Why we're going to hell - Global Warming discussion

[The Dark Wolf]

how constant is constant? ice core samples are about as good as we can get, and they only work for local temperatures where the ice is located. i'm of the camp that thinks this could be a more interesting subject if there were more evidence, more data, less wacko's running around like chickens without heads!

http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/rapids/4233/icecore.htm
At 3200 metres altitude, the highest point and probably the centre of the Greenland inland ice, the Greenland Icecore Project (GRIP), an international scientific cooperation, worked there from 1989 to 1992 to unlock the archive. In four summer campaigns they succeeded to make a 3029 metres deep drill in the icecore down to the bedrock.

On the image you can see what data the icecore research gives us. The lower part shows the temperature changes of the last 50,000 years. 10,000 years ago the "warm"-age started (the intermediate ice age), in which the temperature are relatively stable, i.e. we have a relatively stable climate at present.

Here's another. Hmmm, data obtained from all over. Why, they're remarkably CONSTANT!

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev_png

The science is pretty definitive, and easy to obtain.

 

[Briggs]

Some politicians might use this as a lever, but saying global warming is propaganda is just stupid.
That's 2 different things.

propaganda: Information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause.

 

[playstopause]

propaganda: Information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause.

Ok, well. Can you clarify your point?

Are you saying politicians are using global warming as propaganda or that (the idea of) global warming is propaganda in itself?

 

[Makelele]

propaganda: Information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause.

Promoting some cause in this case equals saving humankind and the ecosystem, so, I'd say it's quite good "propaganda".

 

[Briggs]

Ok, well. Can you clarify your point?

Are you saying politicians are using global warming as propaganda or that (the idea of) global warming is propaganda in itself?

Warming or cooling, can't be propaganda by nature of the definition of propaganda.

however, coined phrases can be propaganda.

Promoting some cause in this case equals saving humankind and the ecosystem.

I wouldn't bet my life on it.

 

[Nik]

Briggs is right to some extent - Global Warming in itself cannot lead to the extinction of the human race. For example, the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs led to a global warming effect thousands of times more extreme and drastic than what we have now. Yet life survived. And humans are much more intelligent and resilient than anything there was back then.

I'd be more worried about humankind going extinct because of implications sparked by global warming.

For example, global droughts diminish the water supply in already drought-stricken places. People are forced to compete for these lessening water supplies, and this could easily spark regional conflicts. Thus, humankind going extinct because of implications caused by global warming is perfectly plausible. That's where I disagree with Briggs.

People aren't saying that it's gonna get hot and people are just gonna go extinct because of the hotness. It's all the issues that stem as a result of that.

 

[Leon]

Bob, that's a geocities site (with no citations to any studies), and a site called globalwarmingart.com. that's not science, that's the public .

got anything with an ___.edu/~scientist/research/ ?

 

[Briggs]

Thus, humankind going extinct because of implications caused by global warming is perfectly plausible.

Sure, but I wouldn't call it global warming, I would call it global heating

 

[Drew]

how constant is constant? ice core samples are about as good as we can get, and they only work for local temperatures where the ice is located. i'm of the camp that thinks this could be a more interesting subject if there were more evidence, more data, less wacko's running around like chickens without heads!

You're right, of course, Leon, that what we really need here is a ton more research.

However, as an American citizen, the extent that I can directly get involved (aside from doing what I personally can to minimize energy use and greenhouse emissions) is to make sure my government is prepared to research the trend and supply those studies and that data we're looking for. Which brings me to the fundamental (in my eyes) issue here- every single time an american delegation in recent memory has taken part of a discussion on greenhouse emissions, their party line has been "we need to stop having these meetings because 'talking is not a solution.'"

Talking isn't a solution, but ignoring the 800-pound gorrilla in the room isn't either. In the meantime, until we have more data, there is a demonstratable upward trend in global temperatures dating from the industrial revolution that's beginning to have serious effects on the global environment. If all we have to keep this issue alive are wackos, then I'll take the wackos.

I'll also be right next to Chris in a lawn chair, beer in hand, oogling the bikinis. Hey, if we're stuck with warming global temperatures, we might as well enjoy the ride, right?

 

[eaeolian]

Some politicians might use this as a lever, but saying global warming is propaganda is just stupid.
That's 2 different things.

Ding ding ding! Just because someone misuses the results doesn't mean that it's not happening.

Leon, I'm kind of with you on the longer-term analysis, but IIRC the ice cores match up well with the period that we have other data available for, so they're probably the best tool we have at the moment.

 

[Drew]

propaganda: Information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause.

I just saw this.

Um, I'm all for circular logic myself, bro, but when the information is a trend of increase in global temperatures that correlates exactly to increases in the presense of "greenhouse gasses" in the atmosphere, and when that "some cause" is trying to not artificially raise global temperatures by decreasing greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, that's awfully circular.

I mean, that's like saying promoting the use of condoms to stop the spread of AIDS is prophganda because there's a correlation between increased condom use and decreased instances of AIDS, and you're trying to stop the spread of AIDS.

 

[Leon]

there are plenty of scientists working on this already. we don't need the wacko's to keep the hunt alive.

imagine this... you're working really hard and diligently on some financial task, say, figuring out the profits of a company (i don't know much about finance ). when you start your study of the company, you find a few receipts (of thousands) that point to the company having good profits. someone who knows nothing about finance, and who doesn't want to spend the time to help you with the work, runs out of your office to the newspaper, declaring record profits for said company. and even if you come across more papers showing profit declines, they won't care, they've already got their answer.

that is how i feel about 90% of people who talk to me about global warming. they read bits here and there available to them in the popular media, and are instantly experts on the workings of the planet, and feel the need to spread their secondhand knowledge like wild fire.

don't get me wrong, i think it's cool when someone is interested and genuinely excited about science. i'm just sad that it's usually the popular pseudoscience that makes the rounds of the available media sources; meaning, TV. but anyways, i'm ranting about misconceptions of science in general

bottom line: there is a burden of proof in science. the question is, "how much proof do you need before you can reach a reasonably accurate conclusion?"

 

[Briggs]

greenhouse gasses

ah, another political catch phrase

does anyone really know what greenhouse gas is?

maybe a trip to the wiki is in order:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

 

[Buzz762]

http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/26/global_warming

Ok, more mainstream attention for global warming is good, right?

Check out the second comment.



My god, you can't make shit like that up.

I hope I'm reincarnated as a fish.

 

[Drew]

ah, another political catch phrase

does anyone really know what greenhouse gas is?

Actually, yes, I do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gaseous components of the atmosphere that contribute to the "greenhouse effect". Although uncertainty exists about exactly how earth's climate responds to these gases, global temperatures are rising. [1] Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, while others result from human activities. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Certain human activities, however, add to the levels of most of these naturally occurring gases. [2]

Other greenhouse gases include, but are not limited to, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons (see IPCC list of greenhouse gases).

Seriously dude, you can not believe that human activity is having a role in raising global temperatures if you want to, but if you want to debate it you're going to need to do something a little more substantial than writing evidence off as "prophaganda" and simply not believing in something because it's a "political catch phrase."

A catch phrase it may be, but it's a fuck of a lot easier to say "greenhouse gas" than it is to say "a mix of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons."


EDIT - ok, edit that in after I post it. Nice. Either way, I trust we agree that "greenhouse gasses" are, in fact, real now, and that increased concentrations will lead to rises in global temperature?

 

[Briggs]

I hope I'm reincarnated as a fish.

he he he , maybe I can consult with you on what type of fish to be reincarnated to.

I suggest a top tier predator like a mako shark or something

 

[playstopause]

ah, another political catch phrase

By what politician?

 

[Briggs]

serously, if you want to eliminate greenhouse gasses... you might as well eliminate all life on this planet, since anything that lives and breathes, produces "greenhouse gasses"

that should take care of it

 

[The Dark Wolf]

Bob, that's a geocities site (with no citations to any studies), and a site called globalwarmingart.com. that's not science, that's the public .

got anything with an ___.edu/~scientist/research/ ?

Gimmie a break, dude! Shoot the messenger, right?

How about from NOAA's own website on paleoclimatology?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleobefore.html
http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/pb3/pb33/kihzhome/kihz01/fig2_en.html

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap15/lgm_oz.html

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/samson/climate_patterns/
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/030417/paleoclimate.shtml
http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de/Modelling/Paleo/periods.html
http://earth.unh.edu/esci765-865/Petit et al 1999.pdf
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/381.htm
http://www.ccrc.sr.unh.edu/contributions/10000.html

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache...es&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=30&client=firefox-a

http://cgrg.geog.uvic.ca/abstracts/AxfordHigh-amplitudeAt.html
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache...es&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=18&client=firefox-a

And, a good one with all kinds of articles from climate scientists.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=2

There's a wealth of information out there, using all kinds of methods, to document paleoclimatic fluctuations, especialy in interglacial periods, and that also document the relative stability (until recently) of the current interglacial, the Holocene.

Next time, look for yourself. You're the scientist. Just scan the research databases. The best info isn't published on the web. It's in the journals. You know this! If you want the web, you're going to tend to get summaries without (as many) citations.

serously, if you want to eliminate greenhouse gasses... you might as well eliminate all life on this planet, since anything that lives and breathes, produces "greenhouse gasses"

that should take care of it

Patently untrue. Plants take in carbon dioxide (a green house gas) and produce oxygen. Which is NOT a greenhouse gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Creatures that breathe do produce carbon dioxide, but the amount is miniscule compared to the C02 produced by our modern combustion machinery and power generation.

This argument was silly, Briggs. C'mon, bro.

 

[Briggs]

By what politician?

leftist politicians