Global Warming is Chapping my A@@!

#1
volinbham

volinbham

VN GURU
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
69,687
Likes
62,054
#1
If I hear one more person say that because it was warm today (eg. there's no snow in NYC this year) this proves Global Warming...

Tell that to the kids throwing snowballs in Malibu last week!!!!

Sheeesh.
 
#3
#3
The first time I read this I thought "what the hell is florida going to do for his butt rash, but then i read it again.....ohhhh"
 
#4
#4
don't worry though, in an effort to save us all, Al Gore is traipsing about the planet in a private jet to pimp his movie to eager masses who flock to him by the bus load.
 
#5
#5
MG1968 said:
don't worry though, in an effort to save us all, Al Gore is traipsing about the planet in a private jet to pimp his movie to eager masses who flock to him by the bus load.
Click to expand...

Ah, sweet irony
 
#6
#6
Thanks for inventing the Internet Al , so we can globally bitch about your other invention:global warming
 
#8
#8
I simply find it hard to believe that anything man can do short of nuclear war would have a significant affect on the planet. I am of the school that solar activity, cloud cover, etc... play a larger roll in warming than anything we can do. This is all just a setup for heavier taxes... They will invent something like the global warming wheel tax, etc.. There are many well written articles that have data to support this. Figures don't lie, but liars figure.
 
#9
#9
I'm not one that denies global warming. However, when I hear idiots say it's hotter than usual today or this winter - and use that as proof of GW it makes me sad for humanity!
 
#10
#10
04-24-06-pod2.jpg
 
#11
#11
volinbham said:
I'm not one that denies global warming. However, when I hear idiots say it's hotter than usual today or this winter - and use that as proof of GW it makes me sad for humanity!
Click to expand...

I agree with you, it is impossible to use any singular events to prove a wider phenomenon. That is the general problem with studying global climate change...not weather change. Climate is itself defined by decades to centuries of meterological activity ... so I agree with you there.

But, I disagree with the earlier comment about the impact of man on the climate. The CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere will have lasting climatic and environmental effects. CO2 levels are climbing - they have to be, there is no output (save some absorption into the oceans), only imput. And - CO2 is without a doubt a greenhouse gas, which present in growing quantities will cause a rise in global average temperatures. Ocean expansion and melting of shelf ice are very likely consequences....I don't think this is something we can ignore...now way.
 
#12
#12
TennTradition said:
I agree with you, it is impossible to use any singular events to prove a wider phenomenon. That is the general problem with studying global climate change...not weather change. Climate is itself defined by decades to centuries of meterological activity ... so I agree with you there.

But, I disagree with the earlier comment about the impact of man on the climate. The CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere will have lasting climatic and environmental effects. CO2 levels are climbing - they have to be, there is no output (save some absorption into the oceans), only imput. And - CO2 is without a doubt a greenhouse gas, which present in growing quantities will cause a rise in global average temperatures. Ocean expansion and melting of shelf ice are very likely consequences....I don't think this is something we can ignore...now way.
Click to expand...

Did you know that something as simple as cloud cover has twice the effect on warming and cooling as CO2? Factories have existed for over 100 years now and they have never run cleaner. Most of Europe and the US have fairly strict pollution governesses on what and how much is released into the atmosphere. Granted, an increase in the number of autos and industry will have an effect, but I really doubt this is the cause of melting snowcaps, etc... The Earth has a way of healing herself when something is out of whack. It'll all come full circle.
 
#13
#13
It's a liberal based philosophy to grab your hard earned money by way of taxes. Follow the money.
 
#15
#15
volmanjr said:
Thanks for inventing the Internet Al , so we can globally bitch about your other invention:global warming
Click to expand...


Since everyone here seems to be a bit on the right side of things I thought I might post the transcript from the interview where Gore was said to have invented the internet. This was a great spin job by Rove & Co.

Gore Interview
 
#17
#17
J.Quest said:
Did you know that something as simple as cloud cover has twice the effect on warming and cooling as CO2? Factories have existed for over 100 years now and they have never run cleaner. Most of Europe and the US have fairly strict pollution governesses on what and how much is released into the atmosphere. Granted, an increase in the number of autos and industry will have an effect, but I really doubt this is the cause of melting snowcaps, etc... The Earth has a way of healing herself when something is out of whack. It'll all come full circle.
Click to expand...

I am well aware that H2O is not only a greenhouse gas - but that it is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2. The problem is that there is a huge forcing function for H2O in the atmosphere...the ocean. We can add H2O to the atmosphere all day long and hardly affect global cloud cover because equilibrium will strongly push this water into the oceans and land water. However, when was the last time you saw a CO2 lake on earth? Almost all of the CO2 we put into the atmosphere stays there...making it a much worse greenhouse gas when considering actual impact.

And, as far as emissions standards go. While plants, factories, and even cars have all become increasingly "cleaner", that only considers NOx, SOx, Mercury, etc. Polutants that you can see, polutants that cause acid rain or that are directly linked to cancer, etc. There is no way around producing CO2 in combustion processes (as long as we are using carbon based fuels) ... and there are no countries that are employing a widespread carbon capture and sequestration program. I do think that your point is valid...we decreased NOx and SOx emissions and made a huge dent in acid rain in this country (something that China still hasn't figured out..but hopefully will). I think in the future, the acid rain example will serve as what we can do to mitigate against global warming.
 
#18
#18
Clearly GW or G-climate change is an important issue worth studying. The worst thing that's happened to the issue is politization of it.
 
#20
#20
TennTradition said:
I am well aware that H2O is not only a greenhouse gas - but that it is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2. The problem is that there is a huge forcing function for H2O in the atmosphere...the ocean. We can add H2O to the atmosphere all day long and hardly affect global cloud cover because equilibrium will strongly push this water into the oceans and land water. However, when was the last time you saw a CO2 lake on earth? Almost all of the CO2 we put into the atmosphere stays there...making it a much worse greenhouse gas when considering actual impact.

And, as far as emissions standards go. While plants, factories, and even cars have all become increasingly "cleaner", that only considers NOx, SOx, Mercury, etc. Polutants that you can see, polutants that cause acid rain or that are directly linked to cancer, etc. There is no way around producing CO2 in combustion processes (as long as we are using carbon based fuels) ... and there are no countries that are employing a widespread carbon capture and sequestration program. I do think that your point is valid...we decreased NOx and SOx emissions and made a huge dent in acid rain in this country (something that China still hasn't figured out..but hopefully will). I think in the future, the acid rain example will serve as what we can do to mitigate against global warming.
Click to expand...

Let me pose something as simple as earth quakes and volcanic activity. As the earths core heats up past a "tolerable" level, I really think you'll see the earth correct this by "sweating" thru her pores or volcanos. Plate shifts and earthquakes are also tied to this process and are a natural way of cooling off. If we don't see this happen, then we can rest assured that we have not yet hit a natural limit or trigger point.
 
#21
#21
J.Quest said:
Let me pose something as simple as earth quakes and volcanic activity. As the earths core heats up past a "tolerable" level, I really think you'll see the earth correct this by "sweating" thru her pores or volcanos. Plate shifts and earthquakes are also tied to this process and are a natural way of cooling off. If we don't see this happen, then we can rest assured that we have not yet hit a natural limit or trigger point.
Click to expand...

Do you want to wait for massive volcanic activity to cool the earth down? Wouldn't it make more sense to curb our bad habits to prevent that??

Let's pose this.. The earth can perhaps heal herself...part of the healing process might be to have extrememly severe weather events and volcanic activity that so significantly disrupts man's way of life and economies that we stop emitting CO2 because we really aren't around anymore. I'm not being apocolyptic, I'm just saying, the earth having to heal herself might not be a necessarily good thing for man...I think that if we can avoid the earth having to make up for our errors - that would be a good thing.

Also, I'm not sure that a few degree centigrade global temperature change would be enough to start the processes you are talking about ... but that is enough to cause ocean expansion and some ice-shelf melting.
 
#22
#22
J.Quest said:
Let me pose something as simple as earth quakes and volcanic activity. As the earths core heats up past a "tolerable" level, I really think you'll see the earth correct this by "sweating" thru her pores or volcanos. Plate shifts and earthquakes are also tied to this process and are a natural way of cooling off. If we don't see this happen, then we can rest assured that we have not yet hit a natural limit or trigger point.
Click to expand...

Also, what do you propose to do if your assesment is accurate as for knowing we have hit a natural limit or trigger point. What happens once we hit this level? We don't have methods for reducing CO2 concentration once it has been emmitted. We know how to reduce CO2 emissions at the source. We know how to sequester this CO2. You say that we can rest assured that we have not hit a natural limit until these events happen .... well ... I don't think I could rest very assured of anything knowing that there is no way the we know of to back off that limit once these events start happening (which, again, I don't think that is really how we will see the effects of global climate change...although I will admit that there is no way that I know what you said to be completely false)
 
#23
#23
volinbham said:
Clearly GW or G-climate change is an important issue worth studying. The worst thing that's happened to the issue is politization of it.
Click to expand...

I agree. It is really frustrating when issues are so quickly politicized. It skews the discussion. I tend to approach these issues from a scientific point of view and try not to let the politics interfere with my views. However, it is hard. Researchers are sometimes funded based on what people expect their results to be. If the majority of the money is going to a certain group of researchers, then these are the points you read about in peer-reviewed journals, newpapers, etc. However, I think that there is a growing consensus in the scientific community about global climate change...most of the debate now centers on what the effects will be ...not that global climate change will occur.
 
#24
#24
Hey, don't get me wrong...I'm all for clean fuel and changing how we do stuff. But until the costs make sense at a business level, it just isn't going to happen. Or maybe it will, but it'll take many decades to evolve to that. At a time when the US struggles to compete globally with production b/c there are places with no environmental concern, I just can't see it happening. Now, if the different world councels and powers to be were to get on the same page and begin levying heavy taxes on products that don't adhere to clean manufacturing guidelines, then I could see an immediate change.
 
#25
#25
TennTradition said:
I agree. It is really frustrating when issues are so quickly politicized. It skews the discussion. I tend to approach these issues from a scientific point of view and try not to let the politics interfere with my views. However, it is hard. Researchers are sometimes funded based on what people expect their results to be. If the majority of the money is going to a certain group of researchers, then these are the points you read about in peer-reviewed journals, newpapers, etc. However, I think that there is a growing consensus in the scientific community about global climate change...most of the debate now centers on what the effects will be ...not that global climate change will occur.
Click to expand...

I think there is growing understanding about global climate change in the scientific communitybut there are problems there as well.

1. One issue is which science are we using. Al Gore (and others) have relied primarily not on climate scientists but rather on biologists, environmental scientists etc. The question posed to them is often - "assuming temperatures were to rise this amount or assuming the polar ice cap recedes this amount --- what would be the effect" There answers may be based in science but they are responding to the results of a hypothetical.

2. The advancement of scientific knowledge - publication of scientific results has its political issues as well. When there is a prevailing view (e.g. global warming), scientific evidence that runs counter to that view is frequently dismissed or lacks "publishability". It requires a tremendous amount of momentum in contrary findings to break through the prevailing views. Scientific reviewers are humans with egos. When you present findings contrary to a particular scientist (or group) there is always backlash. In short, there are gatekeepers to the publication of scientific knowledge. (as one who lives by publish or perish, I've seen it first hand).

3. Funding likewise suffers from the gatekeeper phenomenon as well. The recent actions of Rockerfeller and Snow? attempting to squelch funding for research that disputes some claims of global climate change is a pretty frightening occurrence. It is true that funding coming from those with a stake in the outcome (e.g. oil companies) should be highly scrutinized but to try to eliminate it is going too far.

In short, I believe most climatologists (sp?) would agree that there has been and will be global climate change with the trend being a rise in temperatures. The story gets murkier when you attempt to predict the extent of the change and the mechanisms behind it (a recent article in Science point to cattle as a major cause). Further, when you then extrapolate the results of GCC you take another step into the unknown since these outcomes are based on hypothesized changes and results of changes which are not known.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top