Climate Change

Well, every time the temperature is above normal you claim it is global warming.

And I continue to note that every single one of you continues to avoid like the plague my question about what caused pre-man warming cycles.

 

I guess none of those scientists took that question into account either. Jesus.

 

No, because it's a comparable that people like OT can grapple with.

It's an apt symbol of what some people will swallow from snake-oil vendors claiming to be scientists.

 

Damn, now that icon of liberalism — Wal-Mart — is promoting this agenda...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004451,00.html

 

Since you asked...
The cause for our current "warming cycle" is the same as the "pre-man" cycles, an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And the history of it has been studied far further than the last few thousand years, more like 800,000 years. In that time the amount of carbon dioxide has risen and fallen, and with it so too have temperatures. The HUGE difference now is the levels of carbon dioxide in the air. It is far higher than it has been in the last million years and continues to rise at a faster rate than at any time in the last million years. Human kind is the reason for this. (and trust me, i wish you were right)
And no, China and India are not more to blame. The good ole USA produces more carbon dioxide than any other country and doesn't appear to be slowing down.
It is true that climate change has occurred throughout the history of the earth. It is also true that it has never happened at this rate and that humans are the biggest cause. It is also true that we are dangerously close to a point of no return.
My question to you OT, what scientists can you find that say it's not true?

 

Also worth noting, since JR quoted the reference to the past 1,300 years, that time span also included a significant cooling trend. The Little Ice Age is estimated to have lasted 300 to 400 years.
So, these are the warmest temperatures in at least the past 1,300 years, but 23-30 percent of that period was a significant cooling trend.
Also, what is almost never talked about in these discussions, except by Luggie and I, is the shifting of the planet's magnetic field, which has been connected historically to climate change and is about due to happen.

 

Everyone can do three things:

1) Run the government.
2) Run a basketball team.
3) Claim to be a scientist who knows what the fuck is going on with our climate.

Hell if I know what's going on. I will say I watched Al's fun little show and thought some of it sounded accurate (if not scary). Other parts I wanted someone smarter than I (that does not include old_tommy, er whatever his name is) to offer an opposing opinion.

 

The consensus of scientists must have forgotten to consider this stuff!

 

It's a complex issue, and many people are too naive or too intellectually lazy to approach it as such.
There's a tendency to just say: Let's stop burning fossil fuels. Problem solved.
But that kind of switch brings with it real and difficult economical problems.
Do you trade decreased carbon emissions for increased pre-NOx emissions?
Is corn the best source for biomass fuel generation?
Is biomass fuel the best choice?
What about hydrogen cell?
How big a percentage of power needs can be met by solar energy? Wind?
Should we increase nuclear generation? If yes, are you willing to have a nuclear plant in your backyard?
How do we handle the economic fallout of shutting down the oil industry? The hundreds of thousands of lost jobs and the cost of retraining those people? The millions in lost investments? The billions in lost tax revenue?
What do we do with the existing vehicle fleet? Refineries? Gas stations. Who pays for their conversions or closures?
Those are just some of the issues with the type of change being considered.
And after America, an affluent country, deals with such change, how do we and the other developed nations handle the cost of converting the rest of the world?

 

But it's hard to impossible to pin specific weather anomalies to climate change patterns. Saying the European heat waves are a result of a fraction of a degree uptick in global temperatures is a hard connection to make. And the warm water itself wasn't the reason why so many hurricanes developed into monsters in 2005 (the extra degree probably helped it along from 160 mph to 170, possibly), but it has to be coupled with nearly perfect winds aloft. Last year's waters were plenty warm (in the Gulf and Carribean they're always warm enough during the peak season to support Cat 5s), but El Nino-fueled upper-level wind shifts and high levels of dust blowing off the African deserts into the eastern Atlantic blew to hell any potential major canes. And, as mentioned on other threads on this board, 2005 was part of a long-anticipated upswing in Atlantic hurricane activity (the Atlantic Transdecadal Oscillation, I think it's called). Plus, if I recall, hurricane development worldwide that year wasn't any more significant than usual, and the Atlantic was the only basin to experience an significantly worse season than normal.

Attributing a wild hurricane season or warmer-than-normal directly to climate change is sort of like saying it's the coldest year ever based on last night's low.

 

I'm simply pointing out that this isn't simple.
Scientific consensus once held that there was no such thing as spontaneous generation.
Now we have the theory of abiotic synthesis.

 

You're right, Buck. But ultimately, those issues are probably solvable by the intelligent people in high places. It's at least worth working towards a solution.

The problem with evangelical zealots like W. and his backers is that they are so focused on the afterlife that they devalue this world, perhaps even subconsciously.

Even the most ardent fundamentalist should realize that this planet is a gift from God not to be used up at our whim.