oh - I just noticed that you asked that already yourself.

I don't know if you are trying to be funny, but anyway, in the case of Mars, obviously not any change of land use, so the change in climate JUST MIGHT be due to the sun. Hmmmmm, if thats the case, then could it not affect other of its planets, such as the one we are living on? Just an okie here using a little logic. Isn't that what scientists are supposed to do, use logic?

Part of the reason scientists are going to have to really get their ducks in a row to prove something concerning global warming, I can remember just a few decades ago some were predicting doom from another ice age. How quickly that idea evaporated when the cycle changed, so how long will this global warming doomsdayers kick last? Probably until the next cycle is my expectation.

0 Replies

To our knowledge, Mars does not have people, carbon emissions, carbon dioxide, or water.

0 Replies

sumac wrote:

To our knowledge, Mars does not have people, carbon emissions, carbon dioxide, or water.

Thats the point.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
Is it at all possible, or do we even let it enter our thinking that there needs to be given a greater margin of error for much of the data that is many decades old and measured differently than the current data against which it is compared?

If we are talking about a difference of 1-2 degrees, I think any reasonable person would approach 100 year old temperature records with a healthy degree of skepticism and wonder: just how accurate are these?

Are they as accurate as the data we gather today, or has our investment in multimillion dollar pieces of equipment gained us NO additional accuracy in data gathering?

Interesting that you say there is inaccuracy but then demand that we believe ALL the inaccuracy is only in one direction. Statistics would say it is as likely for the inaccuracy to be in both directions making the average over that time reasonably accurate.

The doubtful argument is yours rl. Just because you don't want to believe something doesn't make it inaccurate. Provide evidence of all the measurements being too cold. Failure to do so leaves us with standard statistical analysis.

Wouldn't your time be better spent trying to convince us with facts instead of your fantastical tales of how people 100 years ago all read thermometers 1-2 degrees colder than actual?
If half the people read thermometers correctly back then it would require the other half to be off by 2-4 degrees which becomes even more unlikely in your scenario.

Some of the inaccuracy could go either direction, too hot or too cold. That's the point. Dogmatic pronouncements on what X period of time was when compared with now are rendered meaningless when we don't know if the data gathered during X is accurate or not.

I even allow for the possibility that there is global warming taking place (or hadn't you noticed) but that it may be due to solar conditions mostly (and little if any due to manmade activity) since another nearby planet seems to be experiencing similar conditions.

Either of these is a good argument against the dogmatic assertions of scare mongers and scientists looking to squeeze grant money out of a frightened public, and politicians seeking to ride into office as saviors by promising draconian measures. ('The internal combustion engine is the greatest threat facing mankind' --Al Gore , inventor of the internet )

0 Replies

"...draconian measures....scare mongers.....people looking for federal money....politicans coming in as saviors..." I thought that was area of Homeland Security.

You certainly have revealed a hard, preconceived bias. Based in politics, not science.

0 Replies

sumac wrote:

"...draconian measures....scare mongers.....people looking for federal money....politicans coming in as saviors..." I thought that was area of Homeland Security.

You certainly have revealed a hard, preconceived bias. Based in politics, not science.

Another term for "hard, preconceived bias" is "healthy skepticism," which tends toward more sound science and more balanced decision making rather than political bandwagons. I like real life's philosophy.

0 Replies

Okie:

Quote:

You cannot pick one factor out of say a dozen factors that may affect the climate, then assume that the other 11 factors are perfectly static when the evidence indicates otherwise, then make conclusions based on the variations or observations of the one factor you happen to pick out as your pet project to illustrate an assumption. That is very poor science.

Yeah, I understand this. See:

The earth is going through a 'warming trend' for whatever reason;

Mars is going through a 'warming trend' for whatever reason;

This doesn't mean the two reasons neccessarily have anything to do with each other at all. Until there is conclusive proof that they do, it is foolish to assume that they do; rather, the intelligent thing to do is to investigate to the best of our ability what is causing the changes we are experiencing here at home.

Also, I would like to re-emphasize the fact that I find the term 'global warming' to be highly misleading and a poor term for the purposes of this discussion. As you pointed out on the last page, it isn't just a matter of total temperature rising or falling, but spot and local tempertures and weather pattern change that really cause problems, and also may really be linked to human habitation.

Therefore, I much prefer the term 'climate instability.' Here's an important point to consider: there is no guarantee that our weather patterns will remain stable over time. We may not have to have any rise in temperatures at all (though the average ocean temperature rise over the last few years seems linked to the increase in strong hurricanes) in order for the weather patterns which we rely upon to survive to change.

I recommend caution! Better for us to experience some economic troubles than to push our alignment out of whack. I'm not some greenie who recommends we shut down all factories or outlaw cars; but there is nothing but foolishness in failing to adequately investigate our world, and the effects that we have on it.

Cycloptichorn

ps. at some point, we hope to start colonizing and terraforming other planets; the information gained now will be invaluable in doing so! Research always has a use in the end...

0 Replies

Investigate yes. Follow all leads yes. Keep an open mind about all credible opinions until theories or proved right, wrong, or unprovable, yes. That means looking at opposing scientific opinion before forming a firm opinion.

Implement expensive and possibly counter-productive policy and lifestyle changes based on unproved science, no.

0 Replies

Quote:

Implement expensive and possibly counter-productive policy and lifestyle changes based on unproved science, no.

How can reducing pollution/emissions be counter-productive in any way? I understand that it would be expensive, but I'm not sure there is a downside from an environmental standpoint.

What point does the science have to reach before we can begin to take action based upon it? There has to be some sort of metric for those of you who don't wish us to take any action. What is it?

Remember that,

Quote:

Keep an open mind about all credible opinions until theories or proved right, wrong, or unprovable, yes.

Theories (in the scientific mode, especially with large systems such as a biosphere) are proven wrong all the time, but almost never proven right; they just merely haven't been proven wrong yet. For example, the theories of gravitation and electromagnetism have not been proven correct, yet we rely upon them for much of our science.

Given that, can we wait to 'prove' that things are going badly due to our actions? Or is there a certain level of evidence that we must wait for? It always seems that there is some nebulous 'point' at which those who don't agree with the current theories of global warming will come around. What is that point?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Investigate yes. Follow all leads yes. Keep an open mind about all credible opinions until theories or proved right, wrong, or unprovable, yes. That means looking at opposing scientific opinion before forming a firm opinion.

Implement expensive and possibly counter-productive policy and lifestyle changes based on unproved science, no.

fox if your avatar is an ostrich with its head in the sand, its highly appropriate.

0 Replies

Okie said:

Quote:

You cannot pick one factor out of say a dozen factors that may affect the climate, then assume that the other 11 factors are perfectly static when the evidence indicates otherwise, then make conclusions based on the variations or observations of the one factor you happen to pick out as your pet project to illustrate an assumption. That is very poor science.

We don't have to do that either. We have any number of tools, such as multivariate statistical analyses, simulation, modeling, etc.

0 Replies

sumac wrote:

Okie said:

Quote:
You cannot pick one factor out of say a dozen factors that may affect the climate, then assume that the other 11 factors are perfectly static when the evidence indicates otherwise, then make conclusions based on the variations or observations of the one factor you happen to pick out as your pet project to illustrate an assumption. That is very poor science.

We don't have to do that either. We have any number of tools, such as multivariate statistical analyses, simulation, modeling, etc.

The problem is, the scientists can't get their models to produce an accurate analysis of today's climatology conditions using known data since weather statistics have been recorded. But we are supposed to accept these models as certainty of what transpired a thousand years ago or what is going to happen in the next thousand years and order our lives accordingly?

0 Replies

Foxfyer ssid:

"The problem is, the scientists can't get their models to produce an accurate analysis of today's climatology conditions using known data since weather statistics have been recorded. "

Based on what? And if it is true, even, that would mean nothing regarding the subject at hand.

0 Replies

I think we can sort out the wheat from the chaff really quickly here.

I would love to hear from some of the true believers in the concept of global warming.

What I want to know is, if you truly believe what you say:

Do you heat/cool your home using fossil fuels? (This would include electricity gained by burning coal, etc)

Do you use public transportation or a bike to commute to work?

How many miles do you put on your car annually?

How many miles per gallon does your car get?

Do you use any other gas driven machinery (lawn mower, weed trimmer, motorboat, etc) ?

Do you attend events at night (concerts, movies, sports events, etc ) or shop during the evening which necessitates extra electricity usage and therefore may cause more fossil fuels being burned?

How many electric or gas appliances have you disposed of to cut back on your use of energy? What were they?

What alternate power source are you using for your home's needs and what % of the power used at your home is from this alternate method?

Are you just talking the talk, or are you walking the walk?

0 Replies

Since I don't own our flat, I have to take the energy as the owner and the owner associaton decides.

But:
- we've energy saving bulbs all over,
- heat reducing material,
- low energy maschines,
- drive by bike for short distances,
- have a car with 48 miles (UK)/40 miles (US) per gallon (Diesel, kat, carbon-particulate filter) [that's not going faster than 80 miles/h, I admit]),
- our electricity supplier uses more than 15% of his energy resources from alternative resources (we can see that on the bills) ...

We could more, I admit.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yeah, I understand this. See:

The earth is going through a 'warming trend' for whatever reason;

Mars is going through a 'warming trend' for whatever reason;

This doesn't mean the two reasons neccessarily have anything to do with each other at all. Until there is conclusive proof that they do, it is foolish to assume that they do; rather, the intelligent thing to do is to investigate to the best of our ability what is causing the changes we are experiencing here at home.

I don't think anybody is "assuming" that warming on Mars and Earth are linked, but I have gathered that many assume they are not linked. Personally, it makes much sense to consider the very real possibility that they might be. I think it is foolish to discount the link. And if any real warming is definitely proven on Earth, and if it might be due to increased solar energy from the sun, then that renders the political agenda of the global warming crowd to be rather pointless. If it is due to the sun, it would seem that we would be rather powerless to control it. Could that be the reason the possibility is not given much credence? I think it might be. If scientists are truly looking at the facts alone, apart from their political agenda, then they should be willing to look at all possibilities, rather than exercising tunnel vision and focusing on their unproven assumptions.

If two rocks, one dry and one wet, are situated near a heater, and both are observed to be getting warmer, is it more logical to first think that it might be due to the heater rather than first thinking that the reason the wet rock is getting warmer is because it is wet? Just an exercise in logic here, but that would seem to be a similar scenario to the situation of Mars, Earth, and the Sun, with Mars being the dry rock or free of human activity, Earth being the wet rock with human activity, and the Sun being the heater.

0 Replies

sumac, your information simply reinforces what many people have figured out for a long time. One prime example is the old main stream media has long contended they are unbiased, which many of us have figured out to be obviously bogus.

I think an interesting factor to examine is the root of our bias. For example, do we believe in the principle that all people are basicly good by nature, or do we believe that human nature is basicly flawed and that the forces of good and evil do exist? Do we believe in God? These basic root beliefs help determine whether we think some problems can be fixed, and if so, can they be fixed by government or by some other means? Also, these root beliefs will affect our beliefs toward war, disarmament, government policies, our relationships with others, personally and otherwise. In other words, the seed or the root determines what kind of plant results.

Perhaps rather than evaluate our beliefs on current issues, we need to evaluate the root of our beliefs to see if it is valid.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know