The First Crack in the Iceberg Of Global Warming...

[OnTheFly]

Although I do agree with the idea that we shouldn't destroy the economy over hysteria. However I don't think investing into cleaner technologies and environmental research is going to destroy the economy any more than it's already been destroyed. I surely don't want to strangle developing nations but as (one of) the richest countries in the world we should be at the forefront of alternative energies, not just for the environment but because reliance on fossil fuels is quite obviously a severe risk for both the economy and our national security.

I agree with most of this statement. The thing worrying me is that people like Al Gore are all about getting the spotlight. Al is kind of a white Jesse Jackson. When someone like Al speaks, we don't have to immediately discredit what he says, but it needs to be thoroughly scrutinized. He is all about stealing the spotlight and getting the power/money. This is more about furthering his career than helping the world...IMHO.

People talk about how dumb Bush is, but Al has taken credit for the world wide web, and he claims that scientists have been using computer modeling for the weather since the 1930s.

Fly

 

[gc70]

As the OP suggested, I believe that much of the governmental rush to embrace global warming is about control. And to the question of how global warming is related to guns - if governments wish to impose the degree of lifestyle changes suggested to address global warming, they had better plan to first disarm the populations on which they will impose those lifestyle changes.

To the core question of global warming, how-the-heck do the political yahoos who want to freeze temperatures at current levels think they can in any way change the world dynamics that create temperature change?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Well, I will say this, it is pretty funny to see a bunch of folks who have the hobby of redistributing heavy metals and producing pollution, using lots of dangerous chemicals each year to promote the hobby, talking about being worried about global warming.

I see Redworm is cutting back...

Either way my next truck will be a GMT900 Silverado (unless Toyota releases a 3/4-ton Tundra) and I will most likely purchase a 2009/2010 Camaro.

Yep, we have greenhouse gasses. QUICK, buy a big truck and a muscle car!

 

[Redworm]

Both of which would be more fuel efficient than my current vehicles. My truck today gets crappy mileage and a diesel Silverado would not only burn a hell of a lot cleaner and get better fuel efficiency but it would run on biodiesel, giving me at least one vehicle that doesn't depend on fossil fuels.

That muscle car would have an engine with DoD, cutting the number of active cylinders and greatly reducing emissions and increasing gas mileage at cruising speeds. Plus there's the wide geared T56 and massive torque of the Gen V SBC that will probably have me averaging in the high 20s. So roughly the same fuel efficiency as my current car but with even better emissions because it'll have a newer, more effective catalytic converter.

That being said, most of the CO2 problem is not coming from people driving large vehicles. It contributes but there are far more important contributors to greenhouse gases that can be tackled with more efficiency and better results.

 

[Redworm]

Global warming? A whole degree in the last hundred years? Yes, just how accurate does any logical person think that measurement is? And so what, who is whinning that, "Gee, 75 years ago on this day it was 84 degrees, now it's 85 and I'm dying of the heat, Al Gore, come SAVE US!"

Quite accurate for those that spend their entire lives working in the world of logic.

And again, this isn't about Al Gore.

I agree with most of this statement. The thing worrying me is that people like Al Gore are all about getting the spotlight. Al is kind of a white Jesse Jackson. When someone like Al speaks, we don't have to immediately discredit what he says, but it needs to be thoroughly scrutinized. He is all about stealing the spotlight and getting the power/money. This is more about furthering his career than helping the world...IMHO.

People talk about how dumb Bush is, but Al has taken credit for the world wide web, and he claims that scientists have been using computer modeling for the weather since the 1930s.

Yup. His dumb little movie was counterproductive. It gave the hippies and the contrarians both something to get all up in a tizzy over and conveniently ignore the actual facts floating around.

As the OP suggested, I believe that much of the governmental rush to embrace global warming is about control. And to the question of how global warming is related to guns - if governments wish to impose the degree of lifestyle changes suggested to address global warming, they had better plan to first disarm the populations on which they will impose those lifestyle changes.

Oh for ****'s sake. This isn't some anti-gun conspiracy. jesus christ, that's just insanely paranoid

Politicians are the ones trying to shove lifestyle changes into everyone's faces. You, personally, have nothing to do with this. There is nothing that you nor I can do on a lifestyle level that's going to solve any problems. The key is to stop politicizing the issue and work with the facts.

To the core question of global warming, how-the-heck do the political yahoos who want to freeze temperatures at current levels think they can in any way change the world dynamics that create temperature change?

No one wants to freeze current temperatures. That is not the argument, that has never been the argument. Stop taking asinine, straw-man arguments from talk radio airheads and look at the facts.

The little graph you got sure is nice but it doesn't relate to the issue at hand. No one is arguing against the fact that the earth goes through temperature cycles. That it happens is the basis for the science of climate change. The key is that the current levels of temperature changes are not only more severe than all of the data says it should be but it just so happens to coincide exactly with the amount of pollution we pump into the atmosphere.

 

[gc70]

No one wants to freeze current temperatures.

Maybe you have not read the UN documents that call for drastic action to stop increases in temperature. There are plenty of politicians around the world yammering for dramatic and immediate steps to stop increases in temperature. The politicians may be nutty, but noting their positions is neither assinine or paranoid.

The little graph you got sure is nice but it doesn't relate to the issue at hand. No one is arguing against the fact that the earth goes through temperature cycles. That it happens is the basis for the science of climate change. The key is that the current levels of temperature changes are not only more severe than all of the data says it should be but it just so happens to coincide exactly with the amount of pollution we pump into the atmosphere.

The data I have seen suggests that solar activity, not pollution, is the driving force in temperature change. Then again, I understand New Zealand has a major greenhouse gas problem with sheep farts. And if you can rationalize driving a monster truck (because it really doesn't contribute much to pollution) rather than a Prius, anything may be possible.

 

[Tuzo]

Shooting inspired global climate change

Nitrous oxides, particulate matter, some CO2 and CO, benzo(a)pyrene, and other products of complete and incomplete combustion of smokeless and black powders contribute to the global climate change (GCC or global warming). Besides firing off bullets and other projectiles do we as shooters contribute to either the reality or the myth of GCC? The short answer, devoid of political emotion and any other type of emotion and as residents of this Earth, is a certain yes. But shooting is a miniscule contributor.

As a geoscientist, former physics teacher, and reader of several peer reviewed journals I see the evidence of GCC over the long term of millenia. Factoring out the Maunder Minimum and other sunspot events, periodic glacialiation, global weather cycles, and Earth's axis wobble most scientists see evidence of GCC. The evidence is traced back to 4000 years before present and is found in Antartic ice core data preserving atmospheric gasses. Thirty-five years ago, when I began my studies, a beginning geology text had two photographs of a major alpine glacier. One photo was relatively current (circa 1971) and the second photo was 25-years prior. The great amount of glacial recession was very obvious and the caption attributed glacial melting to a combination of factors including human contribution.

Of course many observers will state that "the jury is still out" concerning validity of GCC and - this is a bit egregious - there is no consensus within the scientific community. Scientific consensus exists for such laws as gravity (we don't know what causes it but we can certainly measure and evaluate the strength of gravity). For most other ongoing scientific explorations consensus means the end of research (a late 19th century scientist exclaimed that we already know everything there is to know and should cease further scientific investigations) and that signifies the end of amassing knowledge and progress. So, lack of consensus is a good thing because it keeps us thinking and progressing. Of course "the jury is still out" but this is not a trial it is science.

The bad aspect of the GCC debate is politicizing of science by those with polarizing agendas. A fine example of this is our own law-abiding firearms community that continually suffers from bad politics coming from both the left and the right political distribution.

 

[Redworm]

The data I have seen suggests that solar activity, not pollution, is the driving force in temperature change.

And if you can rationalize driving a monster truck (because it really doesn't contribute much to pollution ) rather than a Prius, anything may be possible.

Because it doesn't since I don't use it to commute and a Prius is not necessarily better for the environment.

I haven't told anyone to give up their own vehicle for a Prius. I haven't told anyone to change their lifestyle (except to stop littering; people who throw trash on the ground are just plain jerks). I haven't suggested telling third world nations that they can't develop. What I have done is suggest that this is an issue that needs a lot more research and that our country should be at the forefront of finding cleaner, more efficient technologies for both industry and transport.

 

[gc70]

What I have done is suggest that this is an issue that needs a lot more research and that our country should be at the forefront of finding cleaner, more efficient technologies for both industry and transport.

On that we can agree totally.

 

[cohoskip]

IMHO

the whole thing is a joke.

But, it did make Al Gore a lot of money and gave him his 15 minutes of fame...

Let's face it, the world temperatures are cyclical...

 

[MeekAndMild]

WElcome to TFL, Tuzo! Hope you enjoy it here, though at times it gets pretty hot! From your viewpoint as a geologist could I possibly get you to agree with my behavioral/antropological viewpoint that global climate change may have caused civilization? Seems to me that if we hadn't had enough climate change to fill the Mediterranean basin in the Miocene, then aridify the Sahara plus melt the Eurasian glaciers in the Holocene we'd still be following game trails on the plains of Mother Africa.

Redworm, I saw your graphic about sea level rise.I was curious why you didn't post this one instead. Its got lots of bigger more impressive numbers. 140 meters is a lot more impressive than 20 cm don't you think? You are trying to convince everyone that we're going to drown ourselves aren't you?

 

[dresden8]

I think it's fair to say by the standards of most people on this board I'm pretty much a lefty and a liberal and would normally be expected to sign up to the global warming theory.

But......

I have noticed that European countries have decided that global warming is a huge threat to the world since they discovered that they can screw their citizens for "green taxes", and a lot of their citizens have bought into the C02 agenda and will willingly pay them to clear their own consciences.

Now that's a conspiracy theory you can take to the bank.

 

[dresden8]

There is no desire by scientists to profit from this. The scientific community as a whole does not just seek out problems in order to secure jobs. You don't get a PhD in any scientific field for the money. It's hard work, a hell of a lot of studying, ridiculously expensive with very little pay in the end. You'd be hard pressed to find any scientists that's going to waste his intellect and knowledge, waste all that time he spent becoming a scientist, just to make up data so he can have a paycheck every month.

I'm gonna call you on this one.

Every month we hear new theories that coffee is good/bad for you, butter is good/bad for you, running is good/bad for you, red wine is good/bad for you. A million different examples. All proven by lucrative research grants.

The truth is that scientists have long devalued their public perception by selling their souls. The tobacco companies still have scientists that say smoking is neither bad for your health nor addictive. The concensus changed but it took forty years or so, and there's still some hold-outs

In the 50's scientists said that modern nuclear designs were safe. After Chernobyl scientists said "What can you expect? 50's nuclear designs were crap!"

In a criminal trial you will have two scientists look at the same evidence and come to totally opposing conclusions.

The reality is that totally untrained "civilians" have to try to use their uneducated minds to try to come to some sort of conclusion as to who is right or wrong.

I don't know. I can't prove my position is right and yours is wrong. But you have your scientists and I will have mine. Who am I supposed to believe?

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Yes, the sky is falling. Anybody else notice that as the cold war died down the global warming war heated up? I am sure it is just a coincidence. Funny thing, back in the late 70s and early 80s, scientists were saying that we were headed for an ice age.

Global warming can lead to an ice age.

And, with that, scientists can use just about any "evidence" they want to support their version of GW.

...and I give you.....The Tobacco Institute.

And what happened there? Data was analyzed by independent researches and shown to be a crock of bull. I can pretty much guarantee you that those who put their names to reports that claimed tobacco is not harmful to one's health didn't have much luck finding employment afterwards.

No, I think the point is that "scientists" claimed no harm to you by smoking cigarettes, IIRC...

Coleman is no researcher. Being a good businessman and knowing how to start a tv network does not make one an authority on climatology.

Maybe not. But, I don't think Coleman got to be the founder by flipping burgers at Wendy's. He obviously had to have a background in climate and weather in order to found TWC. No one is making a claim that he's an authority on climatology. But, I think contrary to your belief, he should have an ear when he speaks.

If you want to make such an accusation then I imagine you have a list or at least a rough idea of the people you are claiming fudged these numbers.

How about numbers of your own, Redworm? All you say is "vast majority".

OntheFly provided an article with 22,000 scientists in your opposition. Quite the small number, yes? I think they may have evidence that just because our temp rise rate is similar to pollution doesn't necessarily it's the cause...

The main issue with sea level rise is that it could very likely be much, much more drastic in the coming years if the currents trends continue.

And your graph shows a so called "significant" rise in such a short time frame. This type of thinking will get a running back stuffed in the backfield. All he's seeing is the tiny lane open between the guard and center when he didn't take a gander to his left and right...the linebackers beating the tackles on the block....

Also, if several people including DNSpy has claimed that there hasn't been a rise in water level where he is, then where IS the rise? Last time I stepped in the bathtub (Saturday nights whether I need it or not...HONEST!) the level rose everywhere...not just on certain areas...

 

[phil mcwilliam]

I'm a firm believer in climate change and its devestating effects. Yesterday I was at work & it was hot & sunny. Today I started my holidays & its cold & raining.

 

[dresden8]

I'm a firm believer in climate change and its devestating effects. Yesterday I was at work & it was hot & sunny. Today I started my holidays & its cold & raining.

That's a flippant reply that the GW people will pick apart. You're talking weather, which is a one off changeable local thing, whereas climate is a long term planetwide phenomena with resultant cultural, economic and demographic SHTF type results.

Not a joke at all.

Hang on, GW, GW Bush, it's all coming together! Now that's flippant!

 

[TheFacts]

From your viewpoint as a geologist could I possibly get you to agree with my behavioral/antropological viewpoint that global climate change may have caused civilization? Seems to me that if we hadn't had enough climate change to fill the Mediterranean basin in the Miocene, then aridify the Sahara plus melt the Eurasian glaciers in the Holocene we'd still be following game trails on the plains of Mother Africa.

Absolutely!! In conjunction, approximately 10,000 to 15,000 ka, sea levels were considerably lower, due to the last glacial maximum. This permitted the Bearing Strait land bridge to surface and provide the means for prehistoric humans to cross into N. America. It may also be logical to suggest that, at or near the end of the last glacial maximum, Neanderthals faced stiff competition from humans who could now venture into northern regions that were once tundra and glacier covered.





Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.

 

[redhawk41]

MeekAndMild,

I am just curious who it was 22,000 years ago making and recording sea level measurements? Perhaps the "cavemen" had wood and stone measuring tools and recorded the measurements in the caves of Lascaux ...

... or could it be that the data is simply complex speculation based on geological evidence that can neither be proven nor disproven?

I find it amusing that we can definitively speculate how Earth's climate has behaved over the last several million years but can't determine exactly where the Popo Agie River goes between the Sinks and the Rises.

One thing that can be easily recorded and measured is the political response to so-called "global warming" and more recently "global climate change". How many laws have been passed to prevent humans from causing their own extinction? One, two, three, four ...

 

[TheFacts]

... or could it be that the data is simply complex speculation based on geological evidence that can neither be proven nor disproven

Complex speculation huh...then try the following on for size:
Common scientific methodologies for historic climate variability (geological)
1) Oxygen isotope fractionation
2) Glacial till distribution and stratification
3) Sequence stratigraphy (highstand/lowstand system tracts)
4) Paleosol analysis
5) oxidation/reduction variances in peritidal sediments
etc...etc...etc...

When the above is used appropriately, the support for climate variability is VERY STRONG.

I find it amusing that we can definitively speculate how Earth's climate has behaved over the last several million years but can't determine exactly where the Popo Agie River goes between the Sinks and the Rises.

There is speculation and then there is educated speculation. There is a real difference.



Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.

 

[MeekAndMild]

I am just curious who it was 22,000 years ago making and recording sea level measurements?

Why Redworm of course.

Seriously, such measurements are done via indirect observation of underwater landscape, so called paleo indicators, things like remains of forests and salt marshes, old shorelines et cetera. Try googling "undersea ruins".

Evidence seems to be more plausible than recording the temperature in a cow pasture in 1935 then watching it rise through the decades of adding concrete and tarmac to the scenery, and finally declaring that it demonstrates global warming.