A different take on global warming

[dieselgeek]

Re: A different take on global warming

so you guys are saying "screw it!"


Also, milner, that article does NOT say that all the carbon we've been burning and putting into the atmosphere is not impacting at all. There's PLENTY of factual data that shows that we can, and have, impacted our environment significantly... don't let the "we can't prove it" theme turn into "we have no effect on our environment"


Randal, I'm thinking the answer to the "how will humanity survive" question is simple: we figure out how to live on our own, without having to rely on Mother Earth (notice I didn't say "nature") to keep us alive.

[milner351]

Re: A different take on global warming

DG - not really, of course we've impacted the environment- but we are not the only forces at work in the environment - it has a natural cycle as well -- I guess it's that realization by the media that is missing from the mainstream - that's the point I was trying to make.

Bottom line is - this is an extremely complex issue - so much so that even the "experts" are admitting they don't have enough data to come to any concrete conclusions.

I work in a department and building that would not exist at Ford if it were not for the epa and its regulations.

We have come an incredibly long way since '75 when the first cats were required.... much further than most green freaks would give us any credit for.... I'm coming from a jaded detroit point of view - sorry.

[dieselgeek]

Re: A different take on global warming

Hey, if it weren't for the EPA there wouldn't be nearly as many cool junkyard electronics parts for me to scavenge. These are good times for anyone who isn't afraid of EFI...!

Frankly, we'd all be stuck in the dinosaur era with carbs still, if it weren't for the EPA...

[milner351]

Re: A different take on global warming

Roger that
our lake is clean enough to support new bald eagle chics the last couple years - and at least one mating pair of giant blue herons.

I thank the epa for improving our world, but at the same time - I would like to strangle whomever was responsible for allowing STATES to be thier own EPA - don't even get me started on the pile of work the green states have created.

[TheSilverBuick]

Re: A different take on global warming

Everything is a compromise. We (the United States) are doing A LOT better now environmentally than we were anytime in the past. We could all be riding bicycles and give up cars entirely, but we compromise for speed vs. emissions. I just think knee jerk reacting to something that does not have solid conclusive scientific proof is bad for any situation. If nothing else the clearer air than 20 years ago is proof enough for me that we are locally moving in the right direction from an environmental stand point, and I say keep at it. But until I see a lot of these climate variables truely understood I'm not going to jump on or support the CO2 causes Global Warming band wagon. It's a possibility among dozens of equally or more likely causes.

[TheSilverBuick]

Re: A different take on global warming

"we have no effect on our environment"

And to keep focus, lets not confuse "environment" and "global warming" as the same thing. "global warming" is only one aspect of our "environment" There are plenty of other places we've done the "environment" wrong, I'm just covering global warming.

[Eric68]

Re: A different take on global warming

I think you guys are all missing the point. If the earth was 10* warmer I could race at least another month later in the fall and start another month earlier in the spring.

Global warming is a good thing. I agree that the man-made part is bogus, but it is still a good thing.

[Mr4Speed]

Re: A different take on global warming

I'm not going to say that it's bogus or bonafide because I'm not yet convinced that anyone really knows yet. It's obvious that global warming has been elevated to the status of doctrine and dogma in many circles though-it's become heresy to disagree in any way, especially in the mainstream media.

I remember years ago watching James Burke's "Connections" series and he spoke about how there was a sudden, radical, and permanent, climatic change in northern Europe during the middle ages-hundreds of years before the industrial revolution-which caused years of widespread famine till they figured out what crops would grow in the new climate. I also remember watching something on Discovery channel a while back about another subject where they mentioned that ice ages run in 80,000 year cycles and we are about 20,000 years from the last one, which would put us in a warming trend now. I have also seen it discussed that some weather patterns are very long term-500 years and more-and that they are largely misunderstood. Add to all of that sun spot activity cycles, under water oceanic volcanic activity, natural shifts in the gulfstream and so on. No single scientist can really be an expert on the situation as it would require specialized knowledge from many different disciplines of study-meteorologists, geologists, oceanologists, astrologers and more.

Frontline on PBS is covering this very topic tonite. Could be interesting but I believe that they are already operating under the assumption that global warming is man made.

[std]

Re: A different take on global warming

I want to make a comment about this, but I'm not nearly as educated on the subject( or anything) as some of you. I don't think humans caused the earth to get warmer, but we didn't stop it either. I don't think it will kill any of us to do what we can to not hurry the warming along.

[Ron Ward]

Re: A different take on global warming

I think you guys are all missing the point. If the earth was 10* warmer I could race at least another month later in the fall and start another month earlier in the spring.

Global warming is a good thing. I agree that the man-made part is bogus, but it is still a good thing.

Do some simple math....

If the planet does get warmer and the icecaps melt, this means there will be more surface area of liquid water exposed to the air in the world. This in turn will allow for more evaporation of said surface water, thus leading to a more saturated atmosphere. This water has to go somewhere, so we will probably see more precipitation, thus cutting your racing season short due to rainouts.....


Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.



Ron

[TheSilverBuick]

Re: A different take on global warming

I think you guys are all missing the point. If the earth was 10* warmer I could race at least another month later in the fall and start another month earlier in the spring.

Global warming is a good thing. I agree that the man-made part is bogus, but it is still a good thing.

Do some simple math....

If the planet does get warmer and the icecaps melt, this means there will be more surface area of liquid water exposed to the air in the world. This in turn will allow for more evaporation of said surface water, thus leading to a more saturated atmosphere. This water has to go somewhere, so we will probably see more precipitation, thus cutting your racing season short due to rainouts.....


Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.



Ron

Only if he lives in an area where it ends up raining more, could be in an area it rains less, no body knows =P Ain't the future grand? =P

[Brad54]

Re: A different take on global warming

I have an 1895 Rand McNally geography book that says "...the cooling of the Earth has caused the surface to shrink, thus forcing the layers to form wrinkles and folds, which appear as mountain chains and systems." The scientists were RIGHT back in 1895, all you had to do was ask them.

When I was a kid in the '70s, scientists and the media were telling us we'd be living in the next great Ice Age by now. They were absolutely, positively certain they were right.

In the '80s, the hole in the o-zone was going to let all our atmosphere escape into space, and we'd all be dead by now. It didn't matter that the hole was first noticed in the '50s, before there were 2 cars per family and CFCs. Nor does it matter that the hole appears in the same place each year, opens and closes about the same times each year. And I believe it's averaged about the same size over the long run (though I forget where I read that.) We were going to be dead because of the hole, and there was no arguing because they were right.

Remember just within the last year or two the commercials with the kids talking about global warming, and that we'd be seeing bigger and more hurricanes? Al Gore and the rest all pointed to Katrina as a sign of the impending doom to come. But go ahead and ignore the fact that hurricanes have cycles that last about 10 years, with one cycle being heavy on hurricanes, then the next cycle being light on hurricanes. The last couple years we've had fewer hurricanes than the "experts" predicted. But they're right that global warming is happening--you're a fool to question them. They're scientists and they can't be wrong.

Polar ice caps are supposed to be shrinking, yet the ocean's level hasn't raised a bit. Oh, because the Antarctic cap is getting thicker and growing. It'd be nice if that was reported.

Has anybody noticed that when we get a record temperature on a particular day, the former record was either the early '50s or during the great Dust Bowl of the '30s? How come those high temperature decades weren't attributed to global warming?

Do I even need to get into the discredited locations of weather monitoring stations through out the world?

Finally, can someone please tell me why scientists have determined the temperature is rising on the surface of Mars? Not that it's hotter or colder than here on Earth. What they are noticing is that the surface temperature is increasing from what it normally is. They are attributing it to increased dust storms that are holding in the temperature and absorbing more of the sun's rays and heat, thus heating the surface further.

Fine, except the model says huge dust clouds blotting out the sun here, which is the prediction of a world-wide nuclear war or asteroid strike putting a great dust cloud into the sky, will result in an ice age. Why do the great minds say huge dust clouds blotting the sun on Mars increases the temp, but here they would decrease the temp? The skeptic in me says it's because they desperately want to attribute any increase in Earth's temp to humans, and specifically US citizens.

I maintain that the true "problem" is the world at large has a problem with America's affluence, and there are people in this country that are embarrassed by our affluence. Why else would the Kyoto treaty ignore China, India and other gross polluters, but force our businesses to lose billions by imposing greater restrictions on them, even though the air quality in most of our country is better than it's been in decades? Why would the UN only report charitable donations as a percentage of GDP, and only count donations by the government and not private organizations? The list goes on, but I tire of it.

Man-made global warming didn't turn the lush land of Mesopotamia into the desert it is now, and it didn't evaporate the lakes at Bonneville or El Mirage. But something certainly happened to make all that change.

-Brad

[Ron Ward]

Re: A different take on global warming

Take a breath, dude! LOL!

[TheSilverBuick]

Re: A different take on globel warming

I'm surprised he didn't quote Hansen, the Chief Climatologist for NASA, anywhere in there. That guy too is a bias political hack of a scientist. I've read Hansen's reports on his "Global Warming Computer Models" and they are sooooooooo skewed by his personal beliefs it can hardly be called a scientific paper. Not that a computer model can actually count as a scientific test, it's a best guess by the programmer, and Hansen's models are 50% his gut feelings or he uses some lame excuse why real world data doesn't fit his model so he'll change a number until the model predicts what he wants to see. The leadership at the NOAA and associated support colleges are just as bias, look at the hurricane forecasts for the last five or so years against how many we've had. (I'll tell you we've had average or fewer when they keep saying that we'll be getting well above average every year because of Global Warming). Eh, I'm going to stop here, I could go on all night here :P

I just thought I'd dredge this one up because yet AGAIN the hurricane forecast has been lowered.

http://money.aol.com/article/us-forecasters-lower-atlantic-hurricane/606199

[mike343sharpstick]

Re: A different take on global warming

Fact is that the earth?s average global temperature has always changed.
From about 1000 AD to 1400 AD the earth was much warmer than it is now, known as the ?Mediaeval warm period.
Then from about 1400 AD to the mid-1900 the global average temperature has been much colder than it currently is, known as the ?Little Ice Age?.
Prior to recorded history there is scientific proof of an Ice age, there was even a movie about it :D.
All this without humans driving cars and burning coal, Hmmm? :

I am also very suspicious of the motives of individuals that are the leaders of the global warming movement and the hypocrisy they display. :-\

Data of any kind can be skewed, you simply only utilize the data that supports your theory and discard the rest. I see that here at my office all the time. Is it possible that this could occur by government officials? Crazy talk, that could never happen! Our government is made up of the most honest folks we can find right?