More Global Warming

[PsyOps]

Where do you people get your information?

Anyone who thinks the earth and our climate is a stable system is nuts!
Its a dynamic system and its always changing. I am not going to argue about man made or natural. But the earth's climate is always changing.

Right now, its getting warmer, and if you go outside, its easy to see. Glacier national park has less than half the ice it had 20 years ago (I know, I have photos). Here's one - anyone who does gardening should know. The climate zones or numbers we use for planting have changed. Bob Ryan on channel 4 even admitted we have changed 1 full zone in the last 15-20 years. The zones are based on the minimum temp that the zone can be expected to see (hence killing your plants). The ice shelfs are definetly shrinking. And ice core samples prove the "green house" type gasses have been increasing - for quite a long time, actually.

If you think about it, extreme weather, cold and hot, should be expected in a dynamic system. Drought, floods, hot, cold, all would accompany any type of climate change.

I don't know why this concept is so difficult. I'm not saying this is going to be the big bad wolf, who knows, maybe most areas will acually be nicer to live in. Maybe not. That's the problem with any dynamic system, its hard to predict what will really happen. Look how accurate the 14 day forecast is - not very!!

Just my 2 cents...

Here’s 2 more cents. The dismantling of our capitalistic way of life. That is the purpose of this global warming alarmist agenda. When the major proponents of this agenda (Al Gore, RFK Jr, Arianna Huffington, etc…) aren’t willing to follow their own demands on us I have no reason take any of it seriously. They are a bunch of socialists aimed at destroying our economy as we know it to lay the foundation for their (first) socialization of this country, then (second) the communization of this country.

Believable? About as believable as the global warming crap.

 

[drmatsci]

All I can say is, go look at the data.
Its not brain science to understand it.

Actually, I'm a conservative, so I really don't care what you say about gore. I just happen to care about the enviroment a bit. I don't think that is a sin.

EDIT:

I am happy to continue this discussion but really its become more of opinions so feel free to close the thread...

 

[PsyOps]

All I can say is, go look at the data.
Its not brain science to understand it.

Actually, I'm a conservative, so I really don't care what you say about gore. I just happen to care about the enviroment a bit. I don't think that is a sin.

I care about the environment too. I do my part. I own a hybrid (Civic), I hate seeing garbage on the ground and clean up when I can, and believe indiscriminate polluting should be kept in check.

But the hypocrisy from the global warming alarmists makes me sit back and think “how serious could it possibly be if the biggest mouths on the subject aren’t willing to following their own preachings”.

There was a report on Hannity's America (which I'm trying to find a link to) that came out not too long ago that questioned the placement of many of the temperature sensors (that are used to gather global temperature data) were being placed in questionable places like near air conditioner exhausts, on top of asphalt blacktops, near the side of buildings with reflective siding...

This has less to do with what you and I care about and more about what their agenda is. That is the data you seem to be disinterested in.

 

[blazinlow89]

Here you go

BMI Special Report -- Fire and Ice

Its mainly media BS. No one doubts that the temperature is warming, its a given sign the problem is that everyone makes i seem that is an out of control problem. Which it isnt.

Are we pumping CO2 into mars atmosphere too?

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

This is from a Chief at NASA

NPR: NASA Chief Questions Need to Address Global Warming

IT has been proven that Gore accelerated his weather maps, to make several hundred or even thousand years seem like just decades. This was at the current rate of warming which has been shown to be natural. Another thing is that Gore said that sea level rise would be something like 20-30', when other scientist's say it will only be a few feet, how can corresponding data show conflicting results which vary by 17-27'.

Just back in 06 when we had the massive heat waves. I heard one of the woman on the weather channel who couldnt decide whether or not the heat was from el nino, or global warming in a ten minuted period she changed her cause from the heat at least 10 times.

It all comes down to one thing, its all about money, and power. This has been discussed quite a bit on this forum, hell look over at the global warming causes less hurricanes thread, does it make any sense how it can cause problems that are the exact opposite of each other.

On one last note, i was reading an automotive magazine at the doctors office, i can find the article on the web but it was so well written and put alot of things into a new perspective. Without this global warming blanket the earth's average temperature would be 50 degrees cooler, this "blanket" is caused by natural events. If we had every car on the road get at least 50mpg or more, the average output of CO2 would be 3% less.

Im with psyops this is only a way for people to gain more power over the general population.

 

[SamSpade]

Actually, I'm a conservative, so I really don't care what you say about gore. ..

It does to me, but for this main reason:

If it's so damned almighty important to HIM, he'd be leading the charge in setting the example. The fact that he does this almost exclusively for a living without actually following it and setting the example means, he doesn't believe it enough, himself. How true could it be, if it doesn't ring true for him?

He has the credibility of an adulterous televangelist.

 

[SamSpade]

IT has been proven that Gore accelerated his weather maps, to make several hundred or even thousand years seem like just decades.

I found an article the other day that showed where he got his famous stranded polar bear picture.

It was taken by a photographer who has been letting people know, she took it in 2004 to show the wind-swept nature of the ice floe they were standing on - because the two bears were only a short swim to shore. It had very little to do with polar bears, who can actually swim dozens of miles with relative ease.

Moreover, polar bear population has actually grown in recent years.

Furthermore, arctic ice shrinks and swells throughout the year between 13 and 5 million sq miles, in a regular pattern. That hasn't changed. Any evidence that suggests otherwise is easily proven false.

 

[drmatsci]

And the fact that scientists say the arctic shelf ice is the smallest its ever been this last summer doesn't mean anything?

Look, either all scientists are liberals and love Gore (not true, believe me) or they think something is actually going on. NOAA, for crying out load, is a government orgnization and funded by the bush white house. NOAA is quite clear on the warming trends.

I still don't understand, from a conceptual viewpoint, why people think we don't (or can't be) changeing the planet. We do it every day - and little changes to a dynamic system can change it dramatically. I don't know what everyone's background on this site are, but I have a masters in systems engineering and I understand how systems work. If you suppose climate is a stable system then you would all be correct, a few little things we do wouldn't matter and the climate would buffer itself. But looking through history and how it works its clearly not stable its dynamic. That's why I mentioned helicopters - you can trim it like crazy, and let go, and its going to crash.

I fully agree with you on politicians, I have no love for any of them. Its a stupid system that says you should be right or left. what if I like some things on each side? Why should that make me in the 'middle'? Trying to fit a bunch of different issues on a straight line is crazy.

I love your Mars stuff but its apples and oranges - mars works very differently. To be comparable you need to find a planet that at least has plate techtonics. There is a very strong theory that plate techtonics require vast amounts of water to basically keep the system 'lubricated' and running. What does plate techtonics have to do with climate? Well, a lot, look at Venus. Grnated, its much closer to the sun, but when the planet can't release heat gradually it builds and then erupts and catatrophically releases its energy periodically. Many have called it "resurfacing" of the entire planet. Which leads to a very different planet. Also, Mars is much smaller, so it bleeds lighter elements away. Even at best the mars CO2 is a fraction of a fraction compared to ours so a little natural warming there isn't proof of much about earth. Interesting, though, I agree.

Ahh yes, NASA chief, cool, thanks for posting. You notice he doesn't say that we are not causing global warming, he just dismisses it as not a problem. I already admitted I have no idea where this will lead. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but the NASA chief is appointed by the Bush admin. and they arenn't known for enviromentalism. Lets be honest, Bush is a politican just like Gore and pushes his own agenda too. Its no secret about Bush's admin. position on this subject. Bush and Kyoto treaty, for example. And didn't they get in big trouble for censuring NASA reports of climate change? I remember that.

" have no doubt that global -- that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change" - NASA chief excerpt

Yes, the earth has always had a "blanket" on - that's not in question, its wheather we are changing it...

Gaining power? Can't you say the same for the opposite - you know, knowledge and truth? those with knowledge have the power? so by hiding the truth and censoring reports, aren't you grabbing the power? How does changing the fuel economy bring Gore power? How does honest reports on ice shelf data or changes in ocean temperature bring Gore power?

Thanks for the links, I enjoy this discussion much better than "Its crap, that's why."

 

[drmatsci]

Here, just did a quick search, I am sure you can find this on NOAA as well, in case you don't believe an .org site. Just can't look for it right now, sorry. Look at the last 60 years and tell me that's a 'seasonal' trend.


SOTC: Sea Ice

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

 

[aps45819]

Look, either all scientists are liberals and love Gore (not true, believe me) or they think something is actually going on. NOAA, for crying out load, is a government orgnization and funded by the bush white house.

Actually, it's funded by the pelosi congress

 

[drmatsci]

Yes, funded, but the budget is drawn up by the white house.

Its easy to suggest that NOAA or such is "obviosuly" a green peace funded GORE agenda orginization. But think about it, its just not true. NOAA is made up of individual's with their own thoughts, just like anywhere else.

Perfect example, I work on the base (government) and I worked with a guy that loved guns and proud NRA member. One of his biggest reasons was to protect himself from future "government" plots, you know, to keep the government in line. One day a few of us pointed out that HE IS a government worker. His responce was that "well, not us, those other folks, we just do engineering stuff here and lab work and such". Its always those other folks - but you know, everywhere an orginization is made up of people. People with different ideas and thoughts. So when lots of data comes out of NOAA, I take it as honest work. Same as any engineer here on base - we are not out to do some weird plot on base here either, we just are working, like everyone else.

Just my lunch thoughts...

 

[LordStanley]

Yes, funded, but the budget is drawn up by the white house.

Its easy to suggest that NOAA or such is "obviosuly" a green peace funded GORE agenda orginization. But think about it, its just not true. NOAA is made up of individual's with their own thoughts, just like anywhere else.

Perfect example, I work on the base (government) and I worked with a guy that loved guns and proud NRA member. One of his biggest reasons was to protect himself from future "government" plots, you know, to keep the government in line. One day a few of us pointed out that HE IS a government worker. His responce was that "well, not us, those other folks, we just do engineering stuff here and lab work and such". Its always those other folks - but you know, everywhere an orginization is made up of people. People with different ideas and thoughts. So when lots of data comes out of NOAA, I take it as honest work. Same as any engineer here on base - we are not out to do some weird plot on base here either, we just are working, like everyone else.

Just my lunch thoughts...

Nice toss of the "Lunch thoughts" plug. Ya know just incase you get busted posting at work, you can claim it was during lunch

 

[MMDad]

I care about the environment too. I do my part. I own a hybrid (Civic),

I'll never understand why people think owning a hybrid is "doing my part." The only thing a hybrid does is give the appearance of doing something without actually doing it.

If you said "I ride mass transit to work" or "I car pool" then I'd believe it. Which do you think is more efficient? One person in a hybrid getting 45 MPG, or a full 15 passenger van getting 12 MPG? Or a 7 passenger minivan getting 24 MPG?

Hybrid cars just make it easy to feel like you are doing something without actually being inconvenienced enough to make a difference.

I read that Honda actually regrets making their hybrids look like their regular cars. Why? Because the people who buy hybrids want it to look distinctive so that the uneducated masses think they are environmentalists.

 

[PsyOps]

I'll never understand why people think owning a hybrid is "doing my part." The only thing a hybrid does is give the appearance of doing something without actually doing it.

If you said "I ride mass transit to work" or "I car pool" then I'd believe it. Which do you think is more efficient? One person in a hybrid getting 45 MPG, or a full 15 passenger van getting 12 MPG? Or a 7 passenger minivan getting 24 MPG?

Hybrid cars just make it easy to feel like you are doing something without actually being inconvenienced enough to make a difference.

I read that Honda actually regrets making their hybrids look like their regular cars. Why? Because the people who buy hybrids want it to look distinctive so that the uneducated masses think they are environmentalists.

In all honesty, I got a hybrid because I have an hour (one way) commute to work. On warm days I get nearly 50 mpg. It saves me money. I’m not trying to look distinctive or any crap like that. There is no mass transit where I live that goes where I work; there is no one near me that I could carpool with. So I do what I can to make fewer trips to the pump to save me money.

I bought the Civic because I hated the look of the Prius (not to mention they are more expensive). I wanted something that actually looked like a regular car. So whatever Honda is regretting I hope they don’t, I happen to like the look of the car.

I throw the “I’m doing my part” in there because I don’t need these global warming alarmists (that aren’t willing to practice what they preach) getting on my case about saving the environment. I do a lot of things that work towards a cleaner environment. I don’t need some group or politician or wacko telling me how to save our globe.

 

[ylexot]

Look, I have been all over the world flying and the more you fly the more you realize the planet is small.

Really? I fly a lot and the more I fly the more I realize that the planet is friggin' HUGE!

 

[ylexot]

I still don't understand, from a conceptual viewpoint, why people think we don't (or can't be) changeing the planet. We do it every day - and little changes to a dynamic system can change it dramatically. I don't know what everyone's background on this site are, but I have a masters in systems engineering and I understand how systems work. If you suppose climate is a stable system then you would all be correct, a few little things we do wouldn't matter and the climate would buffer itself. But looking through history and how it works its clearly not stable its dynamic. That's why I mentioned helicopters - you can trim it like crazy, and let go, and its going to crash.

Thank you. You just proved that the Earth is, in fact, a stable system. Nobody has been putting in "trim" commands for millions of years, yet the Earth has never become a fireball nor an iceball. There have been extremes on both ends (I wonder how the Earth had hot times before cars ) and then the climate swings the other way.

The climate is dynamic like you say, but dynamic does not equal unstable. A pendulum is both dynamic and stable. I agree that we have an effect on the environment. The degree and the direction are questionable. Could we be a forcing function pushing the climate against a natural warming? Could we be a forcing function in the same direction, but orders of magnitude smaller? The only way for us to not have an effect is if we cease to exist...butterfly flapping it's wings and all.

BTW, you might want to check the expiration date on your engineering degree (the technical one...SE is not technical).

 

[drmatsci]

lol

I don't think a degree 'expires'.

Even dynamic, unstable systems have boundries... No one is going to say a climate being unstable will cause the earth to explode. "Stable" is defined as: resistant to change, equilibrium, static (no change), etc

You agreed the climate has been chaging, so that rules out a stable system.
My point is that being unstable "little" things can cause it to change. Hence, not resistant, hence unstable.

Hybrids? That's a big discusion on its own, but I will say, it does mean less money going to the middle east for oil. It may indeed mean more money going to the US or Japan...

 

[ylexot]

Even dynamic, unstable systems have boundries... No one is going to say a climate being unstable will cause the earth to explode. "Stable" is defined as: resistant to change, equilibrium, static (no change), etc

You agreed the climate has been chaging, so that rules out a stable system.
My point is that being unstable "little" things can cause it to change. Hence, not resistant, hence unstable.

That's a really weak definition for stable. That's an English major definition, not a science/engineering definition. There are three stability possibilities:
Stable - when perturbed, tries to return to starting point. (i.e. ball in a bowl)
Neutrally stable - when perturbed, continues, but does not accelerate. (i.e. ball on table)
Unstable - when perturbed, accelerates away from the starting point. (i.e. ball on a hill)

Notice that in all three examples, the ball can be moved.

Pray tell, what is your technical degree?

 

[High EGT]

Stop The Press! This Just In

Sen. Kerry Blames Tornados on Global Warming.


Sen. Kerry Blames Tornados on Global Warming

 

[drmatsci]

Those are good defintions too, I just was trying to stay simple - so you think the earth's climate always returns to a point? What I have been saying is that a little push will cuase the climate to shift and run away radically, just like your third defintion. I don't think pendulum is a good description of the past climate - more like "changes wildly over time" - its been hot, its been cold, but certainly not like a rythmic pendulum. And as a system, it still has bounds it stays within. I do agree we really can't know for 100% unless we are gone.

I have a BS in materials engineering and a MS in systems engineering.
Neither ever taught me to spell well... You?

But this really a battle of opinion - I think its a unstable system and you think its stable. It would be difficult to prove either way.

 

[blazinlow89]

But this really a battle of opinion - I think its a unstable system and you think its stable. It would be difficult to prove either way.

Well there you go, you just said its difficult to prove who is right in this matter.