The Sky Is Falling...?

Pages

AuthorTopic: The Sky Is Falling...?
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #0
From the book thread. If it's to be engaged, I figured it was worthy of its own topic. I don't personally have a lot to say myself, but I wager this one goes incindiary in a hurry.

I am curious what present beliefs are about this issue, before reading my following post.

quote:
Originally written by root:

quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

The recently read book on how sun cycles are driving our climate, rather than the CO2 global warming myth, was excellent material that settled in scientific terms what I already knew was the case more generally. Anyone who relies on a politician to get their science makes me wonder.

-S-

...

How about relying on data to get our science?


Here's some basic data willfully ignored by Al Gore and others:

An evident correlation can be plainly shown in graphs between average earth temperature and CO2 levels in the atmosphere, this is true. What the CO2 alarmists bafflingly fail to point out or draw conclusions from is the simple clear fact that the increase in CO2 levels always follows the rise in temperature, not precedes it. A century+ ago when we were cranking massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere with early industrialization, there was no correlating rise in earth temperature.

CO2 comprises less than one percent of the earth's atmosphere. The oceans alone, or even animals put vastly more CO2 into the atmosphere yearly than human activity ever has. Water vapor in the atmosphere has a much more dramatic greenhouse effect than CO2. Coronal mass ejections from the sun and the resulting radiation they bombard the earth with causes increased water vapor when it strikes the oceans's surface. Increased water vapor causes increased atmospheric temperature. At an increased temperature, less CO2 is able to stay dissolved in the oceans and emerges subsequently into the atmosphere. Thus, CO2 is seen to rise in proportion in the atmosphere when the earth gets warmer. We've had the cart before the horse, willfully. When the science is this glaringly plain, and people like Al Gore ignore it for their agenda and religious belief system about human activity (basically it's as faith and ignorance oriented as your average religion), then it really makes me shake my head wryly. What's sad is how easy it is to dupe the masses with bad science and hype and fear-mongering. Proving my personal observation that people really get off on being scared.

Yes, the earth is warming at present. But we ain't causing it. We are so conceited, we puny little humans. Other planets in the solar system are known to be increasing in temperature in recent years as well. Hmmm. I suppose our CO2 traveled through space to heat them up too, being the godlike controllers of climate we are? Dramatic climate shifts are indeed occurring at present, and may cause some very significant challenges to many parts of the world in upcoming decades, but the evidence simply does not credibly support it is paltry CO2 inducing it.

It has become a political issue, and it is mostly the politically-motivated and politically-funded scientists who are making the noise at this point, not the hard scientists in the field. The startling reality is the majority of credible scientists studying the field have already realized there is a dearth of evidence linking CO2 to causing planetary warming and have abandoned promoting this fallacy. They are waiting for the emperor to be exposed as having no clothes and to get on with real science.

Don't believe the hype. I'm not sure what the motivation might be, except it is awfully flattering to one's concept of one's place in the universe to think you are affecting the global climate. If you look at how the term "global warming" was first promoted (and if I recall, coined) by Margaret Thatcher in the 80's using manipulated science to fight political battles with unions in England, the very origin of the concern is highly dubious. It began political and it will die political. In the meantime we may waste untold billions on a red herring, instead of preparing for real climate issues we may be facing: drought, water, shifts in crop-growing regions, devastating storms and hurricanes, and energy concerns we may be facing due to the era of threatening sun activity we are in. That huge sun we have drives our climate, and the climate of every planet in the solar system, ultimately. It should be a huge duh.

In five years, I predict the present hype is going to be embarrassingly swept aside, as the honest scientists not riding the wave of attention and the politically-funded cash cows of the CO2 global warming myth are finally heard again. You don't have to believe it now if you are already sold on the dramatic, fear-inducing hype about CO2. But I think it simply a matter of time till bad science is exposed and surrendered and public opinion shifts again.

There are other good reasons to make our environment cleaner and safer, but CO2 isn't the primary one.

I'm curious

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 34 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

function launch_voter () { launch_window("http://www.ironycentral.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=poll;d=vote;pollid=flxEMyHaDuaf"); return true; } // end launch_voter function launch_viewer () { launch_window("http://www.ironycentral.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=poll;d=view;pollid=flxEMyHaDuaf"); return true; } // end launch_viewer function launch_window (url) { preview = window.open( url, "preview", "width=550,height=300,toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status,menubar=no,scrollbars,resizable,copyhistory=no" ); window.preview.focus(); return preview; } // end launch_window IMAGE(votenow.gif)     IMAGE(voteresults.gif)

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator NR Items The Lonely Celt
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Shaper
Member # 32
Profile #1
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to eliminate the production of 'greenhouse' gases...

--------------------
Lt. Sullust
Quaere verum
Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #2
Agreed, though if it's not the great crisis we imagine, then we might not need to break the bank focusing on this issue when we need to be scrambling and investing to find alternate fuel sources, etc.

Also, I sort of botched up the structure of how I planned to lay out my post/poll, but can't edit it, because it's a poll. I guess it can be left as is, at this point. I meant to have the poll come first, and my comments follow. No big, I guess.

-S-

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator NR Items The Lonely Celt
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 7298
Profile #3
I agree with you on the co2 production . However what a bout other impacts like deforestation ect. Or other things like putting levees on a river. That prevents from depositing its sediment and contributes to coastal erosion. Take a look at the US state Louisiana. Ever since we put levees on the river out marshlands started giving way into the gulf.

--------------------
A rock has weight whether you admit it or not
Posts: 479 | Registered: Wednesday, July 12 2006 07:00
Warrior
Member # 6401
Profile #4
I wish I were good enough at debating to respond to you more comprehensively, but not to waste time I'll stick to what I know.

The debates about climate change and what to do/not do about it have certainly entered the political sphere. However that's not to say that all of the related science has a political agenda behind it. Having said that, most of the politicians, scientists and journalists who argue against the need to reduce our carbon emissions are very easily linked to and often financed by oil companies and others who benefit from our dependence on oil.

Also, even if we all agreed that our carbon emissions weren't doing any harm to the planet, there are compelling reasons for us to stop doing many of the things that cause those carbon emissions. Endless consumer and industrial waste already causes major ecological problems, and peak oil is a very real and possibly imminent scenario that we face. How long can the world's population keep increasing, and how much stuff can we really manufacture before we simply run out of resources?

--------------------
I think this is really wonderful.
Posts: 147 | Registered: Tuesday, October 18 2005 07:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #5
As Skomer said, there is a science separate from the politics. Global warming is established scientific fact. Obviously, when it is politicized, it gets distorted.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Making poorly-sourced claims is not the same as determining something."
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #6
The greenhouse gas disbelievers are the same kind of lunatic fringe in their field as the intelligent designers are in evolutionary biology. They're vastly outnumbered, and they're outnumbered by a large number of experts who don't have any obvious bias. Since I am not an atmospheric chemist or climatologist, I think going with the majority is the most reasonable decision.

—Alorael, who also doesn't particularly care about the cause of global warming. It's happening and it is a problem. Even if greenhouse gases aren't the primary cause, if a reduction would reduce warming then it needs to be done. Even natural global warming is catastrophic.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #7
Unfortunately I have only pretty graphs, and I know enough of descriptive statistics to know that you can aggregate raw data to support almost any conclusion if your audience does not consist of statisticians themselves.

In a few months, I will learn more about inferential statistics and hopefully mathematical models and simulations. Until then, I'll just have to trust the climatologists that aren't getting paid by think-tanks...

--------------------
The Noble and Ancient Order of Polaris - We're Not Yet Dead.
EncyclopediaBlades ForgeArchivesStatsRSS (This Topic / Forum) • BlogNaNoWriMo
Did-chat thentagoespyet jumund fori is jus, hat onlime gly nertan ne gethen Firyoubbit 'obio.'
Decorum deserves a whole line of my signature, and an entry in your bookmarks.
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #8
Global warming is only a problem to species that refuse to adapt to reality. As this is a cyclical issue, and we have the same species today as we did 100,000 years ago (more or less,) it is obvious that it isn't a catastrophic problem.

Again, unless you belong to a species that can't cope.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted"
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #9
But is it cyclical? Some of the scientists seem to believe there might be a critical point at which the climate change accelerates itself.

To rephrase your argument, no, it isn't a problem as long as you are a cockroach.

--------------------
The Noble and Ancient Order of Polaris - We're Not Yet Dead.
EncyclopediaBlades ForgeArchivesStatsRSS (This Topic / Forum) • BlogNaNoWriMo
Did-chat thentagoespyet jumund fori is jus, hat onlime gly nertan ne gethen Firyoubbit 'obio.'
Decorum deserves a whole line of my signature, and an entry in your bookmarks.
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #10
quote:
Originally written by root:

Unfortunately I have only pretty graphs...
Then you should have noticed that CO2 deposits in the Antarctic icecaps oscillate with time. Amount of pollen from temperature dependent species also vary over time. Niche moves geographically. Cockroaches won't be the only successful species, as history has proved.

Is it Shark Week!!! yet?

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted"
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #11
That was last week. You missed it.

-S-

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator NR Items The Lonely Celt
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #12
(slack-jawed and dismayed)

This topic makes me weep.

I don't know what consensus the original post refers to, but it's irrelevant. And as for this:

quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

A century+ ago when we were cranking massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere with early industrialization, there was no correlating rise in earth temperature

There's a lag time! With a system as large as a freakin' planet, you honestly expect that there won't be some sort of delay?

Also, the poll is misleading at best. 'Cause' isn't the issue. Humans aren't 'causing' global warming. Global warming is an emergent property of the system, and we can't directly influence it. What we can do is contribute to the lesser parts of that whole, and then the more complicated stuff takes over.

CO2 emissions are more than likely a part of this, but there's also a ton of other particulate junk that most industrial processes spew into the atmosphere, whose effect on the system isn't always known. But the basic point here is, even though CO2 may not be the only 'cause' of global warming (and heck, it almost definitely isn't), it sure ain't helping. More importantly, it's something which we can actually show to have a correlation (note: not causation) with the warming trend. So, it's a freakin' starting point, which gives us something that we can try and do about the problem.

Of course, that lag time comes back again to haunt us, and basically ensures that even if we were to cease all industrial CO2 production now, the average global temperature would continue to increase for decades to come. But, and this is important, if we wait, things will probably only get worse. And I for one am not comfortable conducting an experiment of that magnitude, particularly when I happen to inhabit the system in question.

--------------------
TM: "I want BoA to grow. Evolve where the food ladder has rungs to be reached."

Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #13
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

What the CO2 alarmists bafflingly fail to point out or draw conclusions from is the simple clear fact that the increase in CO2 levels always follows the rise in temperature, not precedes it. A century+ ago when we were cranking massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere with early industrialization, there was no correlating rise in earth temperature.
These two sentences create a bizarre juxtaposition. If the increase in CO2 levels follows increase in temperature, why did CO2 levels increase before the temperature started rising recently? Ephesos has it the right way around: CO2 levels increase preceding an increase in temperature, not the other way around.

quote:
Yes, the earth is warming at present. But we ain't causing it.
Here you disagree with the overwhelming majority of mainstream science. As Alo has pointed out, this puts your belief on par with evolution-deniers'.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Agent
Member # 4574
Profile #14
It might be noteworthy that the Little Ice Age ended around the time industrialization started. Just my two cents.

--------------------
Here will be the pet choices: Potatoe Salmon, Pet Rock, or Sabre-toothed Lime?
Posts: 1186 | Registered: Friday, June 18 2004 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #15
I find it fascinating that the last real Ice Age immediately preceded the population explosion of the human species. Is it possible that all that time huddled together caused global warming and the end of the ice age?

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted"
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Canned
Member # 8014
Profile #16
I thought it was that pollution rise up in the air and deplete the ozone layer.

That way, the radio active rays of the sun enter and warm up the earth. That also melts the ice caps which changes the amount of fresh water vs. salt water. That is the cause of our extreme weather.

That is what I know.

--------------------
I can transform into almost anything, but not sanity -Iffy
Muffins n' Hell|Muffins n' Hell: The Muffins Are Back Again
I have an addiction to Spiderweb games.
I like this image
Not in your shed -We are still under developement, but help would be nice. By the way, most of the conversation goes in the Moderator forum, in case your confused.
Iffy= Infernal Flamming Muffin. The y is added to make a word.
lol teh stupd text spek is lik ubar dum lol
Posts: 1799 | Registered: Sunday, February 4 2007 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #17
quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Sarcasmon:

I find it fascinating that the last real Ice Age immediately preceded the population explosion of the human species. Is it possible that all that time huddled together caused global warming and the end of the ice age?
Um... or that the population exploded because warm weather is more favorable to our survival, causing us to expend less energy and also giving us more habitable land?

--------------------
The Noble and Ancient Order of Polaris - We're Not Yet Dead.
EncyclopediaBlades ForgeArchivesStatsRSS (This Topic / Forum) • BlogNaNoWriMo
Did-chat thentagoespyet jumund fori is jus, hat onlime gly nertan ne gethen Firyoubbit 'obio.'
Decorum deserves a whole line of my signature, and an entry in your bookmarks.
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #18
quote:
Originally written by No more muffins:

I thought it was that pollution rise up in the air and deplete the ozone layer.

That way, the radio active rays of the sun enter and warm up the earth. That also melts the ice caps which changes the amount of fresh water vs. salt water. That is the cause of our extreme weather.

That is what I know.

Close, but... actually, not very close. But big, big points for knowing that the salt content of the oceans has the potential to screw things up.

Basic format here:
-Sun's rays enter the atmosphere.
-Some rays reflect off the cloud layer and back into space, some are absorbed by the planet and re-emitted as heat.
-The emitted heat tries to leave through the atmosphere, and sometimes gets bounced back by atmospheric gases.
-Repeat.

The ozone stuff generally had to do with chlorofluorocarbons, aka CFCs. They would cause the decomposition of ozone molecules (O3), molecules which ordinarily help shield the planet's surface from ultraviolet radiation. The hole in the ozone is more associated with rising rates of skin cancer, because UV radiation + human body = bad.

--------------------
TM: "I want BoA to grow. Evolve where the food ladder has rungs to be reached."

Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
Profile Homepage #19
Even if you are still skeptical, let's consider the action/outcome matrix:

Option A: CO2 emissions aren't causing or exaserbating global warming.
Option B: CO2 emissions are causing or at least exaserbating global warming.

Action 1: Keep going as before.
Action 2: Decrease energy consumption, invest into alternative energy, etc.

The outcomes:

1A: Nothing special.

1B: Our inaction causes huge economic dagame, anywhere from mass starvation in 3rd world countries, to complete economic collapse.

2A: We waste lots of money, but end up with more energy-efficient homes and busnesses, and a large investment into applied science.

2B: We save our society from the scenario described in 1B.

So it's pretty obvious that, considering the potential outcomes, it's far better to try to decrease CO2 emissions as long as there is a reasonable doubt about whether they have no effect on global warming.

As for whether there is a reasonable doubt about the effect of CO2 on global warming...
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

...
It has become a political issue, and it is mostly the politically-motivated and politically-funded scientists who are making the noise at this point, not the hard scientists in the field. The startling reality is the majority of credible scientists studying the field have already realized there is a dearth of evidence linking CO2 to causing planetary warming and have abandoned promoting this fallacy. They are waiting for the emperor to be exposed as having no clothes and to get on with real science.

Don't believe the hype.
...

All the talk about "junk science paid for by deep pockets of environmental activists" sounds exactly like the talk about "junk science paid for by deep pockets of anti-smoking activists" in the 80s and 90s. In case you don't remember that "debate", a few scientists with connections to tobacco industry used lots of pretty graphs and smart-sounding arguments to prove that smoking has no negative health effects, despite all reputable scientists disagreeing. Same thing is happening now with the global worming, if you replace "smoking tobacco" with "burning oil" and "negative health effects" with "negative effects on the environment".

[ Wednesday, August 15, 2007 16:58: Message edited by: Zeviz ]

--------------------
Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword,
For it too has the power to kill.
However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword,
Can also have the power to heal.
Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #20
Like I said, let's see where scientific opinion falls in 5 years or so with increasing research being made on how sun affects climate, CO2, the ozone layer, and so forth. Popular opinion and those making the most noise is not the same thing as the majority of scientists studying climate embracing and promoting the CO2 theory at this point. That's the grand illusion, and too many people are sheep. Al Gore makes a scary video with dubious hockey-stick charts and dire predictions and Hollywood gives him awards and people get scared and riled.

Like Salmon pointed out, we are an adaptive species who has lived through dramatic climate shifts in the past, and those weren't caused by human activity either. Some are devastating. We'll survive. We're incredibly hardy and resourceful when pressed. It is a shame we will likely spend billions or trillions worldwide on CO2 concerns when we are facing other more dire concerns also based on climate shift.

I believe people might fight a startling number of serious scientists who do not support the popular theory on global warming. Popular theory alone should be a tip off, because if there is anything history demonstrates, it is how often the majority is dead wrong. Those scientiests might also take serious offense at being dismissed casually as being fringey sorts or driven by industrial agendas. Just because they are invisible to you right now, and aren't being given a pulpit due to not being proponents of popular theory, does not mean they are not there and good scientists. When you are buried by political push and noise, that's just it, you might be the majority in actuality, but you are not being heard over the vocal minority. You won't find many articles supporting CO2 theory in your most serious science journals either. There are increasing articles discussing how the sun drives our climate, CO2 increase, and the global warming we are currently experiencing.

-S-

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator NR Items The Lonely Celt
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #21
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

Like Salmon pointed out, we are an adaptive species who has lived through dramatic climate shifts in the past, and those weren't caused by human activity either. Some are devastating. We'll survive.
The total human population of Earth has also been reduced to less than 10,000 several times in the past by fluctuations in global climate. Perhaps you would like to see that happen. Most people wouldn't.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Councilor
Member # 6600
Profile Homepage #22
Originally by Synergy:

quote:
Like I said, let's see where scientific opinion falls in 5 years or so with increasing research being made on how sun affects climate, CO2, the ozone layer, and so forth.
Even in five years, we're still not going to have all the information, or all be in agreement. We will likely never have all the information or all be in agreement. Sooner or later, we're going to have to act (wisely) on the information we do have. That time might as well be now; in this situation, acting on incorrect information does less harm than not acting on correct information. If we find out in five years that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming, we can still adapt any new technology or altered behaviors to other concerns. If we find out in five years that CO2 definitely has an impact on global warming, we've just squandered five years in which to reduce it.

Also, focusing on reducing CO2 emissions doesn't mean we can't also do our best to reduce the impacts of global warming. We have the resources to do both. We should treat both the most likely causes and the symptoms.

Dikiyoba.

--------------------
Episode 4: Spiderweb Reloaded
Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 7298
Profile #23
If the climate change is outside our ability too stop wouldn't it be better to prepare for said climate change? Climate has changed in the past without human involvement why is it so hard to believe that we are not the key component climate change?

--------------------
A rock has weight whether you admit it or not
Posts: 479 | Registered: Wednesday, July 12 2006 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #24
Actually, I was speaking more toward the human persistence in inhabiting areas which are fringes. Mostly this was due to transportation requirements, but now it just seems habit. If humans will survive, they will do so by existing in areas that are benefited by climate change. Those that insist on remaining in inhospitable areas will die. I somehow doubt the species will retract in size to 10,000, but I would also argue that a reduction in population will be required if climate change happens to the extent predicted.

As an example, people (marine biologist type people) are noticing that salmon species are shifting their distribution northward in reaction to the heating of river water in hot summers. Luckily the myth of salmon and birth streams isn't a hard and fast rule, otherwise I can't imagine how anyone could expect the species to exist at all.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted"
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00

Pages