[color=green]Continued from [/color][url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/more-proof-of-global-warming-part-ii/22638/197 Proof of Global Warming: Part Two[/url]
Anyone wanna talk about the weather?
Ice sheets are melting at both poles and glaciers in mountain ranges throughout the world are melting back. This may be a better indicator of global temperature than average temperatures calculated from measurements. Temperature varies from region to region, from day to day and hour to hour. Measuring average global temperature involves taking thousands of measurements and complex calculations.
When glaciers which have existed for thousands of years are disappearing, it is clear that global temperatures are warmer than they have been for a very very long time.
I was wondering about ice melt. If the average temperature in a region is above freezing, the ice is going to melt. But, if we are talking about thousands of cubic miles of ice in parts of the world where average annual temperature is maybe half a degree above freezing, isn
I dont argue that the global temperature is rising at the moment but I don’t really follow your logic on this one. You are suggesting that measuring the effect in a few areas is a better indicator of global temperature than calculations based on measurements from thousands of weather stations around the globe.
[quote]The neocons have turned the debate into an argument over whether or not the globe is actually warmer and whether or not this is due to human activity. The media never gets around to discussing the details. I have a lot of questions about global warming but the media waists my time beating a dead horse. Global warming is real and the neocons know it. They simply don
My goodness, if we have such control over the media, why are we even having this debate at all?
and that’s a neocon thing because the media has been so easy on us?
As do we all. Questions that is.
Yes, but compared to what base? Most media use 1982 as a base. Do you want to know why? That was the peak of coldness when scientists were convinced we we entering a new Ice Age. So surely using 1982 when the glaciers, ice pack, temperatures were all at their coldest extremes is not the best way to measure and compare warming.
Second, what about the Warm Medieval Period? Also caused by humans? I don’t think so. There are many things we do not know about the environment and climate predictions are notoriously unreliable for one year much less 100. What I and my other neocon ilk are saying is wait. First of all, you had us all convinced that a new Ice Age was coming only 25 years ago now it is the complete opposite. During both times, you wanted huge government programs to “deal with” the problem. Kyoto according to its principles will stave off global warming by six years in the next 100 if OPTIMAL conditions are met. This will come at a huge economic loss. Why? Why should we lose out on economic development when this is precisely what supplies the money, standard of living and educational levels to sustain programs that protect the environment. It is no surprise that the best environmental conditions are in the most developed countries while those pristine places like Africa are actually far worse.
Yes, we do KNOW it.
[quote]They simply don
I would like to speak to Mr. Fred Smith. I have read many of your posts with great interest. There are those in this forum who have cast aspersions on your intelligence. Yet, I recognize you to be a very very knowledgeable and intelligent man, protestations to the contrary not withstanding. You are certainly much more knowledgeable than me and may, indeed, be smarter than me. However, I notice that you advance arguments on the basis or their persuasiveness and how difficult they are to refute without regard to their validity.
I was lurking in this forum some many months ago and reading a thread on greenhouse effect. You were saying this stuff about CFC
Whew! I’d say Fred just got served! 
and :bravo:
Bodo
One of the nice things about arguing with fred is that he will concede points, which speaks against your comment on intellectual integrity.
That said, I’m not sure how the “illustrious mod” will view that particular comment, but, as you’ve put it so nicely and as I’m assuming the best, turning a blind eye, and acting out of sheer morbid curiosity, this lowly, humble servant is prepared to let it slide long enough for fred to respond (if he so wishes). Right, you’ve been around for a while… please, in the future, keep in mind that such observations need not be barbed.
I used to be a young, naive poster like ggarret1 who wishfully thought he could use reason and facts and logical persuasion to assert arguments and rebut Fred’s posts.
Then, one day, I realized FS was only a bot. Thereafter I descended into frivolity, sarcastic ad hominem attacks, and ridicule/ridiculous posts. I find that in absurd situations, one must act absurdly. And now I no longer wring my hair in frustration. Now I just make fun of the FS bot couture knowing that while we may not have absolute certainty in science, it is still better to act proactively in the way we treat our world while not crying Chicken Little, rather than waiting for something really terrifying to finally happen and say, “Oh, I guess those guys WERE right after all.”
Human decisions are never made with absolute certainty and prediction. That is why we guess/make educated guesses/etc. That is why we make risk assessment choices. One could be led astray by arguing about the details of the Kyoto Treaty and not get anywhere when it is the spirit of Kyoto that is more important. Who’s ever heard of a perfect first draft. Laws are organic for a reason.
I think that Life on earth will go on with or without us. Severe environmental damage won’t obliterate all life. The question we should ask is what will happen to life as we know it. The question is not if we can do the things we do, but whether we should.
I started this thread (part, the first), but the FS bot has hijacked it. Long live the bot!
/end ramble
I am not sure that since I “just got served and how” that I should even attempt to reply to such an august and well-formed argument, but I hereby humbly beg your patience as I attempt with great effort and willingness to reply to your missive. I hope that the exalted tone of my replies is equal to the no doubt equally well-intentioned and earnest frankness with which you have posed your many questions.
My good man. Really you simply are too kind.
Do pray tell provide an example or two just for the amusement of those of us posting herewith…
[quote]I was lurking in this forum some many months ago and reading a thread on greenhouse effect. You were saying this stuff about CFC
In the spirit of debate and good sportmanship :bravo: :bravo:
Fine Fred,
In your words,
(1) Spur economic growth and
(2) employ technology in order
(3) improve the environment’s problems.
So, I am sure that you have no problems whatsoever requiring all power plants and factories in the US to install equipment that deals with air pollution. As you know this measure was reversed by Bush in his manipulation of EPA and US environmental laws.
But since we are employing technology, spurring growth by creating jobs to install the gear and to manufacture the gear, and lessens smokestack pollution, you must be on board.
Same goes with automobile energy efficient cars, not just hybrids, but just requiring all cars in the US to meet a certain efficiency standard since technology is being used, jobs will be created, nay a whole industry, and the environment will be improved in terms of air quality.
I’m so glad FS is on our side!! Hip hip hurray.
quote Spur economic growth and
(2) employ technology in order
(3) improve the environment’s problems. [/quote]
Yes.
As usual, you have an overly simplistic view of the matter. My understanding is that Bush reversed the measures for a good reason. The factories in question do not want to spend the money to completely upgrade which they are required to do by law so they are leaving equipment that pollutes a lot. BUT by reversing the measures that require them to do a complete refit, the factory can make small improvements which is better than nothing surely? So, again, there are two sides to these things and they are not as simple as you er simple people like to pretend they are.
Yes, but it needs to be done so as to not put an excessive burden on business or it will not be done. The environmental movement has delivered great things BUT now it is asking in many cases that such stringent measures be applied that few businesses can remain in business and comply. That in my opinion becomes excessive. There needs to be a partnership.
Again, it depends on how it is done. I would be happy to look at anything that provides cleaner air and water without excessively burdening business. This is possible, BUT totally pollution-free environments are not. In fact, never in history has the environment been completely pure. I feel sometimes that environmentalists are trying to recreate the Garden of Eden and in this they as other utopians follow in the footsteps of others who wanted to purify things: the Communists, Nazis, etc.
Why oh why do you have to sound like such a Valley Girl sometimes? I can almost hear the three finger snaps as you z the air.
There are those in this forum who simply dismiss Fred as some kind of borderline troll. I have suffered great personal loss at the hands of those who would twist the truth to their own agenda. A skilled apologist like Fred is quite capable of persuading a good number of people. I do not dismiss the Fred
[quote=“fred smith”]quote Spur economic growth and
(2) employ technology in order
(3) improve the environment’s problems. [/quote]
Yes.
As usual, you have an overly simplistic view of the matter. My understanding is that Bush reversed the measures for a good reason. The factories in question do not want to spend the money to completely upgrade which they are required to do by law so they are leaving equipment that pollutes a lot. BUT by reversing the measures that require them to do a complete refit, the factory can make small improvements which is better than nothing surely? So, again, there are two sides to these things and they are not as simple as you er simple people like to pretend they are.
Yes, but it needs to be done so as to not put an excessive burden on business or it will not be done. The environmental movement has delivered great things BUT now it is asking in many cases that such stringent measures be applied that few businesses can remain in business and comply. That in my opinion becomes excessive. There needs to be a partnership.
Again, it depends on how it is done. I would be happy to look at anything that provides cleaner air and water without excessively burdening business. This is possible, BUT totally pollution-free environments are not. In fact, never in history has the environment been completely pure. I feel sometimes that environmentalists are trying to recreate the Garden of Eden and in this they as other utopians follow in the footsteps of others who wanted to purify things: the Communists, Nazis, etc.
Why oh why do you have to sound like such a Valley Girl sometimes? I can almost hear the three finger snaps as you z the air.[/quote]
FS continues to conveniently leave out pertinent facts such as that the power and automobile industries have had YEARS to prepare for these kinds of laws. As enacted, they did not require the industries to invest billions overnight and magically become more environmentally friendly. There was a timetable for these changes, phase-outs, gradual. But all the industries did was to fight it, lobby against it, and do nothing.
The energy companies, in the US, as you know are not exactly short of cash. They have gotten away with free negative externalities long enough. I see no problem with requiring them to upgrade. Hey, if the Europeans can do it, why not the US? As far as I know, Germany is still a powerhouse economy. Going green didn’t destroy them. Your economical theory is just a red herring concocted by those with the most to lose.
O Joy of Joys! (there, is that more biblical, less valley girl for you?)
Garrett:
Do a google search on Medieval Warming Period. Also, read that book on unsustainable civilizations, one of which was in Greenland by the way. The name of the book escapes me. Comrade Stalin lent it to me. I forgot the name and I have not yet returned it. My bad.
Anyway, there were dairy farms and wheat growers on Greenland’s East Shore during that period. When the weather cooled, they unlike the natives failed to adapt to eating whale blubber and so their civilization disappeared. Second, grapes were grown in England during the Medieval Period. They are only being grown in England in the past two or so decades. So… Like I said, knowledgeable ain’t the issue. The fact that you cannot be bothered to go read through the first two threads on this issue is. When you do, I will be happy to discuss further, but I ain’t going to reiterate because you are too lazy.
Any info on those glaciers yet? I do not doubt that they are shrinking but I want to see your sources.
Why don’t you link something…
lobby against what, when and how were they successful? Not doubting everything but I think your view is very one-sided. Let’s get your statements on the page and then I will address them. I am not defending the oil or car industries but these issues are usually a lot more complicated than you like to think. I notice that you have not said anything about the factory upgrades and the Clean Air Act and Bush dismantling thereof since I made that point. Cat got your tongue.
Europe as an economic or business model? Where are you retiring? Be careful how you answer…
No but excessive regulation has.
Fine. Don’t take my word for it then, swear to me now that you would want to be say 35 and looking foward to a retirement in Germany. Think that the state will be around to pay for all that given the anemic growth rates of the past 15 years?
Yes, I do oh so enjoy the defiant tone of your voice. Reminds me of a young child being forced to eat Brussels sprouts, mashing them up and hiding them in his or her napkin and then glaring at the governess to say: Now, can I go!
Yes, you may!
The following two articles are excellent and should be read by
anybody with an interest in global warming (and especially
you, Fred):
Climate of Denial
NEWS: One morning in Kyoto, we won a round in the battle
against global warming. Then special interests and
pseudoscience snatched the truth away. What happened?
By Bill McKibben
motherjones.com/news/feature … ction.html
Some Like It Hot
NEWS: Forty public policy groups have this in common:
They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that
humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get
money from ExxonMobil.
By Chris Mooney
[quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”]The following two articles are excellent and should be read by
anybody with an interest in global warming (and especially
you, Fred):
Climate of Denial
NEWS: One morning in Kyoto, we won a round in the battle
against global warming. Then special interests and
pseudoscience snatched the truth away. What happened?
By Bill McKibben
motherjones.com/news/feature … ction.html
Some Like It Hot
NEWS: Forty public policy groups have this in common:
They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that
humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get
money from ExxonMobil.
By Chris Mooney
motherjones.com/news/feature … t_hot.html[/quote]
Interesting articles. Thanks for the link.
[quote]And with the release of the IPCC
Oh oh, I guess you can’t get a job with Shell or BP with your contrarian disinformation.
More frightening news about global warming and the Arctic meltdown…
or is it???
[quote]Record amounts of the Arctic ocean failed to freeze during the recent winter, new figures show, spelling disaster for wildlife and strengthening concerns that the region is locked into a destructive cycle of irreversible climate change. Satellite measurements show the area covered by Arctic winter sea ice reached an all-time low in March, down some 300,000 square kilometres on last year -an area bigger than the UK.
Scientists say the decline highlights an alarming new trend, with recovery of the ice in winter no longer sufficient to compensate for increased melting in the summer. If the cycle continues, the Arctic ocean could lose all of its ice much earlier than expected, possibly by 2030.
Walt Meier, a researcher at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, which collected the figures, said: “It’s a pretty stark drop. In the winter the ice tends to be pretty stable, so the last three years, with this steady decline, really stick out.”
Experts are worried because a long-term slow decline of ice around the north pole seems to have sharply accelerated since 2003, raising fears that the region may have passed one of the “tipping points” in global warming. In this scenario, warmer weather melts ice and drives temperatures higher because the dark water beneath absorbs more of the sun’s radiation. This could make global warming quickly run out of control.
Dr Meier said there was “a good chance” the Arctic tipping point has been reached. “People have tried to think of ways we could get back to where we were. We keep going further and further into the hole, and it’s getting harder and harder to get out of it.”
The Arctic is rapidly becoming the clearest demonstration of the effects of mankind’s impact on the global climate. The temperature is rising twice as fast as the rest of the planet and the region is expected to warm by a further 4C-7C by 2100. The summer and winter ice levels are the lowest since satellite monitoring began in 1979, and almost certainly the lowest since local people began keeping records around 1900. The pace of decline since 2003, if continued, would see the Arctic totally ice-free in summer within 30 years - though few scientists would stake their reputations on a long-term trend drawn from only three years.
Experts at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California think the situation could be even worse. They are about to publish the results of computer simulations that show the current rate of melting, combined with increased access for warmer Pacific water, could make the summertime Arctic ice-free within a decade. Dr Meier said: “For 800,000 to a million years, at least some of the Arctic has been covered by ice throughout the year. That’s an indication that, if we are heading for an ice-free Arctic, it’s a really dramatic change and something that is unprecedented almost within the entire record of human species.”
The winter ice has declined all around the region - bad news for polar bears, which spend summer on land before returning to the ice in spring to catch food.[/quote]
guardian.co.uk/science/story … 15,00.html
So as usual, we have “experts” and “scientists” who “believe” x y and z but in this article only one is actually named. Second, notice how every comparison goes back to the period when temperatures were coldest and when many “scientists and experts” believed that the next Ice Age was around the corner. Always, therefore, treat with caution anything that gives a 1974-1983 comparison. Finally, why not mention that ships used to be able to sail across the region (remember the search for the Northwest Passage to Asia during the initial explorations begun by Western seamen?)