Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?

[duckula]

This is like watching tigers fight with knives.

[Hazzle]

Cockfighting's got nothing on this...

[dave]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

<snip>
You and Dave still haven’t answered my question, while I try to keep answering all of yours, I think that's a pity:

Give me one reason why we should not take the uncertainty that “global warming is caused by human activity” for an certainty?

Oh! Is that all you want? OK. The answer is that YOU should. It seems to have captured your imagination and interest. It gives you meaning. So YOU should take this seriously, unless you are meant to do something more important with your life...

As for me, I don't believe the particular 'Scientists' who seem to be manipulating the facts so as to make themselves more important than they are entitled to be.

Occam's Razor, The simplest explanation for a situation is almost always the truth. The simplest explanation here is that these "Scientists" are misrepresenting the results of their process.

[dave]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

Wel dave, i assume you don't face problems like cancers, asthma,... in your family. I suppose you live with eye covers and don't care about things like deforestation, desertification, all round pollution etc. and the chance that all this may influences our climate with far-reaching consequences. I hope you live long and happy in that small world of yours called 'home'.

Thank You, I suspect that I will. Also, I am extremely happy that some of these fake 'Scientists' have found other people to lie about. Living and working around Los Alamos New Mexico, I've had to put up with fake 'Scientists' and their 'directed research results.' for the last 30 years. True Scientists do not do their research with a foregone conclusion in mind when they start. (It's bad for their reputation when the results don't match the goal they set for themselves, bad for their blood pressure also.) Note that results not matching projections is a major problem for Climatologists. They have managed to sufficiently obfuscate the issue that people actually believe that modeling the atmosphere is not possible. When their long range projections don't match the models they lie about it instead of adding in a "global warming" factor, rerunning the computations and "proving" their hypothesis, (as close as they can to proof, anyway.)

But No! Adding a 'global warming factor' is not possible for them, as they don't really understand the problem or any possible solution. So they wave their hands in the air crying 'Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain...'

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

Oh and believe me i do find it important.

Good, then go on about solving the problem. It is obviously not something I can deal with, and since I already saved the world back in 1988, (Kearsarge and CORRTEX [where I worked] ) I'll applaud your efforts, but will stand down this time and let you do it.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

I'm disgusted by the fact <skip typical liberal balderdash>

I'm disgusted because of the fact that Greenpeace has to <skip>

You don't want to know about the conversations I had with the founder of Greenpeace when I was working across the street from his boat back in 1979.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

I'm disgusted to see that every year 20 000 km² of forest is cut down for monoculture soya in Brasilia and still 5 million people became unemployed the last five years in the agriculture sector.

I question your figures, but no matter what the truth is I also believe this is a bad thing. But I seriously question your '5 million people' figure.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

I'm disgusted to see how western countries buy tons of cobalt for cheap prices knowing that the money is used for an rebellion war in Rwanda and Congo.

References please?

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

I'm disgusted to see how China buys as much wood as possible legal or illegal cut, to foresee the demand of it industries that make wood products for the world market.
Nothing above a good economy, isnt it?…

I believe we send most of our scrap wood to Japan where they salvage it and turn it into plywood and sell it back to us. You find something wrong with that? Pray tell, what is wrong with that? Would you rather see it go up the chimney as Presto-logs?

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

It may be your truth but time will tell, it’s funny as I just saw this documentary from the bbc. Climate chaos: Bush's climate of fear

Relevance? The BBC is definitely not a Scientific Outlet. While I do believe that some of their news is better than US-Media, I don't believe their Scientific Staff deserves the same respect as their News Staff. (My response may be a little bit confusing because your translation doesn't make much sense. I don't believe you said what you meant to say, and I'm sorry I can't guess closer than this as to what you meant to say.)

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

A pity you don't take the effort to think about a good reason why we should not take the uncertainty “global warming is caused by human activity” for an certainty. As I can think of a dozen reasons why we should. I suppose the eye covers are to blame for.

I reiterate my response. (Basically I distrust your sources, so I am not wont to become involved.) Another reference which purports to dispute the 'Global Warming Theory' in 2006

Originally Posted by dave

Oh! Is that all you want? OK. The answer is that YOU should. It seems to have captured YOUR imagination and interest. It gives YOU meaning. So YOU should take this seriously, unless you are meant to do something more important with your life...

As for me, I don't believe the particular 'Scientists' who seem to be manipulating the facts so as to make themselves more important than they are entitled to be.

Occam's Razor, The simplest explanation for a situation is almost always the truth. The simplest explanation here is that these "Scientists" are misrepresenting the results of their process.

Wikipedia Scientific opinion on climate change

[Kelsey]

So it sounds like you've researched both sides, FF. So if you have, and this is the interpretation that you choose to take from that, then fine. You worry about it. I think it's a waste of time and energy though, and I don't think you're in the majority. The loudest maybe (which can sometimes seem like the majority), but not the majority. People always need something to be worried about. The Cold War. Y2K. 6-6-06. Bird flu (finally something actually tangible!) When something is no longer able to be feared, something else will always come around.

If you want to believe everything you hear about global warming, then fine. But these scientists on both sides can do nothing more but speculate. No one knows what is going to happen. No one knows what is likely to happen. All you can do is continue to ask questions, and there can be a question asked for everything that's brought up, whether pro or con.

I live in a 900 square foot apartment. My dad drives a 1988 Honda. I walk to work. We don't have an air conditioner. Do you think these scientists who are paid thousands, sometimes millions, a year to conduct studies so that they can be published live like I do? I bet not. They preach, but can't practice.

[dave]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

Sorry dave but these both webpages/articles were modified for the last time in June 2004 according to the server data. <snip>
The last link you refer to is again a page with out a date but according to the server data last modified end 2004 and if you’ve read the last ICCP report <snip>

The last ICPP report was issued in 2001. There is another one due out in 2007 and it is in 'Final Review' stage, but it is very hard to obtain a copy. I can't seem to find it on the net. It seems that your references are older than the ones I was quoting. What is your problem with them?

[dave]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

Sorry my bad, I meant this report. If you’d followed the fifth link like I said you’d know I meant that one.

No, You did not. This is the first time you've tried to use a NOAA Report, and you've chosen a particularly disingenuous one to start with.

Most of your previous citations depended on the credentials of the United Nations and the IPCC reports.

You say I should have followed the fifth link to prove that what you wanted to use to prove your point was this particular report. You however ignore the fact that this particular report is the first link you gave, and, concomitantly the one which I criticized the most.

I will repeat myself only to the extent that you should pay particular attention to the opening summary of the report, it is full of dissembling.

Since they have "increased confidence", how long do you think it will be before they actually have proof? Proof good enough that we should go back to the energy expenditure level of the '80s?

[dave]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

<snip>When I say:
“why not take the uncertainty “global warming is caused by human activity” for an certainty.”

The uncertainty refers to the fact that it’s not sure, that it may be wrong, manipulated,…
What I am asking you is: Why not act as though 'Global Warming' is true (if everything that “would” cause global warming is bad for us and our environment)? So why not act as though 'Global Warming' is true until the day we know for sure whether it is true, as the world will be better off if we do.

Because that immediately turns the United States into a 'Third World Country." And it only affects the United States that way. I am not one of the people over here who 'wrings my hands and cries about how we have left the rest of the world behind, we have to stop and let them catch up!' That's not me. If the rest of the world wants to catch up, tell them to 'start running.' You might also tell them to shed their Dictators, their Princes and Princesses (except Queen Nur, Diana and Grace Kelly) and start rewarding people who do good things. We will be easy to catch as our Politicians have somehow decided that we are to blame for the troubles of the world, and made sure that the 'electorate' elected people who feel that way. (Have you ever thought about why they like to 'get out the vote? Because when everybody votes the statisticians are right. But, when some people stay home, the statisticians haven't got a clue. That's why the new polls are broken up into 'likely to vote' columns.)

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

As long as scientists don't fully understand how our climate works, what the influences are, and they don't have the computer power to simulate “accurate” models, you'll always be able to doubt these results.

Something both sides agree on is: More data and research is needed.

Everything that would cause global warming is bad for our planet. The only thing they are not sure about is whether it influences our climate or not. So for gods sake why not take the uncertainty for a certainty, because at the end, either way, if its true or not, we’re better off believing in it.

Flightfreak, again you are wrong. Back when I was running some of the biggest Hydrodynamic codes in the world, I was called on by Climatologists from NOAA to run some for them on the same computers, at the same time. You are wrong. Also, you might find it interesting to hear that I have a Beowulf Cluster upstairs made out of old junk PCs. (Some of those old junk PCs are faster than the Cray-1s were.) This particular Beowulf Cluster contains nine PCs at this point, runs Linux, and can whip the pants off your 'State of the art' Windoze machine. But, the people you are talking about don't think that way. Instead they spend their time trying to 'weasel word' their pseudo 'Scientific Reports' so they can say "I never said that! Of course I know we've been going through a Solar Cycle which heats up the atmosphere! Of Course I know that! I would NEVER say that the US should do something so the rest of the world can catch up!"

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

As I take it from you Dave, is not believing in it is more a political decision than a rational.

Not now. You've made me look at the papers, and what I saw was a bunch of 'self serving lies' put out as fake Scientific Reports with misleading words to obfuscate the real meaning. Thank you. You have convinced me that the only reason for the lies about 'Global Warming' is to make the United States turn off their power plants and wait for the rest of the world to catch up. AND to get a whole bunch of people who couldn't get a PhD in Physics the esteem and salaries that they would have gotten if they had actually taken and passed those courses. (Too bad they had to stop at Climatology...) "I coulda been a Con... a Physicist!"

Thank god they flunked them out! They are letting too many Cheaters and Liars get PhDs these days as it is. :fencing:

[Ranman]

Why don't you two get a room. I'll pay for it
I'll suply two bottles of Jack, a pack of smokes
and two baseball bats so you can beat the shit out of eachother

[dave]

Originally Posted by Ranman

Why don't you two get a room. I'll pay for it
I'll suply two bottles of Jack, a pack of smokes
and two baseball bats so you can beat the shit out of eachother

Is that how you deal with a good constructive intelligent argument? That's also 'not me'.

[AureaMediocritas]

Constructive ? With you arguing that the world should get rid of their dictators.
Heh yeah like Saddam, right ? What about Pinochet, the Contras, just to stay
in an area geographically close to yours ?

[Hazzle]

Dave we just want entertainment. And this is so close to being great, it just needs some bloodshed.

[dave]

Originally Posted by AureaMediocritas

Constructive ? With you arguing that the world should get rid of their dictators.
Heh yeah like Saddam, right ? What about Pinochet, the Contras, just to stay
in an area geographically close to yours ?

About Pinochet
In a heartbeat. It is my understanding that "The Contras" are better people than the government that they were opposed to (Well, except for a Nun here or there...). However, This is one of those things that "The Media" picked the wrong side to proselytize about, consequently America did too.

I do not believe in Dictatorships, Kingdoms, whatever you call it when some one man/woman is in charge and tells everybody else what they MUST do. So, those of you who don't see that point, I hope you don't sneak up behind me. If I see you coming...

You know, in Iraq and Iran the Mullahs and their followers still hang young women because they don't wear the traditional woman's uniform. Is that the world you want to live in? It doesn't have to be a dictator to be evil. It can also be a group of bigots in white sheets with dunce caps. There is no difference between the Wahhabi Muslims and the KKK except for the names of the people in the costumes...

A note about Wahhabis Saudis themselves do not use the term ''Wahhabi'', preferring to call themselves Unitarians - believers in one indivisible deity.

[the 48th Ronin]

Originally Posted by dave

About Pinochet
In a heartbeat. It is my understanding that "The Contras" are better people than the government that they were opposed to (Well, except for a Nun here or there...). However, This is one of those things that "The Media" picked the wrong side to proselytize about, consequently America did too....

???? the contras better than the sandanistas???? on a score of 1-10 I give both sides a minus 3 for Good..... Both sides represented different sides of the same old "We are the ones who get to make the rules here' argument!

Originally Posted by dave

I do not believe in Dictatorships, Kingdoms, whatever you call it when some one man/woman is in charge and tells everybody else what they MUST do. So, those of you who don't see that point, I hope you don't sneak up behind me. If I see you coming......

I forgive you for the nuclear garbage...

Originally Posted by dave

You know, in Iraq and Iran the Mullahs and their followers still hang young women because they don't wear the traditional woman's uniform. Is that the world you want to live in? It doesn't have to be a dictator to be evil. It can also be a group of bigots in white sheets with dunce caps. There is no difference between the Wahhabi Muslims and the KKK except for the names of the people in the costumes...

I have used the phrase "this is the same idea the mullahs propose from their view point to so many people lately. I begin to wonder is freedom of speech only if you agree with my side what we really want to have here now?? When did that become popular.. and from both sides of the political spectrum too.


I have a point to make IN THE DISCUSSION on global warming tho... ( which I have been delighted by ) if you prejudge that everything that is claimed to promote global warming is bad for the earth ( ???) as FF has... why would that rationally lead to the Certainly that he proposes.... Certainly implies that there is irrefutable proof that it is true, instead we are being asked to give a certain tag to a politically correct assumption... IMHO that is an example of how the Mullahs work... why are we imitating them... they do not believe in any dissent.. But We do not live in their kind of world?

Just my simple question... You guys duke it out.. I never read so many papers and tried to really understand this problem quite in this lite before!:fencing:

[Foeni]

There's no such thing as global warming. Chuck Norris was cold so Chuck Norris turned the sun up.

On topic: I believe global is a problem growing bigger. Partially because of man. Letting out too much CO2 to the atmosphere. We should be better at finding alternative energy sources like ethanol. And governments should be better at supporting this. I'm normally a supporter of my government, but on this they've haven't done enough. Danish scientists know a lot about using ethanol as fuel, but they are not doing anything about it because of taxes. It's being taxed as liqour. I know taxed probably isn't the right word, but I don't know what's correct....

[dave]

Originally Posted by Foeni

There's no such thing as global warming. Chuck Norris was cold so Chuck Norris turned the sun up.

On topic: I believe global is a problem growing bigger. Partially because of man. Letting out too much CO2 to the atmosphere.

Please note that the greenhouse gasses that FlightFreak and the Scientists are worried about is no longer CO2. Everybody seems to agree that the minuscule amount of CO2 that civilization has added is not 'The Problem.' It is a major part of the smog problems, but not the atmosphere's problems. The Earth has had many epochs in the past where CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.

Also, there actually is a Solar heating cycle going on right now which many Scientists believe is a major part of the problem. (Along with the water in the atmosphere trapping more of the infra-red. However most Scientists admit that the infra-red was always 100% captured and thus, the additional infra-red being cast off by the Solar Cycle we are currently experiencing is the villain. But there's little we can do about that except finding some way to cool the sun. or perhaps eliminating all fireplaces and coal fired power plants! ) (Which, since the Japanese use Nuclear Power Plants, they believe is trivial for the rest of the world, hence the Kyoto Accords.)

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

<snip>
If the current warming trends hold on it would result in a catastrophic global sea level rise of several meters.I’ve read the study delivered by Patterson at the Risk in 2004 and this was his conclusion:

In conclusion, the geologic record clearly shows us that there really is little correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. Although CO2 can have a minor influence on global temperature the effect is minimal and short lived as this cycle sits on top of the much larger water cycle, which is what truly controls global temperatures. The water cycle is in turn primarily influenced by natural celestial cycles and trends.

There are lot of parameters that influence the way someone should interpret the results of this study. Nor does Patterson deny that human activities would influence global warming. He just questions the importance of CO2 in global warming. He also does not deny that human activities made us more vulnerable for the sun’s radiation, what he says is the leading factor for our climate.Several studies point that out, take the effort to read some.
<snip>
Greenhouse gasses adapt Infrared from the sun and defuses ultra violet, the ultraviolet radiation gets adapted by the earth surface and turns it back to the atmosphere as infrared where the greenhouse gasses adapt it again.

The ozone layer has as purpose to adapt the ultraviolet radiation of the sun, but human activity (CFC’s) demolish that ozone layer, so thus more UV gets through…
<snip>

I question that UV hitting the ground is rebroadcast back into the air as infra-red. I suspect it is just absorbed. (Which might be a partial explanation why the ground is heating up faster than the atmosphere. Oh Right, the people who made the original report changed their input data to eliminate that little problem. They found an 'explanation' and merely changed the data to match their explanation, like any true Scientist would do... :fencing: )

Originally Posted by Foeni

We should be better at finding alternative energy sources like ethanol. And governments should be better at supporting this.

Ethanol produces as much CO2 as gasoline I think. Ethanol is recommended to eliminate the smog. An entirely different discussion.

I tried to get Peter to come on this board and add to the discussion, but I haven't heard back from him. He and I don't always agree about this stuff, but he is much more knowledgeable about it than I. (You'll recognize his style if he posts here, I'm fairly certain.)

Originally Posted by Foeni

I'm normally a supporter of my government, but on this they've haven't done enough. Danish scientists know a lot about using ethanol as fuel, but they are not doing anything about it because of taxes. It's being taxed as liquor. I know taxed probably isn't the right word, but I don't know what's correct....

Road Taxes are still Taxes.

I remember there was a lot of talk about global warming while I was in elementary school. That was the early 90s. Talk about it fizzled really until recently with all the bizarre, or what seems to be bizarre, weather. What makes me quizzical is the fact that historically, the earth has seen weather like this -- and worse -- without all the technologies and industries of mankind.

It seems to me that the scientists have pushed the phenomenon aside and environmentalists have taken up the banner in their stead. Not to knock the efforts of such groups -- but I just don't believe there's some gaping hole in our atmosphere getting wider and wider because we're breathing too much and letting off too much gas.

[dave]

And here's another link that you might want to check out! (This one's for you Hazzle! ) Greenhouse

And yet another Dr. Lindzen's testimony to Congress

[Hazzle]

Err. Thanks?

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

We need to become more economical with energy. Tons of energy get wasted every day again. So it would become easier to switch to alternative energy sources.

So are you saying it's "easy" to switch to alternative energy and it's just nobody's doing it? So far as I know, inventors around the world are working at finding new energy efficient means. But quite a few factors play into this. First, what Foeni hinted at -- government, economics, laws. Second, you need factories within which to work on these inventions. Third, the word efficiency. If history has taught us anything, not only do we always seem to stop just short of ruining ourselves, we also pass through various stages of efficiency -- Bronze Age, Silver Age, Agricultural, Industrial. But we've never gone back from using a hammer to using a bone. My thoughts are: the ball's in the field of someone more knowledgable than me, they're working on it, and I look forward to the possibilities on the future rather than get mired in the freak-outs of the present.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

The weather we’re seeing now, may be something we’ve seen before in history, but the current state the earth is in, is something new.

But isn't that the crux of the whole debate? Just how much civilization affects climate and weather? If it's happened before, without the conditions humanity has imposed, then to the common man the wind gets taken out of that argument's sails. Note, I'm not denying our current state is new or deplorable. Neither am I saying the rainforest hasn't disappeared. But I guess what I am denying is that the sky is falling.


Isn't it a fact that the starlight we're receiving night and day first emanated from those stars at a time when the Aztecs were sacrificing virgins. Maybe it's century-old stardust clogging the atmosphere...