• 08-21-2007, 05:59 PM
    schrackman
    A new culprit to blame for climate change
    I think it's time I make a contribution to the fight against climate change/global warming.

    No, I'm not gonna buy a hybrid, or ride a bike to work. Instead, I'm gonna eat more steak and buy me a moose tag for hunting season!

    All their belchin' and flatulatin' is destroying our environment. Away with the rascals!

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/...501145,00.html
  • 08-21-2007, 06:24 PM
    JSPhoto
    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change
    use Beano .....:D

    I couldn't resist that one.... my sisters a vegitarian.... :eek:

    JS
  • 08-21-2007, 11:49 PM
    schrackman
    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change
    hehe, I actually had to look up Beano just to see what it was. Never heard of it before. But hey, that'll fix them gross pollutin' moose! :D
  • 08-22-2007, 12:43 AM
    JSPhoto
    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change
    I thought you'd like that :)

    JS
  • 08-22-2007, 07:43 AM
    photophorous
    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change
    Wow! They're expecting to kill 35,000 moose (29% of the population) in one hunting season, in one little country? Did you read that? That's a lot of moose killin'.
  • 08-22-2007, 07:56 AM
    Canuck935
    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change
    That's ridiculous. Boy we sure are the world's laziest species. Instead of making an effort in our own lives, we waste our time to come up with other things to blame the worlds problems on. I mean heck, nothing is ever our fault. I guess it's much easier to just go and kill off more animals. Yes, let's do that!

    gah...
  • 08-22-2007, 10:34 AM
    JSPhoto
    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by photophorous
    Wow! They're expecting to kill 35,000 moose (29% of the population) in one hunting season, in one little country? Did you read that? That's a lot of moose killin'.

    Maybe they wouldn't eat the Beano!

    in the scheme of things 35000 isn't that many considering the actual numbers are in the hundreds of thousands, possibly close to a half million the last I heard

    JS
  • 08-22-2007, 12:06 PM
    photophorous
    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JSPhoto
    Maybe they wouldn't eat the Beano!

    in the scheme of things 35000 isn't that many considering the actual numbers are in the hundreds of thousands, possibly close to a half million the last I heard

    JS

    Did a little research...

    There are 23.5 million people in Texas and last year we killed about 43,000 deer....little 100 pound white-tailed deer.

    There are 4.6 million people in Norway and they are going to kill 35,000 moose?...gigantic 1-ton moose?

    That's a lot of moose killin'.
  • 08-22-2007, 12:26 PM
    schrackman
    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Canuck935
    That's ridiculous. Boy we sure are the world's laziest species. Instead of making an effort in our own lives, we waste our time to come up with other things to blame the worlds problems on. I mean heck, nothing is ever our fault. I guess it's much easier to just go and kill off more animals. Yes, let's do that!

    gah...

    Canuck, why is it ridiculous to think that man is not to blame for whatever climate change scientists say is occurring?

    Think about it..sunny California used to have sizeable glaciers, such as those geologists say carved out beautiful Yosemite. Yet, they retreated into oblivion long before the industrial revolution. Who or what shall we blame for these lost glaciers? The native North Americans who lit one too many campfires, or nature?

    It wasn't long ago (in the '70s) that Time Magazine strongly suggested global cooling would result in another ice age, as the scientists of the day were preaching this as doom and gloom. Now, they're proclaiming global warming and prophesying of sure disaster if we don't change our ways. Here's an excerpt from the Time's article:

    Quote:

    ...when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
    And then notice how man is implicated as the perpetrator:

    Quote:

    Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.
    See, we just can win, can we? Everything must be our fault, from global cooling to global warming. It's very suspect to me to hear how many in the scientific community–from geologists to astronomists to evolutionary biologists–have convinced many that man is just a speck of a creature, insigificant in the grand scheme of things, and yet at the same time he's alledgedly responsible for changing the climate of an entire planet!

    Global warming really isn't about science, it's about politics and money. Once one comes to accept this fact then the rest is elementary. Case in point: nations are now staking their claim to the Artic on account of climate change, which is nothing more than a convenient excuse for the acquisition of another continent and its vast natural resources.

    So I say, let the moose keep farting and I will continue to drive my 17-19mpg SUV without guilt. :)
  • 08-22-2007, 12:43 PM
    Canuck935
    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change
    My point exactly.

    Depending on what your source of information is, either it is our fault or it isn't. We're good at that. We can take any and all evidence and contort it into whatever conclusion that we want.

    The point is. Instead of us making an effort to do anything beneficial for our planet, we shrug it off. Maybe climate change really isn't our fault. Maybe there's nothing that will stop it. But does that mean then we should do nothing to conserve it's resources and clean up pollution?

    I can't see how we aren't at least partially responsible for our climate with billions of tons of gasses we dump into the atmosphere, the destruction of natural places, and the amount of trash we dump into it's bodies of water.

    I don't know if global climate change is or isn't our fault. My point is we have the ability and the technology right now to make a huge change for the better, but it just isn't happening. My theory why it isn't happening? Ignorance and laziness. People just don't want to have to make a change.

    I agree, let the moose fart.. Meanwhile, I'll continue driving my 30+mpg 4-banger that'll run circles around any SUV. Don't get me wrong, there's practical uses for SUV's and I'm fine with that (I even want an SUV, but it'll be a 4-banger Jeep). I'm not fine with the fact that there's thousands of SUV's on the road that are not being utilized in such ways. That annoys me.
  • 08-22-2007, 01:10 PM
    JSPhoto
    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change
    NOAA through many years of research has stated there is no such thing as global warming. They used data from 100,000's of sources including weather reports from countries other than the US, even using letters detailing weather from all over the world back as far as they could find information and they used glaciers and research from there and they said this is simply the natural heating and cooling of the earth...NATURAL process. The process can last from 30 years to a 100 years where you have one extreme or the other...nothing sinister as Gore suggests, and I think NOAA knows a lot more about weather and atmospher than Gore.
    The sad part is that this shows just how gullable the masses are, that they will allow a few to control them, not just in the US but Europe as well as they are tripping over themselves trying to make the earth cooler.....but they are not in charge, nature is.
    Man does do things that do not help matters, but that only helps within a degree of what the earth it'self does, and that won't change the ice flows in a possitive or negative way.

    JS
  • 08-22-2007, 01:22 PM
    schrackman
    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Canuck935
    My point is we have the ability and the technology right now to make a huge change for the better, but it just isn't happening. My theory why it isn't happening? Ignorance and laziness. People just don't want to have to make a change.

    Yes, I understand that point and agree. However, we also need to recognize that North America does do it's fair share, if not more, to control emissions and be environmentally responsible within reason. China, on the other hand, is the exact opposite, not to mention the many third world countries who could care less about pollution control.

    When I was in the Philippines, the very first day, within less than 2 hours of leaving the airport, I developed a blistering headache and some nausea because of all the smog I inhaled while being driven through Manila. I wish I had been a photographer back then, so that I could show you the acid rain stained buildings and statues I passed in the city. It was disgusting. Frankly, we have a lot to be proud of here in North America for the progress we have actually made in terms of reducing emissions. We deserve credit for it, not scolding.

    Quote:

    I agree, let the moose fart.. Meanwhile, I'll continue driving my 30+mpg 4-banger that'll run circles around any SUV.
    Oh yeah? Come with me to the desert, my friend. You can spend all that extra gas mileage getting out of the sand while I use mine to get home. :D

    Quote:

    Don't get me wrong, there's practical uses for SUV's and I'm fine with that (I even want an SUV, but it'll be a 4-banger Jeep). I'm not fine with the fact that there's thousands of SUV's on the road that are not being utilized in such ways. That annoys me.
    I'm with ya there too. I hate seeing a person buy a 4x4 and never really use it. I mean, what's the sense in that? But then again vanity has always been in vogue.
  • 08-22-2007, 01:53 PM
    Canuck935
    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change
    Totally agree with you mr. schrackman! :thumbsup:

    I'll take you up on that offer to go off-roading in the desert too! Just not until I get me a 4x4. :D
  • 08-22-2007, 03:13 PM
    photophorous
    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by schrackman
    Global warming really isn't about science, it's about politics and money. Once one comes to accept this fact then the rest is elementary. Case in point: nations are now staking their claim to the Artic on account of climate change, which is nothing more than a convenient excuse for the acquisition of another continent and its vast natural resources.

    Ray,

    Can you explain a little more about why this is about politics and money, and not science? I've heard this before, but I don't understand it. Who stands to gain from claiming global warming is a real problem if it isn't?

    You site other countries laying claim to the arctic circle, but all I've heard about is Russia. Russia is trying to make a recovery from their post cold war faceplant, and raising money from oil beneath the arctic circle is one way to do it. Anyone who believes in global warming thinks the Arctic circle will just be another ocean soon...there is no land to grab, only oil beneath the ocean beneath the ice. Oil is already a pretty hot commodity, so how is this move related to the global warming debate?

    On the other hand, I see lots of people who stand to gain (in the short term) from ignoring it...such as everyone, for fear of the cost of the changes that are needed and the sacrifice of luxuries (like your SUV), and our politicians who will loose their jobs for proposing the necessary tax increases for R&D and for trying to force other countries to do their part. There are many very real reasons to wish that man can do nothing to change the planet, but the only people who stand to gain from thinking we can do something are the small number of people invested in alternative energy.

    I found this article very easily doing a google search and there are many more just like it.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Dec25.html

    Why would the vast majority of scientists, from around the world, from a variety of political leanings, conspire against us?

    Paul
  • 08-22-2007, 03:17 PM
    schrackman
    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Canuck935
    Totally agree with you mr. schrackman! :thumbsup:

    I'll take you up on that offer to go off-roading in the desert too! Just not until I get me a 4x4. :D

    Just make sure it's a Jeep. Then you can keep up with me. :cornut:
  • 08-23-2007, 11:52 AM
    mwfanelli2
    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change
    Good grief people!

    Yes, there have been periods of cold and heat all through the historical record. We have NEVER, as in NEVER, seen as large an increase in greenhouse gasses that we see now. Those gasses began to rise when the industrial revolution began. This is man's doing. If we are in an upswing, that upswing is being made magnitudes worse by our activities.

    NASA has never said that global warming doesn't exist. Many years ago, satellite data was misinterpreted and the results reported were later, and quickly, corrected. This happens. Nasa, NOAA, and every other agency EASILY measure the increase in global temperatures. It is rare to find anyone at all that disputes the numbers regardless of the cause they believe in.

    Also, all that junk also causes global cooling(!) because light is reflecting off the increase in cloud cover. Without that increased pollution-caused cloud cover, the temperatures would be signifigantly higher.

    Saying that an new ice age and global warming are incompatible shows a true lack of scientific knowledge. Global conditions are regulated by the atmosphere but also by the ocean currents. For example, as the critical polar currents start to shrink, stay closer to the poles, there can be regional decreases in temperature as the rest of the world warms up. That decraese will cause the buildup of ice and snow after a while. That's the simple version a very complex interaction. Lets not forget that the Gulf Stream is shrinking, meaning that Europe will actually get colder and stormier.

    Every model also shows that the biggest effect of global warming is an increase in the variability of climate. This not only means long hot spells but also frigid cold, flooding, dust-bowl droughts, etc. It is not just a simple "Gee its getting out hot here."

    Too many people just want to stick their heads in the ground and pretend that everything is OK and its business as usual. Too bad, that just won't work. But don't worry, we are well past the point where we can do anything about it anyway.
  • 08-23-2007, 02:35 PM
    schrackman
    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by photophorous
    Ray,

    Can you explain a little more about why this is about politics and money, and not science? I've heard this before, but I don't understand it. Who stands to gain from claiming global warming is a real problem if it isn't?

    Sure. Scientific research costs money, lots of it, and scientists and the companies they work for know where to go get it–our government. Millions and millions of dollars in grant money. Politicians gain an agenda for their election, legacy, or bipartisan bickering (like claiming Bush is against the environment when he doesn't go along with certain environmental legislation). Some of the so-called unilateral environmental compacts or accords would weaken US sovereignty, which of course the UN would love to see. And all in the name of "saving the environment."

    Quote:

    You site other countries laying claim to the arctic circle, but all I've heard about is Russia. Russia is trying to make a recovery from their post cold war faceplant, and raising money from oil beneath the arctic circle is one way to do it. Anyone who believes in global warming thinks the Arctic circle will just be another ocean soon...there is no land to grab, only oil beneath the ocean beneath the ice. Oil is already a pretty hot commodity, so how is this move related to the global warming debate?
    Right. I was thinking of Antartica when I referred to the Artic as a continent. But I was speaking of the Artic and the resources under the ice that nations are trying to lay claim to because of the global warming issue, i.e. the prospect of a melted Artic will make exploration and extraction of such resources possible: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...=World_3158159

    Quote:

    On the other hand, I see lots of people who stand to gain (in the short term) from ignoring it...such as everyone, for fear of the cost of the changes that are needed and the sacrifice of luxuries (like your SUV), and our politicians who will loose their jobs for proposing the necessary tax increases for R&D and for trying to force other countries to do their part. There are many very real reasons to wish that man can do nothing to change the planet, but the only people who stand to gain from thinking we can do something are the small number of people invested in alternative energy.
    Well the real question is, is there really something to worry about? Is global warming really happening? And if so, is it natural, cyclical, or are we actually causing it? If the former is true, we need not worry since really there's nothing we can do about it. If the latter true, and I deeply suspect this is not the case, then yes, we should be doing all we can. But frankly, I think it's a load of crock.

    Quote:

    I found this article very easily doing a google search and there are many more just like it.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Dec25.html

    Why would the vast majority of scientists, from around the world, from a variety of political leanings, conspire against us?
    Money. Notoriety. Job security, political agenda, a hatred of the US, its sovereignty, power, freedom, and influence, just to name a few. There can be any number of motives, Paul. And, frankly, some just want to believe it based on their research, which could very well be flawed by the way. I mean, look back at what happened in the 70s. Global cooling "shows no indication of reversing." That was the scientists speaking. And yet now we are at global warming? Perhaps some just like to jump on the bandwagon of things. People tend to be like that sometimes.

    As John Stossel says, "Give me a break!" :p
  • 08-23-2007, 07:25 PM
    mn shutterbug
    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mwfanelli2
    Good grief people!

    Yes, there have been periods of cold and heat all through the historical record. We have NEVER, as in NEVER, seen as large an increase in greenhouse gasses that we see now. Those gasses began to rise when the industrial revolution began. This is man's doing. If we are in an upswing, that upswing is being made magnitudes worse by our activities.


    Michael, thanks for chiming in. There is plenty of evidence out there proving that global is actually happening. I subscribe to Smithsonian and have read interesting articles and seen incredible photos, regarding what is happening to our earth. It is real and all we can do is attempt to slow it down.
  • 08-23-2007, 09:49 PM
    masdog
    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mwfanelli2
    Yes, there have been periods of cold and heat all through the historical record. We have NEVER, as in NEVER, seen as large an increase in greenhouse gasses that we see now. Those gasses began to rise when the industrial revolution began. This is man's doing. If we are in an upswing, that upswing is being made magnitudes worse by our activities.

    Never is a very strong word, and you need to clarify your position a little bit. You say we've never seen that kind of increase, but how far back does our data go? In the grand scheme of things, not very far. We can go back a couple of hundred thousand years with ice core samples, and maybe a million or so years with sea bed core samples, but that is about it. We don't have a complete climate history of Earth because ice melts over time and the Earth recycles itself in subduction zones.

    So while its fair to say we've never seen the kind of Greenhouse gas increase that we're seeing now, we need to temper that by saying we don't have the complete history of the Earth's climate.

    Quote:

    NASA has never said that global warming doesn't exist. Many years ago, satellite data was misinterpreted and the results reported were later, and quickly, corrected. This happens. Nasa, NOAA, and every other agency EASILY measure the increase in global temperatures. It is rare to find anyone at all that disputes the numbers regardless of the cause they believe in.
    Yet there is dispute over the numbers and the methods by which they were collected. No one has effectively discredited the Urban Heat Island Effect which could skew surface temperature readings. Which, by the way, most temperature data isn't recorded by satellite but by sensitive ground stations.

    Quote:

    Saying that an new ice age and global warming are incompatible shows a true lack of scientific knowledge. Global conditions are regulated by the atmosphere but also by the ocean currents. For example, as the critical polar currents start to shrink, stay closer to the poles, there can be regional decreases in temperature as the rest of the world warms up. That decraese will cause the buildup of ice and snow after a while. That's the simple version a very complex interaction. Lets not forget that the Gulf Stream is shrinking, meaning that Europe will actually get colder and stormier.
    Atmosphere, ocean currents, solar outputs, and who knows what else.

    [quotes]Every model also shows that the biggest effect of global warming is an increase in the variability of climate. This not only means long hot spells but also frigid cold, flooding, dust-bowl droughts, etc. It is not just a simple "Gee its getting out hot here."[/quote]

    Part of the problem is that there is no way to verify the data that the models are built on. There is a wealth of data out there, but there is no central data store to record climate data and share it between scientists. To make matters more confusing, many (but not all) climatologists don't open their data or algorithms up for review.

    Quote:

    Too many people just want to stick their heads in the ground and pretend that everything is OK and its business as usual. Too bad, that just won't work. But don't worry, we are well past the point where we can do anything about it anyway.
    Repeat after me...correlation != causation. Just because there is a relationship between the two doesn't mean that one causes the other.
  • 08-24-2007, 05:39 AM
    mn shutterbug
    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by masdog
    Repeat after me...correlation != causation. Just because there is a relationship between the two doesn't mean that one causes the other.

    Man may not be causing the problem, but we certainly contribute to it.
  • 08-24-2007, 08:26 AM
    photophorous
    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change
    Hi Ray,

    Thanks for taking the time to address my questions. I have to ask myself sometimes why I get involved in these conversations. I donít want to make enemies on photography review, so I hope you understand none of this is personal. My only goal in participating in this type of discussion is to persuade people to be more open to the possibility that we need to make some changes. I want people to go research this for themselves.

    What I read in your response is a general distrust for the scientific community. You seem to think everyone involved either has a personal agenda, or is simply wrong. I find it very hard to believe that a majority of scientists, for want of notoriety and money, would knowingly subscribe to a false theory. If they are seeking notoriety, wouldnít they be better off going against the grain, and being the one who really uncovers the truth? Time will always expose bad science.

    Such a politically unpopular topic as global warming wouldnít seem like the best way to get grant money out of our government either. I would think a scientist working to disprove the theories of global warming would get grant money just as easily, if not easier, due to the fact that that opinion is underrepresented. There are always people who sell out, and scientists are not above this, but to think the majority is doing so seems like nothing more than cynicism.

    So, the other thing that could be going on here is simple failure on the part of the scientists. They could just all be wrong. Itís happened before. But, the often sited Global Cooling scare of the 70ís is not an example of this. That was more of a media issue than a scientific issue. There were lots of scientists involved in discussing the cooling trend, which was real, although short term. But only a small number of those scientists went so far as to say it was an irreversible dooms day scenario. Most of the scientists at that time did not know what to think of it and made no claim that it was due to human activity. It was a few scientists that set off a media storm. There was never a consensus.

    This time itís very different. Science is largely a process of elimination, and thereís no doubt that todayís scientists have much better technology and more historical data. I think you can safely assume that the mistakes of the 70ís will not be repeated. Data proves that humans have caused an enormous increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, extending far beyond any historical spikes. Thereís no science that disputes that; only speculation from unscientific sources. The data also proves that the earth is warming. Ice on Antarctica has melted to uncover portions of the continent that have been covered for thousands of years or more. Glaciers on top of mountains around the world are doing the same. We are in a warming trend. The question is whether or not this increase in CO2 is causing or contributing to the warming trend.

    Taking any position in this debate is risky. If you think that global warming is real and thereís something we can do about it, you run the risk of unnecessarily spending money and making sacrifices. If you think global warming isnít real, you run the risk of watching our society crumble, as flooding, storms, and potentially even the onset of another ice age destroy our infrastructure and cause widespread war and famine...because you chose to do nothing. No one knows how bad this could be, but we do know there are a lot of relatively cheap and easy things we could do that might help.

    Paul
  • 08-24-2007, 09:16 AM
    photophorous
    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by masdog
    Never is a very strong word, and you need to clarify your position a little bit. You say we've never seen that kind of increase, but how far back does our data go? In the grand scheme of things, not very far. We can go back a couple of hundred thousand years with ice core samples, and maybe a million or so years with sea bed core samples, but that is about it. We don't have a complete climate history of Earth because ice melts over time and the Earth recycles itself in subduction zones.

    So while its fair to say we've never seen the kind of Greenhouse gas increase that we're seeing now, we need to temper that by saying we don't have the complete history of the Earth's climate.

    Ok...technically you are correct. But seriously...think about this for a minute. Data goes back "maybe a million or so years." This data shows only slight variations in CO2 levels, until we reach modern history and the industrial revolution, at which time CO2 levels shoot through the roof. We know with 100% certainty that burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the environment, that the cows we're farming release CO2 into the environment (probably negligable), and that deforestation decreases the earth's ability to convert that CO2. Is there any evidence for what else could be causing this increase? Does it really matter that we only have data going back a few hundred thousand years, if we can find no other source for the current increase?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by masdog
    Yet there is dispute over the numbers and the methods by which they were collected. No one has effectively discredited the Urban Heat Island Effect which could skew surface temperature readings. Which, by the way, most temperature data isn't recorded by satellite but by sensitive ground stations.

    True, there is a dispute, but you need to put that dispute into perspective. There's always a dispute, but by far, the majority of scientists agree. How could the Urban Heat Island Effect have any effect on the data that's collected in high mountain glacial areas and the Arctic and Antarctic, where the largest changes are being observed?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by masdog
    Part of the problem is that there is no way to verify the data that the models are built on. There is a wealth of data out there, but there is no central data store to record climate data and share it between scientists. To make matters more confusing, many (but not all) climatologists don't open their data or algorithms up for review.

    Climate models are controversial for good reason. Using a computer and equations to predict the future is bound to have flaws. Our climate is extremely complicated. But, more climate models have incorrectly underestimated the severity of changes than overestimated. The ice is melting faster than they have predicted.

    A general distrust of science seems to be a common trend among those who reject the theories of global warming. Itís always possible to find little details to poke holes in, but you have to look at the big picture. I'm no where near an expert on any of this, nor am I a scientist, but my background in engineering is enough for me to realize that what they are doing is not just a bunch of opinionated guesswork. Scientists follow a systematic and logical process to come to these conclusions, and the last thing they want to do is leave a legacy of failure. That doesn't mean they are always right. But, I have faith that they are much more qualified to make these conclusions than you or I.

    Paul
  • 08-24-2007, 09:48 AM
    mwfanelli2
    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by masdog
    Never is a very strong word, and you need to clarify your position a little bit. You say we've never seen that kind of increase, but how far back does our data go? In the grand scheme of things, not very far. We can go back a couple of hundred thousand years with ice core samples, and maybe a million or so years with sea bed core samples, but that is about it. We don't have a complete climate history of Earth because ice melts over time and the Earth recycles itself in subduction zones.

    Well, we know the sun has been rising in the east and setting in the west for much less time than that. Are you willing to put up money that it won't do that tomorrow? How do you know it will or won't?

    There is a vast preponderance of evidence, cycles that are very clear and consistent going back, as you say, for tens of millions of years. Is something completly new and unseen before happening now? Yeah, maybe, but its of the same probability of the sun not rising tomorrow.

    We don't have a complete history? Huh? Just because ice melts does not mean that the evidence just disappears. I suggest you look up the science of ice cores and seabed cores before stating such things.

    Subduction "recycles" the Earth? Good grief! Subduction is such a slow process that it takes more than tens of millions of years to occur. Subduction is happening now, for example, as India pushes it way underneath Asia. That has been going on since the time that Pangaia broke up! Subduction does not "recycle" anything. Most new rock, igneous, is created in divergence zones, not subduction zones, as magma comes to the surface through the gaps. That happen only in certain areas of the Earth and does not recycle anything either.

    Quote:

    So while its fair to say we've never seen the kind of Greenhouse gas increase that we're seeing now, we need to temper that by saying we don't have the complete history of the Earth's climate.
    Once again, you can NEVER have a complete history of anything. To make a choice of something that has never been seen and has never occured as being "normal" is nonsense. This is the same stuff that people such as ghost hunters, UFO fans, conspiracy folks use. As Carl Sagan used to say: "Extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof." That's the bind you have put yourself in.

    Quote:

    Yet there is dispute over the numbers and the methods by which they were collected. No one has effectively discredited the Urban Heat Island Effect which could skew surface temperature readings. Which, by the way, most temperature data isn't recorded by satellite but by sensitive ground stations.
    No one has ever said that urban heat islands do not exist. I learned about that when I was in school 40 years ago! Remote sensing does include a lot more information than satellites. NASA, the agency YOU mentioned, only deals with satellite data. NOAA and some other agencies run the other remote sensing sites and data. All of this data shows, without any wiggle room at all, that temperatures are increasing. As I said, even the worst politicians have conceded this.

    Quote:

    Atmosphere, ocean currents, solar outputs, and who knows what else.
    Yes. And...?

    Quote:

    Part of the problem is that there is no way to verify the data that the models are built on. There is a wealth of data out there, but there is no central data store to record climate data and share it between scientists.
    Huh? All data is verified! What world do you come from? This data is freely available as the vast majority was funded with public funds. A friend of mine who was in the doctorate program at the University of Delaware used this data for her study of the North Atlantic Oscillation. She had no problem obtaining it. Do you really believe that this data is being collected by private corporations or individuals who do what... sell it on eBay? Get real!

    Quote:

    To make matters more confusing, many (but not all) climatologists don't open their data or algorithms up for review.
    Please give me an example of a climate modeller who hides his algorithms. All models and results are peer reviewed before being published. That can't happen if "secret" algorithms or methods are being used. I am assuming here that you have no clue how the scientific world works. For example, cold fusion was largely rejected because the results could not be peer reviewed because the two dolts who did the work wanted to make a profit from their "secret method." That is crap science. When the details were finally released, it was clear that these chemists did not understand the physics lab equipment they were using.

    Quote:

    Repeat after me...correlation != causation. Just because there is a relationship between the two doesn't mean that one causes the other.
    I know this much better than you do. But unsubstantiated claims about unknown processes isn't the same as science. No offense here, but you really need to take (retake?) some basic science courses to understand how science is done and reported.

    You don't want to believe that anything is happening or that anything is wrong. Fine. You refuse to use the scientific method, the core meaning of science, fine. You want to spread the word to all "Don't worry, be happy!". Fine. You have an obvious bias against science. Fine. But please, don't try shroud your beliefs in scientific terms hoping to pass it off as real science.
  • 08-24-2007, 01:25 PM
    masdog
    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change
    Before this gets completely out of hand, let me apologize. I did stretch some points that I made in my reply to you. I also want to clarify that I am skeptical on what is causing global warming, not that it isn't occurring, a point that might have been made hidden by some of my more outlandish replies.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mwfanelli2
    Well, we know the sun has been rising in the east and setting in the west for much less time than that. Are you willing to put up money that it won't do that tomorrow? How do you know it will or won't?

    Well, a giant rock could fall from the sky and alter the way the Earth rotates on its axis. :D :D But that is about as likely as the sun not rising at all.

    Quote:

    We don't have a complete history? Huh? Just because ice melts does not mean that the evidence just disappears. I suggest you look up the science of ice cores and seabed cores before stating such things.
    If the evidence is stored neatly in the ice, and the ice melts, where does it go? As I recall, the important bits of data are suspended in air bubbles and dust particles. According to Wikipedia (the only source I have access to right now as I am posting from work), if ice cores get warm enough, the gas bubbles stored inside of the ice may be released or mixed with modern air. If the glaciers and ice sheets get warm enough and start to melt, those air bubbles will disappear over time.

    Going by the ice core pictures I have seen, the dust appears to be layers. If the ice begins to melt, those layers will eventually mix, and there won't be a record of climate from the dust.

    Quote:

    Subduction "recycles" the Earth? Good grief! Subduction is such a slow process that it takes more than tens of millions of years to occur. Subduction is happening now, for example, as India pushes it way underneath Asia. That has been going on since the time that Pangaia broke up! Subduction does not "recycle" anything. Most new rock, igneous, is created in divergence zones, not subduction zones, as magma comes to the surface through the gaps. That happen only in certain areas of the Earth and does not recycle anything either.
    Sorry. That's an argument for that is used against Young Earth Creationism, not Global Warming. Don't know why I was compelled to post that.

    Quote:

    No one has ever said that urban heat islands do not exist. I learned about that when I was in school 40 years ago! Remote sensing does include a lot more information than satellites. NASA, the agency YOU mentioned, only deals with satellite data. NOAA and some other agencies run the other remote sensing sites and data. All of this data shows, without any wiggle room at all, that temperatures are increasing. As I said, even the worst politicians have conceded this.
    Be careful about who you are replying to. This is only my second post in the thread. The first one is the one that you just replied to. I never mentioned NASA in my first post.

    I do agree that temperatures are increasing. That is a given since we are still in an interglacial warming period. The questions that we face are related to man's impact on this period as well as extending it.

    Regarding remote sensing capabilities, there is some debate over the data recorded from orbit versus the data recorded from microsites on the ground. From wikipedia, there has been a couple of papers going back and forth on the issue, with one stating that there wasn't much difference between urban and non-urban sites to upwards of 2C between the two.


    Quote:

    Huh? All data is verified! What world do you come from? This data is freely available as the vast majority was funded with public funds. A friend of mine who was in the doctorate program at the University of Delaware used this data for her study of the North Atlantic Oscillation. She had no problem obtaining it. Do you really believe that this data is being collected by private corporations or individuals who do what... sell it on eBay? Get real!
    This is an unsubstantiated claim on my part, and I can't back it up at this time. Sorry.

    Quote:

    Please give me an example of a climate modeller who hides his algorithms. All models and results are peer reviewed before being published. That can't happen if "secret" algorithms or methods are being used. I am assuming here that you have no clue how the scientific world works. For example, cold fusion was largely rejected because the results could not be peer reviewed because the two dolts who did the work wanted to make a profit from their "secret method." That is crap science. When the details were finally released, it was clear that these chemists did not understand the physics lab equipment they were using.
    In 2003 (or was it 2005), the IPCC wouldn't release data to an expert reviewer who was known for challenging their work.
  • 08-24-2007, 01:53 PM
    masdog
    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by photophorous
    Ok...technically you are correct. But seriously...think about this for a minute. Data goes back "maybe a million or so years." This data shows only slight variations in CO2 levels, until we reach modern history and the industrial revolution, at which time CO2 levels shoot through the roof. We know with 100% certainty that burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the environment, that the cows we're farming release CO2 into the environment (probably negligable), and that deforestation decreases the earth's ability to convert that CO2. Is there any evidence for what else could be causing this increase? Does it really matter that we only have data going back a few hundred thousand years, if we can find no other source for the current increase?

    Actually, the ice core data shows an interesting cycle where CO2 levels vary by about 80 ppm, from approximately 200 PPM to 280 PPM. According to wikipedia, ice core data shows that CO2 concentration in 1832 was 284 ppm, and the most recent modern concentration they have on record is 383 ppm.

    As I understand, forests are only a fraction of the planet's carbon sink. The largest carbon sink is the ocean. In addition to man's contributions, other sources of carbon dioxide include volcanic activity and the decomposition of organic material.

    Quote:

    True, there is a dispute, but you need to put that dispute into perspective. There's always a dispute, but by far, the majority of scientists agree. How could the Urban Heat Island Effect have any effect on the data that's collected in high mountain glacial areas and the Arctic and Antarctic, where the largest changes are being observed?
    Consensus science isn't always right. For instance, there was a time when many scientists believed that the luminiferous aether was the medium that light passed through. The Michaelson-Morley experiment in 1887 should have killed that idea, but it led other scientists to find other ways for that theory to work. It wasn't until special relativity came along that the theory was finally put to pasture.

    That doesn't mean that the global warming theory is wrong either. It was just an example where consensus science was wrong.

    I haven't read that the largest changes are being observed at the poles.

    Quote:

    Climate models are controversial for good reason. Using a computer and equations to predict the future is bound to have flaws. Our climate is extremely complicated. But, more climate models have incorrectly underestimated the severity of changes than overestimated. The ice is melting faster than they have predicted.
    I agree that our climate is extremely complicated, and I am concerned that there is something our models aren't accounting for. That is why I am skeptical of the idea of man-made global climate change - we simply don't know enough about the system to say it is entirely man's fault.

    Quote:

    A general distrust of science seems to be a common trend among those who reject the theories of global warming. Itís always possible to find little details to poke holes in, but you have to look at the big picture. I'm no where near an expert on any of this, nor am I a scientist, but my background in engineering is enough for me to realize that what they are doing is not just a bunch of opinionated guesswork. Scientists follow a systematic and logical process to come to these conclusions, and the last thing they want to do is leave a legacy of failure. That doesn't mean they are always right. But, I have faith that they are much more qualified to make these conclusions than you or I.
    I agree that there is some distrust of science by many who reject global warming. But then again, there are some scientists who object to some part of the prevailing theory on the matter. Both sides of the debate are much more qualified than either of us when it comes to discussing the issue...