Global Warming - It's Our Fault

[BawanaRik]

Yeah, screw those suckers! First come, first serve baby!!

Thanks for making my point so clear. I tend to be a little on the easy side.

You are hard focus.

Great job. Thanks again

 

[BawanaRik]

It's always interesting to speculate on the future of our species. If we could see the distant future, it's a simple and uncontroversial fact that there won't be any Homo sapiens around, that's for sure. Whether we have any descendants or not after our own species is extinct is something as yet undecided. But go a bit further forward, and the whole party's over anyway.

As a Darwinist and a human I used to hope that scion of man would be the resultant dominant species on the future planet Earth.

Win Some Loss some.

 

[fmoore200]

Herein lies a wealth of knowledge.

Can't afford a Hummer so you don't get one. And that's a bad thing?

Personally I can think of nothing that reflects what is wrong with the world today, with a few exceptions that are beyond the scope of TB, than a Hummer. And here you use this as an example of what everyone deserves. I disagree. In fact if you email me I tell you waht to do with these monstrosities and their owners.

Same with "RibEye". I suggest you investigate the environmental impact of that "ribeye" you wish to offer to the masses. And really anyone is the US that can't come up with 5 or six bucks to afford this hyper lux item needs to evaluate their life. Beans are a few pounds for 5 bucks and rice is about the same.

(BTW get good rice. Go to an Asian market and watch what they buy. )

And Guilt Free! Not to plug his books again but Jared Diamond seems to think that there are 3 orders of magnitude more environmental impact with a pound of "RibEye" and a pound of beans. And it's healthier than MickeyDees!

Clean Coal? Isn't that what they burn for those Coal Fueled Cars like the Leaf?

Just the fact that anyone would consider a Hummer of the auto variety and a 'RibEye" basic life goods shows just what the issue is. And how hard it will be to educate people to engage in a sustainable future.

Far be it from me to speak for anyone else but here goes:

1. I don't think he meant those two examples as basic human necessities and/or rights

2. I think you know he didn't mean it that way, but are re-constructing his post to fit your argument.

Isn't that a Straw man?

Thanks for making my point so clear. I tend to be a little on the easy side.

You are hard focus.

Great job. Thanks again

I was being facetious (I think)

 

[hbarcat]

Invalid Link Removed

There's the data. That looks fairly conclusive.

That is not the data. That is a graph that represents data that has been processed in a specific way to display the data according to the specific purpose of the person who authored the graph.

This is standard practice in science when graphically displaying complex data and no deception is implied. However . . . . it is necessary to understand how the data has been processed in order to appreciate the inherent limits of the graph and to know what the graph is useful for and what it isn't useful for.

With this graph, specifically, there are three different sources of data.
1) satellite data (1970's to the present)
2) localized thermometer data (20th century)
3) localized proxy data (6 or more different types)

The graph displays the satellite and thermometer data by smoothing out temperature differences that occur in less than 5 years. Yet, it displays all sources of proxy data by averaging them together and then smoothing out temperature differences that occur in less than 30 year intervals.

This results in a graph that will automatically display very steady temperatures from the oldest data up until the 1900's when it will then automatically show larger variations of temperature. What this means is any temperature variations occurring in the 20th century will remain obvious while any temperature variations of similar magnitude, previous to 1900, will be hidden in the processing.

Again, this is not necessarily deceptive, but it puts a natural limit on what the graph can be used for. Unfortunately, IPCC AR4 uses this very graph as evidence that climate changes were negligible over the past several thousand years until the 20th century, at which time the atmospheric temperature showed much greater change. Such a conclusion is NOT justifiable, given the limitations of the graph.

Incidentally, I know this information regarding the data and the method by which it was processed for the graph because I simply took time to read the IPCC AR4. Very few global warming activists (including scientists) who are being asked their opinion on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) have actually read the report. They simply trust the main authors of the report to be trustworthy and to follow accepted scientific rigor when interpreting the information provided to them by genuine climatologists - an unusual attitude, considering the reports are intended for policy purposes and do not conform to the same standards as peer reviewed scientific papers.

 

[BawanaRik]

That is not the data. That is a graph that represents data that has been processed in a specific way to display the data according to the specific purpose of the person who authored the graph.

This is standard practice in science when graphically displaying complex data and no deception is implied. However . . . . it is necessary to understand how the data has been processed in order to appreciate the inherent limits of the graph and to know what the graph is useful for and what it isn't useful for.

With this graph, specifically, there are three different sources of data.
1) satellite data (1970's to the present)
2) localized thermometer data (20th century)
3) localized proxy data (6 or more different types)

The graph displays the satellite and thermometer data by smoothing out temperature differences that occur in less than 5 years. Yet, it displays all sources of proxy data by averaging them together and then smoothing out temperature differences that occur in less than 30 year intervals.

This results in a graph that will automatically display very steady temperatures from the oldest data up until the 1900's when it will then automatically show larger variations of temperature. What this means is any temperature variations occurring in the 20th century will remain obvious while any temperature variations of similar magnitude, previous to 1900, will be hidden in the processing.

Again, this is not necessarily deceptive, but it puts a natural limit on what the graph can be used for. Unfortunately, IPCC AR4 uses this very graph as evidence that climate changes were negligible over the past several thousand years until the 20th century, at which time the atmospheric temperature showed much greater change. Such a conclusion is NOT justifiable, given the limitations of the graph.

Incidentally, I know this information regarding the data and the method by which it was processed for the graph because I simply took time to read the IPCC AR4. Very few global warming activists (including scientists) who are being asked their opinion on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) have actually read the report. They simply trust the main authors of the report to be trustworthy and to follow accepted scientific rigor when interpreting the information provided to them by genuine climatologists - an unusual attitude, considering the reports are intended for policy purposes and do not conform to the same standards as peer reviewed scientific papers.

To cut to the chase you mean it wasn't just the movie?

 

[blue4]

I'm inclined to trust the science. I think people are making a normal warming trend much faster. I'm no scientist, but I do know that if I shut my car in the garage without opening the garage windows enough and leave it running, I will die. So it makes sense to me that we might have too many cars in the big Earthen garage, so to speak. Couple that with other pollution, and it seems very feasible to me that we may be accelerating a unpleasant, but otherwise normal change.

 

[vin*tone]

... They simply trust the main authors of the report to be trustworthy and to follow accepted scientific rigor when interpreting the information provided to them by genuine climatologists - an unusual attitude, considering the reports are intended for policy purposes and do not conform to the same standards as peer reviewed scientific papers.
[/B]

I'm a little unsure what you're saying here but the report is not only based on many peer reviewed papers but undergoes a thorough line by line review once compiled. Reviewers are not just 'in the clique' as anyone could apply to review the AR5 - Lord Monckton was one such reviewer.

 

[vin*tone]

I disagree.

You are not considering the largest part of our planet's biomass which is all the organisms which live in the oceans. There are billions of mammals and likely trillions of non-mammal sea organisms.

Man(kind) just doesn't possess the knowledge or the resources required to eff things up bad enough to snuff out all life in the biosphere. But we could make things pretty miserable for land-based creatures (and birds). imo.

Sea life gets a double whammy. The oceans are warming - We are also altering the PH of the oceans. This apparently makes life very difficult for things that need to grow a shell.

 

[Schlyder]

won't anybody think of the mermaids?

 

[DerHoggz]

I disagree.

You are not considering the largest part of our planet's biomass which is all the organisms which live in the oceans. There are billions of mammals and likely trillions of non-mammal sea organisms.

Man(kind) just doesn't possess the knowledge or the resources required to eff things up bad enough to snuff out all life in the biosphere. But we could make things pretty miserable for land-based creatures (and birds). imo.

Sea life gets a double whammy. The oceans are warming - We are also altering the PH of the oceans. This apparently makes life very difficult for things that need to grow a shell.

Yeah, the oceans are in terrible shape.

 

[96tbird]

won't anybody think of the mermaids?

Are you worried that the ph changes might dissolve their shells?

 

[Aussie Player]

Australia has next to no people, only 21 million and is similar in size to the US.

No one would be stupid enough to suggest that people generate global warming when it was damn hot there before industry came and still is.

Global warming is an American scam to steal tax payer funds. Always was.

 

[bkbirge]

Australia has next to no people, only 21 million and is similar in size to the US.

No one would be stupid enough to suggest that people generate global warming when it was damn hot there before industry came and still is.

Global warming is an American scam to steal tax payer funds. Always was.

Are you being serious? Wow.

 

[Tituscrow]

Australia has next to no people, only 21 million and is similar in size to the US.

No one would be stupid enough to suggest that people generate global warming when it was damn hot there before industry came and still is.

Global warming is an American scam to steal tax payer funds. Always was.

Well folks...we made it to 131 posts before this gem.

 

[fmoore200]

That's it. I'm moving to Australia.

But that's kind of far.

Can I settle for Austria instead?

 

[Bert Slide]

Lloyd: What the hell are we doing here, Harry? We gotta get out of this town!
Harry: Oh yeah, and go where? Where are we gonna go?
Lloyd: I'll tell you where. Someplace warm. A place where the beer flows like wine. Where beautiful women instinctively flock like the salmon of Capistrano. I'm talking about a little place called Aspen.
Harry: Oh, I don't know, Lloyd. The French are ********.

 

[fmoore200]

Well excuse me Mr. Samsonite!

 

[skychief]

Sea life gets a double whammy. The oceans are warming - We are also altering the PH of the oceans. This apparently makes life very difficult for things that need to grow a shell.

I recall about 30 years ago my roommate had a 30 gal' salt-water fish tank. With much marine life/creatures.

He had to closely monitor 3 things;

NaCl content, PH, and Temp.

He (the roomie) was bad all three, and I recall having to step up to the plate several times in the course of 2 years to save his precious fish. Sometimes he would go on a week-long walkabout with no warning,, anyways, one summer was incredibly hot and the the water temp rose to 83 degrees F (11 degrees warmer than the recommended temp).

It was a crappy apartment with no A/C so there was nothing we could do to regulate the temperature short of tossing in ice cubes. But, then of course, that would throw the NaCl content out-of-whack.

The heat wave lasted almost 2 weeks, and the fish did seem somewhat lethargic. But they survived. And when the temp dropped back to normal, the fish resumed being their happy little selves.

The point is, if these fragile fish can sustain an 11 degree rise in temperature, I think the hardier deep-sea mollusks and fish could endure a 1 degree (F) change in a 100-year span.

 

[fmoore200]

I recall about 30 years ago my roommate had a 30 gal' salt-water fish tank. With much marine life/creatures.

He had to closely monitor 3 things;

NaCl content, PH, and Temp.

He (the roomie) was bad all three, and I recall having to step up to the plate several times in the course of 2 years to save his precious fish. Sometimes he would go on a week-long walkabout with no warning,, anyways, one summer was incredibly hot and the the water temp rose to 83 degrees F (11 degrees warmer than the recommended temp).

It was a crappy apartment with no A/C so there was nothing we could do to regulate the temperature short of tossing in ice cubes. But, then of course, that would throw the NaCl content out-of-whack.

The heat wave lasted almost 2 weeks, and the fish did seem somewhat lethargic. But they survived. And when the temp dropped back to normal, the fish resumed being their happy little selves.

The point is, if these fragile fish can sustain an 11 degree rise in temperature, I think the hardier deep-sea mollusks and fish could endure a 1 degree (F) change in a 100-year span.

Isn't the ecosystem in the ocean much more complicated and nuanced than in a fish tank? Wouldn't that mean a subtle change could have a greater impact in the complex system of the ocean than the much more controlled environment of a personal fish tank?
I'm not being a wise ass, I really don't know.

 

[96tbird]

In university lab we iced goldfish to about 4 degrees Celsius to measure their respiration rates. Has nothing to do with global warning but it was fun.

The problem with global warming is not the big molluscs, it's the single celled and other invertebrates that make the bottom of the food chain, the most important part of the chain to life itself, that are so vulnerable to temp and ph. If they can't adapt fast enough, the bigger fishes will starve. But it also seems that the simpler the organism, the quicker they can adapt. Slow changes may be surmountable for them. Coral is cery important and very fragile and there have been some major depletions of corals globally.

Bee populations are down in north America about 30% because of pesticide treated seed (thanks Monsanto). Bees are very important to all life.

I'm not a scientist just thinking aloud about what I leaned in college zoology. We gotta keep striving for change.