Climate of Smear: Global Warming Misinformation
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
The debate about global warming for many people is more about ideology than science, as Avro clearly demonstrated in his ad hominem attack on me for asking a question.
I believe it is happening, and that mankind is responsible, but anybody with a serious approach to the issue will consider all the evidence, not parts that fit a pre-conceived worldview. And if evidence arises that alters our opinion, ideology should not be a barrier.
The scientist will change his opinion in light of contrary evidence. The ideologue will retain his opinion despite contrary evidence.
I believe it is happening, and that mankind is responsible, but anybody with a serious approach to the issue will consider all the evidence, not parts that fit a pre-conceived worldview. And if evidence arises that alters our opinion, ideology should not be a barrier.
The scientist will change his opinion in light of contrary evidence. The ideologue will retain his opinion despite contrary evidence.
Last edited:
Conditions on other planets are meaningless. The only comparison we can make between other planets is that they all have different climates to our own.
When a study comes along to show trends in planets like Mars or Neptune or any other planet, they use models, which our climatologists have been using for quite some time, and have had ample opportunity for fine tuning. Strange how a model based approach on another planet could be so convincing to those who would trash our own.
Kudos to Toro. A great illustration of the dichotomy.
When a study comes along to show trends in planets like Mars or Neptune or any other planet, they use models, which our climatologists have been using for quite some time, and have had ample opportunity for fine tuning. Strange how a model based approach on another planet could be so convincing to those who would trash our own.
Kudos to Toro. A great illustration of the dichotomy.
To me, global warming is the hard, cold numbers that meteorologists, and climatologists have come up with after years of research. These numbers don't have any politics as they are not opinions. Whatever people think of Al Gore, there was nothing wrong with the numbers he presented. Some people will nit-pick minor points in the movie, but overall, the numbers were solid.
Let me add something else to this global warming business.
Oil is finite.
It's running out.
Nearly everything we make, has something to do with oil in it, or in it's fabrication or distribution.
Since the use of oil started, the population has exploded. It makes some sense that once it's done, the population will plummet. Suporting this population was never possible before the use of oil.
The price of oil is so low that in comparison to other things like coffee, water, milk, whatever, it's bargan basement pricing that we're bitching about.
We have alot less oil than anyone is letting on.
The alotment of oil production limits is set on reserves. SO high reserves allows for higher barrel counts per day. This in turn results in larger amounts of money for those proffiting off the oil industry today. To hell with tomorrow.
Once the oil is so scarse, military will ensure that some people get it no matter who it belongs to or who has a right to it.
Before the turn of the century, there will be a lot less oil to release into the atmosphere and the Earth will again begin to scrub the carbon out of the air.
As is always the way, nature finds a way to balance things out.
Question:
America uses about 25% of all the oil consumption today.
As China and India develop they want their share, to build upon and enjoy the things in life, we've enjoyed over here for so long. Who do you want to have that oil, Us or Them?
Oil is finite.
It's running out.
Nearly everything we make, has something to do with oil in it, or in it's fabrication or distribution.
Since the use of oil started, the population has exploded. It makes some sense that once it's done, the population will plummet. Suporting this population was never possible before the use of oil.
The price of oil is so low that in comparison to other things like coffee, water, milk, whatever, it's bargan basement pricing that we're bitching about.
We have alot less oil than anyone is letting on.
The alotment of oil production limits is set on reserves. SO high reserves allows for higher barrel counts per day. This in turn results in larger amounts of money for those proffiting off the oil industry today. To hell with tomorrow.
Once the oil is so scarse, military will ensure that some people get it no matter who it belongs to or who has a right to it.
Before the turn of the century, there will be a lot less oil to release into the atmosphere and the Earth will again begin to scrub the carbon out of the air.
As is always the way, nature finds a way to balance things out.
Question:
America uses about 25% of all the oil consumption today.
As China and India develop they want their share, to build upon and enjoy the things in life, we've enjoyed over here for so long. Who do you want to have that oil, Us or Them?
Actually it is not. The better we can model the climate of other planets the more confidence we should have in our ability to model the climate of the earth. It is called comparative climatology. If both mars and earth are experiencing warming we must ask if there is a common cause.
Mars has no oceans to affect it's climate, we do. Jupiter has strange storms which don't occur here. Mercury has more greenhouse gases than any other planet. The conditions are different on each planet. The models are simplistic on other planets and more complex here where we can at least make numerous measurements on known forcings.
We can compare solar strength and galactic cosmic rays, but they have yielded inconclusive results here in our own models.
I would think confidence levels in Earth models would be higher than the other planets on uncertainty alone.
We can compare solar strength and galactic cosmic rays, but they have yielded inconclusive results here in our own models.
I would think confidence levels in Earth models would be higher than the other planets on uncertainty alone.
You make a very important point here. Numbers that have to do with predictions are a whole lot more uncertain then the raw measured data of past events. We must keep in mind that there have been allegations that some advocates have tampered with past data or have used bad techniques to process the data in order to get the desired result. That said, data of past measurements is a whole lot more certain then wild predictions made about the future by some chicken little.
I don't remember the exact numbers, but if global warming keeps on going unchecked, we will see......or rather, our grand children will see a dramatic rise in ocean levels. It is reasonable that if x-number of cubic miles of non-floating ice were to melt, the sea level will rise by a given amount. I'm sure Gore was using the worst case scenario, but that scenario is dictated by the continued burning of fossil fuels.
There is no basis for gores scenario in the immediate future. There is question as to weather the Greenland icecap is growing or shrinking. It would take thousands of years to melt the greenland ice cap. By then all the fossil fuel would have been supposedly long gone. Gore’s biblical doomsday scenario is pure fear mongering. Current sea level rises are far to small for Gore’s scenario to have any basis in any reality we or our grandchildren will see.
Keep in mind the more complicated a model the more chance there is of over fitting the model. Introduce enough parameters and you can fit the past climate perfectly even if the model has no basis in reality. Often simplistic models are better and have superior predictive power. Given, finite data, finite precession and finite computing power, there is an optimal complexity of any model.
Now I’m not sure weather the climate models of other planets are simpler but since mars lacks an ocean and doesn’t have much of an atmosphere perhaps it might be an easier climate to understand then our terrestrial one. Of course mars has dust storms so it is an open question as to which climate is easier to understand.
It's not going to take thousands of years. Global warming is a self-feeding, accelerating, process that will keep getting worse.
Bull Crap, natural systems do not exhibit unstable positive feedback forever. Conservation of energy and other laws of thermodynamics will eventually limit the system. If there earth’s climate was as you suggest there would be pretty much nothing we can do.
There are many things that limit the CO2 feedback effect. One limitation is a large part of the CO2 absorption spectrum is already blocked by water vapor. Another limitation is the more CO2 that is in the atmosphere the more the oceans will absorb. Another limitation is the warming due to CO2 is logarithmic and not linear. This means that linear increases of CO2 give diminishing marginal return in the amount of total warming. The so called tipping point is a sensationalistic buzzword designed to create panic and has little scientific basis.
The world population is growing exponentially and so is the use of fossil fuels. The ice melt on Greenland and in the poles has bared ground that no longer reflects heat back into space which gives us more heat, which melts more ice and so on. I don't know if we will reach that "tipping point" and neither do you. There certainly is cause for worry. The link below is not meant to be conclusive but that kind of picture is repeated all over the world.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0916-09.htm
The loss of the Antarctic ice cap is more believable because the ocean is a good transporter of heat. If the Antarctic ice caps do melt more it could mean more snow in that region causing an accelerated growth of the Greenland ice cap.