Dont know if this is fake news or a legitimate article. Regardless, this is the first time Ive seen this suggested and at the very least , I believe the idea needs wider dissemination , if only to generate discussion.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Global warming is over!!! 2
- Thread starter miningman
- Start date
If it's crock, then why?
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
having looked over the article (liked the "grok" reference) this is, IMHO, just more outlandish claims that we get from both sides to the "debate".
Sure, warmer weather is generally better for crop yields. Sure colder weather is generally worse. Sure volcanos liberate particles etc that affect weather.
Sure, IMHO, whatever volcanic activity recently will affect (to some degree) the near term weather, will it "end" global warming … hardly.
another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?
Sure, warmer weather is generally better for crop yields. Sure colder weather is generally worse. Sure volcanos liberate particles etc that affect weather.
Sure, IMHO, whatever volcanic activity recently will affect (to some degree) the near term weather, will it "end" global warming … hardly.
another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?
LionelHutz
Electrical
LOL, any time there is a hottest day or week or month on record it's absolute proof of global warming, but any time there is a cold record it's just an ignorable anomaly since you can't judge global warming by any short term trends.
The article does have a point. A number of very big volcanic eruptions spread over a few years could completely mess up the planet. Something like that happening could quickly show how insignificant humans really are.
The article does have a point. A number of very big volcanic eruptions spread over a few years could completely mess up the planet. Something like that happening could quickly show how insignificant humans really are.
"any time there is a hottest day or week or month on record it's absolute proof of global warming, but any time there is a cold record it's just an ignorable anomaly since you can't judge global warming by any short term trends."
Actually, no, record highs HAVE to come with record lows of some sort, either in intensity or duration; do the math, the net change in global temperature is not even a full degree, which is composed of highs and lows. But, for that same reasoning, record lows are indeed irrelevant, if the net trend is still upward; what is proof is that the long-term trend is upward.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
Actually, no, record highs HAVE to come with record lows of some sort, either in intensity or duration; do the math, the net change in global temperature is not even a full degree, which is composed of highs and lows. But, for that same reasoning, record lows are indeed irrelevant, if the net trend is still upward; what is proof is that the long-term trend is upward.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
However, pretty much everything else on the site is crock. The primary author shows a picture of a glacier and simply states that it doesn't look like 80% loss, therefore climate change isn't affecting the glacier. There's no science, no analysis, just assertions based on selective quoting of legitimate discussions, or just assertions, period.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
Reading up on the opposing viewpoints on this complex issue, I wonder if there are any facts, conclusions or opinions we all agree on. I would accept 90% as "all" since it is almost impossible to get literally everyone to agree on something.
Lets start with 2 very simple ones.
[ol 1]
[li]Do you agree or disagree that it is possible to overpopulate the earth? Could we have so many people on earth that the earth's environment cannot produce enough food and water for us to all live?[/li]
[li]Regardless of whether you think it is critical at this time or not, do you at least think it is a reasonable conclusion that the current way we live on earth is having an overall negative affect on the environment? I am not talking on a 12 year timeline, just do you think that the net effects are negative, positive or neutral?[/li]
[/ol]
For me, #1 is a agree and #2 is a net negative. On the second one, we consume naturally occurring materials to manufacture items. The manufacturing process has waste byproducts that we dispose of. Many final products get thrown away in a landfill or the ocean. So, I see a net negative as a reasonable conclusion. Just plastic alone is unbelievable. Buy something that is so small you could hold 10 of them in one hand and it comes packaged in a plastic Fort Knox so big you cannot put it in your pocket or a purse. Thank God there is an seemingly endless supply of plastic plants to harvest this raw material from.
Lets start with 2 very simple ones.
[ol 1]
[li]Do you agree or disagree that it is possible to overpopulate the earth? Could we have so many people on earth that the earth's environment cannot produce enough food and water for us to all live?[/li]
[li]Regardless of whether you think it is critical at this time or not, do you at least think it is a reasonable conclusion that the current way we live on earth is having an overall negative affect on the environment? I am not talking on a 12 year timeline, just do you think that the net effects are negative, positive or neutral?[/li]
[/ol]
For me, #1 is a agree and #2 is a net negative. On the second one, we consume naturally occurring materials to manufacture items. The manufacturing process has waste byproducts that we dispose of. Many final products get thrown away in a landfill or the ocean. So, I see a net negative as a reasonable conclusion. Just plastic alone is unbelievable. Buy something that is so small you could hold 10 of them in one hand and it comes packaged in a plastic Fort Knox so big you cannot put it in your pocket or a purse. Thank God there is an seemingly endless supply of plastic plants to harvest this raw material from.
Sure, agree on 1, and definitely negative on 2, since we've evidence of plastics accumulation on the oceans, and worse, micro and nano plastic particles appearing in all sorts of unexpected places.
As for the population, sure; there's going to be another tipping point where countries that haven't made economic progress are pumping out babies faster than they can produce or import new food supplies. Possibly, we hit that wall before we get into serious trouble on climate.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
As for the population, sure; there's going to be another tipping point where countries that haven't made economic progress are pumping out babies faster than they can produce or import new food supplies. Possibly, we hit that wall before we get into serious trouble on climate.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
- Thread starter
- #11
Gotta admit, the sceptical responses to my original post have a lot of credibility. For what its worth, Alberta has been definitely cool this summer with very few days at 28-30 degrees or better. No need whatsoever for air conditioning.
Having said that , the attached may lead to further discussion over the next 8 months or so.
Having said that , the attached may lead to further discussion over the next 8 months or so.
I have not seen a single scientific paper, or even a single news piece in a popular scientific journal, that treats a single day, week, or month as having any great significance.
Even in the popular press (or those parts of it that are not run by the pseudo-skeptic deniers), I have not seen it treated as absolute proof of anything
I don't know why the linked article is seen as having any significance; the internet is full of similar nonsense.
But in the interests of generating some discussion, it is highly likely that at some time in the future the natural cycles will result in a much cooler climate. Shouldn't we preserve as much easily accessible fossil fuel as possible, so that future generations can do something about this cooling, when it happens?
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
farmer's alamacs have been very successful (if unscientific) at predicting near term weather, so I don't think they deserve the appellation "nonsense".
IMO, these naturally occurring cool cycles distort the simple message being broadcast to the public.
The message is, in my words, that we need to curtail burning FFs because they contribute to the global climate change we're seeing.
There is naturally a significant amount of pain in that message is it is (again, in my words) being delivered rather stridently.
Then any natural turn against the trend in worsening (as it is taken to be) global climate is greeted and touted as cause to defer the pain.
But this then detracts IMO from the underlying message, that we should be more restrained in burning FFs as it probably isn't the best (and most sustainable) thing we can do for the environment.
another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?
IMO, these naturally occurring cool cycles distort the simple message being broadcast to the public.
The message is, in my words, that we need to curtail burning FFs because they contribute to the global climate change we're seeing.
There is naturally a significant amount of pain in that message is it is (again, in my words) being delivered rather stridently.
Then any natural turn against the trend in worsening (as it is taken to be) global climate is greeted and touted as cause to defer the pain.
But this then detracts IMO from the underlying message, that we should be more restrained in burning FFs as it probably isn't the best (and most sustainable) thing we can do for the environment.
another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?
rb1957 said:
The basic point of your statement is a good valid point that most should agree with. The problem comes in with the urgency issue being presented. The message versus the messenger vs the messenger's behavior is what creates the bigger divide. The message is "CC will kill us in 12 years"--> the messenger is a staunch advocate of CC --> but then their behavior is "you do as I say while I fly a private yet to the climate conference or I will buy a huge house right on the ocean" Till that changes, I doubt little will change people's behavior. I know that is driving more of my behavior than any other single item. If the situation is so dire, why are they fiddling while Rome is burning? I will include in that general comment the climate change reports. I feel the CC believers should be more enraged, upset and vocal about the CC leaders behavior and any truly slanted reports than those denying climate change exists.
LionelHutz
Electrical
You mustn't pay any attention to popular press then....
Personally, I believe humans are way too damn selfish to expect any kind of noble cause reaction to climate change. It'll never happen.
Besides, there are so MANY other bad things we are doing to the environment besides burning fossil fuels. Many of those really should be addressed too but that'll never happen either.
On the contrary, I play plenty of attention, although obviously I don't read all of it, and next to nothing published in the USA.
But it's irrelevant anyway.
It doesn't need to be treated as a "noble cause". The likely future costs of GHG emissions just need to be recognised in what we pay for energy now, instead of being hidden and ignored.
The same applies to other activities with hidden future costs.
It just needs some politicians with the guts to apply the market system in a logical way, and the charisma to get elected.
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
I would like to clarify some points in the previous few posts.
LionelHutz: What is the "popular press"?
ironic metallurgist: What does someone have to do to become a "scientist"? I have asked this before in this forum and don't think I have ever see an answer posted. I do not know any college curriculum for "Scientist". The most consistently cited statement I see about CC is the "97% of the scientist agree...". So, to me it is important for me to know what they did to be elevated to a status of we should mainly listen to them.
LionelHutz: What is the "popular press"?
ironic metallurgist: What does someone have to do to become a "scientist"? I have asked this before in this forum and don't think I have ever see an answer posted. I do not know any college curriculum for "Scientist". The most consistently cited statement I see about CC is the "97% of the scientist agree...". So, to me it is important for me to know what they did to be elevated to a status of we should mainly listen to them.
"What does someone have to do to become a "scientist"?" …
a) study a science of some sort,
b) apply the scientific method to solve a problem,
c) have a piece of paper on the wall,
d) have the idea in their head (that they're a scientist, not necessarily a "useful" idea).
should you listen to their opinions ? unless they've studied climate dynamics for a while (10-20 years) then maybe they have an informed opinion.
otherwise they're no better informed than the rest of us (and possibly less informed if they've developed an opinion and then sought supporting studies)
yes, I know that's not science, but it is human behaviour.
But, as you'd expect, this leads to a very small pool of people, and these have (IMO) differing views. So to get a "consensus" IPCC cast the net very wide, asked very general questions, and got the answers they wanted.
But the problem of CC is much less of a scientific/technical problem/issue and much more a social/political one, IMO.
another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?
a) study a science of some sort,
b) apply the scientific method to solve a problem,
c) have a piece of paper on the wall,
d) have the idea in their head (that they're a scientist, not necessarily a "useful" idea).
should you listen to their opinions ? unless they've studied climate dynamics for a while (10-20 years) then maybe they have an informed opinion.
otherwise they're no better informed than the rest of us (and possibly less informed if they've developed an opinion and then sought supporting studies)
yes, I know that's not science, but it is human behaviour.
But, as you'd expect, this leads to a very small pool of people, and these have (IMO) differing views. So to get a "consensus" IPCC cast the net very wide, asked very general questions, and got the answers they wanted.
But the problem of CC is much less of a scientific/technical problem/issue and much more a social/political one, IMO.
another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- News
- Locked
- Question
