Cooling Not Warming- got it?

[hambone]

Talk about blatant shit stirring...
What has happened to this forum? Used to make me feel happy and connected to come here....
What can we do as positive members of a virtual community to change this ugly tone?
For one thing, this "discussion" of climate change can never thrive under these conditions.
Carry on as you all see fit. But what is occurring here is hard polarization, and is a stupid stupid waste of time in an already saturated nation.
Friends can still have different points of view.

[Hippie]

That's because its devolved into a (primarily) political forum.
Religion and politics always breed argument. I usually stay out of it, but I gotta respond with my own shit sometimes.

I spend more and more of my time on car forums...cause, well, I like cars. But mostly rants and of-topic stuff here. Alittle disappointing, but I come because I like you guys.
Arguments or not, I hardly find anyone on this forum who isn't a real and good person.

[turk]

It's pretty impressive how normal the weather is globally. A few anomalies here and there are also normal in the big picture. Climate changes, as it normally has since before the human race. How's yer weather?

[surfdad]

Ok I usually stay out of these issues as well, but I have a serious question about climate change. I can't understand why we think this is a new phenomenon. Someone please tell me why the glaciers that covered North America melted and left us with this gorgeous landscape prior to all the modern technology that we claim is making the earth warm (or cool)? And why would we dismiss these same forces when discussing climate change in the current day?

please excuse me if you guys have covered this already...these are just questions rattling around inside my cranium.

[ruckman101]

It's the accelerated rate of change I find alarming. What in the past took a few thousand, is ramping up in just a few hundred.*


neal


*Disclaimer: Numbers cited aren't based on any known empirical data, but are merely suggested as an example to make a point of my concerns.

[turk]

The only accelerated rate of change is in the brains of one species of inhabitants of the beautiful blue green ball afloat around the sun. Everything they measure is biased to entertain their personal habitat on that ball. It really has nothing to do with the millions of other species. But that is the next alarm : biodiversity decline. These people don't get it. They think they can control nature.

[surfdad]

The accelerated rate is always the argument I hear. I think the term "accelerated" is based on whats relative to human lives and not a geologic time line. I would have to believe the geologic/ atmospheric time line during the glacier melt was up and down, decade after decade, century after century, but slowly warming as to pull back the grip of the ice. If it were charted out, it would probably look like the stock market's daily up and downs.

We seem to be reacting to a decade (or two) of change(a blip on the geologic time line landscape) and convincing people to act to the change (marketing that change as if it's human fault) and we are assuming the direction of climate change will continue in the same direction.

If betting on accelerated rates over the short term were smart no one would ever loose money in the market. Yes some make money on the gamble but the money gained is short term. I think the earth is in it for the long haul.

Oh ...did I just mention money.....maybe that has something to do with it.

Ok...enough of this stuff ....everyone have a Merry Christmas! i If you celebrate the holiday, then have a great weekend.

[ruckman101]

I don't think anyone thinks they can control nature. But we can control the quantity of toxins and pollutants we emit.


neal

[turk]

A lovely piece of music I wish I knew the name of accompanies this piece on Vertical Axis Wind Turbine design, apparently made in east Asia. But I think some people do have a distorted sense of place in nature. Hell, it's one of the most publicized, and popular myths in history.

[Amskeptic]

The accelerated rate is always the argument I hear. I think the term "accelerated" is based on whats relative to human lives and not a geologic time line.

Merry Christmas, surfdad.

"Accelerated" based on geologic timeline. Ice core samples, even fossils can release information on the atmospheric make-up over the past millions of years. That is how we can make conclusions about the rate of change.

This argument regarding climate change has many parallels to many arguments in many other critical moments in our history, and I think they are worth looking at.

If you look around at almost every single advancement, you will see polarization. The creation of democracy, the automobile, the Environmental Protection Agency, the first fuel economy standards, Civil Rights, hell, gay rights in the military, mandated ganning of certain chemicals like DDT and MTBE, there were vociferous arguments against changing the status-quo.

The most common reaction from the status-quo is to marginalize the messenger. Abe Lincoln was a "crack-pot hell-bent on destroying the Southern Way of Life" (read: damage the Southern profit structure), Martin Luther King was an "uppity Negro Preacher" (read: political threat to the established profit structure), and the EPA was going to ruin American industry single-handedly (read: threat to easy profits). Scientists are now under fire, and their original research is being challenged by well-hidden status-quo industrial cash.

You, as the hapless citizen watching these battles rage, might want to ask, what's in it for the change messengers? What's in it for the status-quo adherents? And ask yourself, "what makes sense intuitively?"

Intuitively, I do not agree that the planet can absorb our ceaseless burning of fossil fuel every single day, day after day, without consequence. I have seen LA smog from space shuttle photographs, I have seen the plume from Mount Saint Helen surround the planet, we all held our breath when Chernobyl blew up. All around the planet, we are burning and burning. Combustion converts locked-away hydrocarbons to released hydrocarbons.

President George H.W. Bush birthed the first effective cap-and-trade system to battle acid rain. How did that work out for us? Do you remember, surfdad? Are you able to find information in our past to apply to our present predicaments? It worked splendidly.

Who is battling cap-and-trade today? Industry. Why? Gets in the way of profits. Did pollution controls ruin the American automobile industry in 1970? Did fuel economy standards put the cost of a car out of reach? Did safety regulations hurt us? Did Civil Rights lead to a Revolution of the Negro People Against Whites (Alabama Governor George Wallace)?

Who is battling the global warming science today? Why? Do you believe the threats about jobs and profits that preceded the adoption of automobiles as transportation? Did the EPA destroy the logging and mining industries?

What do you think we should do as a growing human horde of energy locusts? Rate of change you should look into. While the Arctic region indeed has had ferns and lush tropical vegetation in the past (that's why we have North Slope oil), it took millions and millions of years for the climate to change in the past. We have increased CO2 faster in the past 100 years than seen in the climate record. Period.

It is not hand-wringing omg we're damaging Mother Earth . . . it is level-headed adult concern that we *might* screw up the ability to feed ourselves if the food chain gets harmed. It is level-headed forward-looking estimates that warn us that the ocean levels may rise, necessitating the need for a huge chaotic need to . . . move to higher ground. Try moving New York City and Calcutta to higher ground.

We CAN have an adult conversation here about global warming. Look at the participants who discuss the issue here, and look for focus on the issue versus trigger words and disrespect. They are clues to the "agendas" that unfortunately undergird our current national discourse.
Colin

[glasseye]

^^^^^^^^^
=D> =D> =D>

[turk]

The accelerated rate is always the argument I hear. I think the term "accelerated" is based on whats relative to human lives and not a geologic time line.

Merry Christmas, surfdad.

"Accelerated" based on geologic timeline. Ice core samples, even fossils can release information on the atmospheric make-up over the past millions of years. That is how we can make conclusions about the rate of change.

This argument regarding climate change has many parallels to many arguments in many other critical moments in our history, and I think they are worth looking at.

If you look around at almost every single advancement, you will see polarization. The creation of democracy, the automobile, the Environmental Protection Agency, the first fuel economy standards, Civil Rights, hell, gay rights in the military, mandated ganning of certain chemicals like DDT and MTBE, there were vociferous arguments against changing the status-quo.

The most common reaction from the status-quo is to marginalize the messenger. Abe Lincoln was a "crack-pot hell-bent on destroying the Southern Way of Life" (read: damage the Southern profit structure), Martin Luther King was an "uppity Negro Preacher" (read: political threat to the established profit structure), and the EPA was going to ruin American industry single-handedly (read: threat to easy profits). Scientists are now under fire, and their original research is being challenged by well-hidden status-quo industrial cash.

You, as the hapless citizen watching these battles rage, might want to ask, what's in it for the change messengers? What's in it for the status-quo adherents? And ask yourself, "what makes sense intuitively?"

Intuitively, I do not agree that the planet can absorb our ceaseless burning of fossil fuel every single day, day after day, without consequence. I have seen LA smog from space shuttle photographs, I have seen the plume from Mount Saint Helen surround the planet, we all held our breath when Chernobyl blew up. All around the planet, we are burning and burning. Combustion converts locked-away hydrocarbons to released hydrocarbons.

President George H.W. Bush birthed the first effective cap-and-trade system to battle acid rain. How did that work out for us? Do you remember, surfdad? Are you able to find information in our past to apply to our present predicaments? It worked splendidly.

Who is battling cap-and-trade today? Industry. Why? Gets in the way of profits. Did pollution controls ruin the American automobile industry in 1970? Did fuel economy standards put the cost of a car out of reach? Did safety regulations hurt us? Did Civil Rights lead to a Revolution of the Negro People Against Whites (Alabama Governor George Wallace)?

Who is battling the global warming science today? Why? Do you believe the threats about jobs and profits that preceded the adoption of automobiles as transportation? Did the EPA destroy the logging and mining industries?

What do you think we should do as a growing human horde of energy locusts? Rate of change you should look into. While the Arctic region indeed has had ferns and lush tropical vegetation in the past (that's why we have North Slope oil), it took millions and millions of years for the climate to change in the past. We have increased CO2 faster in the past 100 years than seen in the climate record. Period.

It is not hand-wringing omg we're damaging Mother Earth . . . it is level-headed adult concern that we *might* screw up the ability to feed ourselves if the food chain gets harmed. It is level-headed forward-looking estimates that warn us that the ocean levels may rise, necessitating the need for a huge chaotic need to . . . move to higher ground. Try moving New York City and Calcutta to higher ground.

We CAN have an adult conversation here about global warming. Look at the participants who discuss the issue here, and look for focus on the issue versus trigger words and disrespect. They are clues to the "agendas" that unfortunately undergird our current national discourse.
Colin

This is an example of how the myth gained traction. Intuition over direct observation to create a false alarm. Of course I'm talking about AGW specifically, not pollution or population etc. etc. etc..

[Amskeptic]

Look at the participants who discuss the issue here, and look for focus on the issue versus trigger words and disrespect. They are clues to the "agendas" that unfortunately undergird our current national discourse.
Colin

This is an example of how the myth gained traction. Intuition over direct observation to create a false alarm. Of course I'm talking about AGW specifically, not pollution or population etc. etc. etc..

"Myth". Bingo. We have a trigger word. Your use of the word "myth" shorts out the discussion because it presupposes gullibility.

What was the alarmist agenda of the below scientist?

Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15oC because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect. Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5oC temperature rise. He and Thomas Chamberlin calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This research was a by-product of research of whether carbon dioxide would explain the causes of the great Ice Ages. This was not actually verified until 1987.

Note how the topic of global warming came up as a simple question within a scientific muse.
Colin

[turk]

Look at the participants who discuss the issue here, and look for focus on the issue versus trigger words and disrespect. They are clues to the "agendas" that unfortunately undergird our current national discourse.
Colin

This is an example of how the myth gained traction. Intuition over direct observation to create a false alarm. Of course I'm talking about AGW specifically, not pollution or population etc. etc. etc..

"Myth". Bingo. We have a trigger word. Your use of the word "myth" shorts out the discussion because it presupposes gullibility.

What was the alarmist agenda of the below scientist?

Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15oC because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect. Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5oC temperature rise. He and Thomas Chamberlin calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This research was a by-product of research of whether carbon dioxide would explain the causes of the great Ice Ages. This was not actually verified until 1987.

Note how the topic of global warming came up as a simple question within a scientific muse.
Colin

My use of the word myth doesn't shorten anything. I call it a myth because it is an unverifiable hypothesis. Yet it is taken in the mainstream media as a fact. So, popular opinion has it as fact, yet it remains to be proven empirically (AGW). It is non-falsifiable using the scientific method. That means it can not be tested to prove or disprove. So, just because it's popular, and may be intuitively attractive as a theory, it's just a hypothesis that unfortunately can not be falsified. There are other possible causes of the small amount of warming that has been happening since the last ice-age; and ice ages and climate change is pretty well documented normal activity on earth regardless of humans.

[Velokid1]

My use of the word myth doesn't shorten anything. I call it a myth because it is an unverifiable hypothesis.

The actual definition of the word "myth" is far more charged than you are willing to admit here.

myth (mth)
n.
1.
a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.
2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth" (Leon Wolff).