# Global warming



## Ramirez (Jul 16, 2010)

okay deniers, explain this...with science please, not conspiracy theories

". According to NOAA, June was the 304th consecutive month with a combined global land and surface temperature above the 20th-century average"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jul/16/june-2010-warmest-recorded


----------



## Big Don (Jul 16, 2010)

304th? So, we aren't counting the last 15 years of the twentieth century as belonging to the twentieth century?


----------



## elder999 (Jul 17, 2010)

Big Don said:


> 304th? So, we aren't counting the last 15 years of the twentieth century as belonging to the twentieth century?


 

Think ya need to read that again, because, yes, we *are* counting the last 15 years of the twentieth century as belonging to the twentieth century, and there's nothing in what he posted that implies otherwise.

Sheesh. 

I mean, you *do* know what an _average_ is, dontcha? :lfao:


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 17, 2010)

My forecast for this thread: 100% chance of regurgitated ideology and a tension level reaching the upper thousands.  Three day forecast includes a moderate chop of ad hominem attacks and a slight chance for moderator intervention.

Stay tuned.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 17, 2010)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> My forecast for this thread: 100% chance of regurgitated ideology and a tension level reaching the upper thousands. Three day forecast includes a moderate chop of ad hominem attacks and a slight chance for moderator intervention.
> 
> Stay tuned.


 
Ah, but forecasts are for *weather,* not_ climate..._:lol:


----------



## crushing (Jul 18, 2010)

I'm not a denier of the global climate change that has gone on for billions of years, but I want to jump in because the water seems so nice and warm.

Wouldn't it be something if it is the restrictions on pollution from laws such as the Clean Air act that are leading to warmer temperatures?  And, a cooler 20th century was due to the industrial revolution spewing out unfiltered clouds of smoke and dirty coal was the main fuel of boilers and electric generation?

Man is still egocentric.  Man once thought he was the center of the universe.  Now he thinks, despite 4.5 billion years of climate change, that the 20th century climate is how it should always be.

MAN!  More powerful than Eyjafjallajokull and can leap solar activity in a single bound!


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 18, 2010)

crushing said:


> Wouldn't it be something if it is the restrictions on pollution from laws such as the Clean Air act that are leading to warmer temperatures?



That's true, particulates (like soot) have a cooling effect.  Cleaning up the air is not the only reason for the warming however, and air full of particulates may be cool, but it has lots of other effects like acid rain and health problems.  Fix both.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 18, 2010)

I can't speak for others -- but the issue I have is the idea that we know enough to say why the temps have been rising.  I don't deny at all that mean temps have risen.  But I question the idea that we are the sole or even primary cause.  I'm not saying we're not, nor am I saying we haven't effected the climate.  But we just don't have enough data, over a long enough time, with enough quality to be able to assign causation to such a complex system.


----------



## Blade96 (Jul 18, 2010)

You tell em Ramirez. 

any deniers wanna have a bite? They say that humans dont have an effect upon the climmate or nature, world, etc. 

They are welcome to explain this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

Have a nice day.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 18, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> But we just don't have enough data, over a long enough time, with enough quality to be able to assign causation to such a complex system.



How do you know?  Have you made an exhaustive survey of the literature?

The data is extremely compelling.  It can't really get any more so without constructing new planets to demonstrate multiple experimental conditions.

Steven Jay Gould defined a fact as "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to  withhold provisional assent."   Considering the strength of the data, the denialist movement has long since entered the realm of perversity.  It would make just as much sense to doubt/deny the Theory of Relativity or the Theory of Evolution (oops).  The data on all is just as strong.  To somehow believe otherwise against such a mountain of data requires either ignorance or an agenda.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jul 19, 2010)

FACT will never hold up to people's entrenched ideas or opinions though.  We just had a thread about that.  There are people who REFUSE to believe that it is mankind's fault and there are those who refuse to accept any other possibility than it IS our fault.  

While I think that we are having an effect, I also can't deny nature cycling and other factors beyound our knowledge or control.  My bottom line thinking on the matter is that it hurts no one to try to fix the problem, it only helps us - so cause and effect matter not.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 19, 2010)

As usual, AGW (Anthropogenic or man-caused Global Warming) believers refuse to recognize differences in opinion.

When honestly-felt doubt is cast in a negative light as one who is apostate in some bombastic religion, I tend to run away in the opposite direction.  In other words, even if the AGW believers were right, I'd hate them anyway.  I'd hate their evil slimy guts, because they don't seek debate and understanding, they seek to silence, destroy, and demonize anyone who doesn't agree with them.  Take your Global Warming God and shove him sideways up your anal orifice, please.

Just because I have doubts that climate change is caused primarily by humans does not mean I doubt that climate change happens.

Just because climate change happens does not mean that it is unnatural.

Even if climate change is being caused by the agency of humans, that is no reason to believe that the agency of humans can stop it.

And most importantly - I don't care about climate change, whether it is caused by humans or not; with one exception.  If the climate is going to change significantly in my lifetime, I will plan my activities to profit by it to the extent possible, and plan my retirement in climes that are now less expensive and more northerly so that they'll be expensive and toasty when I get there and I'll have bought cheap.

I do not care about climate change.  It's useless hand-wringing at best and a waste of my tax dollars at worst.

A 'denier'?  Please.  I'm a realist.  It doesn't matter and I don't care anyway.  Believers; not only do I refuse to worship your God, but I'll urinate on your graves while spraying fluorocarbons into the air above them.  _Non servium_, baby.


----------



## teekin (Jul 19, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> As usual, AGW (Anthropogenic or man-caused Global Warming) believers refuse to recognize differences in opinion.
> 
> When honestly-felt doubt is cast in a negative light as one who is apostate in some bombastic religion, I tend to run away in the opposite direction. In other words, even if the AGW believers were right, I'd hate them anyway. I'd hate their evil slimy guts, because they don't seek debate and understanding, they seek to silence, destroy, and demonize anyone who doesn't agree with them. Take your Global Warming God and shove him sideways up your anal orifice, please.
> 
> ...


 
Well at least the flowers and grass around my grave will grow. ( Bill, this is a_ Odd_ sentiment )

Lori


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 19, 2010)

Grendel308 said:


> Well at least the flowers and grass around my grave will grow. ( Bill, this is a_ Odd_ sentiment )
> 
> Lori



Yeah, it was a little over-the-top, eh?  Sorry, my bad.

I have to say that AGW advocates tend to push my buttons.  They come around every so often to regurgitate some little factoid in my face with a snide _"NOW what you got to say, you deniers?!?!?!"_  It annoys me.  Probably more than it should.


----------



## teekin (Jul 19, 2010)

Bill, sweetie, no worries, we ALL have those buttons. Mine is women's rights or lack there of.  We all have something that get's us to put on the Crazypants. :matrix::erg: . have a good day Ducky.

Lori


----------



## chaos1551 (Jul 19, 2010)

I vote we just remove a tiny bit of mercury (or whatever we use now) from all the thermometers in the world.  

You all do realize that a large volcano is going to erupt in the near future and cool the earth down by 10 degrees worldwide for the next twenty years, right?  Most of the crops will die, people will starve en masse and the problem will be very much mitigated.  Especially with the thermometers all showing lower temperatures anyway.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 19, 2010)

chaos1551 said:


> I vote we just remove a tiny bit of mercury (or whatever we use now) from all the thermometers in the world.
> 
> You all do realize that a large volcano is going to erupt in the near future and cool the earth down by 10 degrees worldwide for the next twenty years, right?  Most of the crops will die, people will starve en masse and the problem will be very much mitigated.  Especially with the thermometers all showing lower temperatures anyway.



Department of Irony here...

The US is planning to phase out the use of mercury thermometers over the next decade, as mercury pollutes.  Mercury batteries for such things as film cameras were phased out a decade ago, they're illegal everywhere now.

Funny thing - environmentally-friendly CFL (compact florescent lights) have significant amounts of mercury in them, but they're legal.  Why?  Because they're hip and trendy and fashionable amongst the Granola-crunching bunny-hugging hand-wringers, that's why.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198

They pretend they 'fixed' the problem by making it illegal to discard them in landfills, meaning it's illegal for YOU to throw them away with your household trash.  Did you know that?  Most people don't. They just throw them away when they die.  And the greenies don't care; it's just a sop for their consciences.

Mercury?  Who gives a crap?  We're saving the planet, bubba!

Thermometers and cameras batteries are or will be outlawed due to mercury, but CFL's, no problem at all.  Bring 'em on!

Ah, the environmentalists make me sick.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 19, 2010)

The other dirty secret about CFLs is that a lot of the energy savings, especially in cold climates, is not truly realized.

First, any application requiring a real dimmer will use halogen, which waste a lot of heat. 

Second, in cold climates, for the better part of the year, we HEAT our house. The surplus heat that incadescent bulbs used to provide is now being provided by other source of heating.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Jul 19, 2010)

My opinion on Global Warming. Are humans are making it worse, however it is going to happen even if we did not. We are simply making it more rapid.

What I gets me are the uniformed people who think because of record lows in some areas during the winter that global warming does not exist. Hello people it means the earth overall is warming up which can cause different weather patterns. 

Does it really matter? We are going to kill each other off and if somehow we manage to repair the environment what when the sun explodes. We are always going to be looking down a barrel of a gun.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 19, 2010)

BlueDragon1981 said:


> What I gets me are the uniformed people who think because of record lows in some areas during the winter that global warming does not exist. Hello people it means the earth overall is warming up which can cause different weather patterns.



It might mean that, or it might mean a whole raft of other things.  The global climate has changed many times in the history of the world. We only have accurate day-by-day records for the past few hundred years.  We have no basis on which to make a projection of global cycles.

Furthermore, climate change simply happens.  Over and over and over again.  We happen to live in a very lucky band to which our own species is able to adapt.  This is no more 'natural' than climates of the past in which we could not have survived.

Given that, I am willing to stipulate that global warming is the current trend.  I am doubtful that human agency caused it, but like you, I don't think it much matters either way.  I also have serious doubts that we can actually change it back again through human agency.



> Does it really matter? We are going to kill each other off and if somehow we manage to repair the environment what when the sun explodes. We are always going to be looking down a barrel of a gun.



The sun is unlikely to explode anytime soon, but huge solar flares are one way of many in which we might face an extinction event sooner rather than later.  Gamma ray bursts, seismic activity from super calderas, and meteor or comet strikes could all end the game in the blink of an eye.  We do have the power to significantly degrade our ability to survive through various other means, such as nuclear annihilation, too.

Overall, I don't know if we broke the planet, but I don't much care, either.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 19, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> The other dirty secret about CFLs is that a lot of the energy savings, especially in cold climates, is not truly realized.
> 
> First, any application requiring a real dimmer will use halogen, which waste a lot of heat.
> 
> Second, in cold climates, for the better part of the year, we HEAT our house. The surplus heat that incadescent bulbs used to provide is now being provided by other source of heating.


I'd be curious to see how much heat that actually adds up to, though.  I could see it being a big deal in a business, but not so much at home.  I don't know about you -- but at home, I try to keep lights OFF unless I need 'em on.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 19, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> We only have accurate day-by-day records for the past few hundred years.  We have no basis on which to make a projection of global cycles.



Wrong, wrong, wrong.  Furthermore, the first statement does not lead to the second.  We do not need day-to-day records to study climate cycles of the past, determine what caused them, and project them into the future based on how variables such as solar output and CO2 levels play into climate.

The kind of data that let us know how climate varied in the past includes tree ring analysis, isotopic analysis of ice cores, coral, and stalactites, and similar.  If you do not believe the data, then provide your scientific critique.  If you cannot, then you are substituting opinion and ideology for actual data.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 19, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> I'd be curious to see how much heat that actually adds up to, though. I could see it being a big deal in a business, but not so much at home. I don't know about you -- but at home, I try to keep lights OFF unless I need 'em on.


 
For one thing I can tell you that my basement was always cold, summer and winter, until I renovated it and installed halogens.

As for incadescents, there are many rooms that have the lights on most of the time. In the winter, it's dark by 1600. Even if it raises the temp by only 1 degree, that's 1 degree that my furnace does not have to deal with.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 19, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Wrong, wrong, wrong.  Furthermore, the first statement does not lead to the second.  We do not need day-to-day records to study climate cycles of the past, determine what caused them, and project them into the future based on how variables such as solar output and CO2 levels play into climate.



You do when you use day-by-day temperature readings to predict future temperatures, and limit the data set to the period of time in which the data has been reliably gathered.  And that's what has been done.

You are absolutely correct that you can study climate cycles of the past based on other things, such as the geological record.  This does allow for some forecasting, but that's not the basis for the claim for AGW.  And it has big holes in it anyway, since several cataclysmic events do not have agreed-upon causes yet.



> The kind of data that let us know how climate varied in the past includes tree ring analysis, isotopic analysis of ice cores, coral, and stalactites, and similar.  If you do not believe the data, then provide your scientific critique.  If you cannot, then you are substituting opinion and ideology for actual data.



You're quite right about the climatological record.  I only dispute that AGW is real, and to that extent, I only claim doubt, not denial.

I am against any attempts to pry money from me for the purpose of fixing the damage we humans have allegedly done to the planet. Add that to the fact that I don't care if it's real or not and that's my sum ideology on the subject.  It doesn't affect me, I don't care.


----------



## teekin (Jul 19, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Department of Irony here...
> 
> The US is planning to phase out the use of mercury thermometers over the next decade, as mercury pollutes. Mercury batteries for such things as film cameras were phased out a decade ago, they're illegal everywhere now.
> 
> ...


 
I am so a granola eating, tree hugging bunny lover! and I like being one. Part of my farm out by Neepawa is still the way it was when my great great grandparents bought it as Bush. It is left as bush and has never been cleared to farm. This is done Just so the native animals have a place to call home. I plan to donate it to some organisation like Ducks Unlimited the cares about preserving the animals and their habitat. It makes my soul happy to take care of that small corner of Planet Earth. Bill, perhaps because I was brought up on the land I have a special love for it. Too bad I couldn't share the beauty and peacefullness of this corner of the world with you. I would you know.

Lori


----------



## Carol (Jul 19, 2010)

Provided I'm still gainfully employed in the coming months, I'm thinking very seriously about the LED bulbs.  I'm 5'2", but my ceilings are 8 feet high.  I looooove the idea of light bulbs that can be used for years without burning out.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 19, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> I'd be curious to see how much heat that actually adds up to, though.  I could see it being a big deal in a business, but not so much at home.  I don't know about you -- but at home, I try to keep lights OFF unless I need 'em on.



Over time it is quite a bit of wasted energy as heat, *JKS*.  You can make functional ovens out of an insulated box and a 100W incandescent bulb.

I am not in favour of the current crop of supposed 'green' light bulbs tho.  Just as with the hybrid car, they address a portion of one problem but give rise to several others.

The technology will improve over time, of course, so it can be argued that we must start somewhere but the exaggerated claims of effectiveness for the new (ish) fluorescent bulbs are not helping the adoption rate in the slightest.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 19, 2010)

One thing that I always bring up when we hit the 'doomsday' portion of discussions like this, is that, as Bill noted earlier, solar flares are our biggest worry right now.  The magnetic poles are shifting and will invert over the next few decades {if they are to follow the observed pattern record locked into the geology}.  

During the transition process, we will be practically defenseless against the solar wind in general and flares in particular - the Van Allen belts that protect us against charged particles have been declining in strength for some time and are continuing to weaken.

Other than staying inside/under some form of cover and using skin protection creams, there is nothing we can do about that other than hope that a flare goes in a direction other than at us.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 19, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> During the transition process, we will be practically defenseless against the solar wind in general and flares in particular - the Van Allen belts that protect us against charged particles have been declining in strength for some time and are continuing to weaken.
> 
> Other than staying inside/under some form of cover and using skin protection creams, there is nothing we can do about that other than hope that a flare goes in a direction other than at us.


 

Nah-not only do the extra intense X-rays of such flares not quite penentrate our atmosphere, but they actually are likely to cause increased ionization in the ionosphere-a deepening of the ionosphere that will offer added protection against a lot of those charged particles in lieu of the Van Allen belts (which'll come back, eventually, under such a scenario.)

What we'd likely see is an increase in atmospheric size, affecting the orbits of satellites, and an increase of electromagnetic activity affecting power grids, radio and television, and the like: no more internets, no more cell phones, no more radio, no more electric light-led, incandescent, flourescent or otherwise for many of us......

Oh, and all you white folk are probably doomed. Sorry.....:lfao:


----------



## Blade96 (Jul 19, 2010)

Carol said:


> Provided I'm still gainfully employed in the coming months, I'm thinking very seriously about the LED bulbs.  I'm 5'2", but my ceilings are 8 feet high.  I looooove the idea of light bulbs that can be used for years without burning out.



im only 5'2 also


----------



## teekin (Jul 20, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Nah-not only do the extra intense X-rays of such flares not quite penentrate our atmosphere, but they actually are likely to cause increased ionization in the ionosphere-a deepening of the ionosphere that will offer added protection against a lot of those charged particles in lieu of the Van Allen belts (which'll come back, eventually, under such a scenario.)
> 
> What we'd likely see is an increase in atmospheric size, affecting the orbits of satellites, and an increase of electromagnetic activity affecting power grids, radio and television, and the like: no more internets, no more cell phones, no more radio, no more electric light-led, incandescent, flourescent or otherwise for many of us......
> 
> Oh, and *all you white folk are probably doomed*. Sorry.....:lfao:


 
We all be trying to breath the same air, big guy.  (Sock Monkies ebonics)

Lori


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 20, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Nah-not only do the extra intense X-rays of such flares not quite penentrate our atmosphere, but they actually are likely to cause increased ionization in the ionosphere-a deepening of the ionosphere that will offer added protection against a lot of those charged particles in lieu of the Van Allen belts (which'll come back, eventually, under such a scenario.)
> 
> What we'd likely see is an increase in atmospheric size, affecting the orbits of satellites, and an increase of electromagnetic activity affecting power grids, radio and television, and the like: no more internets, no more cell phones, no more radio, no more electric light-led, incandescent, flourescent or otherwise for many of us......


 

Interesting - that's a change to the pop-science 'line' that I've heard over the past decade or so {the last time being on the Horizon programme on the BBC I think, tho' that might be a mis-memory, on my part, of a 'debunking myths' programme}.

Time to investigate further the current state of play on this. 

My only contact {yeah, dual electrical systems pun attacks! } I have with the topic is through my job, as the control systems for electricity transmission and distribution is what I design and implement for a living.

So I make no claims to expertise in the field {and yet again with the pun attacks !} and am only relaying {and yet once further! } the words of others that I have stored in the chemically switched capacitor that is my memory {:wink:}.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 20, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Interesting - that's a change to the pop-science 'line' that I've heard over the past decade or so {the last time being on the Horizon programme on the BBC I think}.
> 
> Time to investigate further the current state of play on this.
> 
> ...



The sun has been unusually quiet for the last several 11-year cycles, and signs point to that changing now.  As most know, the sun has roughly 11-year cycles of solar flare activity, which at its peak, often disrupts electrical activity on earth.  The fact that things have been unusually quiet has led to the building of a lot of new infrastructure in the past 20 years that is NOT well shielded from such activity.  Now predictions are for peak activity in 2013.  The last major hit took out a big section of the Canadian power grid.  Some predictions go so far as to posit that the North American power grid (the least primitive and therefore more vulnerable) could be taken completely down for 'years'.  No fooling.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38310467/ns/technology_and_science-space/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...olar_flare_storm_could_lose_power_commun.html

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/19/severe-space-weather-warning/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-e-joseph/the-solar-katrina-storm-t_b_641354.html

Death, destruction, the toppling of empires, calamity awaits us all.  We live on the edge of a frying pan, poised to topple into the fire.  AGW?  Doesn't bother me.  _Apres moi, le deluge_, baby.


----------

