Home | Community | Message Board


High Mountain Compost
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Edibles   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains   North Spore Bulk Substrate, Cultivation Supplies, Injection Grain Bag, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Amazon Calcium Carbonate, Hemp, Portable Greenhouse

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Global Warming: The Final Proof?
    #3802733 - 02/19/05 09:38 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

The Final Proof

The final proof: global warming is a man-made disaster
By Steve Connor, Science Editor in Washington
19 February 2005


Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The researchers - many funded by the US government - have seen what they describe as a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean temperature over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere.

The study destroys a central argument of global warming sceptics within the Bush administration - that climate change could be a natural phenomenon. It should convince George Bush to drop his objections to the Kyoto treaty on climate change, the scientists say.

Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and a leading member of the team, said: "We've got a serious problem. The debate is no longer: 'Is there a global warming signal?' The debate now is what are we going to do about it?"

The findings are crucial because much of the evidence of a warmer world has until now been from air temperatures, but it is the oceans that are the driving force behind the Earth's climate. Dr Barnett said: "Over the past 40 years there has been considerable warming of the planetary system and approximately 90 per cent of that warming has gone directly into the oceans."

He told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington: "We defined a 'fingerprint' of ocean warming. Each of the oceans warmed differently at different depths and constitutes a fingerprint which you can look for. We had several computer simulations, for instance one for natural variability: could the climate system just do this on its own? The answer was no.

"We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming."

America produces a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, yet under President Bush it is one of the few developed nations not to have signed the Kyoto treaty to limit emissions. The President's advisers have argued that the science of global warming is full of uncertainties and change might be a natural phenomenon.

Dr Barnett said that position was untenable because it was now clear from the latest study, which is yet to be published, that man-made greenhouse gases had caused vast amounts of heat to be soaked up by the oceans. "It's a good time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to re-evaluate their positions and see if it would be to their advantage to join," he said.

The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met Office's Hadley Centre.

They analysed more than 7 million recordings of ocean temperature from around the world, along with about 2 million readings of sea salinity, and compared the rise in temperatures at different depths to predictions made by two computer simulations of global warming.

"Two models, one from here and one from England, got the observed warming almost exactly. In fact we were stunned by the degree of similarity," Dr Barnett said. "The models are right. So when a politician stands up and says 'the uncertainty in all these simulations start to question whether we can believe in these models', that argument is no longer tenable." Typical ocean temperatures have increased since 1960 by between 0.5C and 1C, depending largely on depth. Dr Barnett said: "The real key is the amount of energy that has gone into the oceans. If we could mine the energy that has gone in over the past 40 years we could run the state of California for 200,000 years... It's come from greenhouse warming."

Because the global climate is largely driven by the heat locked up in the oceans, a rise in sea temperatures could have devastating effects for many parts of the world.

Ruth Curry, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said that warming could alter important warm-water currents such as the Gulf Stream, as melting glaciers poured massive volumes of fresh water into the North Atlantic. "These changes are happening and they are expected to amplify. It's a certainty that these changes will put serious strains on the ecosystems of the planet," Dr Curry said.
19 February 2005 14:46


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3802823 - 02/19/05 11:10 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

I'm glad you were smart enough to add that '?'
Because the answer is no.
And if anyone thinks the publishing of this study is will make the White House flinch, they'd better think again.

All the same, I applaud this research. I'm currently assisting a doc who's doing something very similar; studying salinity data off the Canadian coast... As I've said before, I think scientists making statements about proof tend to hurt the cause more than help. Almost all the researchers I've met who deal with things like this are very respectable people. And I don't think they would consciously mislead the public... Maybe they just believe it so much it becomes 'proof' in their minds. Some of these guys pour decades of their lives into a single study. Maybe they want those years to have some immediate and very significant meaninig...? I don't know. It's just something I'm noticing more and more where I work right now.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinelonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 10 years, 1 month
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3802837 - 02/19/05 11:19 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

i blame the sun... its just to fucking hot!


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineexclusive58
illegal alien

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 2,146
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: lonestar2004]
    #3802906 - 02/19/05 12:20 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

I don't get it, if this is the first study that suppositively prooves that global-warming is man made, why do they call it the "final proof", instead of like "first official proof" or something. I hope they don't imply by "final" that its the last proof!


Anyways, i guess it could be interesting to find proofs that global warming is man-made just to try to convince the politicians to wake up and do sumfin about it.
Nevertheless to wait for the direct scientifically backep-up link between the two before doing anything is plain stupid. Climate change is obvious, trees are dying, the is not nutritious enough to give life, animal species are disappearing.

At this point, not acknowledging that global warming is our fault is just like seating in your house that is burning down and saying "i'm not the one that started the fire, i'm not going to put it out".


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: exclusive58]
    #3803192 - 02/19/05 02:22 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

This latest report is no more"proof" than any previous data.

And no, it is not "obvious" at all that man's activities are warming the planet.

Apart from the various links in previous threads here (debunking the "hockey stick" graph, demonstration of conflicting measurements through satellite measurements and more), Michael Crichton has an excellent lecture on this topic. It's too long to cut and paste, but it is worthwhile reading for anyone who is actually interested in the "science" behind this debate.

If you've already convinced yourself that human activity is warming the planet, don't bother clicking the link.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html



Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshroommachine
Stranger
Male User Gallery
Registered: 01/03/05
Posts: 1,202
Loc: Florida
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3803214 - 02/19/05 02:29 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

just because 2 things happen at the same time dosen't mean they are related.


--------------------
And I said, I don't care if they lay me off either, because I told, I told Bill that if they move my desk one more time, then, then I'm, I'm quitting, I'm going to quit. And, and I told Don too, because they've moved my desk ...four times already this year and I used to be over by the window and I could see the squirrels, and they were merry, but then, they switched from the Swingline to the Boston stapler, but I kept my Swingline stapler because it didn't bind up as much and I kept the staples for the Swingline stapler and its not okay because if they take my stapler then I'll set the building on fire.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshroommachine
Stranger
Male User Gallery
Registered: 01/03/05
Posts: 1,202
Loc: Florida
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3803227 - 02/19/05 02:35 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

BTW, If Global Warming does exist, the only real solution is......






HEMP


Read "the emperor wears no clothes" by Jack Herer


Hemp can be used to make fuels. Fuel made from hemp, when burned, releases carbon into the atmosphere, but the carbon it releases was obtained from the atmosphere while it was growing, so no carbon has been added to the carbon cycle.


--------------------
And I said, I don't care if they lay me off either, because I told, I told Bill that if they move my desk one more time, then, then I'm, I'm quitting, I'm going to quit. And, and I told Don too, because they've moved my desk ...four times already this year and I used to be over by the window and I could see the squirrels, and they were merry, but then, they switched from the Swingline to the Boston stapler, but I kept my Swingline stapler because it didn't bind up as much and I kept the staples for the Swingline stapler and its not okay because if they take my stapler then I'll set the building on fire.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineexclusive58
illegal alien

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 2,146
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3803463 - 02/19/05 04:03 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
And no, it is not "obvious" at all that man's activities are warming the planet.





I never said that, i said that its "obvious" that the climate is changing at a fast rate, then its up to you to decide if this change is caused by man. To me, it seems like its an "evidence", but its fine with me if you're waiting for scientific data that prooves the link between man and climate change to make up your mind. The only problem is that by then it might be too late to do anything, and you'll just end up regretting not having payed attention early enough.


Edited by exclusive58 (02/19/05 04:13 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3803811 - 02/19/05 05:48 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

This latest report is no more"proof" than any previous data.




Pinky hath spoken...

While some of the more gullible members of this board may take your pronouncements as fact Id prefer a little more substance.

Quote:

Michael Crichton has an excellent lecture on this topic. It's too long to cut and paste, but it is worthwhile reading for anyone who is actually interested in the "science" behind this debate.





Michael Crichton is a novelist not a scientist!! Come on Pinky, you criticise people for using Michael Moore to backup their beliefs and you take the words of a novelist over respected scientists and studies involving years of research and massive amounts of data.

Quote:

If you've already convinced yourself that human activity is warming the planet, don't bother clicking the link.





But if you have made up your mind that human activity isnt warming the planet click away to find the opinions of a great storyteller....


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: shroommachine]
    #3803819 - 02/19/05 05:51 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

just because 2 things happen at the same time dosen't mean they are related.




Is this your critique of the latest research or just a knee jerk statement you have just spewed out without any real conscious thought on your part?

Just checkin...  :smile:


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3803844 - 02/19/05 05:58 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)



--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3803879 - 02/19/05 06:14 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)



--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3803886 - 02/19/05 06:17 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

from Crichton's lecture:

"Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?"



HAHAHAHA michael crichton just convinced me not to worry about global warming!

"And what would they do about all the horseshit?"
indeed

:lol:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3803889 - 02/19/05 06:17 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

What I said is absolutely correct. These new measurements and computer simulations aren't proof. If you had bothered to read the very article you'd posted, you'd note that the paper hasn't even been published yet, much less peer-reviewed. So far it's just a couple of researchers tooting their own horn.

Further, if you had bothered to actually read the article you posted, you'd see that they are claiming causality with no proof of it. As was pointed out already, the fact that two things occur simultaneously does not mean one caused the other.

Moving on to Crichton...

Crichton is in fact a scientist. He is a medical doctor. And -- as I knew would be the case -- you didnt take the time to read the link I posted. The "rebuttal" you posted has nothing to do with Crichton's lecture. Everything -- every single thing -- Crichton brings up in his lecture is verifiable. This is completely the opposite of Michael Moore's chicanery, which doesn't hold up to even casual scrutiny.

I'd ask you to read Crichton's lecture, then cut and paste the parts of it you have found to be untrue, but I know it'd be a waste of breath. You'll never read it because you just know that mankind's activities are causing global warming.

You are of course free to continue to believe that. Your belief can't harm me in any way.



Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3803897 - 02/19/05 06:21 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

In response to your second link, this commentor beat me to it --

"This guy Farrell is a newly minted (2000) Phd in Political Science! From the tone of his condescending skewering of Crichton you'd think he was a top rank scientist at the National Academy of Science for cryin' out loud.

If you examine what Farrell's said, he offers no real counter-argument to Crichton, and he establishes no facts. Basically all he says is that Bjorn Lomborg thinks global warming is real. Hate to clue Farrell in, but Crichton believes it's real too. Crichton admits that the average temperature seems to have risen .3 C in the last century. He simply disputes whether it has been well established that the rise is outside the normal variation of earth temperatures."

And another commentor brings up the same thing I've posted here in various global warming threads -- the recent confirmation by two separate teams of scientists of the increasing output of solar energy over the last few decades --

"The recent studies suggesting that sun activity is the main player in climate change are very convincing when taken with the also recent information on warming on other planets in the solar system. No SUV's there, except Mars of course."



Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #3803927 - 02/19/05 06:34 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Crichton continues:

"Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS... None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about.

Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it."




that's it then huh? we're bound to be wrong anyway so why even think about it?

Mr. Crichton is promoting a very dangerous way of thinking.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3803977 - 02/19/05 06:59 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

"The recent studies suggesting that sun activity is the main player in climate change are very convincing when taken with the also recent information on warming on other planets in the solar system."

do you have anymore information on this?

perhaps that commentator was confused and was actually referring to the seasonal warming of the planets?

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_seasons_030709.html
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton-0715.html

is there evidence that increased solar activity is actually responsible for rising planetary temperatures?? this would be a remarkable discovery if it were true.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3803994 - 02/19/05 07:07 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

I think the big question with global warming is: Do we wait for definitive proof before taking preventative measures?


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3804002 - 02/19/05 07:10 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

What I said is absolutely correct.




Wow! It must be amazing being you pinky...Never, ever being wrong.

Lets face it, you dont know if this data is in fact proof of global warming or not and nor do I. However, I havent claimed it is.

The sooner you get rid of this unseemly urge of yours to pretend you are all knowing the better!

Quote:

If you had bothered to read the very article you'd posted,




How tediously arrogant of you. But so kind of you to provide me with a chance for an immediate riposte:

Quote:

So far it's just a couple of researchers tooting their own horn.





"The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met Office's Hadley Centre."

Hardly a couple of scientist tooting a horn is it? And you say you read the article?

Quote:

Crichton is in fact a scientist. He is a medical doctor.




It must have been an amazing med school that managed to teach him the intricacies of climate science at the same time as how to remove an appendix.


Quote:

And -- as I knew would be the case -- you didnt take the time to read the link I posted.




How do you know whether I read the link or not? Your arrogance beggars belief but it clearly illuminates the faulty thought processes and ego posturing that make up the workings of your mind and the laughable conclusions you reach. 10 out of 10 for pompous blustering though!

I read the lecture and its fairly obvious that this is merely an extension of his ideas which he expressed in his NOVEL State of Fear and therefore the first link I posted is relevant.

The second link I provided dealt directly with the amusing speech you originally posted.

Perhaps when the first Dinosaur theme park opens I will choose to take Crichton's fictions more seriously than: "scientists from the US Department of Energy, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met Office's Hadley Centre."

Anyway, this research is fresh out of the bag. Im sure the scientific community waits with baited breath for Crichton to refute the method and conclusion....


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Silversoul]
    #3804014 - 02/19/05 07:13 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

I think the big question with global warming is: Do we wait for definitive proof before taking preventative measures?




Me too!

Link


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3804029 - 02/19/05 07:18 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

I actually don't really have an answer to the question. I mean, if we are causing global warming, then it makes sense to stop it, but it won't be cheap, and will necessarily entail some restriction of people's freedoms, and I don't think it's good policy to do that just in case it might be true.


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Silversoul]
    #3804066 - 02/19/05 07:30 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Do we wait for definitive proof before taking preventative measures?

definitive proof may never come. if we hold out for 100% definitive proof. we will have essentially paralyzed ourselves in the face of a potential threat (this is basically what Crichton is surrendering to)

we should act when the evidence overwhelmingly points to human activity as the cause of global warming. I think we're close to that point now.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Silversoul]
    #3804153 - 02/19/05 07:56 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Paradigm said:
I think the big question with global warming is: Do we wait for definitive proof before taking preventative measures?




It would mean waiting for an infinite amount of time...
But I guess that's the plan.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3804223 - 02/19/05 08:31 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
This latest report is no more"proof" than any previous data.




Very true. But it doesn't really matter.

Quote:


Michael Crichton has an excellent lecture on this topic. It's too long to cut and paste, but it is worthwhile reading for anyone who is actually interested in the "science" behind this debate.




I'm glad you put science in quotations, because Crichton doesn't seem to use any. He presents a simple, meandering, occasionally logically coherent list of reasons to be skeptical of global warming research. It's an impressive list. I bet you could make a pretty good one. I assure you I could make a better one. It's not hard to do. This is shaky science. Always has been, always will be. The point is that we're all trying to get better with it.

Because, all things considered, this is important science to study. And I will gladly debate you or Michael Crichton on that. Contrary to what he (and I'm assuming you..?) would want us to think, global climate is worth studying. It's an issue that humans will absolutely have to confront in a very real way within the next few hundred years. The whole world. And our understanding of the science will determine whether it's something we can successfully manage (whether through environment regulation or some sort of advanced technology) or something that will bring catastrophe to our civilizations and economies.

Contrary to what many people and the press seem to think, the consensus of the global climate science community is NOT that 'global warming is absolutely being caused by humans.' It's more like 'there's a probable correlation. But we're not sure. We working our asses off to get a better understanding. We don't want to steal your SUVs. We just want some cash so we can continue our very boring research.' As someone who's spoken with and worked with many PhDs who study this, I can assure you this is really how most of them feel. Occasionally, one gets full of himself and decides he's going to be the new Moses. Then the press runs it, fervent capitalists get ahold of it and make the rest of us look like discredited dipshits. And so it goes.

Quote:


If you've already convinced yourself that human activity is warming the planet, don't bother clicking the link.

Phred




Why exactly?



PS: One thing I absolutely agree with Crichton on is the need to form an independent research system with a anonymous pool of funding.

PPS: Myself and lots of people around me are excited about the sun cycle stuff. Hopefully there will be good answers about this within 10-20 years.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3804862 - 02/19/05 11:28 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

It's too long to cut and paste, but it is worthwhile reading for anyone who is actually interested in the "science" behind this debate.



Quote:

I'd ask you to read Crichton's lecture, then cut and paste the parts of it you have found to be untrue




Michael Crichton writes pop science. he doesn't know the real science behind the debate and that lecture was full of distortions, misconceptions and sophomoric reasoning like this:

Quote:

SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion.




to review:

1)Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof

2)There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms

3)The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith

so far I agree,
but from this he concludes:

SETI is unquestionably a religion

???
I don't know where he came up with that

SETI is NOT the belief in the existence of other life forms
SETI is the SEARCH for other life forms

he doesn't make this distinction and he tries to have it both ways
for him a religion is believing things without evidence
and the search for evidence... is also a religion...

this distortion is important because he goes on to compare SETI (or rather, his own delusional view of SETI as a religion) to global warming to "prove" his point that the "belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming". and yes, he actually said that.


he also mischaracterizes the Drake equation.

Quote:

This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice.

As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless




he says: "Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless"
because "none of the terms can be known".

this is simply not true. those values CAN be known. this is beyond obvious.

from http://www.station1.net/DouglasJones/drake.htm

"In 1961, astronomer Frank Drake proposed a method of estimating the number of civilizations in our Galaxy that could be detectable from Earth. He wrote it as an equation, but it may be more useful to think of it as a series of questions: How many stars are born every year? What fraction of them have planets? How many planets does each such star have? What fraction of those planets can support life, and of those, how many planets actually give rise to life? What fraction of those living planets give rise to intelligent beings? And of all those planets with intelligent beings, what fraction will produce radio transmissions that would allow us to notice them, and how long would they continue to transmit them?

These questions have definite answers; we just don't know what most of those answers are. But the answers to these questions are not beyond our reach. As we build better and better telescopes, and as we learn more and more about our own origins and that of our planet, the answers to these questions will gradually be revealed. We may know many of the answers within the next ten to twenty years.

Even back in 1961, it was obvious that these were answerable questions"



Mr. Crichton is having trouble establishing that he knows anything about SETI or the Drake equation, how is he possibly going to compare SETI to global warming research?

Quote:

This is not the way science is done, it is the way products are sold.




he should know. he sells FICTION for a living

I especially liked his last paragraph. can you imagine Michael Crichton, who writes pop science novels, walking in front of the Caltech audience, some of the most brilliant scientific minds on the planet, and lamenting:

"Is this what science has become?"

:lol:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #3804903 - 02/19/05 11:38 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

bumper sticker spotted in a caltech parking lot:

IF THIS SIGN APPEARS BLUE YOU ARE TRAVELING TOO FAST


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshroommachine
Stranger
Male User Gallery
Registered: 01/03/05
Posts: 1,202
Loc: Florida
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Silversoul]
    #3804966 - 02/20/05 12:00 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Paradigm said:
I think the big question with global warming is: Do we wait for definitive proof before taking preventative measures?




Why would we take preventative measures to stop something that is fully reversable.


--------------------
And I said, I don't care if they lay me off either, because I told, I told Bill that if they move my desk one more time, then, then I'm, I'm quitting, I'm going to quit. And, and I told Don too, because they've moved my desk ...four times already this year and I used to be over by the window and I could see the squirrels, and they were merry, but then, they switched from the Swingline to the Boston stapler, but I kept my Swingline stapler because it didn't bind up as much and I kept the staples for the Swingline stapler and its not okay because if they take my stapler then I'll set the building on fire.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: shroommachine]
    #3805712 - 02/20/05 03:37 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

I stopped reading when the article spelled skeptics as "sceptics"


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #3805834 - 02/20/05 05:07 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Of course the English dont know the correct way to spell English words....

We should take our language back from you savages...  :smile:


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3805840 - 02/20/05 05:13 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)



Why don't you go ahead and try?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3805845 - 02/20/05 05:15 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

GazzBut writes:

Lets face it, you dont know if this data is in fact proof of global warming or not and nor do I.

Clearly -- if their data is verifiable -- it is proof of the warming of the oceans. What it is not proof of is human-induced climate change.

Furthermore, it is not even proof that the warming of the oceans is due to an increase in atmospheric temperature. It could be discovered that this increase in temperature is due to some relatively new hot spots in the earth's crust on the ocean floor. Surely you caught the article a week or so ago about the enormous rift in the sea floor at the site of the earthquake that caused the tsunami in late December of last year. The earth's crust is not static. And -- as any oceanographer will tell you -- science knows orders of magnitude more about deep space than it knows about what takes place more than a hundred meters below the surface of the Earth's oceans.

"The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met Office's Hadley Centre."

Hardly a couple of scientist tooting a horn is it? And you say you read the article?


I read the article. You apparently didn't. I'd like to make a correction: even though two scientists were named, it was actually just one of them making the outrageous claims -- Dr. Barnett. Dr. Curry's quoted remarks do not attribute the warming to man's activities.

Dr. Barnett's remarks go so far beyond acceptable scientific method as to approach self-parody. As Gijith says:

"Occasionally, one gets full of himself and decides he's going to be the new Moses. Then the press runs it, fervent capitalists get ahold of it and make the rest of us look like discredited dipshits. And so it goes."

Dr. Barnett's remarks "jump the shark". If any such similarly-phrased commentary appear in the final published paper, that paper will correctly be ridiculed by his peers. He appears to be a classic example (again crediting Gijith) of "some of these guys pour(ing) decades of their lives into a single study. Maybe they want those years to have some immediate and very significant meaninig...?"

Barnett's statements are a perfect example of the bad "science" Crichton skewers in his lecture. Anyone who has taken more than a passing interest in the scientific method (i.e. has had more than a year or two of physics, biology, or chemistry in school) will grasp immediately what Crichton is saying.

It must have been an amazing med school that managed to teach him the intricacies of climate science at the same time as how to remove an appendix.

One needn't know anything about climate science in order to understand that what is being claimed as "proof" isn't in fact anywhere close to being proof. One need merely a basic understanding of what is required to scientifically establish causality. As Gijith points out, nothing discovered to date has established causality. Perhaps some new data may one day do that. I don't dispute that may be the case. But I will point out again (for the umpteenth time in this forum) hat there is not even agreement yet that the global temperature is rising to a statistically significant degree, let alone that such a rise is due to human activity. The most sophisticated available satellite data indicates a very slight drop over the last two decades, for example.

The second link I provided dealt directly with the amusing speech you originally posted.

And the comment I cut and pasted from the same site you linked says it all. A freshly-minted PhD in political "science" takes a clumsy stab at critiquing Crichton's points and misses the target by a mile.

How do you know whether I read the link or not?

You response clearly indicates either --

a) You didn't read Crichton's lecture

or

b) You read it but didn't comprehend it.

I chose the option which would reflect less negatively on you. That's a mistake I won't make again.

So let's see...

We have in your reply flaming, ad hominems, and appeal to authority. What we don't have is any content disputing a single point Crichton has raised. For the record, Crichton is far from the first to point out these exact same errors, and I know that you know this, because I know you have read other threads in this forum covering the same subject matter where I have included links to other scientists making the same points about faulty scientific method that Crichton does. So to let's add intellectual dishonesty to the list as well.

Quite an accomplishment for such a brief post, dear GazzBut. Congratulations.



Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3805876 - 02/20/05 05:53 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

It could be discovered that this increase in temperature is due to some relatively new hot spots in the earth's crust on the ocean floor.





The article states: "We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming"

The words clutching and straws spring to mind.

I know you cant quite get to grips with the idea but left to its own devices the free market is not a cure all for any problems humankind faces. We must place heavy regulations and restrictions on industry in case, as seems increasingly likely, global warming is being affected by man made factors.

Much of the opposition to an increasing mountain of scientific evidence springs from think tanks sponsored by people like Bush and Cheney. You are being hoodwinked my friend by the greedy piggies who cant bring themselves to even consider that global warming is man made because they are more concerned about the damage this would do to their wallets than the damage it could wreak upon us all.

You will note that no where have I stated I categorically believe man is contributing to global warming although I admit Im around 70% convinced.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3805895 - 02/20/05 06:23 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

The article states: "We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming"




That statement alone is the exact confirmation of what Crichton is saying. There is no possible way taking measurements of ocean temperature can show there is "not a chance" that the increase was due to anything other than greenhouse gases.

What Barnett is claiming is that the oceans were warmed not through absorbing increased radiation from above or through increased radiation from below, but through surface contact with air. This alone shows his inherent prejudices have overcome his scientific judgment. Anyone who has ever taken a basic science class knows that it is much, MUCH easier to increase the temperature of a mass of water through heating the bottom of its container rather than increasing the ambient temperature of the air above the water.

I point out again that scientists know far less about the surface of the earth which is covered by ocean than they do about the surface of Earth's moon. There are no thermocouples scattered over the ocean floor recording surface temperature changes. There could be a thin spot in the Earth's crust smack dab in the the middle of the Pacific Ocean the size of Alaska and no one would know it.

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, you did well to put a question mark in the title of the thread, since this is not even being close to "proof" of anything other than (if their data holds up under peer review) that of an increase in temperature of the oceans.

As for your repeated efforts to use ad hominem "argument" to prove your point, Bush and Cheney don't sponsor think tanks. And even if they did, so what? Either the science is good or the science is bad. It doesn't make a difference who funded the science. Science is nothing more than observing and measuring natural phenomena, then hypothesizing an explanation or explanations to explain the observed phenomena. The more data is available, the more theories which can be discarded. At this point in time there is not enough data to discard the theories postulating climate change through increased solar radiation, increased warming of the Earth's crust, orbital precession, and -- yes -- human activity.

This latest study -- which I point out yet again has yet to be even published let alone peer-reviewed -- is not proof that human activity is causing global climate change, despite Barnett's intemperate rhetoric.


Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,116
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 5 hours, 52 minutes
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3806017 - 02/20/05 08:17 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Personally I do believe that we are driving ourselves to extinction and destroying the lives of marginal (mostly tropical) third worlders who are just keeping themselves alive, via our impact on the climate.


But I still don't see this study being the end all be all of global warming studies.


Personally, I think the atmospheric isotope dating studies were better.


I can't see any study that could possibly ever "prove" "global warming".

The only way we're going to get a real reading is to make a rapid change (either higher or lower, and then see what the results are over the next 100 years.

...and relax. Nobody's going to believe Phred just because he says so.


Nor will they you for that matter.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 5 years, 11 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: shroommachine]
    #3806019 - 02/20/05 08:23 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

shroommachine said:

Why would we take preventative measures to stop something that is fully reversable.




because carbon stays in the air for approximately 100 years.


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,116
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 5 hours, 52 minutes
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3806025 - 02/20/05 08:30 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

I think I heard there was an island in the Caribbean that contains alot of Calcium Oxide. Which of course is a primary source of non-biological Carbon sequestration. The Carbon Dioxide combines with the Calcium Oxide to form Calcium Carbonate which then erodes away and winds up on the bottom of the ocean.


We could just drop a couple hundred megatons of nuclear explosives on it every year for about 50 years and we should be good to go. :thumbup:  :thumbup:  :thumbup:


The people on the island will have to leave of course and will recieve no compensation for their loss of property. :sad:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 6 months, 7 days
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #3806233 - 02/20/05 11:49 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

> Wow! It must be amazing being you pinky...Never, ever being wrong.

Nah, pinky has been wrong in the past, but he is 100% accurate on this topic.

There is little doubt that the earth is going through a global warming phase... there is a huge amount of data to back up this hypothesis. However, there is absolutely nothing that proves that humans are in any way causal in the warming of the planet.

We know, from different sources, that the Earth has gone through warm and cold cycles throughout its history. We know that the last big cycle, the ice age, happened without the help of humans. We also know that the earth came out of the ice age, heating up, without the help of humans. Only out of ignorance are people certain that humans are causing a climate change.

I am not saying that people are not responsible for global warming. I don't know. Computer models are extrapolations of current data. Extrapolations are guesses by definition. Anybody that says global warming by humans has been proven by computer models is really saying that global warming by humans has been proven by a guess. Perhaps a good guess, but still a guess.

Personally, I doubt that humans have had much impact on the climate. I would suspect things like black roads, shingled houses, and parking lots that heat up in the sun have as much to do with it as greenhouse gasses. My guess, (yes, a guess, just like those computer models), is that the climate changes are natural. Only a humans ego would be so large as to assume that we caused the effect.

Do we wait before taking preventive measures? What if it is 100% natural? What kind of preventive measures are suggested? Spray down the sun with a little water to cool it off?


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
"Global Warming" is a fad, just like the "Coming Ice Age" [Re: GazzBut]
    #3806293 - 02/20/05 12:27 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

30 years ago the econuts were crying that the Ice Age was coming and hell was about to freeze over. Now apparently we are all going to melt away. I predict that 30 years from now we will be worried about the upcoming Ice Age again.

These guys don't get any attention, media minutes, or funding unless they come up with a death scenario for the human race.


http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams082901.asp
---------------------------------------------------------
Envirobamboozled
Walter Williams


TIME MAGAZINE: "Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible." U.S. News & World Report chimed in, referring to the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as, "The most definitive -- and scary -- report yet, declaring that global warming is not only real but man-made."


According to the July 2001 Consumers' Research article "Global Warming Science: Fact vs. Fiction," written by Mark LaRochelle and Peter Spencer, the media have it all wrong. The news media have leaped to erroneous conclusions from a summary of a yet-to-be-released 3,000-page report. A follow-up study on global warming was released June 2001 by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Science.


MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, one of the NRC panelists and lead author of the IPCC report says: "Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and some agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the Earth. But -- and I cannot stress this enough -- we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future." Adding, "That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions."


That conclusion shows just how much confidence we can have in what the media and environmental radicals tell us.


You say, "Williams, are the environmentalist lying and deliberately frightening us?" That's part of their strategy. Consider what environmentalist activist Stephen Schneider said in a 1989 issue of Discover: "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."


Here's what former Sen. Timothy Wirth, D-Colo., was quoted as saying in Michael Fumento's "Science Under Siege": "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we'll be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."


Dr. Fred Singer, president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project in Arlington, Va., says there are four different independent data sets for measuring temperature. First are thermometers at weather stations around the world. They show warming over the past 30 years, but not in the United States. The second are weather satellites. They show no warming. The third are weather balloons. They show no warming. The fourth are called proxy data -- tree rings, ice cores, lake sediments, etc. They show no warming.


Basing public policy on erroneous observations and predictions can be very costly in terms of human welfare and economic growth. Environmental activist predictions have been dead wrong. In the July 1975 issue of National Wildlife, Nigel Calder warned that "the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."


In the same issue, C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization warned, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."


In 1968, Dr. Paul Erlich, author of "The Population Time Bomb" and environmentalist guru, predicted that the Earth would run out of food by 1977 and that the Earth's 5 billion population would starve back to 2 billion people by 2025.


Erlich also warned Britain's Institute of Biology in 1969, "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."


Why do we listen to these people?

-------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Seuss]
    #3806367 - 02/20/05 12:54 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Seuss,

I think before any preventative measures are considered, there needs to be an effort to revise how the public views the idea of global warming and the research studying it. There are many people on this board - you, baby hitler, phi1618, blaze2, a bunch of people down in science and tech - who have a good understanding of what it's all about. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the general pop aren't so informed and tend to have some wild ideas.

Because various scientists have said so many dumb things over the years, and because their statements have been interpreted by dumb people, there's already been a lot of discussion of the subject. And due to this, a misleading view of global warming has already been cemented into our culture. It seems to go something like this: 'The earth has always had a stable temperature. But now, thanks to fossil fuels alone, it's warming at an unprecedented rate. And if we don't do something about it, we'll be facing an apocalyptic scenario within 30 years.' The chances of any of this being true are incredibly slim. But because it's been so widespread, it's caused a very screwed up state of mind on the topic and elicited such thoughts as 'to even consider the idea of global warming would mean that I endorse what these people are saying. Which would mean that I would have to start driving a car that runs of soybean oil and would have to support kyoto and would have to sell my Exxon Mobil stock. And I don't want to do all that. So instead, I'll poke every hole I can in the theory and paint the entire notion of global warming, and its research, as a scare tactic.' This is all bullshit as well.

It's entirely possible to be supportive of the research while still being against the idea of artificial global warming. It's an important area to study, as the Earth's climate can be fragile. And everyone should just educate themselves on the subject and make their own decisions. And nobody should watch The Day After Tomorrow. And if you decide that you do believe humans are warming the planet, there are many alternatives to kyoto and many cool new hybrids that will save you money. And if you decide that you don't believe humans are warming the planet, do so based on the science alone and try not to smear people who do believe in it.

I think our priority should be getting that message out.

Pinky,

There isn't a rift at the eastern side of Australian-Indian plate boundary. There's a reverse fault subduction zone.

GazzBut,

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. But you debating it with pinky isn't going anywhere.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Edited by Gijith (02/20/05 08:06 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 6 months, 7 days
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Gijith]
    #3806507 - 02/20/05 01:44 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

> I'll poke every hole I can in the theory and paint the entire notion of global warming, and its research, as a scare tactic.

It may seem that way, but that is not my intent. If you look at my posts, I almost always include something along the lines of, "I don't know if humans are causing global warming or not..."

I don't poke holes in theories, rather I poke holes in bad science... In other words I can accept, "My computer model indicates that humans are causing global warming.", but I will shoot down every single time, "My computer model proves that humans are causing global warming.". The first statement is accurate, the second statement is bad science.

Again, my gripe isn't against people thinking that aliens blew up the world trade center or that humans are causing global warming. Both of these are valid hypothesis. My gripe is against people that use bad science to prove that aliens blew up the world trade center or that humans are causing global warming. I would never fault somebody for trying to prove a theory, even if the theory seems crazy to me. I will always fault somebody that tries to mislead people into believing that their theory is fact, especially when they are basing their proof on laymen science.

Regardless of humans causing global warming or not, it only makes sense for us to reduce the pollution we are pouring into each others backyards. If the people of Earth continue to trash our planet, we will find out what living in a dump is like for the next few thousand years... if we are lucky.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Seuss]
    #3806518 - 02/20/05 01:49 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

I wasn't talking about you. You're one of the good ones.

Just a few people on this board who have accused me of using scare tactics.

The message I'm trying to get across is that people on both extremes of the issue tend to have false notions.

:cheers:


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Gijith]
    #3806524 - 02/20/05 01:52 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Hmmm. I guess I must have misinterpreted these and other images (with commentary) I discovered on the web. http://www.soc.soton.ac.uk/soc_home2.php?pagetype=news3&idx=223

I shouldn't have referred to the scarring from the slide as a "rift", I guess, although it looks like a rift to me and it is definitely underwater. However, several scientists also refer to it as a "canyon" http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tsunami/news/tsunamipix.html and compare it to "the Grand Canyon". I will admit that not all canyons are rifts, however.


Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3808147 - 02/20/05 09:00 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Surely you caught the article a week or so ago about the enormous rift in the sea floor at the site of the earthquake that caused the tsunami in late December of last year.

you're stretching

And -- as any oceanographer will tell you -- science knows orders of magnitude more about deep space than it knows about what takes place more than a hundred meters below the surface of the Earth's oceans.

this is simply not true, but I'm sure any oceanographer will still tell you that anyway. why do you think that is?

Barnett's statements are a perfect example of the bad "science" Crichton skewers in his lecture. Anyone who has taken more than a passing interest in the scientific method (i.e. has had more than a year or two of physics, biology, or chemistry in school) will grasp immediately what Crichton is saying.

alright. lets just dispel this myth right now that Michael Crichton is some kind of scientific authority. he's not. he's infamous for mangling chaos theory in his jurassic park novels. he writes pop science and it shows.

Michael Crichton?s State of Confusion

Michael Crichton?s State of Confusion II (this one deals directly with the lecture)

But I will point out again (for the umpteenth time in this forum) hat there is not even agreement yet that the global temperature is rising to a statistically significant degree, let alone that such a rise is due to human activity.

there is scientific consensus on the issue:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html

Undeniable Global Warming
________________________________________________

By Naomi Oreskes
Sunday, December 26, 2004; Page B07

Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It's time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program, the IPCC is charged with evaluating the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. In its most recent assessment, the IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities . . . are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents . . . that absorb or scatter radiant energy. . . . [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. A National Academy of Sciences report begins unequivocally: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and it answers yes. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.

Despite recent allegations to the contrary, these statements from the leadership of scientific societies and the IPCC accurately reflect the state of the art in climate science research. The Institute for Scientific Information keeps a database on published scientific articles, which my research assistants and I used to answer that question with respect to global climate change. We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. There have been arguments to the contrary, but they are not to be found in scientific literature, which is where scientific debates are properly adjudicated. There, the message is clear and unambiguous.

To be sure, a handful of scientists have raised questions about the details of climate models, about the accuracy of methods for evaluating past global temperatures and about the wisdom of even attempting to predict the future. But this is quibbling about the details. The basic picture is clear, and some changes are already occurring. A new report by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment -- a consortium of eight countries, including Russia and the United States -- now confirms that major changes are taking place in the Arctic, affecting both human and non-human communities, as predicted by climate models. This information was conveyed to the U.S. Senate last month not by a radical environmentalist, as was recently alleged on the Web, but by Robert Corell, a senior fellow of the American Meteorological Society and former assistant director for geosciences at the National Science Foundation.

So why does it seem as if there is major scientific disagreement? Because a few noisy skeptics -- most of whom are not even scientists -- have generated a lot of chatter in the mass media. At the National Press Club recently, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen dismissed the consensus as "religious belief." To be sure, no scientific conclusion can ever be proven, absolutely, but it is no more a "belief" to say that Earth is heating up than it is to say that continents move, that germs cause disease, that DNA carries hereditary information or that quarks are the basic building blocks of subatomic matter. You can always find someone, somewhere, to disagree, but these conclusions represent our best available science, and therefore our best basis for reasoned action.

The chatter of skeptics is distracting us from the real issue: how best to respond to the threats that global warming presents.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3808211 - 02/20/05 09:16 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

"The article states: "We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming"

That statement alone is the exact confirmation of what Crichton is saying. There is no possible way taking measurements of ocean temperature can show there is "not a chance" that the increase was due to anything other than greenhouse gases.


I don't see how that confirms what Crichton is saying...
I think you are conflating the impossibility of eliminating ALL posibilities with the elimination of SOME facors. it's true that we'll never eliminate all possibilities as the cause of global warming, but we certainly CAN rule out certain things. for example it would be a simple matter to eliminate solar changes or volcanic effects as the cause of global warming. if there was enough of a change in the sun to cause surface temperature chages on earth, 93 million miles away, such changes would be easily detected by the satellites currently observing the sun, not only that, we should be able to detect non-seasonal temperature changes on other planets and moons. there is also a fleet of research sattelites orbiting the earth and constantly monitoring it's magnetic field, it's gravity, temperatures, composition of the atmosphere. there are a network of seismic sensors which would detect any significant volcanic activity. the thickness of the crust has also been mapped out to a precise degree.. if geologic changes in the earth itself was causing global warming, believe me, there would be overwhelming evidence of it.

What Barnett is claiming is that the oceans were warmed not through absorbing increased radiation from above or through increased radiation from below, but through surface contact with air. This alone shows his inherent prejudices have overcome his scientific judgment.

come again? how does that show his "inherent prejudice"?
can you explain?

he's just going by the evidence
as far as I know, there is not a shred of evidence pointing to increased radioactive decay in the earth's core or increased solar radiation as the cause of global warming. however, there IS plenty of evidence suggesting human activity to be the cause. why not go with the evidence? who's showing inherent prejudice here?

There could be a thin spot in the Earth's crust smack dab in the the middle of the Pacific Ocean the size of Alaska and no one would know it.

you're stretching again
such a huge geologic feature would be easily detected.

This latest study -- which I point out yet again has yet to be even published let alone peer-reviewed -- is not proof that human activity is causing global climate change, despite Barnett's intemperate rhetoric

Barnett has evidence, but I agree that he doesn't have proof, which is why Gazzbut didn't present it as proof.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #3808765 - 02/21/05 12:13 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

A few things I skimmed over in pinky's posts that infidel has now brought to my attention:

Quote:

Phred said:
And -- as any oceanographer will tell you -- science knows orders of magnitude more about deep space than it knows about what takes place more than a hundred meters below the surface of the Earth's ocean




I'm not sure where you're getting this, but I think it's a very weird statement for oceanographer to make, because most oceanographers don't really study what goes on below the surface of the ocean. And I'm not really sure what you even mean by surface of the ocean. Do you mean the crust as a whole? Basaltic oceanic crust averages around 8km thick and we've been able to successfully drill down and retrieve samples from well over a kilometer (up to 10kms on continental crust). But below the crust and the lithosphere, it's a different story. Most geologists don't believe we'll ever be able to engineer a drill that could go to the mantle. So we may never be able to see it. But that doesn't mean we can't understand it. There are a few main ways geologists have accumulated evidence as to what's down there. One is through a mineralogic examination of meteorites. Seems strange yeah, but the science is pretty spot on. There's a certain brand of meteorite that I think is just called a stone. By measuring a stone's radioactivity, we can see that almost all of them were formed at around 4.54 billion y.a., the same time that the Earth was formed. Additionally, the meteorites have the exact density of the Earth's mantle. This, along with a few other pieces of evidence I can't remember right now, have given us a solid idea of what the mantle is composed of (like the crust, it's mostly just oxygen and silicon). We can even go so far as to say what minerals occur at what depths... As far as the temperature down there.. The best way to study it is through seismic tomography. By using computers to accurately measure P and S wave timing following an earthquake, we're able to create a 3-D rendering of the interior. It's kinda similar to a CAT scan. By noticing differences in velocity over distance, we can map out differences in temperature (waves move faster through colder material, slower through hot). By doing this, seismologists have been able to map most of the Earth's hot spots, subduction zones and plate forming ridges.......

Now, does all this mean that we have a better understanding of the Earth's interior than we do of deep space? I have no fucking clue, because I'm not as educated in astronomy. But I don't know if many scientists could even make the call. And it really doesn't even matter that much, because our understanding of the interior is good enough for most applications. Also, don't forget, people have been studying the stars for millenia. 60 years ago, scientists thought the Earth was solid all the way through.

Quote:

There could be a thin spot in the Earth's crust smack dab in the the middle of the Pacific Ocean the size of Alaska and no one would know it.




If there was one that size, we'd almost definitely know about it. We can accurately measure the thickness of a basaltic plate two ways. Because we know the composition of the lithosphere, we can determine the thickness because plates will become negatively buoyant and subduct when they are at a certain thickness. Or we can just measure their age (and thickness) using magnetism mapped against pole reversals (like tree rings). Both of these methods have been proven accurate over and over.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #3809119 - 02/21/05 01:25 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

infidelGOD writes:

you're stretching

How so? The change to the sea floor at the site of the latest earthquake is apparent in the images to be found in the links I posted. My point is that it is absurd to believe that this is the only such place one Earth. I used it merely as a verifiable example of recent changes having nothing to do with man's activities (the tinfoil beanie brigade's claims that the tsunami was the result of a Zionist neoocon atom bomb explosion aside, of course) that would resonate with most readers here because we have all heard about the tsunami.

Note further that oceanic warming can occur without the exposure of actual molten rock -- without a rift deep enough to allow magma to percolate into the oceans themselves. All that is required is for the magma to rise close enough to the surface to increase the temperature of the overlying crust. We know already of several such undersea "hot spots" -- the Hawaiian Islands lie directly over one such hot spot. Can we say with certainty that for the last forty years or one hundred years or whatever this hotspot and all other currently unknown hot spots have remained constant in area and depth below the surface? No, we cannot. They may be getting bigger and warmer. They may also be getting smaller and cooler. We literally don't know enough to say that even today, and we certainly didn't know enough to say what their condition was forty or sixty or eighty years ago.

alright. lets just dispel this myth right now that Michael Crichton is some kind of scientific authority. he's not.

Sigh. Crichton's point -- and my own -- is that one need not be a PhD-level scientist in order to recognize the flaws in what is being pushed as "scientific proof" of global warming. The points made in Crichton's lecture would be every bit as valid if made by Al Franken.

Not all the claims being made are as overblown as those made by Dr. Barnett in the article posted by GazzBut. As Gijith points out, there are many, MANY scientists who present the results of their findings in ways truly representative of proper scientific inquiry only to see their findings skewed and massaged and presented to the general populace by people other than scientists in ways they never intended. Unfortunately, Barnett isn't one of those many.

there is scientific consensus on the issue:

Actually, no there isn't. Changes in global temperatures are determined through four methods:

1) Surface based thermometers. These apparently show a slight rise in temperature in most parts of the world but not in the United States.

2) Weather balloons. These show no rise in temperature

3) Satellite measurements. These show no rise in temperature

4) Extrapolations using various indirect methods of calculating what temperatures may have been close to at times when direct measurements weren't being done. These show variations in temperature in the not-so distant past which were far greater than the 0.3 to 0.5 degree Celsius rise in average temperature over the last century being claimed by many.

Finally, as I have posted here repeatedly, Professor Mann's famous "hockey stick" graph upon which so much of this debate has been based (the IPCC report uses that graph no less than five times throughout its various chapters) has been shown (through peer review by at least two separate teams of statisticians) to be an artifact of a faulty algorithm.

Last but not least is the question of solar variability. Astronomers for over fifty years have been saying the energy output from the sun varies cyclically. In the last twelve months, two separate teams have confirmed this. One is in Japan if I recall correctly. I can't remember where the other one is located. I have posted at least twice links to this work in previous posts. I'm not going to hunt those posts down at this late hour, but Gijith is aware of this work. Perhaps he has a direct link at his fingertips.

Is it possible that the human penchant for burning stuff to produce energy (thus increasing CO2 released into the atmosphere) increases the greenhouse effect to the point where global temperatures rise? Yes, it is possible. Is it an established fact that it has done so? No, it isn't an established fact.


Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3809156 - 02/21/05 01:34 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Here's a link to just one of the many articles discussing Mann's broken "hockey stick" graph. It does mention the work of the people to whom I referred earlier and to whose analyses I have linked in the past although it doesn't provide links to their work --

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006314

Just a few excerpts from the article to give you a taste (I suggest you read the whole thing) --

Quote:

Mr. Mann's chart was both a scientific and political sensation. It contradicted a body of scientific work suggesting a warm period early in the second millennium, followed by a "Little Ice Age" starting in the 14th century. It also provided some visually arresting scientific support for the contention that fossil-fuel emissions were the cause of higher temperatures. Little wonder, then, that Mr. Mann's hockey stick appears five times in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's landmark 2001 report on global warming, which paved the way to this week's global ratification--sans the U.S., Australia and China--of the Kyoto Protocol.

Yet there were doubts about Mr. Mann's methods and analysis from the start. In 1998, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics published a paper in the journal Climate Research, arguing that there really had been a Medieval warm period. The result: Messrs. Soon and Baliunas were treated as heretics and six editors at Climate Research were made to resign.

Still, questions persisted. In 2003, Stephen McIntyre, a Toronto minerals consultant and amateur mathematician, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at Canada's University of Guelph, jointly published a critique of the hockey stick analysis. Their conclusion: Mr. Mann's work was riddled with "collation errors, unjustifiable truncations of extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculations of principal components, and other quality control defects." Once these were corrected, the Medieval warm period showed up again in the data.

This should have produced a healthy scientific debate. Instead, as the Journal's Antonio Regalado reported Monday, Mr. Mann tried to shut down debate by refusing to disclose the mathematical algorithm by which he arrived at his conclusions. All the same, Mr. Mann was forced to publish a retraction of some of his initial data, and doubts about his statistical methods have since grown. Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada (a government agency) notes that Mr. Mann's method "preferentially produces hockey sticks when there are none in the data." Other reputable scientists such as Berkeley's Richard Muller and Hans von Storch of Germany's GKSS Center essentially agree.






Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Gijith]
    #3809182 - 02/21/05 01:44 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Gijith, with all due respect, you are missing my point. I perhaps should have made myself more clear so I will accept responsibility for that.

Do we know the exact thickness of every square mile (or even of every thousand square mile "pixel") of the Earth's crust under the oceans? More to the point, do we know what that thickness was even forty years ago, let alone a century ago? Do we know where it is increasing and where it is decreasing? More to the point, do we know where it was increasing and where it was decreasing forty years ago?

We know that the crust does vary in thickness in some locations over time -- vulcanism is proof of that.

Barnett's claim is that the warming of the oceans his group claims to have observed cannot be caused by anything other than an increase in atmospheric temperature, and that the increase in atmospheric temperature is caused by increased concentration of greenhouse gases through human activity. That's two errors in one conclusion.




Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3809293 - 02/21/05 02:15 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

No, I follow. I'm just being a picky prick.

As far as some of the more general things you've touched on::

1) Changes in the Earth's obliquity and/or precession of orbit: This is the only area where I'm really 99.999% comfortable relying on the models. This stuff is like clockwork. You can map the cycles out as a perfect sine curves. They definitely account for most of the warming occured since the last glacial peak.

2) Some sort of increased heating from below the Earth: This would really be dependent on plate tectonics. Or plate tectonics would be dependent on it. There's definitely some validity to it. It's listed as one of the accepted reasons for climate change. The problem is that the whole system moves so damn slow, the climate arcs would take place over millions of years. Differences in plate locations and/or internal proccesses really can't vouch for what's happened over the past 19,000 years. To the interior of the Earth, 19,000 years is the blink of an eye.

3) Varience in solar radiation (maybe corrolated to sunspot cycles): Definitely a possibility. There's not a whole lot known about this yet, except that the variations in radiation can be measured pretty damn accurately and that they tend to flux every few decades. So there should be good studies on this relatively soon.

4) CO2: The other big possibility. Probably also the hardest to pin down. We know that temp has risen and continues to rise. We know that CO2 levels have risen and continue to rise. We know that, in a controlled experiment, more CO2 will cause a greenhouse effect... That's about it all we can say for sure at the moment. I was talking to prof a few weeks ago about how she wants to try and study ancient periods when there was much more CO2 trapped in the atmosphere than there is today. There have been several periods like this over the past billion years. She wants to study the biology of fossils from those periods to see just how much natural environments were affected. I'm sure there are already people working on this (she's probably just jumping on the bandwagon). But their research might give us a clue what we're in store for if this keeps up.


PS: Is every square mile mapped with thickness? No, but I'm sure some very unfortunate assemblage of grad students is working on it somewhere. Every square 1000 miles is definitely mapped. I'd safely assume most of the Earth's ocean floor thickness has been measured at 100 sq kilometers. And if there was a feature that was going to affect the overall temperature of the oceans, it would be much bigger. Yes we know what these thicknesses were 40 years ago. There was probably about 2 meters of difference in most places. Yes, we know what these thicknesses were 100 years ago. There was probably a little under 5 meters of difference in most places. And yes we definitely know where it was increasing or decreasing. If I put you in contact with an experienced geophysicist, he could tell you where the crust below your feet was 300,000,000 years ago. Within 100kms. This isn't like global warming. It's extremely accurate.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Edited by Gijith (02/21/05 03:05 AM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3809390 - 02/21/05 03:00 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

How so?

you said:
Furthermore, it is not even proof that the warming of the oceans is due to an increase in atmospheric temperature. It could be discovered that this increase in temperature is due to some relatively new hot spots in the earth's crust on the ocean floor. Surely you caught the article a week or so ago about the enormous rift in the sea floor at the site of the earthquake that caused the tsunami in late December of last year. The earth's crust is not static.

you're saying here that the warming of the oceans might be caused by relatively new hot spots in the earth's crust like the rift in the seafloor at the site of the earthquake. correct? did you forget that that rift was accompanied by a magnitute 9 earthquake? I don't think such a geologic event would go unnoticed. if it's a relatively new hot spot, responsible for the current observed warming of oceanic temperatures, it would be a current feature, and it would surely have been detected. but I don't even understand why we're discussing ocean rifts here. is there any evidence at all that they're connected to global warming? it seems like you're just throwing it out there to cast doubt, saying "see, it could be caused by rifts on the seafloor, or increased solar radiation! so we can't know for certain humans are causing global warming". heck. global warming could be caused by cosmic rays dissipating in the atmosphere. it could be caused by aliens. why not throw in more possibilities for which there is no evidence?

as I said, I'm not 100% convinced yet that humans are causing global warming, but I do know that the evidence is increasing pointing to that. if there is evidence pointing to any other cause, like increased solar radiation, rifts on the ocean floor, increased radioactive decay in the earth's core, or a thin spot in the Earth's crust smack dab in the the middle of the Pacific Ocean the size of Alaska, please let me know.

Note further that oceanic warming can occur without the exposure of actual molten rock -- without a rift deep enough to allow magma to percolate into the oceans themselves. All that is required is for the magma to rise close enough to the surface to increase the temperature of the overlying crust. We know already of several such undersea "hot spots" -- the Hawaiian Islands lie directly over one such hot spot.

so what? there is natural subsurface warming of the oceans. magma is constantly heating the ocean floor, hydrothermal vents also spew superheated water into the oceans. I would guess that theres a fairly constant output of heat from the interior of the earth into the ocean, and that it has reached natural equilibrium over the billions of years that its been happening. if there was a geologic event that actually dramatically increased the output of heat into the oceans (enough to account for rising surface temps) we would certainly know about it.

Sigh. Crichton's point -- and my own -- is that one need not be a PhD-level scientist in order to recognize the flaws in what is being pushed as "scientific proof" of global warming. The points made in Crichton's lecture would be every bit as valid if made by Al Franken.

but the thing is - his points are not valid... did you read anything I wrote, or those links I provided? they do a pretty thorough job of debunking Crichton point by point. would you care to respond to any of those points?

here's some more:
Novel on global warming gets some scientists burned up
Scientists say Crichton distorted their research
Science and pseudoscience

I seriously recommend you re-read crichton's lecture and closely examine the arguments he presents and reasoning he uses, and this time read it with a critical mind.

Last but not least is the question of solar variability. Astronomers for over fifty years have been saying the energy output from the sun varies cyclically. In the last twelve months, two separate teams have confirmed this. One is in Japan if I recall correctly. I can't remember where the other one is located. I have posted at least twice links to this work in previous posts.

can you post those links? I'm really interested. are they referring to the 11 year solar cycle? or the long term heating of the sun? or is there some newly discovered long-period solar cycle? I'd like to see this research.

one thing to keep in mind: just because increased solar activity (or thermal vents, or aliens or whatever) is heating the earth DOES NOT mean that human activity is having no effect on it either. it's not one or the other. even if human activity plays just a small part in global warming, we should try to minimize the harm.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3809489 - 02/21/05 03:29 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

More to the point, do we know what that thickness was even forty years ago, let alone a century ago? Do we know where it is increasing and where it is decreasing? More to the point, do we know where it was increasing and where it was decreasing forty years ago?

perhaps Gijith can answer this better, but I doubt that the thickness of the crust can change that fast, especially without being detected.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleLeastResistance
Camp Pink Onion
Male

Registered: 09/27/04
Posts: 808
Loc: Dairyland
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3809569 - 02/21/05 03:56 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

I agree with Bear, global warming is a myth

1. The Great "Global Warming" Myth

The greenhouse effect is a myth, and there have been extensive and complete, careful measurements which show absolutely NO increase in the average global temperature. The ones usually used in promoting this concept are based on incomplete sampling. Global warming does not exist. In fact there are so many buffers in the atmosphere that it can't happen, even if the CO2 increased hundreds of times over.

First of all, the CO2 content in the atmosphere is only a very tiny amount, about 300 parts per million. This CO2 stays in the air in equilibrium with the CO2 dissolved in the oceans. Since CO2 has a very steep curve of solubility in water, the amount in the air is critically dependent upon the sea surface temperatures (cold rain falling is an excellent CO2 scrubber). World CO2 measurements have traditionally been based on the levels tested in the air at Mona Kea Observatory in Hawaii. The charts of the levels fluctuate seasonally, rising in the summer and falling in the winter. If the levels are compared to the actual sea surface temperature measurements taken at Hilo, which is at the base of Mona Kea, the seasonal variations are seen to track exactly with the temperature. Even the gradual increase over time is duplicated in the temperature reading, as the average temperature at Hilo has been rising in exact lock step with the rise in the Mona Kea CO2 levels. (The charts of these measurement are easily available, making this a trivial exercise if you wish to verify my statements).

Burning fossil fuels is probably one of the most important aids to the life cycle on this oxygen-rich, carbon-poor planet that man can do. Most of the primeval carbon is locked away in the oil and coal deposits formed over the ages by cell death of the phytoplankton (diatoms), which created the oxygen-rich environment by decarboxylating the CO2 in the primitive atmosphere. The limits placed on CO2 are unreasonable and impede the creation of wealth which benefits everyone, and are harmful to the plant life at the same time.


2. The Great "Hole in the Ozone" Myth.

Likewise another myth, that of "ozone damage" was a scam developed by DuPont in a push to outlaw Freon. The patent has run out, and since it is a totally stable compound, is the most ideal refrigerant known, AND is very cheap to manufacture, they needed to ban it so that they could sell a (patented) replacement HFC, which is nowhere near as good a refrigerant, called (get this!): Soma.

There is absolutely no verifiable data that the "destruction" reactions between chlorine and ozone actually occur anywhere other than in apparatus and under laboratory conditions.

There is no verifiable data that there is any significant portion of the atmosphere's chlorine is the result of breakdown of CFC's (Freon is the principal member of this class of compounds). CFC's are so stable that they have been used in very successful fire-extinguishing systems.

Another factor is that there is no verifiable evidence that CFC's, which are very dense, heavy gases have any way to make it out of the troposphere into the lower portion of the stratosphere. Of course there is no mechanism known to science which would transport these dense compounds to the upper levels of the stratosphere (stratos means layered, there is no convective mixing in this part of the atmosphere, because the temperature rises with increased height). It is in the uppermost layers of the stratosphere where the energy from the sun in the form of very short wave UV and electrons in the solar wind create the ozone we need to protect us at the surface.

The "hole in the ozone" scam was attacked by a large group of prominent scientists in the so-called Heidelberg paper, with volcanologists as prominent signatories. Volcanos are the single highest source of atmospheric chlorine, measured in the tens of millions of metric tonnes/year. Man's total OUTPUT of Freon never exceeded a hundred thousand pounds of equivalent chlorine, and of course most of that never gets into the atmosphere, never mind that it is one of the most stable organic chemicals known.


3. The Great "Your Car Causes Smog" Myth

The last of the great modern environmental myths is that "cars cause smog". This has an extreme impact on all of us in that the cost of manufacturing cars has risen to the point that many cars cost more than the cost of a home.

Ozone in the lower atmosphere is the cause of smog. This ozone is formed primarily by the decay of tritium (by beta particle emission= high velocity electrons) in the atmosphere, and by lightning and electrical discharges such as corona on electrical high-tension transmission lines. This energetic electron is captured by an ordinary oxygen molecule (O2), which cannot exist as a stable molecule with an extra electron, and so splits into two very reactive oxygen atoms ("nascent" oxygen). These two reactive oxygen atoms each combines instantaeously with another normal molecule of oxygen to form two new molecules of ozone (O3). The only other source of ozone is very short wave UV, and the amount we receive from the sun doesn't penetrate to sea level (thanks to the ozone in the upper stratosphere). Those old-fashioned toilet seat sterilizers that you occasionally run across in public restrooms produce a detectable amount of ozone, as you may remember if you ever ran across one. They aren't as common nowadays as they once were.

In real terms the smog-induction is primarily and almost entirely dependent upon the presence of tritium which is produced in large quantity by nuclear activity. Almost all reactors use either heavy water- deuterium oxide (which produces the most tritium, by capture of a single neutron), or ordinary water (requires the capture of 2 neutrons, first to make deuterium, then to produce tritium from the deuterium) to enclose and absorb the neutrons escaping from the reactor. Also the storage of radioactive waste is done in pools of water. In addition to all this, the military makes tritium on purpose to use in "hydrogen" fusion bombs. All this tritium is chemically the same as hydrogen and escapes into the atmosphere quite easily. Usually the beta particle is of no concern, since it doesn't cause the sort of health damage that alpha particles, gamma rays and neutrons cause. Most of the concern with nuclear radiation is connected with gamma rays and neutrons.

There is absolutely NO way that ozone can be generated by any chemical or long-wave (visible) light-mediated reaction, and certainly not by any of the purported means the smog-control advocates present. Even the commercial generation of ozone for industrial purposes (due to its powerful oxidizing properties), must be done by bombarding oxygen with high-speed electrons.

Of course the explosion of bombs, even underground ones, produces the most tritium, (and therefore ozone) and does so all at once. The most severe smog event in history occurred immediately after the only nuclear explosion ever to take place in the water, just after WW II. Almost every one has seen the aerial photographs of all the war ships in the harbour and the monstrous column of water and it's huge mushroom cloud. Almost immediately afterwards the burning of diesel fuel in "smudge pots" in the California orange groves was outlawed. The smoke was one of the most economical ways to prevent frost in the winters, and the smoke always dissipated by a few hours after sunrise. Until, that is, the water drop bomb test. I can verify this personally, as I lived within a few blocks of the orange groves in central Los Angeles during WW II (Park LaBrea).

To this day the intensity of a smog event is measured by the amount of ozone present in the air at the surface. It is known as the "Ozone Number"

For the convenience of distracting people from the real cause of smog by the nuclear industry (and the military), we now have to pay almost as much for a new car as for a house. And you can't live in a car - not to mention that, unlike a piece of real estate, it is a very poor investment.

In reality ALL of man's hydrocarbon emissions total only about 4% of the total that is found in the air, most of which comes from plantlife, with some from oil seeps and volcanism. To burden us with a technology which in reality benefits slightly only those in cities (where there are few plants, so most hydrocarbons come from human activities) and greatly those in the nuclear industry (and people are placed in many dangers by this very dangerous enterprise), is a massive act of folly.


--------------------
"Weaving Spiders Come Not Here"


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleCJay
Dark Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: LeastResistance]
    #3809899 - 02/21/05 09:01 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)



Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinerandymott
Stranger
Registered: 03/01/05
Posts: 1
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3851093 - 03/01/05 10:38 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Barnett's study is being discussed off of a press release. It has not been peer-reviewed. We do not know what "tweaking" was done to get ocean changfes to match "man-made" emissions. We do know that most 20th Century land-based temperature changes occurred before 1940 - not very helpful to the theory. We also know that in Science Magazine in 2001, Barnett published data that showed a cooling trend in the deep ocean between 1976 and 1985.

What this study represents in a report that has not been peer-reviewed that tries to do a statistical correlation between ocean temperatures and greenhouse gas levels. This has been done for millions of years in other years and no correlation exist: not even when GHG levels were twnty-times higher than today.

Don't hold your breath on this one. It will collpase when other folks get access to the computer database and re-run the numbers and assumptions.

Randy Mott
President, Ekotechnology Sp. z o.o.
[air pollution control equipment firm]
Warsaw, Poland


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 6 months, 7 days
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: randymott]
    #3851099 - 03/01/05 10:41 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Randymott... nice to hear the voice of reason. Welcome to the site and I hope you stick around and continue to post. Very well spoken!


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Silversoul]
    #3851531 - 03/01/05 12:57 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

I think the big question with global warming is: Do we wait for definitive proof before taking preventative measures?






I think if people stop polluting and those that do pollute get a realistic punishment for it the world will be fine. Trying to keep the Earth clean and global warming don't have to be always on the same sentence. I'm all for clean water, air, etc., but trying to scare everyone (not you in specific) by telling them that they will burn up as a result of global warming if they don't do this or that detracts from what the original message is. Stop polluting and look for cleaner alternatives (which the US is doing as we speak). I believe it will get cleaner, while I don't like their methods (global warming theorists), I do respect their goal.


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 6 months, 7 days
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Innvertigo]
    #3851559 - 03/01/05 01:06 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

> while I don't like their methods (global warming theorists), I do respect their goal.

You respect a goal which is based entirely on fanatasy? I applaud efforts to clean the world and reduce pollution, but these have not been proven to have anything to do with global warming. The 'global warming theorists' remind me of the 'anti-drug' propaganda machines... reality doesn't matter as long as they get people to believe their fantasies... because if enough people believe something, then obviously it must be true and correct. Sorry, I have no respect for this what-so-ever.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Seuss]
    #3851680 - 03/01/05 01:34 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

You respect a goal which is based entirely on fanatasy?




Admittedly, there is not sufficient data yet to test all the theories related to man made global warming but there is much evidence which points to such a conclusion. The debate will be settled at some point. To say it is based entirely on fantsay is rather naive and reactionary.

Almost amusing as earlier in the thread when you compared your guess that global warming will turn out to be not affected by man with the guess of the theorists and their computer models as if these two guesses were somehow of equal value! That one did make me chuckle for a while!!


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Seuss]
    #3851978 - 03/01/05 02:38 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

You respect a goal which is based entirely on fanatasy?




no, their goal of a cleaner Earth. That's as far as our (mine and theirs) similarities go.

Quote:

applaud efforts to clean the world and reduce pollution, but these have not been proven to have anything to do with global warming.




and that's why I said what I said in my previous post. Both don't have to be part of the discussion. Global warming is nothing more than a scare tactic, it's synonyms with the search for WMD's.

Quote:

eality doesn't matter as long as they get people to believe their fantasies... because if enough people believe something, then obviously it must be true and correct. Sorry, I have no respect for this what-so-ever.




I can't believe that you implied this from my posts. I've been in this argument on this site more then I can remember. Studies show that there was just the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere back in the 1300 and 1400's as we have today, I've argued with people to explain this to me and have yet to have a decent answer that makes sense. In my opinion and from scientists I have read and listened to, global warming is a natural occurrence. This would explain the numerous ice ages that we have had.


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Edited by Innvertigo (03/01/05 02:52 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Innvertigo]
    #3852085 - 03/01/05 02:56 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/

I suggest you overview this site, and if your interested invest in his books. He applies through Physics that it is in know way possible to heat up the Earth to the degree that is warming up, as much as the energy is dissapated naturally, and instead suggests that it is due to solar weather among other things that is the primary cause of our global warming.

As the Earth has been warming up at a steady rate and is beggining to "normalize", as is told by looking at the global conditions of our past, from looking at natural evidence (well before mand was an industrialized society).

Also, he suggest that the only reason we should stop using "fossil feuls" as it were as they pollute our environment. And further he suggests Napantha (sp?) and the burning fires from heaven are really oils being deposited by a passing comet. Sounds far fetched, but check it out, makes a hell of a lot more sense then most of the scientifice theories out their including that comets are "dirty snowballs" which one would believe that they are in fact are, till they realize that a comet passing that near the sun would inevitably burn it up. Instead he proposes an electrical nature of the sun, and that the comet nucleus is really a solid core, which makes the coma have a sunward spike in the opposite direction of the sun (as the sun is discharing energy, and forming an electrical discharge against the comet).

Additionally, he provides ways to circumvent such occurences of pollution (as global warming isn't going to be stopped by just reducing emissions, nor stopping emissions entirely). Think of the Sun as a capacitor in way of it producing energy, when fusion occurs, energy is released, yet that isn't really accounted for in our current understanding (i.e. textbook understanding) of our solar system, where only the energy released by the sun in form of heat is tauted to be the dominant influence of our sun.

getting distracted, and off on a Tangent.

/end rant.


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.


Edited by Psychoactive1984 (03/01/05 03:12 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #3856070 - 03/02/05 09:12 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

why are you explaining this to me? do you know where I stand on this issue?


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinehardcorey
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/05
Posts: 8
Last seen: 16 years, 5 days
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Innvertigo]
    #3868346 - 03/04/05 04:47 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)


Apparently, the Earth's magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 10 years. I'm an electrical engineer. During my studies in sub-atomic physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be effected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be contributed to this? I've been bouncing this idea in my head for a while now and I can't see why this MAY not be true.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleCalifornia
A E S T H E T I C S A T A N
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/27/04
Posts: 72,118
Loc: H A U N T E D H O U S E Flag
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: hardcorey]
    #3868519 - 03/04/05 05:14 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Industrial emissions do the job that our now mainly dormant volcanoes did. Just a thought/theory.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: California]
    #3868574 - 03/04/05 05:22 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

If you quantify the heat released by emissions and measure the course of history, man can only be attributed to affect the earth to a fractional degree. Most of the heat produced from our emissions are lost on a daily basis.


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: hardcorey]
    #3869098 - 03/04/05 07:03 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

hardcorey said:

Apparently, the Earth's magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 10 years. I'm an electrical engineer. During my studies in sub-atomic physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be effected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be contributed to this? I've been bouncing this idea in my head for a while now and I can't see why this MAY not be true.




First off, I'm pretty sure the field has weakened 10% over the past 150 years. And even that number is suspect.

That said, I think the problem here is that it would have to be a two step process. During a pole reversal, more radiation reaches the center of the Earth instead of being drawn to the poles. This radiation could do a lot of damage to our electrical technology. But it couldn't directly warm the Earth, as it's above the heat and visibility spectrums. The danger is that enough of this radiation could eat away at our atmosphere, which would undoubtedly lead to warming. So this could eventually happen. But it would probably occur when the field is at its weakest, which will be at least 4,000 years from now (assuming we're even in the beginning phase of a reversal!). I'd be more concerned about the increased volcanic and tectonic activity that theoretically occurs throughout a reversal.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #3871185 - 03/05/05 02:03 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Most of the heat produced from our emissions are lost on a daily basis.




What do you mean lost?


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinehardcorey
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/05
Posts: 8
Last seen: 16 years, 5 days
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Gijith]
    #3872197 - 03/05/05 10:01 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:



That said, I think the problem here is that it would have to be a two step process. During a pole reversal, more radiation reaches the center of the Earth instead of being drawn to the poles.






Instead of, "drawn to the poles", do you mean, "deflected from the poles"?

Quote:

This radiation could do a lot of damage to our electrical technology. But it couldn't directly warm the Earth, as it's above the heat and visibility spectrums.





I disagree. I'm posting this thread in Politics, Activism and Law so here's the law:

E=hf where h is Plank's constant, f is frequency and E is energy which is a function of heat. C=fl where C is the speed of light, f is again frequency and l is wavelength. Therefore, you can't say that wavelength is not related to heat. If we're talking about gamma radiation, UV or just plain visible light, they all carry heat in the form of oscillating energy of the particles and the Earth is susceptible to heat changes from any of them.

Quote:


The danger is that enough of this radiation could eat away at our atmosphere, which would undoubtedly lead to warming. So this could eventually happen.





I agree. Another Internet colleague put it best so please allow me to share his thoughts because I find them interesting:


True, if the external magnetic field is stronger. Each particle is its own little monopole magnetic. A series of magnetic fields will accelerate a given particle.

Heat causes a deterioration of a magnetic field.

Increased heat further agitates the electrons in an atom, making them less susceptible, i.e., more resistant to aligning or flowing. For example: The current carrying capacity, "ampacity," of copper wire is derated because of heat. Because copper wire above absolute zero has resistance to current flow, heat will be generated when current flows. This is the I^2R loss.

Because the Sun is about 10% warmer than it was a century ago, as I recall (from reading of course!), it is reasonable to expect the Earth's magnetic field to have decreased since then.

Heat causes the electrons in an atom to move farther away from the nucleus, thereby expanding and lightening the atom and any molecule it is in. That's why water vapor, a "greenhouse gas," normally heavier than air, can remain suspended. It can only be seen when it is cooler than the other gases in the atmosphere and, if not swept along by wind, will fall.



Quote:

But it would probably occur when the field is at its weakest, which will be at least 4,000 years from now (assuming we're even in the beginning phase of a reversal!).





No doubt that warming occurs more intensely as a function of the Earth magnetic field. In other words, if there were no magnetic field on Earth, our planet would be extremely hot. However, any change to the magnetic field will result in changes in temperature. I'm suggesting that a 10% may cause a slight change which is what we've seen in the last 100 years. When I say a slight change, I mean the reported 3.6 degrees (from last I heard). I think it's unwise to say the magnetic field/temperature theory is an all or nothing thing. Just like anything else in nature, cause and effects are incremental.


Edited by hardcorey (03/05/05 10:02 AM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: hardcorey]
    #3872482 - 03/05/05 12:32 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

... yes, deflected from the poles. Sorry about that.


Let me try to restate my thinking here. It's been a long time since I studied any real physics, so you'll have to excuse me if I'm way off.
Okay, the only radiation that's going to affected by a changing magnetic field is alpha and beta radiation. Ionic radiation can do a lot of damage. And yes, it carries a lot of energy. But it does not heat matter.

And so I disagree that any weakening in the Earth's magnetic field is going to cause increased warming.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinehardcorey
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/05
Posts: 8
Last seen: 16 years, 5 days
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Gijith]
    #3872524 - 03/05/05 12:45 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

There's a thing in physics called scattering where an electron (particle) collides with another electron (particle) and energy is given off. Some of the energy is due to Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. The well known Einstein equation E=m*c^2 describes the energy associated to mass. A not so well known Einstein equation (from vague memory) is the following: E=m*c^2+p^2/m which describes the total energy of a moving particle. The extra second term in Einstein's second equation describes the energy associated to movement of a particle. In the case of particles bombarding the Earth and scattering with local particles, the energy, in the form of heat, is what I'm saying may give rise to global warming. Scattering is a real thing and has been proved in the lab on countless occasions. In fact, as you read this, millions of electrons are being scattered on the surface of your silicon transistors in your computer. That's just the the way it is.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: hardcorey]
    #3872571 - 03/05/05 12:56 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Hmmm.

That is interesting.

Can you tell me more about this scattering? Or do you have a good link for info on it?


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3873730 - 03/05/05 06:52 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

GazzBut said:
Quote:

Most of the heat produced from our emissions are lost on a daily basis.




What do you mean lost?




Here is a link to the basis of the global warming argument regarding the loss of heat transmissions and mankind's negligible impact on the state of affairs:
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/corbyn1.html

Tectonic Expansion e.g. earthquakes/volcanoes:
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/expanding_earth.html

Here is a conceptualized view of the fundamentals being omitted from most "textbook" courses:
http://www.holistic-education.org/bulletin1_1.htm (Scroll to the bottom regarding the electrical nature of the solar system, [James McCanney] It's good to have a good scientific understanding of the events, else it's jibberish)

Here is a compendium of Information who's basis relies on the previous foundations presented:

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/repository.html

If you hold any truth to any of the mechanics presented, take a look at the link on this page involving Velikovsky: bottom of the page under: "Velikovsky Files"... quick overview, this topic and the author presents through historical considerations, e.g. ancient religious texts why Mars has no atmosphere, As Venus was an electrically charged comet (under the plasma discharge model), and essentially sucked the atmosphere from Mars, which helps to explain Venus's environment. Further, the information also suggests that the solar system wasn't all formed at one time, which is the view of modern science. Take it all with a grain of salt, remember to be skeptical of everything.

Also look at the links near the bottom of the page under the title "Seasons of the Earth". Solid foundation, and supported by various sources of scientific fact, as well as references.

P.S.
This is my truth... I'm in no way asserting it's correctness.... but to me, it makes a hell of a lot more sense in way of explaining natural phenomena, instead of the many other explanations... Mind you, it's a lot of theoritical work, but it has a solid foundation. (Believe their was a thread up the other day regarding something to the effect of selling bad science: those who go against the grain are punished) Anyhow, give it a look through; I promise nothing is explained in terms of mystical concepts of reciprocated universes and/or trans-dimensional beings from the 8th dimension that rule the land of "milk and honey" (sorry, creativity left me on that one).

Enjoy a new meme (if you haven't seen it yet) from yours truly. 

Criticisms, of it, including it's outright fallaciousness welcomed :lol:. Just explain yourself.


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinehardcorey
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/05
Posts: 8
Last seen: 16 years, 5 days
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Gijith]
    #3875072 - 03/05/05 11:54 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Gijith said:
Hmmm.

That is interesting.

Can you tell me more about this scattering? Or do you have a good link for info on it?




Just do a quick search on google. I did a "electron scattering silicon" on google and found a ton of links:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=DVXA,DVXA:2005-06,DVXA:en&q=electron+scattering+silicon

or

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0268-1242/7/3B/081


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #3881454 - 03/07/05 05:31 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Interesting links but its easy to find impressive studies, theories and research to back up both sides of the arguement.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 6 months, 7 days
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3881592 - 03/07/05 06:58 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

> but its easy to find impressive studies, theories and research to back up both sides of the arguement.

Exactly! Isn't science fun?! This is why the media is so horrid when it comes to using science as a scare tactic... until there has been independent peer review, which can take many years, it is only a guess.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: hardcorey]
    #3881650 - 03/07/05 07:28 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Apparently, the Earth's magnetic field has decreased by 10%




are you implying that man has affected the magnetic field?


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Seuss]
    #3881710 - 03/07/05 08:26 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

To be honest, of the evidence Ive seen, I would say that evidence which supports the human interaction side of the arguement looks most impressive and likely to turn out to be correct. However I wont deny that is probabaly because my own intuition leads me to beleive that to be the case and I prefer the research that concurs with what I feel.

I think that also applies to everyone on this board.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinehardcorey
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/05
Posts: 8
Last seen: 16 years, 5 days
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Innvertigo]
    #3881889 - 03/07/05 10:44 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Innvertigo said:

are you implying that man has affected the magnetic field?




No, the well accepted belief is that the Earth's magnetic field flips naturally. See the following link for more information about the cyclicial magnetic events that occurs on Earth.

http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005/02/27/6900064_Magnet_Pole_Shift/


Edited by hardcorey (03/07/05 10:44 AM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinehardcorey
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/05
Posts: 8
Last seen: 16 years, 5 days
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3881902 - 03/07/05 10:52 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

GazzBut said:
To be honest, of the evidence Ive seen, I would say that evidence which supports the human interaction side of the arguement looks most impressive and likely to turn out to be correct. However I wont deny that is probabaly because my own intuition leads me to beleive that to be the case and I prefer the research that concurs with what I feel.





Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

Quote:

I think that also applies to everyone on this board.




Not me. I believe the liberal media uses global warming as a public scare tactic in order to hurt businesses. Whether businesses should be hurt or not -- I don't know. I do know that as an engineer, when approaching problems such as global warming, assumption is the mother of all mistakes and any "intuition" can sometimes get in the way of truth. At this time, there is NO final proof. At this time, everyone should be open minded about all aspects of the problem because if we aren't, our actions could cause more harm than good.


Edited by hardcorey (03/07/05 10:53 AM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: hardcorey]
    #3881921 - 03/07/05 11:02 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

No, the well accepted belief is that the Earth's magnetic field flips naturally. See the following link for more information about the cyclicial magnetic events that occurs on Earth.




Oh, ok then. It seems everyone blames anything that happens on man. I'm a firm believer that global warming and cooling is a natural occurance. This does not mean that I think we shouldn't worry about pollution, rather they are two different things all together. But that's just my opinion.


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: hardcorey]
    #3881954 - 03/07/05 11:21 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Not me. I believe the liberal media uses global warming as a public scare tactic in order to hurt businesses.




You misunderstand. What I meant was that evidence which supports what you believe will look more impressive and convincing than the evidence that supports the contrary.

Nobody on this board has enough scientific knowledge to base their opinion solely on facts without letting their own personal preference guide them.

As for the so called liberal media I think that perception of this is dependent on your own beliefs. However, if the media really is totally liberal biased surely you should be asking yourselves why some of the most informed members of society adopt liberal beliefs!


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 15 years, 4 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3881990 - 03/07/05 11:40 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

GazzBut said:
As for the so called liberal media I think that perception of this is dependent on your own beliefs.



It's also supported by studies where members of the media identify their own political leanings.

Quote:

However, if the media really is totally liberal biased surely you should be asking yourselves why some of the most informed members of society adopt liberal beliefs!



Members of the media are not the most informed, they read teleprompters and regurgitate the most superficial of details (for the most part). Like it or not, the media in this country is largely infotainment and concerned with market share first. The 'news' is a means to an end (ratings which lead to profits) it is not the end. More than once I have watched the media reporting on some things which I am intimately knowledgeable and their 'facts' consist of glaring omissions, half truths, uneducated guesses and opinionated spin. The print media is better, but not by much as articles are designed for those with the attention span of a channel surfer.


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinehardcorey
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/05
Posts: 8
Last seen: 16 years, 5 days
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3882027 - 03/07/05 11:53 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

GazzBut said:
...you should be asking yourselves why some of the most informed members of society adopt liberal beliefs!




Are you serious? How can you make a statement like, "...the most informed members of society adopt liberal beliefs!"? That's like saying my dog has a better personality than your dog. A statement like that is pure conjecture unless you can back it up with links, studies or evidence.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3882080 - 03/07/05 12:11 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Maybe the question should be 'What does the liberal media have to gain by hurting business?'


Corey,
I'm eagery reading up on this idea of yours. I'm wondering why this hasn't been widely theorized and publicized... I'm going by my school's astronomy library later on. Hopefully, I'll come back with some questions.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinehardcorey
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/05
Posts: 8
Last seen: 16 years, 5 days
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Gijith]
    #3882133 - 03/07/05 12:39 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Gijith said:
I'm eagery reading up on this idea of yours. I'm wondering why this hasn't been widely theorized and publicized... I'm going by my school's astronomy library later on. Hopefully, I'll come back with some questions.




I don't know but I think it's a good question. I thought about the idea while I was skiing in Colorado last winter. Since then, I haven't shared it with anyone until now.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 6 months, 7 days
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: hardcorey]
    #3886157 - 03/08/05 07:12 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

> I believe the liberal media uses global warming as a public scare tactic in order to hurt businesses.

I agree with you, (in spirit... I prefer to think of them as eco-terrorist... not all liberal media is bad), but at the same time I feel that the big pollution creators need to take a more proactive "what-if" approach. We know that pollution is bad, regardless of it causing global warming or not. Why not err on the side of safety (and sanity) and reduce our emmisions? Oh yes, money and greed... how silly of me... why should I worry about my children's future, or mine for that matter, when I need money to pay for gas for those SUVs I have sitting in the drive...


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Seuss]
    #3886180 - 03/08/05 07:30 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

God I love my SUV......

Actually with the exception of the SUV part I feel pretty much the same as you. Pollution is fucking pathetic and many companies balance the fines they will get for polluting with the amount of profit they make and determine that it will be cheaper to pay the fines then actually cleaning up. I can't believe the Govt. lets these companies make this decision. Personally I'd like to see a graduated fine system. Something like a set fine when a violation is found then the fine graduates exponentially the longer they go without fixing the problem. I'm not a tree-hugger or some Birkenstock wearing hippie, rather I'm a person who likes the outdoors and it disgusts me when I find out the watter I'm fishing in is contaminated or the woods I'm hunting in is a dumping ground for some asshole who could find a place to but their old refrigerator.


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 6 months, 7 days
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Innvertigo]
    #3886360 - 03/08/05 09:27 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

> Personally I'd like to see a graduated fine system.

Need both the carrot and the stick. Big tax breaks to companies that go out of their way to be clean. There should be a right for companies to pollute within reason. Big fines (to pay for the big tax breaks) to companies that pollute a lot.

> Actually with the exception of the SUV part I feel pretty much the same as you.

Yep, it is always easier to point out other peoples messes than to accept our own messes. I am as guilty as anybody in this regard.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Seuss]
    #3886492 - 03/08/05 10:51 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

what i meant by the SUV thing is that many engines in some SUV's are smaller than that of cars. This SUV stigma is sort of funny. I have one myself and if you've ever had to drive in the snow it is awesome.

As far as the fines and tax breaks, I see nothing wrong with what you gave as an example. I like the idea of tax breaks for those that conform to EPA standards (or whatever standard they are using). Companies that pollute in excess should be fined like I said.


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDoctorJ
"Nazi, Satanist Anti-Christ"
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,843
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 month, 17 days
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Innvertigo]
    #3886515 - 03/08/05 11:06 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Innvertigo said:
what i meant by the SUV thing is that many engines in some SUV's are smaller than that of cars. This SUV stigma is sort of funny. I have one myself and if you've ever had to drive in the snow it is awesome.

As far as the fines and tax breaks, I see nothing wrong with what you gave as an example. I like the idea of tax breaks for those that conform to EPA standards (or whatever standard they are using). Companies that pollute in excess should be fined like I said.




you're growing a lot. I like you.


--------------------
'You can go to a hospital
Get yourself cleaned out.'


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: DoctorJ]
    #3886523 - 03/08/05 11:09 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

I've always thought this way. By problem is that too many people are trying to blame global warming exclusivly on polution from man.


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineXygyg
Somulate
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/21/05
Posts: 63
Loc: Texas
Last seen: 11 years, 11 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Innvertigo]
    #3905796 - 03/12/05 05:27 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

I don't think that going around trying to assign blame is helping any of us, because almost everyone on this planet is in some part responsible for what is happening...some more than others, but in the end it will make no difference!  We will probably still be pointing fingers when the last of our natural resources are either frozen over or burned up! :sun:


--------------------

"There are no facts, only interpretations."
from Nietzsche's Nachlass


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Xygyg]
    #3907358 - 03/12/05 03:27 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Space has all the natural resources we require... yet.. for some reason we're determined to exhaust our supply on Earth and to kill each other off before we venture out.


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Edibles   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains   North Spore Bulk Substrate, Cultivation Supplies, Injection Grain Bag, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Amazon Calcium Carbonate, Hemp, Portable Greenhouse

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Katrina Should be A Lesson To US on Global Warming. lonestar2004 936 11 09/01/05 01:38 PM
by snoopaloop53
* Global Warming?
( 1 2 all )
luvdemshrooms 2,154 37 07/18/03 08:49 PM
by Innvertigo
* A look at global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
luvdemshrooms 12,671 119 02/27/04 03:07 AM
by EchoVortex
* Global warming nothing but pretend communist conspiracy
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
question_for_joo 9,901 112 08/31/04 09:48 PM
by Gijith
* Surprise CO2 rise may speed up global warming
( 1 2 3 4 all )
GazzBut 4,864 67 10/12/04 01:56 PM
by Innvertigo
* Good article on global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
luvdemshrooms 4,347 86 06/10/03 06:56 AM
by Innvertigo
* Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Evolving 4,329 75 05/04/03 10:07 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Global Warming May Have More Current Affects than Previously Thought Ravus 631 4 01/16/05 11:53 AM
by greensnake316

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
7,904 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Cannabis Seeds - Original Sensible Seeds
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.081 seconds spending 0.014 seconds on 15 queries.