|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Nov 14, 2011 10:06:27 GMT -5
Split from: Cain+Proves+That+The+G.O.P.+Lacks+A+Moral+CompIt is happening, there is proof it is happening and there is overwhelming evidence that man is contributing (I will stop short of saying causing) to it. You should read some of Fred Singer's work. If I remember correctly, he was one of the first ones to talk openly about global warming. He points out that a) global warming may or may not be happening and gives ALL the evidence and not just part of it like the progressives do and b) that if it is happening, it is not necessarily a bad thing and c) IF man is contributing to it, the same events that contribute to it also contribute to global cooling and should offset themselves. I've read Singer. IMNSHO, he is the perfect complement of Gore. He has his idea of the way things are and he goes looking for the data to support it. His advantage over Gore is that he is trained in science. Gore's advantage is that he's been trained in journalism and policy making. I will give Singer one thing, he doesn't deny global warming occurring he just doesn't accept the studies showing it is occuring as good science. He doesn't say man isn't contributing to global warming, he says man isn't causing global warming and that statement may be the closest he comes to saying something I can whole-heartedly agree with and it goes to a point that a lot of people who deny global warming are missing. As a part of Earth's ecosphere we do contribute something to the changing of the climate. Our contribution may be significant or insignificant but there is no denying that what we do contributes to the changes taking place on Earth. The Republican line seems to want to contradict that one truth. The sad part is that there is plenty of room to make policy changes that do not impact economic growth when the truth is acknowledged. Economic growth occurs when input is decreased while output is increasing. We don't shut things down, we improve the efficiency and in doing so decrease the emmission for each unit created. What period of time? From the data I'm seeing we are in a short term cooling trend that is moderating a longer term warming trend.
|
|
osrb
Senior Forumite
Semper Fi
Mostly Harmless
Posts: 3,150
|
Post by osrb on Nov 14, 2011 10:22:07 GMT -5
Long term, Short term and measurements of time therefore are scientifically usable. How long is a "long term" how short is "Short term"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Nov 14, 2011 10:51:47 GMT -5
Long term, Short term and measurements of time therefore are scientifically usable. How long is a "long term" how short is "Short term"? Long term and short term are relative and to answer the question of how long are each would depend on the topic of the conversation. In the portion you quoted from me, the long term trend was over a 130 year period. Short term was over the last five years. While I don't like to talk in terms of models the models are showing that a very strong weather pattern is showing a ten year cooling overriding the longer term warming. This is what the temperature trends are showing along with other meteorological data.  |
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 14, 2011 12:08:07 GMT -5
And Singer doesn't simply ignore date he doesn't like.
As far as the satellite and balloon data, it can only go back so far, since we haven't had satellite date for that long in the grand scheme. But, the satellite and balloon date contradicts the ground date, since the ground data seems to be faulty because of the locations of the data centers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Nov 14, 2011 15:45:43 GMT -5
And Singer doesn't simply ignore date he doesn't like. As far as the satellite and balloon data, it can only go back so far, since we haven't had satellite date for that long in the grand scheme. But, the satellite and balloon date contradicts the ground date, since the ground data seems to be faulty because of the locations of the data centers. Think about it, though. Singer doesn't dispute climate change occurring. He doesn't really dispute global warming. What he does is challenge the analysis of the data and the accuracy of the data. In a PBS interview for Nova Singer states: I personally believe that there should be some slight warming. But I think the warming will be much less than the current models predict. He doesn't trust the models and neither do I but what you get from most of the Republican politicians is simply that global warming hasn't been proved. On whether or not man can affect a climate change Singer fully agrees man can have a significant effect on climate but he reserves that as a significant effect on local climate, creating urban heat islands. I'm looking around and seeing huge urban centers being created and with the world population at 7 billion now just how long will it be before the earth is one huge heat island. |
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Nov 14, 2011 21:07:28 GMT -5
[/quote] How does the "Little Ice Age" period factor in with this graph? |
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 15, 2011 2:56:32 GMT -5
I haven't heard many (if any) Republicans claiming there is no global warming, only that there is no proof that it is man-made.
However, many scientists think it's simply cyclical and/or we are still in a long-term cooling trend.
Even Singer shows that the data indicates that there are also things that man is doing that causes cooling that should mostly or completely offset the warming. And if it doesn't, seems to think man could even benefit from warming, as things seemed to be pretty good back when the world was warmer than now.
But, no matter what, it's not a cut and dried thing as the progressives try to present, and it's far from being even a majority of scientists agreeing with it, since only about a third of climate scientists believe in man-made global warming.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Nov 15, 2011 8:58:50 GMT -5
I haven't heard many (if any) Republicans claiming there is no global warming, only that there is no proof that it is man-made. and Michelle Bachmann both seem to be pretty adamant that man-made global warming isn't a problem and hasn't been proven. The vast majority of meteorological scientist are insisting that the Earth is warming. A smaller majority, but still a majority, are claiming Man is a major contributor to the cause of that warming. My personal opinion, based on what evidence I have seen is that Man is a significant contributor. A few hundred scientist who believe the warming trend is cyclical or that we are in a long term cooling thread may be many in terms of numbers but they are still a small minority. My training is in engineering, not meteorological science. I tend to believe that when the majority of experts express the same belief the probability that they are correct is high. It depends on how granular you get with the theory. Overall the majority of meteorological scientist will tell you that the Earth is warming and Man's activity is a contributing factor to that warming. If you change that statement to "The Earth is drastically warming" you will no longer have that majority of agreement. If you change the statement to "Man's activity is the main cause of this warming" you will lose the majority. No it isn't completely settled and global warming/climate change isn't necessarily a completely negative thing but to state, as Michelle Bachmann has stated, that CO 2 is a part of nature and we shouldn't be restricting what nature produces, shows a complete ignorance of the global warming/climate change debate. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Nov 15, 2011 9:03:17 GMT -5
How does the "Little Ice Age" period factor in with this graph? The "Little Ice Age" occurred during the period of the 1500s to the 1800s. This graph would show the tail end of that cooling period. |
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Nov 15, 2011 14:40:16 GMT -5
The "Little Ice Age" occurred during the period of the 1500s to the 1800s. This graph would show the tail end of that cooling period. To me it seems like the ending of this period explains the warming trend that we are currently in. |
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 15, 2011 14:58:20 GMT -5
As posted here on the forum in the past, about two thirds of meteorological scientists believe the earth is warming, and about half of those think it is man-made. It is far from a majority on any stance, other than "it is warming".
However, as Singer (and others) have pointed out, there are positive benefits to the warming, if it is occurring, and the CO2 levels are still a fraction of what they used to be.
And Perry and Bachman neither one denied global warming, only man-made global warming. And as shown by Singer, Perry is quite correct in stating that the global warming alarmists have greatly manipulated the data.
|
|
osrb
Senior Forumite
Semper Fi
Mostly Harmless
Posts: 3,150
|
Post by osrb on Nov 16, 2011 13:43:40 GMT -5
I am sick and tired of both sides of this argument. One side says it is all man made and the other say no it is not. Unfortunately rational people are excluded from this. I do not know if or how much is man made the simple fact is we need to do what we can no to pollute the air, land , and water. Pollution is a problem if we clean that up the rest will take care of itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Conservator on Nov 16, 2011 16:49:30 GMT -5
This topic has been hijacked by politicians. I honestly don't know what to believe and where to even begin for a non-biased opinion. For my one non-biased source on this forum says "The sad part is that there is plenty of room to make policy changes that do not impact economic growth". What?! That maybe one of the most 'lib playbook' statements you've ever made on here. Anyway, I'd rather not get into that drawn out debate either.
My point is, the earth's temps change all the time. It's always changing. And if it is in a cooling trend right now or a warming trend, there's very little we can do about that. The question is how much we actually contribute to it - and that's impossible to answer. So passing job killing policies for something we can't quantify is really the reason we debate this topic... Then on top of that, even if we were to shut down every coal plant and manufacturer in the country, the rest of the world, the big players anyway (China, India, Russia), would just laugh at us.
And the same groups that are all about global warming and wanting everyone to start buying carbon credits are on the same side that won't let us drill more or build more nuke plants. We need some form of power, no...?
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Nov 16, 2011 21:51:11 GMT -5
Conservator, there are zealots on both sides that, should we listen to them, would either have us living in caves or having to wear a gas mask to go outside. One side wants to clap on a bunch of unnecessary regulations while the other will fight tooth and nail to prevent reasonable regulations that could possibly save jobs and make everyone more money. Here's an example, why not do away with CAFE standards and just jack up the tax on gasoline? That way you take the regulations off of the auto industry which should save them money and allow them to build cars that people want. People will get to choose either a high gas mileage or a large comfortable car rather than be stuck with a high gas mileage only choice. The higher gas tax ought to make it easier to maintain our infrastructure by replacing bridges and such and the market is the regulator rather than government.
The thing about our carbon footprint is that it costs us money to have a large one. The more carbon we put into the air the more fuel we are burning. I'm not suggesting we don't use all the energy we need to get a job done, I'm suggesting that we get the job done in the most efficient means possible. Carbon sequestering won't work but more energy efficiency will.
|
|
It is happening, there is proof it is happening and there is overwhelming evidence that man is contributing (I will stop short of saying causing) to it.
