BBC: What Happened to Global Warming? - Page 7

purpleoscar · 10-23-2009, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS

Wow, three posts and not ONE actually addresses the point. I quit you.

More like you don't address mine other than it's "bad science". Of course this is your point of view. Others think the IPCC has plenty of bad science as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS

No, it's a slow process. There are still forms of energy that we haven't found yet, so how can it be limited? And no where did I say Austrailia relies mainly on solar. Your arguments just flat out suck, because you can NEVER respond to the point, you always talk around the subject and then make up the oppositions stance as you go.

Yeah, I'm done.

So if we haven't found these great technologies yet why make people suffer while we wait 4 or 5 decades? Even if the premise that the Earth is super sensitive to C02 is true (which apparently in the pre-cambrian period it wasn't, hence disagreeing with the IPCC) it still would be less draconian to adapt until a replacement comes along than to start a world government and fleece the west for 3rd world social programs that corrupt countries can abuse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

moot
I'm sorry. I had to. It was like an itch I had to scratch

ocd

oops

**KhanadaRhodes** · 10-23-2009, 09:25 PM

guys, i've heard this is going to be our coldest winter ever where i live. plus, it's unseasonably cold here. i've debunked this whole global warming myth!

BVS · 10-23-2009, 10:50 PM

I've also heard that wind power doesn't work everywhere, so that means it shouldn't be explored at all. It's worthless.

And just because certain areas get enough sun to power that area effeciently and economically doesn't mean it's a power source to look into.

And did you know there are certain folks who support greener living but they don't actually do it themselves so it must be a hoax.

Plus I have at least 5 scientist(plus 3 am radio talk show hosts) that say it's all made up socialist bullshit.

The_Pac_Mule · 10-24-2009, 02:13 PM

Quote:

guys, i've heard this is going to be our coldest winter ever where i live. plus, it's unseasonably cold here. i've debunked this whole global warming myth!

The point I was trying to make is that the term "global warming" is somewhat innaccurate. Yes, a lot of places are getting warmer, and that's not good. But a lot of places are getting colder, such as here. That's why I use the term "climate change/shift." It certainly would get some of the, ah, country folk, who around here will go, "It ain't gettin warmer, it be gettin' pretty damn cold," to realize that yes, maybe we do have a problem. A lot of people where I live don't believe in "global warming" because the weather is getting colder and colder.

purpleoscar · 10-24-2009, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS

I've also heard that wind power doesn't work everywhere, so that means it shouldn't be explored at all. It's worthless.

And just because certain areas get enough sun to power that area effeciently and economically doesn't mean it's a power source to look into.

And did you know there are certain folks who support greener living but they don't actually do it themselves so it must be a hoax.

Plus I have at least 5 scientist(plus 3 am radio talk show hosts) that say it's all made up socialist bullshit.

Well you have to admit that wind and solar can't be explored to the point of working everywhere so shutting down coal plants WILL hurt the economy. You also have to admit that socialists tend to support cap and trade and world government and there are plenty of businesses and 3rd world governments that stand to make a fortune even if they don't produce something tangible. I can already smell another boom/bust scenario.

BTW there are more than 5 scientists disagreeing. Those are just the ones that get more play and are using new satellite data.

Oh well I shouldn't get too upset. Cap and trade failed in Europe and when the bills come due you will see pressure to downplay it. Economic suicide ends up being political suicide in democracies. I can't see the U.S. truely shutting down coal plants everywhere without some massive nuclear projects to replace them.

DrTeeth · 10-24-2009, 10:20 PM

Even if I didn't think anthropogenic climate change was an issue (and even with all it's uncertainties, I think it's going to be a huge issue), I'd still support moving away from fossil fuels for economical and geopolitical reasons. More demand and less (or more expensive) supply is going to raise prices through the roof in within a couple of decades. Besides, for how long are we going to ship huge sums of money to unstable regimes?

I'm convinced we're going to have to switch to a hydrogen economy sooner or later, so we need to invest in cleaner and safer nuclear energy as soon as possible, and work on green energy to at least bridge the gap between a fossil and hydrogen economy.

Even if you disregard environmental effects, climate change and geopolitical aspects, fossil fuels aren't going to last forever so we might as well move on as soon as possible and keep some of this money in our pockets instead of shipping our cash to undemocratic regimes.

purpleoscar · 10-25-2009, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrTeeth

Even if I didn't think anthropogenic climate change was an issue (and even with all it's uncertainties, I think it's going to be a huge issue), I'd still support moving away from fossil fuels for economical and geopolitical reasons. More demand and less (or more expensive) supply is going to raise prices through the roof in within a couple of decades. Besides, for how long are we going to ship huge sums of money to unstable regimes?

I'm convinced we're going to have to switch to a hydrogen economy sooner or later, so we need to invest in cleaner and safer nuclear energy as soon as possible, and work on green energy to at least bridge the gap between a fossil and hydrogen economy.

Even if you disregard environmental effects, climate change and geopolitical aspects, fossil fuels aren't going to last forever so we might as well move on as soon as possible and keep some of this money in our pockets instead of shipping our cash to undemocratic regimes.

I agree but we are not running out of fossil fuels for hundreds of years. It's better to go with the nuclear option since it's cheaper and keep doing research in the meantime for something even better. Nuclear fusion (as opposed to fission) is projected to be a few decades away and is better than fission. Craig Venter wants to develop bacteria that eat C02 and create octane (hopefully in enough quantities). I'm sure there will be others that I don't know about but I want a vibrant enough economy to try these different options until they actually deliver what they promise (as opposed to ethanol).

anitram · 10-25-2009, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

I agree but we are not running out of fossil fuels for hundreds of years.

Yes, so that we can stay slaves to petty Middle Eastern sheiks for the next several hundred years, and to the oil cartel and to speculators that raise prices because they feel like it that day and then that trickles down our economies, and to ridiculous regional conflicts that have little or nothing to do with us but we are held hostage to them because of the wonders of fossil fuel. Either that, or we can just systematically invade everywhere that has oil, hey, Sting will tell you all about how that's necessary for global stability (you might wanna duck and cover out there in Alberta though).

Thanks but no thanks.

hiphop · 10-25-2009, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anitram

Yes, so that we can stay slaves to petty Middle Eastern sheiks for the next several hundred years, and to the oil cartel and to speculators that raise prices because they feel like it that day and then that trickles down our economies, and to ridiculous regional conflicts that have little or nothing to do with us but we are held hostage to them because of the wonders of fossil fuel. Either that, or we can just systematically invade everywhere that has oil, hey, Sting will tell you all about how that's necessary for global stability (you might wanna duck and cover out there in Alberta though).

Thanks but no thanks.

There is oil in Alaska tho

Kieran McConville · 10-25-2009, 07:38 PM

Not to get all peak oil on your asses guys, but the bell curve comes in handy at this point in the discussion. Ie. the problems start a long time before the oil runs out. In fact they start as soon as supply can no longer meet demand.

purpleoscar · 10-25-2009, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anitram

Thanks but no thanks.

At minimum nuclear power would have to be implemented to get some reductions in a less painful way. Let's see if the U.S. will actually go in that direction. Obama is musing about it but McCain/Palin were gung-ho about drilling domestically and building more nuclear power plants for energy security. We will have to see what happens at Copenhagen and what concrete plans are ACTUALLY undertaken. Preventing increased domestic drilling and ignoring nuclear would make the U.S. more dependent on foreign oil than before.

A_Wanderer · 10-26-2009, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

More like you don't address mine other than it's "bad science". Of course this is your point of view. Others think the IPCC has plenty of bad science as well.

Produce the criticisms from peer reviewed journals rather than industry funded think tanks. There are lots of things that aren't understood about how Earth's climate system works, but you're appealing to the wrong sources.

Quote:

So if we haven't found these great technologies yet why make people suffer while we wait 4 or 5 decades?

A very legitimate point, developed nations don't have any right to deny developing nations a higher living standard, but this has to be weighed against the risks of tipping the climate system into dangerous territory.

Quote:

Even if the premise that the Earth is super sensitive to C02 is true (which apparently in the pre-cambrian period it wasn't, hence disagreeing with the IPCC) it still would be less draconian to adapt until a replacement comes along than to start a world government and fleece the west for 3rd world social programs that corrupt countries can abuse.

It's a UN plot to overthrow capitalism, that aspect speaks for itself. But can you please explain what aspects of precambrian climate disprove anthropogenic climate change? Because I don't think you can make a meaningful direct comparison between the climate system 500Ma and today.
- There were no plants on the land.
- There was a different continental distribution, which has a big impact on how much sunlight is absorbed into the planet
- The climate regime accommodated much more CO2 in the atmosphere, this doesn't disprove anthropogenic climate change it just reveals that the Earth's climate system has changed in time. The issue is that our emissions are accelerating the rate of change to the point that many species will not be able to adapt, not to mention the side effects such as ocean acidification, and the risks of tipping off a runaway process that could trigger a mass extinction (e.g. unlocking methane in permafrost, or releasing methane clathrates in ocean sediments). Appealing to differences in the past and pointing out our ignorance of how climate works in every possible situation isn't an excuse to delay action about established facts, a precautionary approach must be taken.

A_Wanderer · 10-26-2009, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book.

Only one problem: It's not true, according to several independent statisticians who analyzed temperature data for The Associated Press.

The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It's been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs?

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

Yet the idea that things are cooling has been repeated in opinion columns, a BBC news story posted on the Drudge Report and in a new book by the authors of the best-seller "Freakonomics." Last week, a poll by the Pew Research Center found that only 57 percent of Americans now believe there is strong scientific evidence for global warming, down from 77 percent in 2006.

Global warming skeptics base their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. Since then, they say, temperatures have dropped - thus, a cooling trend. But it's not that simple.

Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.

The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA's climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.

"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."

Analysis rejects 'global cooling' claims | Minnesota Public Radio NewsQ

Science usually manages to be self-correcting, it doesn't just label particular results as socialist in order to ignore the problem.

purpleoscar · 10-26-2009, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A_Wanderer

Produce the criticisms from peer reviewed journals rather than industry funded think tanks. There are lots of things that aren't understood about how Earth's climate system works, but you're appealing to the wrong sources.

Lord Monckton is displaying peer reviewed science that disagrees with the IPCC and he shows how they manipulate data to get extreme scenarios that are being proven wrong. Don't expect the U.N. to display it. Computer models suck at predicting weather weeks from now let alone years from now. The hockey stick graph has already been proven wrong by history and trying to eliminate earlier warm periods should make anyone suspicious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A_Wanderer

A very legitimate point, developed nations don't have any right to deny developing nations a higher living standard, but this has to be weighed against the risks of tipping the climate system into dangerous territory.

You can't have it both ways. If you want to slow down human C02 you would have to destroy an industrial economy in the west and stop growth in poorer countries otherwise it will increase.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A_Wanderer

It's a UN plot to overthrow capitalism, that aspect speaks for itself.

I think it's sheepish to give up power to unelected government bodies (especially the corrupt U.N.) out of alarmism. When people tell you to "ACT NOW" all the time it's because they don't want you to do the proper due diligence. It also doesn't help that the founder of Greenpeace said the Marxists took it over. Just as there are right-wing think tanks, and there are left-wing think tanks as well. You are skeptical of one and credulous to the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A_Wanderer

But can you please explain what aspects of precambrian climate disprove anthropogenic climate change? Because I don't think you can make a meaningful direct comparison between the climate system 500Ma and today.
- There were no plants on the land.
- There was a different continental distribution, which has a big impact on how much sunlight is absorbed into the planet
- The climate regime accommodated much more CO2 in the atmosphere, this doesn't disprove anthropogenic climate change it just reveals that the Earth's climate system has changed in time. The issue is that our emissions are accelerating the rate of change to the point that many species will not be able to adapt, not to mention the side effects such as ocean acidification, and the risks of tipping off a runaway process that could trigger a mass extinction (e.g. unlocking methane in permafrost, or releasing methane clathrates in ocean sediments). Appealing to differences in the past and pointing out our ignorance of how climate works in every possible situation isn't an excuse to delay action about established facts, a precautionary approach must be taken.

If 20 times the C02 doesn't raise the temperature back then why would it now? The argument is about the atmosphere and radiation being trapped not the development of life. Geologists are aware of where the plates likely were. Many of the "deniers" are geologists precisely because they go farther back than climatologists.

If Lindzen finds that radiation is actually getting out of the atmosphere much faster than the IPCC then where is this warming acceleration? The argument about cloud feedback hasn't been settled yet and trillions of dollars in transfer of wealth to corrupt 3rd world countries is not precautionary but recklessness. The fact that the U.N. is shifting from global warming to climate change (climate has always changed) to ocean acidification over a few years shows that they haven't got it straight yet. They also downplay their scary scenarios as time goes on because their models keep predicting wrong.

Cap and trade failed in Europe precisely because nobody really believes we are going to purposefully destroy the economy because that is political suicide. It's just a way to create government "green jobs". Everyone knows that C02 by man is going to increase until we have a real replacement for fossil fuels. These climate change meetings and projections are never met just like Obama promising energy independence in 10 years or a world without nuclear weapons. It's just talk. There's no way that China and India are going to listen to rich countries and stop growth so instead we have to bribe them with lots of money so we get poorer and they can continue to grow.

Maybe we need to try a treaty in Copenhagen and go through the pain so people will realise how futile the endeavour is and how many flaws there are in the plan and how little C02 is actually reduced.

Se7en · 10-27-2009, 09:16 AM

do tell me more about the UN's nefarious plot to overthrow capitalism. sounds juicy.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
2008 International Conference on Climate Change	purpleoscar	Free Your Mind	19	04-17-2009 06:56 PM
New York Times: Cool the Hype	MaxFisher	Free Your Mind Archive	17	03-18-2007 05:09 PM
If You Wear A ONE White Band....	Jamila	Free Your Mind Archive	18	05-27-2005 06:46 PM

10-24-2009, 10:20 PM	#96
DrTeeth Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: The Q continuum Posts: 4,641 Local Time: 08:41 PM	Even if I didn't think anthropogenic climate change was an issue (and even with all it's uncertainties, I think it's going to be a huge issue), I'd still support moving away from fossil fuels for economical and geopolitical reasons. More demand and less (or more expensive) supply is going to raise prices through the roof in within a couple of decades. Besides, for how long are we going to ship huge sums of money to unstable regimes? I'm convinced we're going to have to switch to a hydrogen economy sooner or later, so we need to invest in cleaner and safer nuclear energy as soon as possible, and work on green energy to at least bridge the gap between a fossil and hydrogen economy. Even if you disregard environmental effects, climate change and geopolitical aspects, fossil fuels aren't going to last forever so we might as well move on as soon as possible and keep some of this money in our pockets instead of shipping our cash to undemocratic regimes.

10-25-2009, 07:38 PM	#100
Kieran McConville Rock n' Roll Doggie Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: William Randolph Hearst Posts: 3,703 Local Time: 07:41 PM	Not to get all peak oil on your asses guys, but the bell curve comes in handy at this point in the discussion. Ie. the problems start a long time before the oil runs out. In fact they start as soon as supply can no longer meet demand.

10-27-2009, 09:16 AM	#105
Se7en Rock n' Roll Doggie Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: all around in the dark - everywhere Posts: 3,534 Local Time: 02:41 PM	do tell me more about the UN's nefarious plot to overthrow capitalism. sounds juicy.