Scientists blame sun for global warming

[OklahomaTuba]

Thought this headline was greatness.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

[Osce0la]

and they thought it was our fault...

[SoonerWood]

i'm sure this will be a very heated debate

[Stoop Dawg]

Sounds like scientists on a bad trip.

"Dude, what if, and I know this sounds crazy, but what if the Sun was causing the Earth to heat up? Woah!"

[crawfish]

The sun has increased its heat output over the last hundred years. But hey, I'm sure global warming is because of my aerosol deoderant. :rolleyes:

[NormanPride]

In a related press release, the cows rescinded their previous apology for being "Just so gal durned gassy"

[Dio]

In related news: Water determined to be wet

[mdklatt]

The sun has increased its heat output over the last hundred years. But hey, I'm sure global warming is because of my aerosol deoderant. :rolleyes:

global warming != ozone hole

TIA.

[Stoop Dawg]

When I was a kid, SPF 8 was sufficient. Now I lather myself in SPF 45 and *still* get burned. Is this due to:

a) Global Warming
b) Ozone hole
c) Sun getting hotter

I'd just like to know who to blame. TIA.

[sooneron]

When I was a kid, SPF 8 was sufficient. Now I lather myself in SPF 45 and *still* get burned. Is this due to:

a) Global Warming
b) Ozone hole
c) Sun getting hotter

I'd just like to know who to blame. TIA.
Uh, D) all of the above ???

[silverwheels]

Or maybe you got whiter as you grew up.

[mdklatt]

When I was a kid, SPF 8 was sufficient. Now I lather myself in SPF 45 and *still* get burned. Is this due to:

a) Global Warming
b) Ozone hole
c) Sun getting hotter

I'd just like to know who to blame. TIA.

Definitely B and possibly C.

[mdklatt]

Or maybe you got whiter as you grew up.

Just like Michael Jackson.

[Stoop Dawg]

I knew it! Freakin' crawfish and his aerosol deoderant. :mad:

[Ike]

When I was a kid, SPF 8 was sufficient. Now I lather myself in SPF 45 and *still* get burned. Is this due to:

a) Global Warming
b) Ozone hole
c) Sun getting hotter

I'd just like to know who to blame. TIA.

E) a decline in the standard for SPF 1

[mdklatt]

E) a decline in the standard for SPF 1

Damn straight! And a large pizza used to be 16", not 14". Bastards.

[Osce0la]

I'd just like to know who to blame. TIA.
George Bush? ;)

[Widescreen]

I found this pic from Astronomy Magazine that explains scientifically what's going on.

http://www.tape2disc.net/sunspots_big.jpg

[crawfish]

global warming != ozone hole

TIA.

I'll forward that bit of information to Hollywood.

;)

[skycat]

I'll forward that bit of information to Hollywood.

;)

It looks like you found one of mdklatt's hot button issues.

[GDC]

I can't believe there are still flipping idiots out there that don't realize the earth naturally warms up and cools down over varying periods of time in its history.

[OklahomaTuba]

I can't believe there are still flipping idiots out there that don't realize the earth naturally warms up and cools down over varying periods of time in its history.

http://conservativeoutpost.com/blog/archives/al_gore.jpg

Me neither.

[Widescreen]

It looks like you found one of mdklatt's hot button issues.
mdk has no cool button issues.

[NormanPride]

mdk has no cool button issues.

If you're gonna hit it, mash that bastard.

(This phrase is very useful!)

[Octavian]

I can't believe there are still flipping idiots out there that don't realize the earth naturally warms up and cools down over varying periods of time in its history.

Thats true, the Earth does undergo cylical climate change.

Its pretty amazing to me to think Earth's most recent climate change - which is the sharpest increase in the several millenia - doesn't have anything to do w/ humans.

The global climate increase directly correlates w/ the rise of mass industrialization in Europe and North America.

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/7359/manmetaltempchart1cb.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Have you seen the global water level projections if Earth's climate continues at its current rate? Its scary.

[Czar Soonerov]

That's it then. Round up Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck, we gotta go blow up the freaking sun.

[TUSooner]

Another pertinent observation:
"The scientists do not pretend they can explain everything."

NOW they tell us. Buhhhhh!!!11 :mad:

[Octavian]

Me neither.

If you're wrong...

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/6618/inhofe0vr.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

this will be one of history's biggest idiots.

[silverwheels]

That's it then. Round up Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck, we gotta go blow up the freaking sun.

Make sure Dennis Quaid stays here, though. We need his highly accurate computer models.

[soonerscuba]

WE DIDN'T LISTEN!!!!!

[RacerX]

[/URL][URL="http://imageshack.us"]http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/7359/manmetaltempchart1cb.gif (http://%5BURL=http://imageshack.us%5D%5BIMG%5Dhttp://img230.imageshack.us/img230/7359/manmetaltempchart1cb.gif%5B/IMG%5D%5B/URL%5D)

Have you seen the global water level projections if Earth's climate continues at its current rate? Its scary.

Ever wonder what kind of thermometers hey were using back AD 200?

[Jerk]

Thats true, the Earth does undergo cylical climate change.

Its pretty amazing to me to think Earth's most recent climate change - which is the sharpest increase in the several millenia - doesn't have anything to do w/ humans.

The global climate increase directly correlates w/ the rise of mass industrialization in Europe and North America.

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/7359/manmetaltempchart1cb.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Have you seen the global water level projections if Earth's climate continues at its current rate? Its scary.

Yeah, sure. Russia and China are totally blameless.

This argument amuses me: "Well, if you're wrong, we're all going to die"

It reminds me of when a religious persons says, "Well, if you're wrong, you're going to go to Hell"

Maybe we're all going to get cooked by global warming and then God is going to cook us in Hell.

Bad news...it's only going to get hotter, people.

Before someone says, "but...there is evidence of global warming" Please, spare us, the same crowd said we were headed for an ice age back in the 1970's.

[GDC]

Ever wonder what kind of thermometers hey were using back AD 200?

According to the graph, "proxy temperature indicators", which means core samples and things like that.

[Octavian]

Yeah, sure. Russia and China are totally blameless.

deep breaths.

I wasn't placing blame on anyone. I said the climate change correlated to the rise of mass industrialization....which began in Europe and North America.


This argument amuses me: "Well, if you're wrong, we're all going to die"

It reminds me of when a religious persons says, "Well, if you're wrong, you're going to go to Hell"

Maybe we're all going to get cooked by global warming and then God is going to cook us in Hell.

Bad news...it's only going to get hotter, people.

Before someone says, "but...there is evidence of global warming" Please, spare us, the same crowd said we were headed for an ice age back in the 1970's.

this is a neato new icon :twinkies:

[TUSooner]

***


this is a neato new icon :twinkies:

INARGUABLY!

[handcrafted]

If MD and Octavian would just get off the junk-science bandwagon and exercise a little common sense, we'd all be better off.

[mdklatt]

It looks like you found one of mdklatt's hot button issues.

Ignorance? Yes.

Global warming is not a myth. Melting glaciers are not figments of the tree huggers' imagination. What's causing it? Who knows. Is it a good idea to keep pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere willy nilly given that we aren't sure what's causing it? Probably not. Do we need to bankrupt the entire country and roll everything back to the pre-industrial age? Probably not. This is what happens when politics and science collides--i.e., nothing good.

FYI, global warming and ozone depletion are not related.

[TUSooner]

Ignorance? Yes.

Global warming is not a myth. Melting glaciers are not figments of the tree huggers' imagination. What's causing it? Who knows. Is it a good idea to keep pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere willy nilly given that we aren't sure what's causing it? Probably not. Do we need to bankrupt the entire country and roll everything back to the pre-industrial age? Probably not. This is what happens when politics and science collides--i.e., nothing good.

FYI, global warming and ozone depletion are not related.
OK, fine. But what's our opinion on :twinkies: ?

Think carefully!

[mdklatt]

If MD and Octavian would just get off the junk-science bandwagon and exercise a little common sense

Yes, basic physics = junk science. :rolleyes:

[mdklatt]

OK, fine. But what's our opinion on :twinkies: ?

Think carefully!

I'm just wondering where the hell that came from. :confused:

[Octavian]

If MD and Octavian would just get off the junk-science bandwagon and exercise a little common sense, we'd all be better off.

from now on I'll just pay attention to monergism.com

[SoonerInKCMO]

Quit trying to bring sense and rationality to the discussion mdk!!! :mad:

[mdklatt]

Before someone says, "but...there is evidence of global warming" Please, spare us, the same crowd said we were headed for an ice age back in the 1970's.


Do you know what permafrost is? What do you think it means when the frost is no longer "perma". Think real hard....

[mdklatt]

mdk has no cool button issues.

:les:



Heh.

[Jerk]

Do you know what permafrost is? What do you think it means when the frost is no longer "perma". Think real hard....

It's what a gurl does to her hair, m'kay?

[TUSooner]

Do you know what permafrost is? What do you think it means when the frost is no longer "perma". Think real hard....
tempafrost? :confused: :confused:

[TUSooner]

OK, fine. But what's our opinion on :twinkies: ?

Think carefully!
FYI, that should be "YOUR opinion"; I;m s louisy typust

Thank you

[mdklatt]

It's what a gurl does to her hair, m'kay?

Seriously, what is your objection to the phrase "global warming"? Do you dispute that the earth is warmer now than it was, say, 100 years ago? That is what "global warming" is, no more and no less--don't listen to the hype. If the libz and pubz can't even get their damn terminology straight then they need to STFU already.

An unamibigious phrase with a neutral connotation, and the ****wit politicians and pundits on both sides who don't even know the melting point of water have bastardized it beyond all meaning. :mad:

[mdklatt]

tempafrost? :confused: :confused:

Mmmmm...tempurafrost....

[Jerk]

Seriously, what is your objection to the phrase "global warming"? Do you dispute that the earth is warmer now than it was, say, 100 years ago? That is what "global warming" is, no more and no less--don't listen to the hype. If the libz and pubz can't even get their damn terminology straight then they need to STFU already.

An unamibigious phrase with a neutral connotation, and the ****wit politicians and pundits on both sides who don't even know the melting point of water have bastardized it beyond all meaning. :mad:

My thought is this:

I'm not ready to destroy our economy and our way of life to "save the planet" because I'm not convinced that we're in any immediate danger. I think the "fragility of nature" is a myth and that this planet, and the life on it, are very enduring and will go on for many more ages even despite Susie Q Soccer Mom using an SUV to drive her snot-nosed kids to a game. I think Kyoto was a crock because it applied tougher standards to some nations over others. I think if the gov't can control and regulate our day to day lives more than they already do to "save the planet" then they will, and if that isn't enough, another scare tactice will be created. And frankly, I'm more concerned right now about the likes of Muslim terrorists sneaking a WMD across our southern border, because I have seen, first hand, the evidence of the threat that they pose. As for the future, I believe we should devolope other means than oil to produce lubricants, gasoline, diesel, plastic, etc, and we should rely more on nuclear technology over coal to produce electricity.

OK- im done editing.

[mdklatt]

I'm not ready to destroy our economy and our way of life to "save the planet" because I'm not convinced that we're in any immediate danger. I think the "fragility of nature" is a myth and that this planet, and the life on it, are very enduring and will go on for many more ages even despite Susie Q Soccer Mom using an SUV to drive her snot-nosed kids to a game.

The average temperature of the earth is increasing at the present time. You don't have to look at tree rings, or worry about urban heat islands, or compensate for inhomogeneous temperature records to see this. Stuff that used to be perpetually frozen is now melting. There's no need to a political spin on that; it's an observable fact. That is global warming, plain and simple. It's like saying, "the sky is blue".

[OklahomaTuba]

Do you know what permafrost is? What do you think it means when the frost is no longer "perma". Think real hard....

Hmmm....


In geology, permafrost or permafrost soil is soil that stays in a frozen state for more than two years in a row.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permafrost

[Widescreen]

It's like saying, "the sky is blue".
Typical scientist hogwash.

[OklahomaTuba]

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/7359/manmetaltempchart1cb.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Speaking of the Mann "hockey stick" graph..


But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.

But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen? What is going on? Let me digress into a short technical discussion of how this incredible error took place.
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.asp?p=1

[Jerk]

The average temperature of the earth is increasing at the present time. You don't have to look at tree rings, or worry about urban heat islands, or compensate for inhomogeneous temperature records to see this. Stuff that used to be perpetually frozen is now melting. There's no need to a political spin on that; it's an observable fact. That is global warming, plain and simple. It's like saying, "the sky is blue".

So, what is your solution?

[mdklatt]

So, what is your solution?

**** if I know, but if people can't even agree on what two common English words mean than we're all screwed from the git go.

[mdklatt]

Speaking of the Mann "hockey stick" graph..

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.asp?p=1


How does this bombshell affect what we think about global warming?

It certainly does not negate the threat of a long-term global temperature increase. In fact, McIntyre and McKitrick are careful to point out that it is hard to draw conclusions from these data, even with their corrections.


We still don't know what we don't know. We do know that glaciers that have been around for a really long time are starting to melt. Over the time scale of a glacier, the atmosphere/ocean is very efficient and evening out local and short-term temperature variations. So, unless the melting point of ice has changed, we can conclude that we are currently in a period of--say it all together class--global warming.*


*Glacial retreat can also be due to a decrease in precipitation, but a temperature increase is corroborated by other data.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

As recently as the 1970's, there was much consensus in scientific circles that the earth was undergoing GLOBAL COOLING...What's with that-did Allah change it's mind?

[Stoop Dawg]

*Glacial retreat can also be due to a decrease in precipitation, but a temperature increase is corroborated by other data.

I don't know your "junk science" ;), but I have a serious question. Is it *possible* that the melting glaciers are the result of a regional temperature variation, or temporary movement of ocean currents bringing warmer water into the area? I guess the question is, are we sure that the entire Earth is warming, or are there parts of the world that are actually cooling at the same time that other parts are warming?

Also, Utah used to be a glacier too, and now it's not. The inhabitants of Salt Lake City seem to think this is a good thing. (And yes, I realize that you haven't said that "global warming" is necessarily a bad thing. I'm just sayin')

[OUinFLA]

I can't believe there are still flipping idiots out there that don't realize the earth naturally warms up and cools down over varying periods of time in its history.


I agree!
It's second grade stuff.

Wlnter, Spring, Summer, Fall

Winter- cold
Summer- hot

morans.

[mdklatt]

As recently as the 1970's, there was much consensus in scientific circles that the earth was undergoing GLOBAL COOLING

Which was a short-term trend on top of a longer-term warming.

Why do you think glaciers are melting?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I don't know your "junk science" ;), but I have a serious question. Is it *possible* that the melting glaciers are the result of a regional temperature variation, or temporary movement of ocean currents bringing warmer water into the area? I guess the question is, are we sure that the entire Earth is warming, or are there parts of the world that are actually cooling at the same time that other parts are warming?

This is the question I NEVER hear addressed by those who are in a global warming panic. The mainstream media certainly doesn't go into analysis of the dynamics of temperature changes.:(

[handcrafted]

from now on I'll just pay attention to monergism.com

If you actually did that, you might learn something.

[handcrafted]

Which was a short-term trend on top of a longer-term warming.

Which is, in turn, a trend on top of an even longer period of cooling.

[mdklatt]

Is it *possible* that the melting glaciers are the result of a regional temperature variation, or temporary movement of ocean currents bringing warmer water into the area?

Melting glaciers aren't the only evidence of global warming; they corroborate other data. I keep using them as an example because they are the most obvious evidence and aren't subject to PCA normalization errors and the like.

To answer your question, I don't think so--but I'm not a glacier expert. We're talking about ginormous *** sheets of ice, not just little icebergs. Have you ever had to defrost a freezer? If you unplug the refrigerator for a few minutes the ice might get a little damp, but it's not going anywhere. If you put a glass of warm water on one side of the freezer that side might start melting, but the opposite side won't. Ice is an insulator; short-term and/or localized temperature changes take a long, long time to spread throught the whole mass of ice. Compared to ice, the ocean/atmsophere system is very good and distributing temperature variations; that's what drives the whole shebang. A localized or temporary warming over a particular glacier would be evened out by the global circulation faster than it could melt the glacier to the extent we're seeing.


I guess the question is, are we sure that the entire Earth is warming, or are there parts of the world that are actually cooling at the same time that other parts are warming?

Global warming does not mean everywhere on earth is experiencing the exact same temperature increase; some places are warming faster than others. But when you look at the entire planet (i.e. global) and average everything up you get a temperature increase (i.e. warming).

Warming will cause thermal exansion of water, which raises sea level (globally, obviously). There is evidence of this as well.

[mdklatt]

Which is, in turn, a trend on top of an even longer period of cooling.


The temperature, everywhere, is warmer now than it used to be. What do you call that? Or do you dispute that? If you do, WHAT MAKES ICE MELT?

[handcrafted]

The temperature, everywhere, is warmer now than it used to be. What do you call that? Or do you dispute that? If you do, WHAT MAKES ICE MELT?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster. :D

*ducks*

[Widescreen]

Which was a short-term trend on top of a longer-term warming.

Why do you think glaciers are melting?
There's a documentary on at the theaters right now that delves into this very issue.

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0438097/

[OklahomaTuba]

We still don't know what we don't know. We do know that glaciers that have been around for a really long time are starting to melt. Over the time scale of a glacier, the atmosphere/ocean is very efficient and evening out local and short-term temperature variations. So, unless the melting point of ice has changed, we can conclude that we are currently in a period of--say it all together class--global warming.*


*Glacial retreat can also be due to a decrease in precipitation, but a temperature increase is corroborated by other data.

I don't doubt that the earth is warming at all, however blaming this ALL on humans seems a tad stupid when there are probably thousands of vents and volcanoes underwater venting hot gases into the ocean.

I am willing to bet this is based way more on nature than anything else. Nevertheless, I am 100% for anything that makes the world cleaner and better like alternative energy, just not at the expense of our economy and millions of people's livelyhoods when countries like China can vent NOx and SOx compounds freely without penalty thanks to good ol Kyoto.

[Octavian]

If you actually did that, you might learn something.

lernin stuff is fer godless idiots who wershup siunse

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Who isn't for cleaner fuels? But, they have to be economical, too, or they can't be used, and sustain the economy at the same time. So, until such time that they are a reality, we need to make domestic oil exploration and production easier than it is now. This to improve and sustain the economy, and to make us less vulnerable to our enemies.

[Ike]

This is the question I NEVER hear addressed by those who are in a global warming panic. The mainstream media certainly doesn't go into analysis of the dynamics of temperature changes.:(


This is because you, like most other people, get your 'science' from the mainstream media. the mainstream media are the people most likely to screw up science in its presentation to the public. Try instead to go to some academic lectures on the topic. almost every university has near weekly colloquia in nearly every department. Surely some of their invited speakers are climate scientists. why don't you go listen to the source, and ask them about their evidence? Most of these lectures are open to the public. But the public rarely ever shows up. Just other scientists.

[OUinFLA]

This is because you, like most other people, get your 'science' from the mainstream media. the mainstream media are the people most likely to screw up science in its presentation to the public. Try instead to go to some academic lectures on the topic. almost every university has near weekly colloquia in nearly every department. Surely some of their invited speakers are climate scientists. why don't you go listen to the source, and ask them about their evidence? Most of these lectures are open to the public. But the public rarely ever shows up. Just other scientists.


It's just easier to get all my facts from South Oval.
At least I know they wont be slanted in favor of the Hook 'em 's

[Scott D]

I blame politicians and religious leaders....it's all the hot air they have been expelling for the last 2 millenia.

[Vaevictis]

FWIW: https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/Library/Air/Climate_Change/EE/pnsebook.html

[mdklatt]

I don't doubt that the earth is warming at all, however blaming this ALL on humans seems a tad stupid when there are probably thousands of vents and volcanoes underwater venting hot gases into the ocean.

Global warming does not mean "blaming it all on humans". Global warming means global warming. Global warming is incontrovertible at this point. Nothing useful is ever going to happen as long as people confuse science and politics.

The ocean is not suddenly getting warmer because of volcanoes; they have always* been there. There would only be warming if volcanic activity was dramatically increasing, and the entire depth of the ocean would be warmer because heat rises. Ocean warming is confined to the upper layers (AFAIK), which means heating from above.

*Not literally, but at least for a time long enough to be irrelevant to this discussion.




I am willing to bet this is based way more on nature than anything else.

Based on something other than wishful thinking? The partisans on both sides of this issue only look at the facts that support their own view, never considering that there is a middle ground.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Global warming does not mean "blaming it all on humans". Global warming means global warming. Global warming is incontrovertible at this point. Nothing useful is ever going to happen as long as people confuse science and politics.





.So, if and when there is enough political concurrence, what should be done, assuming we don't want to dramatically damage or even shut down the world's economy?;)

[SoonerWood]

All we need to do is attach some impulse jets to earth and push its orbit out a skoatch. problem solved.

next question?

[Osce0la]

Global Warming caused the server problem...

[Osce0la]

Global Warming caused the server problem...
Or did the server problem contribute to global warming?

[mdklatt]

So, if and when there is enough political concurrence, what should be done, assuming we don't want to dramatically damage or even shut down the world's economy?;)

Quit buying Hummers.

[SoonerWood]

well it definitley contributed to a theoretically impossible 5 hour time warp

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

All we need to do is attach some impulse jets to earth and push its orbit out a skoatch. problem solved.

next question?Iran has some of these for sale, to Islamic countries, only.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Quit buying Hummers.Sounds as if you are one who is convinced global warming is caused by man's activities. :confused:

[mdklatt]

Sounds as if you are one who is convinced global warming is caused by man's activities. :confused:

We certainly aren't helping the situation. There is no doubt we're having at least some effect, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Deforestation produces more CO2. We do that. Burning fossil fuels produces CO2. We do that. Global warming produces more CO2 as it's released from warming oceans and melting ice and permafrost.

[OklahomaTuba]

The ocean is not suddenly getting warmer because of volcanoes; they have always* been there. There would only be warming if volcanic activity was dramatically increasing, and the entire depth of the ocean would be warmer because heat rises. Ocean warming is confined to the upper layers (AFAIK), which means heating from above.

*Not literally, but at least for a time long enough to be irrelevant to this discussion.

So heat doesn't rise then?

And how do we know ocean depth volcanic activity isn't increasing?

And another thing, the entire dpeth of the ocean wouldn't be warmer, considering that there aren't volcanos covering the entire depth of the ocean. It would be an uneven distribution of heat transfer.

[SoonerInKCMO]

So heat doesn't rise then?

:confused:

He says right in the part you quoted that heat does rise.


Of course, you know that 'heat' doesn't rise - hot water does.

[SoonerInKCMO]

Also, McKinney's buggity eyes are starting to scare me.

[OklahomaTuba]

:confused:

He says right in the part you quoted that heat does rise.


Of course, you know that 'heat' doesn't rise - hot water does.

Yes, he does say that, however then he contradicts himself and says heat actually doesn't rise, but falls, thus that is the reason the upper levels of the ocean are warming (heat from above, not from below)

[Stoop Dawg]

We certainly aren't helping the situation.

Sorry bro, but that one statement is predicated on two assumptions - both of which still seem to be up for debate.

1. That global warming is *bad*. In order to "help", we would need to all agree that the situation is "bad".

2. That man's activity plays more than a negligible role in it. Also in order to "help', man would have to posses the ability to help. If our gross negligence doesn't contribute noticably to the "problem", how can we be sure that our complete compliance (with whatever means are necessary, let's assume we know what those are) will noticably "help"?

[mdklatt]

So heat doesn't rise then?

:confused:




And how do we know ocean depth volcanic activity isn't increasing?


Because the entire ocean would be warmer, not just the upper layers. What makes you think volcanic activity is increasing? And why would it be increasing? As the earth ages and cools volcanic activity is decreasing overall.



And another thing, the entire dpeth of the ocean wouldn't be warmer, considering that there aren't volcanos covering the entire depth of the ocean. It would be an uneven distribution of heat transfer.

Ummm...step away from the science, dude.

[OklahomaTuba]

Its unfortunate this has become such a political issue. The fact is, we don't really know as much as we all think.


There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter
(Filed: 09/04/2006)

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

[Stoop Dawg]

Yes, he does say that, however then he contradicts himself and says heat actually doesn't rise, but falls, thus that is the reason the upper levels of the ocean are warming (heat from above, not from below)

I'm no scientist, but I believe that heat has the tendency to move from where there is more to where there is less - and that tendency is stronger that its tendancy to rise. Example, place a searing hot pan on *top* of your hand and see if the heat doesn't go down like Madonna on a - well, on anything. ;)

[OklahomaTuba]

:confused:

Ummm...step away from the science, dude.

I'll do that, Mr. PermaFrost. :rolleyes:

[OklahomaTuba]

I'm no scientist, but I believe that heat has the tendency to move from where there is more to where there is less - and that tendency is stronger that its tendancy to rise. Example, place a searing hot pan on *top* of your hand and see if the heat doesn't go down like Madonna on a - well, on anything. ;)


The company I work for does A LOT of work in heat transfer technology for the refining and petrochemical industry. Most of what you say is spot on I believe, but heat does go up from everything I have seen, no matter what MDK says. :D

[SoonerInKCMO]

Yes, he does say that, however then he contradicts himself and says heat actually doesn't rise, but falls, thus that is the reason the upper levels of the ocean are warming (heat from above, not from below)

How I interpreted his statement was that, if the main heat source was at the bottom of the oceans (volcanic activity), then the bottom of the ocean would be warmer than the top. But since the top is warmer, then the conclusion is that the main source of heat is from above (solar).

[Stoop Dawg]

Here's one thing I think we can all agree on here: SoonerWood's avatar is much more visually pleasing that either Tuba's or KCMO's.

[OklahomaTuba]

How I interpreted his statement was that, if the main heat source was at the bottom of the oceans (volcanic activity), then the bottom of the ocean would be warmer than the top. But since the top is warmer, then the conclusion is that the main source of heat is from above (solar).

Step back for a sec then.

What are we talking about, <1 Degree F?

Ok, so how do we know this hasn't happened? Water is a great conductor of energy. This is why water is put in the tubes in cracking furnaces and such. The heat flux of the tubes has a HUGE distribution in those things. Of course I am not saying this is the only reason, however it always interesting to see how crazy some people get when you mention the possibility that increased CO2 might be natural phenomena as well.

[SoonerInKCMO]

Here's one thing I think we can all agree on here: SoonerWood's avatar is much more visually pleasing that either Tuba's or KCMO's.

My chick is hot.

[mdklatt]

1. That global warming is *bad*. In order to "help", we would need to all agree that the situation is "bad".


More extreme weather is bad. Rising sea level is bad. Species extinctions are bad. Reaching the tipping point for another ice age is bad. But you're right, we don't know for sure what will happen--so maybe we shouldn't go there in the first place. You seem to be saying, "We don't know harm global warming will cause, so why worry?" It's more prudent to be saying, "We don't know what harm global warming will cause--we should be worried!"




2. That man's activity plays more than a negligible role in it.


What if our contribution is the straw that breaks the camel's back?





Also in order to "help', man would have to posses the ability to help. If our gross negligence doesn't contribute noticably to the "problem", how can we be sure that our complete compliance (with whatever means are necessary, let's assume we know what those are) will noticably "help"?

We'll never know the answers as long as one side keeps screaming that global warming is a myth.

[mdklatt]

I'm no scientist, but I believe that heat has the tendency to move from where there is more to where there is less - and that tendency is stronger that its tendancy to rise.

Not in a fluid.

[mdklatt]

The company I work for does A LOT of work in heat transfer technology for the refining and petrochemical industry.

But aren't you in marketing or something?


Why don't you grab the nearest engineer and ask him if the sun heats the top or bottom of the ocean. :rolleyes:

[Harry Beanbag]

We certainly aren't helping the situation. There is no doubt we're having at least some effect, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Deforestation produces more CO2. We do that. Burning fossil fuels produces CO2. We do that. Global warming produces more CO2 as it's released from warming oceans and melting ice and permafrost.

6+ billion people produce more CO2.




We'll never know the answers as long as one side keeps screaming that global warming is a myth.

Well, the other side seems convinced that global warming is caused by evil white men. Just like all political issues, the middle ground is completely lost.

[opksooner]

When I was a kid, SPF 8 was sufficient. Now I lather myself in SPF 45 and *still* get burned. Is this due to:

a) Global Warming
b) Ozone hole
c) Sun getting hotter

I'd just like to know who to blame. TIA. Maybe you oughta switch to some good brand of SPF.

Just sayin....

[Vaevictis]

Step back for a sec then.

What are we talking about, <1 Degree F?

Ok, so how do we know this hasn't happened? Water is a great conductor of energy. This is why water is put in the tubes in cracking furnaces and such. The heat flux of the tubes has a HUGE distribution in those things. Of course I am not saying this is the only reason, however it always interesting to see how crazy some people get when you mention the possibility that increased CO2 might be natural phenomena as well.

Strictly speaking, I don't think "conductor" is the correct word; water is good for moving heat from place to place because it can absorb tremendous amounts of energy (which can then be moved by moving the actual water), not because it actually transmits the heat from water molecule to water molecule in an efficient manner.

I can't speak for mdklatt's information, but with respect to under-ocean volcanos being the primary source of water temperature rises, you would expect that the temperature rise would be relatively localized to the volcanos and that the temperature would decrease predictably as you approach the surface. What you would *not* likely see is an unlocalized increasingly hotter top layer of water, with a colder layer below it, which is what mdklatt seems to be suggesting is the case.

[mdklatt]

6+ billion people produce more CO2.

And? :confused:






Well, the other side seems convinced that global warming is caused by evil white men. Just like all political issues, the middle ground is completely lost.

For the most part, the other side is not the one cutting funding for reasearch to answer the questions.

[Stoop Dawg]

More extreme weather is bad. Rising sea level is bad. Species extinctions are bad. Reaching the tipping point for another ice age is bad. But you're right, we don't know for sure what will happen--so maybe we shouldn't go there in the first place. You seem to be saying, "We don't know harm global warming will cause, so why worry?" It's more prudent to be saying, "We don't know what harm global warming will cause--we should be worried!"

What if there is a hyper-intelligent species that thrives on extremely high temperatures and CO2 just waiting to evolve? Species evolve and die off all the time. I'm not so sure that mother nature is so fragile that man can control her future. Man may cause his own extinction (and most humans would probably classify that as "bad"), but mother nature may actually consider that "good" - since we won't be cutting down her precious trees anymore! Either way, I'm fairly certain that some species smarter than humans will evolve sometime in the next billion years or so. Look around, it won't be *that* hard! ;)



What if our contribution is the straw that breaks the camel's back?

We'll never know the answers as long as one side keeps screaming that global warming is a myth.

I'm not screaming that the earth is not getting warmer. I'm simply wondering if a) that's really a bad thing and b) if man really has anything (significant) to do with it.

[mdklatt]

I can't speak for mdklatt's information, but with respect to under-ocean volcanos being the primary source of water temperature rises, you would expect that the temperature rise would be relatively localized to the volcanos and that the temperature would decrease predictably as you approach the surface.



If you heat the ocean from below the entire thing would eventually warm as heat was transported upwards due to buoyancy. If you heat the ocean from above the warmer water isn't going to go anywhere. If volcanoes are responsible for ocean warming, it would change the entire temperature profile not just the upper portion. Also, volcanic activity should be decreasing over time, unless there is a nuclear reactor or something in the core of the earth. And it would take a ginormous increase in volcanic activity to raise the average temperature of the entire ocean. That's not something we could miss.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

How I interpreted his statement was that, if the main heat source was at the bottom of the oceans (volcanic activity), then the bottom of the ocean would be warmer than the top. But since the top is warmer, then the conclusion is that the main source of heat is from above (solar).If heat rises, then reason says the hot water would rise up, and the water's surface would be hotter than near the bottom, except for in the immediate areas of the active volcanoes. Then, you add the sun's radiation, and you have a saunasea.

[mdklatt]

I'm simply wondering if a) that's really a bad thing and b) if man really has anything (significant) to do with it.

There are two syringes sitting on a table. One is filled with saline solution, and one is filled with something that will kill you. You don't know which one is which. Your choices are

A) Inject yourself with the first syringe.
B) Inject yourself with the second syringe.
C) Don't inject yourself with either syringe.

Which option do you choose? Not doing anything about global warming eliminates option C.


Let's pretend that if we increase the global temperature 1 more degree we'll trigger a cataclysmic climate change. We somehow that the human contribution to global warming is only 0.1 degree. However, we also know that the natural contribution is 0.9 degrees. How insignificant is the human contribution now?

[Vaevictis]

If you heat the ocean from below the entire thing would eventually warm as heat was transported upwards due to buoyancy.

Not necessarily. It depends on how uniformly distributed the heat source at the bottom is, and just how hot it is; if they're not (more or less) uniformly distributed, then the hot water would rise to the surface, where much of the heat would be released into the atmosphere as water vapor. The volcano(s) would have to be releasing more heat into the ocean than can be released into the atmosphere.

And if that was the case, you would still expect that the temperature of the water would generally decrease as you reach the surface.


Also, volcanic activity should be decreasing over time, unless there is a nuclear reactor or something in the core of the earth.

There is "something" in the core of the earth. It's called gravity. The gravitational pull of the moon combined with the changing directions of that gravity (from the orbit of the moon) likely contributes to volcanic activity on the earth; an extreme example of this is Io -- a moon of Jupiter -- which is violently volcanic due to the gravitational forces Jupiter inflicts on it.

Think of it as tidal forces in the core of the Earth. :)


And it would take a ginormous increase in volcanic activity to raise the average temperature of the entire ocean. That's not something we could miss.

That's an interesting hypothesis, but yes, we could miss it. First, for all we know, the volcanic activity increased many hundreds of years ago, well before we would have noticed it, and second, it could very easily be "gentle" volcanic activity in the form of lava venting gently into the ocean (think Mona Loa vs. Mt St Helens).

[mdklatt]

If heat rises, then reason says the hot water would rise up, and the water's surface would be hotter than near the bottom, except for in the immediate areas of the active volcanoes.

Ummm...more or less.

[mdklatt]

The volcano(s) would have to be releasing more heat into the ocean than can be released into the atmosphere.


Which is a lot of damn heat.



And if that was the case, you would still expect that the temperature of the water would generally decrease as you reach the surface.


In the vicinity of the volcano, yes. Globally averaged over the entire ocean, no.




There is "something" in the core of the earth. It's called gravity. The gravitational pull of the moon combined with the changing directions of that gravity (from the orbit of the moon) likely contributes to volcanic activity on the earth; an extreme example of this is Io -- a moon of Jupiter -- which is violently volcanic due to the gravitational forces Jupiter inflicts on it.


So the interior of the earth is not cooling down? In any case, it's not heating up so the heat required from global warming has to come from somewhere else. Ten bucks says it's the sun. ;)




That's an interesting hypothesis, but yes, we could miss it. First, for all we know, the volcanic activity increased many hundreds of years ago, well before we would have noticed it, and second, it could very easily be "gentle" volcanic activity in the form of lava venting gently into the ocean (think Mona Loa vs. Mt St Helens).

How much volcanic activity would it take to raise the temperature of the entire ocean by a significant amount. And why would that temperature increase be concentrated at the surface if the heating was coming from the ocean floor?

[Stoop Dawg]

There are two syringes sitting on a table. One is filled with saline solution, and one is filled with something that will kill you. You don't know which one is which. Your choices are

A) Inject yourself with the first syringe.
B) Inject yourself with the second syringe.
C) Don't inject yourself with either syringe.

Which option do you choose? Not doing anything about global warming eliminates option C.

Do we *know* that the second one will kill me? For sure? Is it really 50/50 that the world will "die"? Is there a 3rd syringe that will make me rich and live forever. (Is it possible that there are *good* consequences of global warming?)



Let's pretend that if we increase the global temperature 1 more degree we'll trigger a cataclysmic climate change. We somehow that the human contribution to global warming is only 0.1 degree. However, we also know that the natural contribution is 0.9 degrees. How insignificant is the human contribution now?

Let's pretend that we knew the answers to those questions before we took action. :)

Just to be clear, I'm not saying I have any answers. In fact, I'm expressly saying that I *don't* know the answer. I'm only asking questions.

[Stoop Dawg]

So the interior of the earth is not cooling down? In any case, it's not heating up so the heat required from global warming has to come from somewhere else. Ten bucks says it's the sun. ;)

You've been reading thread titles again!

[mdklatt]

Do we *know* that the second one will kill me? For sure? Is it really 50/50 that the world will "die"? Is there a 3rd syringe that will make me rich and live forever. (Is it possible that there are *good* consequences of global warming?)


The only thing you know for sure is that option C won't kill you. But you're going to die sooner or later no matter what, so who cares?

[Stoop Dawg]

The only thing you know for sure is that option C won't kill you. But you're going to die sooner or later no matter what, so who cares?

Exactly! If I choose option C I won't die from the syringe - but I'll almost certainly die from something else!

I tend to think that mankind's existance on this Earth will be rather short-lived (in the grand scheme of things). I place odds on us killing ourselves with nukes long before global warming gets a shot at us.

[mdklatt]

You've been reading thread titles again!


I can guarantee you that 100% of global warming comes from the sun. The only question is if it's from the sun itself (which we have no control over) or an increased greenhouse effect (which have some control over). Even if the sun is entirely to blame, we can theoretically mitigate the effects by reducing the greenhouse effect.

I guess we'll see what effect $4/gallon gasoline has on CO2 emissions this summer. :eek:

[Stoop Dawg]

I guess we'll see what effect $4/gallon gasoline has on CO2 emissions this summer. :eek:

Heh. See? It all works itself out eventually!! Capitalism and mother nature are good friends!

[mdklatt]

I tend to think that mankind's existance on this Earth will be rather short-lived (in the grand scheme of things). I place odds on us killing ourselves with nukes long before global warming gets a shot at us.

I don't much care about global warming if it's not going to inconvience me in my lifetime (which we're not sure of), but some people worry about their grandchilrden and sappy **** like that.

[Ike]

Step back for a sec then.

What are we talking about, <1 Degree F?


less than 1 degree F is a crapload of energy when spread throughout the worlds oceans.



Ok, so how do we know this hasn't happened? Water is a great conductor of energy. This is why water is put in the tubes in cracking furnaces and such. The heat flux of the tubes has a HUGE distribution in those things. Of course I am not saying this is the only reason, however it always interesting to see how crazy some people get when you mention the possibility that increased CO2 might be natural phenomena as well.

water isn't really a conductor of heat. its an absorber. it has a huge heat capacity. meaning that to raise the temperature of water by even a tiny amount, you have to pump it full of a crapload of heat. which is why its so good at putting out fires.


the increased CO2 could be because of a lot of things. but we know that we are certainly increasing the amount we put into the air (the whole world that is, the US I belive has actually decreased emissions in recent years, if I remember correctly).

Oh, and heat does not rise.
heat energy moves from high concentrations of heat energy to low concentrations of heat energy. most of the time, the concentrations of heat energy are higher below than they are above, and thus we percieve that it rises. but this is not always true. And temperature is not the same as heat energy.

[Ike]

I can guarantee you that 100% of global warming comes from the sun. The only question is if it's from the sun itself (which we have no control over) or an increased greenhouse effect (which have some control over). Even if the sun is entirely to blame, we can theoretically mitigate the effects by reducing the greenhouse effect.

I guess we'll see what effect $4/gallon gasoline has on CO2 emissions this summer. :eek:


all we need to do then is build a giant sun-roof around the earth. tinted windows are the only way to go! yeah! :D

[Octavian]

all we need to do then is build a giant sun-roof around the earth. tinted windows are the only way to go! yeah! :D

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2803/spaceballs6rl.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Ike]

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2803/spaceballs6rl.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


heh. screw the space elevator. we need space curtains. ;)

maybe after that we can install a big window A/C unit too.

[mdklatt]

water isn't really a conductor of heat.

It's very good at convection, though.

[Ike]

It's very good at convection, though.


but thats usually a much slower process.

[mdklatt]

but thats usually a much slower process.

A crackin' vertical velocity in the atmosphere is ~50 m/s, which is about 115 MPH.

[Ike]

A crackin' vertical velocity in the atmosphere is ~50 m/s, which is about 115 MPH.


??? 50 what m/s? joules? I know what you are getting at, but my point was that the energy transfer to something else is generally less efficient.

if water were a good conductor of heat, the temperatures at the lower layers of the oceans would also experience the effects of global warming.

[Harry Beanbag]

Here is a study about historical atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. It is a very long read, but interesting nonetheless.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm



Here's another good one that supports the findings that Earth is simply still warming up from the Little Ice Age.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/06/nclim06.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/06/ixhome.html



Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists
By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 06/04/2003)
Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented" global warming have been seriously undermined by new research which shows that the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages.

From the outset of the global warming debate in the late 1980s, environmentalists have said that temperatures are rising higher and faster than ever before, leading some scientists to conclude that greenhouse gases from cars and power stations are causing these "record-breaking" global temperatures.

Last year, scientists working for the UK Climate Impacts Programme said that global temperatures were "the hottest since records began" and added: "We are pretty sure that climate change due to human activity is here and it's accelerating."

This announcement followed research published in 1998, when scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia declared that the 1990s had been hotter than any other period for 1,000 years.

Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.

The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing at sites around the world.

The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than today.

They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again - but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.

The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's temperature rise.

According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today's "unprecedented" temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period of time.

The study, about to be published in the journal Energy and Environment, has been welcomed by sceptics of global warming, who say it puts the claims of environmentalists in proper context. Until now, suggestions that the Middle Ages were as warm as the 21st century had been largely anecdotal and were often challenged by believers in man-made global warming.

Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history."

According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone."

In contrast, said Prof Stott, severe famines and economic collapse followed the onset of the Little Ice Age around 1300. He said: "When the temperature started to drop, harvests failed and England's vine industry died. It makes one wonder why there is so much fear of warmth."

The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the official voice of global warming research, has conceded the possibility that today's "record-breaking" temperatures may be at least partly caused by the Earth recovering from a relatively cold period in recent history. While the evidence for entirely natural changes in the Earth's temperature continues to grow, its causes still remain mysterious.

Dr Simon Brown, the climate extremes research manager at the Meteorological Office at Bracknell, said that the present consensus among scientists on the IPCC was that the Medieval Warm Period could not be used to judge the significance of existing warming.

Dr Brown said: "The conclusion that 20th century warming is not unusual relies on the assertion that the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon. This is not the conclusion of IPCC."

He added that there were also doubts about the reliability of temperature proxies such as tree rings: "They are not able to capture the recent warming of the last 50 years," he said.

[mdklatt]

if water were a good conductor of heat, the temperatures at the lower layers of the oceans would also experience the effects of global warming.

Right, but they're apparently not, so undersea volcanic activity is not the most reasonable explanation for global warming.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Right, but they're apparently not, so undersea volcanic activity is not the most reasonable explanation for global warming.OK, then, maybe it's the sun?:P

[OklahomaTuba]

Oh, and heat does not rise.
heat energy moves from high concentrations of heat energy to low concentrations of heat energy. most of the time, the concentrations of heat energy are higher below than they are above, and thus we percieve that it rises. but this is not always true. And temperature is not the same as heat energy.

My only thought was that this was a result of enthalpy transfer or free convection, that is why the heat was rising.

[mdklatt]

Here is a study about historical atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. It is a very long read, but interesting nonetheless.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm



Interesting, but a couple of things that tweaked my BS detector: this study is apparently in support of a petition saying that--surprise, surprise--global warming isn't happening. Which came first, the study or the peition? Also, what exactly is this Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine?


The Institute is supported by donations and the independent earnings of its faculty and volunteers. It does not solicit or accept tax-financed government funds.


Well, that's fine and dandy, but private funding inevitably comes with more of an agenda than public funding. For example, are there any oil companies on the donor list? Also, OSMI seems to specialize in biological science, not climatology. A lot of the people who signed that online petition have PhD degrees--but in what? There are a lot of MDs on the petition--certainly scientifically inclined, but probably not towards climate science.

This study may very well be on the up and up, and it may be very well done, but since it's contradicted by a preponderance* of research that indicates global warming is happening, I'm going to be skeptical.

I'll bring up those damn glaciers one more time. If global warming isn't happening, what is causing glaciers around the world to melt--increased rock salt emissions?


*One thing we all need to be aware of is that all research funding comes with an agenda. For example, if global warming is a pet project of the Funding Agency X, is a researcher with contradictory results more or less likely to get additional Funding Agency X money? Keep in mind that it's beauracrats that actually hand out the money, and they're beholden to the know-nothing (for the most part) politicians that ultimately control the purse strings.

[Harry Beanbag]

Interesting, but a couple of things that tweaked my BS detector: this study is apparently in support of a petition saying that--surprise, surprise--global warming isn't happening. Which came first, the study or the peition? Also, what exactly is this Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine?



Well, that's fine and dandy, but private funding inevitably comes with more of an agenda than public funding. For example, are there any oil companies on the donor list? Also, OSMI seems to specialize in biological science, not climatology. A lot of the people who signed that online petition have PhD degrees--but in what? There are a lot of MDs on the petition--certainly scientifically inclined, but probably not towards climate science.

This study may very well be on the up and up, and it may be very well done, but since it's contradicted by a preponderance* of research that indicates global warming is happening, I'm going to be skeptical.

I'll bring up those damn glaciers one more time. If global warming isn't happening, what is causing glaciers around the world to melt--increased rock salt emissions?


*One thing we all need to be aware of is that all research funding comes with an agenda. For example, if global warming is a pet project of the Funding Agency X, is a researcher with contradictory results more or less likely to get additional Funding Agency X money? Keep in mind that it's beauracrats that actually hand out the money, and they're beholden to the know-nothing (for the most part) politicians that ultimately control the purse strings.


That study didn't deny global warming at all. It was just saying that it is a normal Earth cycle and that global temps have been significantly higher in the past.

On a side note, the error that has been made by man, in ignorance, is building cities on the coast during a period of time when global temps are at their coolest point in centuries. The Earth, Sun, and Solar System have been going through cycles like this since the beginning of time, and humankind has been paying attention to it for what, 50 years or so? The sheer audacity and arrogance of people thinking we have this much control over the lifecycle of a planet that has been here for 5 billion years is laughable and idiotic.

My contention is the global warming will kill everyone crowd and their agenda that man is the cause of it is purely political. There is plenty of evidence to support this, regardless if you want to discount it or not.

[mdklatt]

My contention is the global warming will kill everyone crowd and their agenda that man is the cause of it is purely political. There is plenty of evidence to support this, regardless if you want to discount it or not.

The other side is political, too, sprinkled liberally with wishful thinking. You mean we might have to curtail our fossil fuel emissions? Wait--here's an isolated study that says everything is fine. Whew, that was close.

The truth is undoubtedly somewhere in the middle.

[Stoop Dawg]

The Earth, Sun, and Solar System have been going through cycles like this since the beginning of time, and humankind has been paying attention to it for what, 50 years or so? The sheer audacity and arrogance of people thinking we have this much control over the lifecycle of a planet that has been here for 5 billion years is laughable and idiotic.

That's kinda what I was getting at earlier. Though your version is more strongly worded, and I have no scientific background at all to support my opinion.

[Stoop Dawg]

The truth is undoubtedly somewhere in the middle.

As usual. :)

Edit: It's interesting to see in any debate how quickly both sides start using "extreme views" from the "other side" to prove their point. Rarely do you see two people debate subtle differences, not for very long anyway.

[Harry Beanbag]

That's kinda what I was getting at earlier. Though your version is more strongly worded, and I have no scientific background at all to support my opinion.


I don't think there is a person alive that has a background to support a truly believable opinion on this subject. Check back in a million years or so when we have enough data to draw realistic conclusions.

[mdklatt]

On a side note, the error that has been made by man, in ignorance, is building cities on the coast during a period of time when global temps are at their coolest point in centuries.

Don't forget people moving into the desert southwest and expecting green grass everywhere. Turning places like Scottsdale and Palm Springs into golf resorts doesn't make a lick of sense from sustainability point of view. A sustained drought in the Colorado River basin will happen, and it will be a bad thing. We think we have it bad in Oklahoma, but Lake Powell in UT/AZ is down over 100 feet.

[GDC]

That's exactly why I got out of New Mexico.

[Harry Beanbag]

Don't forget people moving into the desert southwest and expecting green grass everywhere. Turning places like Scottsdale and Palm Springs into golf resorts doesn't make a lick of sense from sustainability point of view. A sustained drought in the Colorado River basin will happen, and it will be a bad thing. We think we have it bad in Oklahoma, but Lake Powell in UT/AZ is down over 100 feet.


We're already in the middle of a 10 year drought, and the population of the Phoenix metro area has doubled in that time period. Of course the office I'm sitting in used to be sitting on the ocean floor. Things change.

Edit: There is apparently plenty of water here however. From what I've heard, Tucson is sitting on top of enough ground water to support a population of 4 million people. And in the time that I've lived in Phoenix, all of it during the drought, we've never had one period of water restrictions like we've had every other place I've lived. But you're right, there is ungodly waste of water resources here with nearly 200 year-round golf courses operating in the Phoenix area alone.

[Stoop Dawg]

We're already in the middle of a 10 year drought, and the population of the Phoenix metro area has doubled in that time period. Of course the office I'm sitting in used to be sitting on the ocean floor. Things change.

Don't worry. When your city is destroyed by lack of water, you can just cry to the federal govt to bail you out. Don't worry about taking responsibility for your own city or planning ahead for any type of disaster. The feds will always be there and the coffers are always full. YWIA.

[Harry Beanbag]

Don't worry. When your city is destroyed by lack of water, you can just cry to the federal govt to bail you out. Don't worry about taking responsibility for your own city or planning ahead for any type of disaster. The feds will always be there and the coffers are always full. YWIA.


Sweet! I was getting worried for no reason. :)

[mdklatt]

Don't worry. When your city is destroyed by lack of water, you can just cry to the federal govt to bail you out. Don't worry about taking responsibility for your own city or planning ahead for any type of disaster. The feds will always be there and the coffers are always full. YWIA.

Oklahoma Tuba posting a picture of schools buses being swallowed by cracks in the ground in 5...4...3...

[Vaevictis]

The sheer audacity and arrogance of people thinking we have this much control over the lifecycle of a planet that has been here for 5 billion years is laughable and idiotic.

Oooh!! Oooh!!!! Counter example: launch all those nukes. We *obviously* have some control over the lifecycle ;)

[OklahomaTuba]

Oklahoma Tuba posting a picture of schools buses being swallowed by cracks in the ground in 5...4...3...

Nah, to much permafrost!

[Harry Beanbag]

Oooh!! Oooh!!!! Counter example: launch all those nukes. We *obviously* have some control over the lifecycle ;)


Yeah, I guess you got me there. ;)