| Saint Jiub 13.05.2010 23:34 |
Based on my living in the Chicagoland area, I have always been skeptical of Al Gore's global warming schtick. Turns out that Chicago's summers have steadily and obviously gotten cooler since the 1930's, and a North Illinois University researcher theorizes that midwest farmers might "be at fault" for the dramatic cooling trend (because of modern farming practices). From the decades of the 1930's to the 2000's, the number of days each decade, where the Chicago temperature reached 90 F (31 C), was HALVED from 344 days in the 1930's to just 172 days in the 2000's. It is a pity that this link does not show the graph I saw in the Chicago Tribune newspaper yesterday, because the obvious cooling trend in Chicago is quite striking. I wonder how Al Gore feels about this. link |
| YourValentine 14.05.2010 01:51 |
Far from beiing a scientist I simply do not believe that such regional factors have an impact on regional wetaher but all these climate models are just models, nobody can actually prove this cause-and -result theory. I am very suspicious about unproven scientific theories because you never know who is behind them. However, the global warming is not a conspiracy theory - the glaciers of the Alps, for example, are undoubtedly melting away at a dramatic speed which will have serious effects on the people who live in the area. Huge areas of the Alps region will be inhabitable in a few decades. We can watch the the melting of the glaciers as we can watch the melting of the poles although the predictions about what will happen is not so obvious as in the Alps. Considering that nobody can really prove and tell us if the global warming will have all the predicted effects (rising of the ocean levels etc) I think we should act like these predictions are true rather than totally dismiss them and do nothing. If the global warming is man-made we have the duty to change our ways in order to preserve the planet for future generations. Since preserving the planet means saving resources and energy and reduce the emission of carbon dioxide, we should do this even if we do not know for sure if the theories are true. Saving energy and reducing any kind of industrial emission can only be good and is certainly the responsible thing to do. Unfortunately, the world will not be able to agree on any limit values for selfish reasons. |
| Micrówave 14.05.2010 03:27 |
Funny you mention farming That whole global warming stuff started with the invention of the Cotton Gin. In fact, it's all been pretty downhill since that. But don't worry, the eruption in Iceland did far more damage than man will ever do. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 14.05.2010 03:52 |
i blame the cows |
| The Real Wizard 14.05.2010 08:42 |
Nobody's debating that temperatures fluctuate. But only a fool can deny the greenhouse effect after doing adequate research into the topic. In fact, even high school science students can conduct simple experiments proving that carbon dioxide heats up the air greater than oxygen. To compare this to a volcano is pointless, as these are completely separate issues. The melting polar ice caps will have Florida under water in 150 years, as the sea level is rising a few inches every year. This is undebatable. Some people like to use the growing antarctic ice caps as proof to negate global warming, but the fact is there's so much ice down there to begin with that the water cycle creates more rain and thus more ice. However, this is not the situation in the arctic. Some conservatives like to deny global warming is because it doesn't work in accordance to their worldview that their god controls all things unseen. Others simply aren't scientists, so they just don't understand how much the industrial world has effected the environment. A few conservative scientists already have pre-conceived notions leading them to create a whole lot of bad science. They are a small but loud voice, as minorities out in right field tend to be. But the greatest source of climate change denial is the energy lobby in Washington. No need to elaborate on that, is there? |
| The Real Wizard 14.05.2010 09:19 |
YourValentine - honest question here. What's the general consensus of global warming belief in Germany that you've observed? I'd say it's about 50/50 in Canada. I get a sense that people in Germany are in tune with environmental concerns, hence all the bike riding and pollution laws (not to mention your green party was in power in the 70s). How's this compared to the rest of Europe? |
| YourValentine 14.05.2010 10:30 |
Bob, I think that doubts about the global warming theories are quite recent, most people here believe that industrial emissions are responsible for the climate change. It does not make a lot of difference because in published opinion most Germans believe that the protection of the environment is essential for our future. For example, there were plans to build a "modern" coal power station in my city last year - 60 000 people joined forces in a civil initiative and prevented the project. The parties who voted for the project were voted out of power in the local elections. We have a tradition in environmental issues since the 1970s when the rising oil price stopped the economy cold and the nation realised that the economy was depending very much on Middle East oil. However, do not forget that Germany is quite a small country, not even twice as large as New Jersey but with 80 million people, we have a much bigger necessity to protect the environment than for example the US or Canada. When the first oil crisis in the 1970s hit the economy we did not have the option of off-shore drilling or a war in the Middle East, so we had to save energy and to invest in renewable energy. If we had a whole continent to exploit, maybe we would not be so conscious of the environment. Certainly the Germans are in no way better than other people - it's all a matter of perspective. For example, public transportation is much more in use here but it's much easier to run trains in a smaller country than in the USA, for example, where you simply need a car to survive.The Green party is quite strong here, just last week they won over 20% in a state election after the Federal government considered to prolong the run time of the German nuclear power plants - much against the public opinion. I think that the Germans are pushing the EU towards carbon dioxide emission restrictions, other nations are not so worried, but basically there is a bigger concern in Europe than in North America which is considered as "unteachable" by many people here. |
| The Real Wizard 14.05.2010 11:57 |
YourValentine wrote: "If we had a whole continent to exploit, maybe we would not be so conscious of the environment. Certainly the Germans are in no way better than other people - it's all a matter of perspective." You're right, just about everything does begin with self-interest. But is it too optimistic to say that decades after the initial oil crisis, the people of Germany are genuinely more environmentally conscious, and not just because they *have* to be? |
| Micrówave 14.05.2010 13:04 |
The melting polar ice caps will have Florida under water in 150 years, as the sea level is rising a few inches every year. This is undebatable.Really? Millions of people still living in Florida (without an established escape plan) would be able to debate you on this. I seriously hope you're not drinking the environmental Kool Aid and believing that. If it is "undebatable", then why not tell us about some other tropical nation that has been engulfed by the melting ice caps? Louisiana (the entire state) is closer to sea level than Flordia. So will it be underwater also? Billions of dollars have been spent fixing a community that has a little more than 100 years of life left? Apparently it is VERY debatable, as the environmentalist wackos have failed to earn any support from anybody within the US government. I mean, wouldn't it have been wiser to just post a "CLOSED" sign on the state line and move everyone to Kansas after Hurricane Katrina? Oh wait, Kansas will be underwater in 178 years. Bottom line, I guess we all need to become better swimmers. |
| The Real Wizard 14.05.2010 18:10 |
Micrówave wrote: "why not tell us about some other tropical nation that has been engulfed by the melting ice caps?" Tropical nations are all well south of Florida, thus it will be much longer than 150 years before they are under water. The melting ice caps are in the north. 85% of Greenland was covered in ice year-round 20 years ago, and today it's about half. The islands in northern Canada are starting to see the effects: link Do the math - sea level is rising roughly 2 inches (about 6cm) per year, and much of Florida is 10m above sea level. 1000 cm / 6cm per year = 167 years. Ultra-right wing Fox news even published a story on this a few years back. This scientist's numbers are relatively conservative, but the issue is addressed in great detail: link And if this conservative estimate is correct, then New Orleans and Miami will be under water in 200 years. This is a fascinating link to get a visual representation of it: link Yes, climate change in the grand scheme of our history is a cyclical thing, but right now it's happening faster than at any other time in history. So is it a coincidence that it's happening while we're releasing ridiculously high amounts of heat-trapping gas into the atmosphere? The majority of anti-global warming propaganda comes from the energy lobby. Clearly they're doing a great job. Short term monetary and political gain always come first, so the oil companies and politicians aren't going to make this an issue for people to be aware of. And let's face it, a large portion of the American population is blissfully ignorant of science and the wider world around them (over half of them believe in angels and deny evolution), so they're not going to be aware of this issue any time soon. This is why few people in Florida and Louisiana are worried. |
| Saint Jiub 14.05.2010 19:07 |
GH: Tropical nations are all well south of Florida, thus it will be much longer than 150 years before they are under water. Gravity works differently In different parts of the world or is water the consistency of molasses? |
| The Real Wizard 14.05.2010 19:14 |
Panchgani wrote: "Gravity works differently In different parts of the world or is water the consistency of molasses?" Absolutely it does! Objects at the equator have a weaker gravitational pull than objects at the poles. This includes water, hence why the effects of polar ice caps melting are currently seen in the north and are gradually working their way south instead of being seen evenly worldwide. |
| YourValentine 15.05.2010 02:29 |
Bob, environmental consciousness is a virtue in itself here - children are taught that you cannot waste energy and resources, it's regarded as rude and anti-social. Germans have a tradition in saving, so it was not so hard to educate people to be aware of the environmental consequences of their behaviour. When I was a child and people spoke about their new car it was all about the speed and the size of the engine but today it's about how little fuel the car needs and which alternative fuel the car uses. Values have generally changed over the years - after the first oil crisis in the 1970s. That does not mean that all people are equally aware of environmetal issues, it's only a tendency. We have many laws to proetct the environment which are generally accepted as useful. It is true that people can separate garbage and save oil until they are blue in the face - it won't help as long as the rules are made by corporate industry and the profit is so big. Look at the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico - why is off-shore drilling even allowed? Obama had already given up his resistance against more offshore drilling - it needed the catastrophe to change his mind and to realise that profit is the only motive of the petrol industry, not safety and not environmental issues. Of course the price will be paid by the fishermen and the people whose shores are ruined and poisoned just like the natives in Canada pay the price for the oil sand industry - it's unbelievable how they can totally ruin the landscape and poison the water with no responsibility shown towards nature. It's frustrating to see how "global players" destroy the planet and there is no way to get an international agreement on stopping the CO2 emissions in favour of all our future. There are a couple of eye - opening satellite pictures on the Nasa Earth Observatory website link Look under "World Of Change" - Antarctic Ozone Hole |
| Micrówave 15.05.2010 03:32 |
That's all fine and dandy, Sir GH, but I've got the one thing that throws the monkey wrench in your data. Let me see the data from 50-100 years ago. Oh wait, you can't. There is none. See, that's what these environmentalist whack jobs can't get past. Twenty years is a blink of an eye in the history of our planet. Technically, we've had global warming since the Ice Age... and it really hasn't been a bad thing. Perhaps there was another form of life on Earth that could only live in absolutely freezing conditions. A few of them started driving snowmobiles and using aerosol deodorant, which caused global warming, thus causing extinction to the entire race of Yeti, save a couple that live in mountains and scare campers. That's about as plausible as this global warming talk. Honestly, can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Greenland will NOT be completely covered by ice in 200 years? No. See, weathermen can't even predict what's going to happen next Tuesday, but all of the sudden there's some scientist that can forecast years into the future by using a bar chart? |
| The Real Wizard 15.05.2010 21:15 |
Micrówave wrote: "Let me see the data from 50-100 years ago. Oh wait, you can't. There is none." We have fields of study including geology, archaeology, and paleoclimatology to make educated assessments about the earth's past. Or with your logic, there were no dinosaurs, cavemen, or Pangaea since nobody was there to take notes at the time. "Honestly, can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Greenland will NOT be completely covered by ice in 200 years?" The concept of proof is only applicable in the present, as any given proposition can only be proven at a single instant in time. But let's save the philosophy discussion for another time. The purpose of science is to make logical conclusions and predictions based on available data in the present and from the past. In the case of global warming, every credible scientist has all the necessary data to predict that sea levels will continue rising and land will begin to slowly disappear as long as our co2 emissions do not drastically decrease. "See, weathermen can't even predict what's going to happen next Tuesday, but all of the sudden there's some scientist that can forecast years into the future by using a bar chart?" Weather is cyclical and can be unpredicatable. Carbon dioxide emissions, however, are not fluctuating. Over the past few centuries, they have gradually increased. You're comparing apples and oranges. Comparing global warming to the weatherman simply demonstrates that you are not qualified to discuss this topic on any level. Educate yourself, please: link Great post, YV. To hear that about the German people is very encouraging. And thanks for that nasa link. |
| YourValentine 16.05.2010 04:38 |
Science is always a model of reality, nothing can be proven beyond doubt . Models describe phenomena which occur in reality and try to explain these phenomena. Of course lobbies try to contradict the global warming theory for pure selfish reasons. We all have to make up our own minds whom we trust and I certainly won't trust the petrol industry. I am always amazed how the opponents of the global warming theory mix up long-time climate change and short-time climate change. "There has always been a climate change" is really not a very intelligent argument because we talk about changes within a century and not a millenium or even longer periods. During my own life time the glaciers in the Alps have melted at a frightening speed, we can actually watch that by comparing photographs from the 1960s and today. Of course that does not prove that the change is owed to industrial emissions but all the collected data point into that direction and I think we cannot afford to wait until the poles caps have actually melted away - if the theory is right we have to act very soon or future generations will have very hard times to survive. These days the world seems to be ruled by speculation, global gambling, hedge fonts and incredible greed. Who needs all these billions of dollars - you cannot even buy something useful for all this money. We all could put our energy into the development of renewable energy projects, energy-saving projects, public transportation and education. Instead we bail out old fashioned car companies who never bothered to read the signs of the day and never updated their company policy. We bail out banks who ruin whole nations by betting against a currency and ridiculing the hard work of millions of people. We allow a tiny minority to exploit the planet in an unprecedented predatory way while millions of people have no food, no clean water, no health care and have to cope with the consequences of this reckless behaviour. The world must be crazy... |
| Micrówave 16.05.2010 06:03 |
Dude, you said it yourself. "educated assessments". These are NOT facts. Not everyone in the scientific community agrees. So how can you pass it as FACT? Have you been hanging around someone we all know??? (hee hee) Also, you say "Carbon dioxide emissions, however, are not fluctuating. Over the past few centuries, they have gradually increased." Please tell me at what rate? What were they before automobiles? Just so I can see how they've affected things. Oh wait, you can't... because they had no way to measure that. Let's just make an educated assessment. |
| The Real Wizard 16.05.2010 09:44 |
Micrówave wrote: "Dude, you said it yourself. "educated assessments". These are NOT facts. Not everyone in the scientific community agrees. So how can you pass it as FACT?" The conclusions made by scientists can be accepted as 99.9999% fact. They are simply wise enough to know the difference between conclusion and fact. When someone is convicted for a crime without video evidence, what proof do they have? Or do they have evidence that points to the suspect committing the crime, requiring the jury to make a logical conclusion? I went to the store and bought milk today, but I can't prove it because I didn't capture it on film. But I do have a picture of my fridge yesterday with no milk in it, there is milk in it today, there is nothing that would indicate that I consumed milk in the last 12 hours, and there are no bowls or cups in my dishwasher or sink. So are we going to assume I bought milk today, or did someone break into my house and put milk in my fridge while doing nothing else while they were in here? If you would even consider this possibility, then now you know how foolish you look to the educated world when denying the greenhouse effect. Until you can provide equally educated assessments that negate the conclusions made by scientists, your statements are nothing but ignorant drivel. The only scientists who appear to disagree are those with an agenda, most of whom are posing for the oil companies who have plenty to lose if we seek alternative energy sources. "Please tell me at what rate? What were they before automobiles? Just so I can see how they've affected things. Oh wait, you can't... because they had no way to measure that. Let's just make an educated assessment." Did you click on the google link? Paleoclimatology is the study of the earth's climate throughout history. They know exactly what progression the earth's co2 levels have taken over the past few centuries (and millennia). There is absolutely no debating it. Another great post by YV. Respond to hers. I'm done with you. |
| Micrówave 16.05.2010 16:25 |
Well, sorry man. Wasn't trying to upset you. Plus, I thought you'd enjoy a good TM joke, lighten up! But that's what happens to a lot of these people when faced with the facts, they get very offended. I did click on your links. Those aren't facts, and there is no indication that 99.99999% of ALL SCIENTISTS agree with the data. Those are all estimations, we didn't have the capability to measure carbon dioxide levels 100 years ago. And yes, I know what Greenwashing is. But those aren't the only people claiming this is all bunk. You have simply decided to agree with a select group of scientists and refuse to see the other side of the argument, and that's sad, Bob, cause you're usually an intellegent debater. |
| Micrówave 16.05.2010 16:32 |
Not that you care or will even respond anymore, but there are PLENTY of people who believe the expressed goal of environmentalism is to prevent man from changing his environment, from intruding on nature. That is why environmentalism is fundamentally anti-man. Intrusion is necessary for human survival. Only by intrusion can man avoid pestilence and famine. Only by intrusion can man control his life and project long-range goals. Intrusion improves the environment, if by "environment" one means the surroundings of man--the external material conditions of human life. Intrusion is a requirement of human nature. But in the environmentalists' paean to "Nature," human nature is omitted. For environmentalism, the "natural" world is a world without man. Man has no legitimate needs, but trees, ponds, and bacteria somehow do. They don't mean it? Heed the words of the consistent environmentalists. "The ending of the human epoch on Earth," writes philosopher Paul Taylor in Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, "would most likely be greeted with a hearty 'Good riddance!'" In a glowing review of Bill McKibben's The End of Nature, biologist David M. Graber writes (Los Angeles Times, October 29, 1989): "Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet . . . . Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." Such is the naked essence of environmentalism: it mourns the death of one whale or tree but actually welcomes the death of billions of people. A more malevolent, man-hating philosophy is unimaginable. The guiding principle of environmentalism is self-sacrifice, the sacrifice of longer lives, healthier lives, more prosperous lives, more enjoyable lives, i.e., the sacrifice of human lives. But an individual is not born in servitude. He has a moral right to live his own life for his own sake. He has no duty to sacrifice it to the needs of others and certainly not to the "needs" of the nonhuman. |
| john bodega 17.05.2010 02:07 |
Micrówave wrote: Let's just make an educated assessment. It'd sure beat the uneducated kind! |
| Micrówave 17.05.2010 03:11 |
Yes, apparently as seen already in this thread. That's one of the problems with this place. You try to have an intellegent conversation, but if you don't agree with something, well then lets start getting pissy. And then you risk losing someone who actually brings something to this board, and we're left with arguing with Skip over Steve Perry. |
| The Real Wizard 18.05.2010 23:51 |
Nahhh... you'll never lose me. We have fundamental differences on this subject, but that's the spice of life. Cheers. |
| Micrówave 19.05.2010 04:28 |
Cool. As long as you know I wasn't trying to be an ass, though I know I can be a bit abrasive. It was truly not personal. |
