You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 04, 2016, 08:26:29 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Global Warming?  (Read 3432 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MaevenTopic starter

Global Warming?
« on: July 28, 2008, 10:06:11 AM »

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Global Warming?
« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2008, 10:28:37 AM »
Quote
Now, we look forward to a full-scale exploration of the science. We have heard quite enough from the computers.

A-freakin'-men.

I doubt something like this will turn into a full-scale debate, because there's just too much political and economic clout on global warming, but the actual formal report was interesting to read. Thanks, Maev. :)

Offline Cutter

Re: Global Warming?
« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2008, 12:37:46 PM »
I echo T. Bravo. Global Warming is an almost undebatable topic with its rabid devotees of its all a Man-made phenomena.

Obviously, humanity does have an impact on the environment, however, its refreshing to hear some hard-science on the topic.

Offline Vekseid

Re: Global Warming?
« Reply #3 on: July 28, 2008, 01:55:16 PM »
Quote
The net warming from 1940 to 1998 had been a miniscule 0.2 degree C;

Talk about hedging your numbers!

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Quote
the UK’s Hadley Centre says earth’s temperature has now dropped back down to about the levels of 100 years ago. There has thus been no net global warming within “living memory”!

Color me skeptical if they're going to pull that sort of mathematical skullduggery. I'm well aware that the planet is expected to stop warming for the next decade and some, not even acknowledging the existence of that report is also rather... tainted.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Global Warming?
« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2008, 02:44:53 PM »
I'm going to keep this point simple the Earth was far colder and warmer in the past with periodic sharp cooling and warming, so what makes people think what is going on now is not largely a Natural even that would occur whether or not humanity was here?

phy367/P367_articles/GreenHouseEffect/temperatures.html

If this is the start of a little or not so little natural warming then our pollution might not even be the main cause.

Offline MaevenTopic starter

Re: Global Warming?
« Reply #5 on: July 28, 2008, 03:07:01 PM »
Unfortunately, I'm not educated enough to figure out the math involved for this myself.  All I can do is read everything that comes along and make a judgment call. 

Talk about hedging your numbers!

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Color me skeptical if they're going to pull that sort of mathematical skullduggery. I'm well aware that the planet is expected to stop warming for the next decade and some, not even acknowledging the existence of that report is also rather... tainted.

They did sort of pick a minuscule time frame for their example, agreed and that does not lend any additional credibility to the news article. 


I don't, however, think enough attention is paid to the effects of the sun on the earth's temperature.  I know, I know, the sun's radiation hasn't change in over 200 years... What does change, though, is the cosmic ray flux and it has a direct effect on the cloud cover on Earth, which in turn, has a direct effect on how much radiation hits the surface of the earth. -- See this: Variation of Cosmic Ray Flux and Global Cloud Coverage - a Missing Link in Solar-Climate Relationships, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 59 (11) (1997) 1225-1232.  ( http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/9700001.pdf )

A-freakin'-men.

I doubt something like this will turn into a full-scale debate, because there's just too much political and economic clout on global warming, but the actual formal report was interesting to read. Thanks, Maev. :)

I also agree wholeheartedly with Trieste, there are an awful lot of people making an awful lot of money off the global warming 'crisis' for the minority viewpoint to ever really survive. 

That being said, we need to 'get off' fossil fuels and stop polluting the environment-- global warming or no global warming. 
« Last Edit: July 28, 2008, 03:12:14 PM by Maeven »

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Global Warming?
« Reply #6 on: July 28, 2008, 03:26:52 PM »
*nods* I'm not saying that we should keep on keepin' on the way we're going. That is not my stance. But the global warming thing has been too one-sided for too long. Debate of this sort is good.

I am not a geologist or a physicist or ... even a biologist at this point, so some of it goes right over my head. I probably should have said "The parts I understood are interesting"... my bad.

I'm not going to get into the question of whether global warming is natural, unnatural, our fault, someone else's fault... whatever. Y'all have fun. Me? I'm just happy someone has decided to debate it... with numbers. Because even if those numbers are faulty, chances are someone who is better with numbers will look at it, and say "I can do better than that!" and run cleaner numbers. And so on. Go go gadget snowball effect.

Offline MaevenTopic starter

Re: Global Warming?
« Reply #7 on: July 28, 2008, 03:43:27 PM »
*nods* I'm not saying that we should keep on keepin' on the way we're going. That is not my stance. But the global warming thing has been too one-sided for too long. Debate of this sort is good.

I am not a geologist or a physicist or ... even a biologist at this point, so some of it goes right over my head. I probably should have said "The parts I understood are interesting"... my bad.

I'm not going to get into the question of whether global warming is natural, unnatural, our fault, someone else's fault... whatever. Y'all have fun. Me? I'm just happy someone has decided to debate it... with numbers. Because even if those numbers are faulty, chances are someone who is better with numbers will look at it, and say "I can do better than that!" and run cleaner numbers. And so on. Go go gadget snowball effect.

*agrees*

(I should have put a larger space between my last sentence and the one commenting on your post. It was unrelated and just my 'bottom line' so to speak-- literally and figuratively.)   

Offline NightBird

Re: Global Warming?
« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2008, 12:37:00 AM »
Announcements were reported on today's news that the Arctic icepack is the thickest since accurate records began, which correlates to last winter involving the second-largest polar ice pack on record and a mean atmospheric temperature that eliminated somewhere between 100 and 150 years' worth of global warming. It is the first time since satellite imagery existed that 95% of the state of Ohio was covered with snow.

Climate change exists. Duh. We're a lot colder here than it was when the dinosaurs and three-foot-long dragonflies existed. We're a lot warmer than when the Great Lakes were the end of massive glaciers. The question is whether CO2 is a--and potentially the--strong determinant, as argued by some climatologists and environmental scientists.

I've never thought CO2 from industrial and energy production was a likely answer for massive climatological change. For one thing, accurate records are too recent and everything beyond actual contemporary records is calculation based on equations that we cannot categorically prove or disprove. For another, the whole idea is too simple and tidy. I don't think it takes into account the intricacy of factors that play into even the portion of the total climatological model that we understand. Very few of the models have involved 'givens' that attempt to include a wide range of other potential factors. Instead, they have focused on isolating what were postulated to be key factors. Unfortunately, like risk factors for a variety of human 'disease' conditions, the situation isn't one that can easily yield answers that will have single or even a few isolatable factors. The studies that even diet drinks can 'cause' weight gain and/or diabetes tend not to keep detailed records about what else makes up the study participants' diets at a time when a can of diet cola with a big serving of chocolate cake is common enough to be the subject of a poster that elicits frequent chuckles. These studies seek to isolate an factor, but they're often doing so these days with complex situations where more than one factor can easily be vitally important, and the medical studies don't also add in the fact that mathematical models depend on equations that may or may not have their underlying assumptive structure correct. One even slightly 'off' assumption skews the whole calculation.

I've also believed for quite some time that the brou-ha-ha over human-caused CO2 emissions as the key factor in global warming will end up being a bad thing for environmentalism in general. It's taken such center stage that other issues, like plastics in the oceans and the various poisons coming from industrial waste, or even the ongoing use of leaded gasoline in Africa, tend to get short shrift in the press. I've been concerned that when the simplistic CO2 model of global warming was proven to be inadequate as a slam-dunk explanation, it would cause the entire environmentalist movement to be considered as 'debunked' in the simplistic world of modern media and in the halls of political power, which would lead to a dismissive attitude about all the other environmental issues that in fact are clearly linked to human behaviors.

In the face of scientific 'knowledge', no matter which era, it has taken brave voices to challenge any status quo. I, too, am glad that the CO2 model of global warming is under challenge. This debate should have been happening years ago, but in this case an ideology tended to drive the science in a way that discouraged an open-ended consideration of possible causative factors. Bad science and bad math often comes from 'knowing' the answer in advance and seeking to generate proof for the 'truth' involved.

The facts are that global emissions of CO2 do not coincide with current global climate information in a manner that supports the CO2 model of global warming. The CO2 model supports itself through the equations created to prove that global warming exists and is primarily caused by CO2 emissions. Many of the holes in the ozone layer are sealing themselves over, and others are forming. Lots of changes are going on that we don't understand, or at least not yet. So, we need more discussion and consideration of what factors might possibly play into climate change, and in the meantime we should be focusing our efforts on the things that are uncontrovertibly within our power to change, like superior recycling requirements and incentives and a greater willingness to demand/negotiate other toxic emissions other than CO2 be reduced throughout the world.

Offline Sabby

Re: Global Warming?
« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2008, 03:08:24 AM »
Global warming? Pfft. Its snowing in Queensland XD snuggled between a desert and a beach and full of cattle, and its snowing.

Offline Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Global Warming?
« Reply #10 on: August 04, 2008, 06:25:44 PM »
Even if the icecaps melted it wouldn't raise the water level to any substantial height.
Sorry no "Waterworld."

Offline James

Re: Global Warming?
« Reply #11 on: August 07, 2008, 10:58:18 AM »
I like Carlin's perspective on all of this.

The planet is fine. The people are fucked. I don't think we're ever going to be a threat to this planet.

The planet is going to be here for a long while after we're gone.

/end carlinripoff

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Global Warming?
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2008, 12:06:21 PM »
I don't really understand the problem if the Earth is warming due to natural reason, human activity or both unless India and China and the United States all are on board and that is not fucking likely to happen anytimes soon, stopping human activity as the cause is not going to happen soon.

So the only alternative is to assume the worse and prepare to protect our citizens and feed them, help our allies like China and let the rest of the world worry about themselves. Face it its going to be the First World against them so we had better be ready to make tough choices and make solid alliances among the most powerful nations on the planet.

Online Neroon

  • Sneaky Little Weasel
  • Oracle
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Stationed with the Slug-Slaying Cavalry
  • Gender: Male
  • Beware of geeks bearing gifs
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Global Warming?
« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2008, 05:41:48 PM »
A few- ok far too many- years ago, I had a friend who was involved in the research on global warmimg.  Her opinion was that the earth is far too complex a system to make such predictions accurately, let alone the predictions based upon the predictions.

What annoys me, is the demonising of CO2.  When you look at it, there are other gases which cause far greater problems which are ignored.  Given that world governments have signed up to the whole CO2 thing, I'm left wondering what the hidden agenda might be.  From what are they trying to draw our attention?

Offline Revolverman

Re: Global Warming?
« Reply #14 on: September 19, 2008, 05:45:51 PM »
Even if Global warming isn't man made, Acid Rain, Smog, poisonous water is all man made. We need to begin finding new technologies to reduce our pollution and clean the earth.

Offline Storiwyr

Re: Global Warming?
« Reply #15 on: September 19, 2008, 09:23:28 PM »
I guess I would just prefer to err on the side of caution. We do not NEED to continue to use fossil fuels. There are safer alternatives to doing so, just no one wants to put in the initial time and suffer the initial financial costs of 'making it so.' Even if global warming turns out not to be the completely our fault ... or even significantly our fault ... would it kill us to stop our dependence? Especially from a political perspective, I think we are better off reducing our need for oil as much as possible.

On the other hand, I think there's a sort of arrogance to the "OMG WE'RE DESTROYING THE PLANET" attitude. We're not destroying the planet. We're destroying it FOR US. Someday we'll all die from the combination of fucking up the oceans, warming the planet and overacidifying the soil. And bacteria and plants tolerant of low pH soils? They're gonna have a heyday.

Global warming? Pfft. Its snowing in Queensland XD snuggled between a desert and a beach and full of cattle, and its snowing.

That's a common misconception. Global warming can have the effect of disturbance of usual weather patterns, period. Meaning it's gonna snow more than it normally would in some places.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Global Warming?
« Reply #16 on: September 20, 2008, 12:21:39 AM »
A few- ok far too many- years ago, I had a friend who was involved in the research on global warming.  Her opinion was that the earth is far too complex a system to make such predictions accurately, let alone the predictions based upon the predictions.

There are far simpler systems that are too complex to predict.  The gravitational interaction of three bodies in space is one.  Also, if anyone here remembers the big 'chaos theory' buzz, that was essentially started by a primitive weather simulation by Lorenz.  Something like three or four interlinked equations that fed back on each other.  He'd found an interesting occurrence in his simulator and went to re-create it for some of his meteorologist buddies - only instead of starting from his initial conditions, he decided to save time and take some intermediate numbers from his printouts.  One problem: His computer calculated to 5 decimal places, and his printout went to 3, so his numbers were off by less than 0.001.  No biggie?  Well, it caused a completely different end result.  Predicting real weather has even more variables.

It's the butterflies, man.  The butterflies.

Offline Vekseid

Re: Global Warming?
« Reply #17 on: September 20, 2008, 03:56:33 AM »
There are far simpler systems that are too complex to predict.  The gravitational interaction of three bodies in space is one.  Also, if anyone here remembers the big 'chaos theory' buzz, that was essentially started by a primitive weather simulation by Lorenz.  Something like three or four interlinked equations that fed back on each other.  He'd found an interesting occurrence in his simulator and went to re-create it for some of his meteorologist buddies - only instead of starting from his initial conditions, he decided to save time and take some intermediate numbers from his printouts.  One problem: His computer calculated to 5 decimal places, and his printout went to 3, so his numbers were off by less than 0.001.  No biggie?  Well, it caused a completely different end result.  Predicting real weather has even more variables.

It's the butterflies, man.  The butterflies.

Modeling weather is far, far more complex than climate. Climate has a lot of gotchas, but modeling weather is like modeling individual atoms. We have a much beter time predicting the behavior of the structures they make up, because the inherent randomness smooths out.

And I'm not sure where you get that the 3-body problem is too complex to predict. Even ignoring Sundman's solution, almost all of astronomy can be reduced to various restricted scenarios of the n-body problem or the 2-body problem. Systems with three or more stars tend to form around binary pairs, for example. The lack of perfectly exact solutions is simply pedantry, really.

Online Neroon

  • Sneaky Little Weasel
  • Oracle
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Stationed with the Slug-Slaying Cavalry
  • Gender: Male
  • Beware of geeks bearing gifs
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Global Warming?
« Reply #18 on: September 20, 2008, 05:58:32 AM »
Even if Global warming isn't man made, Acid Rain, Smog, poisonous water is all man made. We need to begin finding new technologies to reduce our pollution and clean the earth.

Acid rain, smog and poisonous water are all natural phenomena.  Yes they *can* be man made, but they are also the result of volcanic activity.  That having been said, I'd agree that the greater part of these problems seems to have a human source.  New technology isn't *the" answer.  It is part of it however.  You see, suppose we ever find a way of exploiting the so-called zero-point energy, as experiments with ultra-high frequency devices suggest might be possible.  This would provide us with non-polluting electricity.  However, what effects are there that we cannot foresee, that will bite our backsides 100 years hence?  After all, the move to coal in the early industrial age was as an attempt to stop deforestation caused by the use of wood to make charcoal for the smelting of iron.

All to often the solution to one problem begets another.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Global Warming?
« Reply #19 on: September 20, 2008, 11:58:51 AM »
And I'm not sure where you get that the 3-body problem is too complex to predict. Even ignoring Sundman's solution, almost all of astronomy can be reduced to various restricted scenarios of the n-body problem or the 2-body problem. Systems with three or more stars tend to form around binary pairs, for example. The lack of perfectly exact solutions is simply pedantry, really.

From math and astronomy classes taken before Dr. Wang's paper came out.  :-[  Ah well, a day in which you learn something new is never wasted.   ;D

Offline Porphyre

Re: Global Warming?
« Reply #20 on: September 20, 2008, 06:57:36 PM »
I hate this debate.

The average person's opinion is so ridiculously biased one way or another. I've heard nay-sayers say the most absurd things because they don't want global warming (which is properly called global climate change, to do away with naive conclusions about its effects) to be real.
On the flip side, it's fair to say that someone who believes in it is not exactly willing to accept the opposing position either.

The fact is that only people who study it know enough information to draw conclusions. In general, the people who study it agree that it is real and primarily man made. Personally, I think it's a little ridiculous to believe that the swaths of deforestation, millions and millions of cars and the vast industrial production we do on this planet isn't effecting global climate change. But then, I also think debating it is an act of futility. People tend to have their opinions for some very biased reasons.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Global Warming?
« Reply #21 on: September 20, 2008, 07:34:54 PM »
May I point out preventing Global Warming in time to do anything about it would cost a great deal of money and the United States is BROKE!

Yes we are not going deeper into debt over the financial breakdown and have even more debt than a year ago so good luck getting the United States to get on board we can't afford it as a government. And for every tax credit or break to give Green Tech some boost it costs us money somewhere so we can't reasonably do more than let the free market create this industry on its own as the need develops.

Offline Storiwyr

Re: Global Warming?
« Reply #22 on: September 20, 2008, 07:44:08 PM »
I don't know. I dislike that argument because ... by the time free market catches up, it might be too late.

Having a planet that is suitable for human life is more important than financial concerns. Not only that, but a portion of the world is gonna take the WHOLE world down with us.

Online Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Global Warming?
« Reply #23 on: September 20, 2008, 07:44:57 PM »
Well, there are experts stating that global warming may be a myth.  They too have evidence and facts to back up their data.  There are some that say global warming does exist but the impact is not so severe.  Some experts say that within a few years the damage will be irreversible and all future generations are doomed.  So there are alot of experts saying alot of things on this matter.  Science is a very political thing with alot of grant money at stake.  With that come fads for theories.  Right now global warming is a "hot topic" for grant money and research.  Right now saying that you want to disprove global warming is a good way not to get grant money.  Science is not nearly so unbiased as people seem to believe.  So saying that all experts agree is a very misleading and false statement.  They don't..nor will they ever agree.  They don't even agree on gravity.

Also a debate means that the subject is getting attention.  People always want to tap their foot and get impatient with debates.  The topic is being discussed, people are at least open to conversations about this topic.  There is mixed feelings that are mingling openly in public.  When those feelings are not allowed to mingle in public, then society has reached a conclusion and that is all there will be.  A few years ago global warming wasn't really discussed, now it is at the forefront of many public debates.  That means alot of people consider it important enough to start a fight over.  Take that as a good sign if you care about the topic.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Global Warming?
« Reply #24 on: September 20, 2008, 08:00:59 PM »
I don't know. I dislike that argument because ... by the time free market catches up, it might be too late.

Having a planet that is suitable for human life is more important than financial concerns. Not only that, but a portion of the world is gonna take the WHOLE world down with us.

Lets see with the new debt from the financial crisis we will have a $13 trillion national debt most likely and have had budget deficites 23 out of the last 25 years, big ones, where do expect our government to get the money to promote cleaner technologies? Add to that we have also many other pressing national problems health care access, financial problems, a war on terrorism and other matters that seem to be more pressing. Its fine on paper and in talking to demand we get on board but frankly we are a poor nation.