PDA

View Full Version : global warming everywhere



AlpineHikerFan71
12-05-2006, 12:01 PM
http://cbs4boston.com/national/topstories_story_339113730.html

This article is about how warm it has been inthe Alps. It is worse over there than it is here.

Mildcarlilse
12-07-2006, 08:33 PM
and i agree wiff u cause in the uk frost this winter is almost non existant and snow fall is zero unless we talk about the mountains of scotland and even up there snow is only lying in small shallow drifts where there should be snow deep enough for ski-ing and this is a major problem and i know that 'america' is slow to recognise global warming but it is real likes:eek: :eek: :eek:

Bill O
12-07-2006, 08:50 PM
The big problem is that a slow start to the ski season and a warm November are not directly correlated to global warming. Its not that simple. How do you explain the record cold that is sweeping across the United States right now, the extreme snow in the Pacific Northwest, and frost in central Florida? How much snow did Buffalo get in the first week of October?

Nobody mentions all the record lows that get set or the below normal temperatures. They only focus on record highs because they have global warming on their mind.

A basic meteorology class would teach you that "normal" temperatures can be deceiving. Most of us live in a region of the globe where weather masses are always clashing. Sometimes cold air moves south, while other times warm air moves north.

We were speculating about this winter's forecast with a group of people and one lady said it was going to be a warm winter with no snow because of global warming. I didn't know her that well so I was able to restrain myself. But that assumption couldn't be anymore wrong, it was wrong on so many levels. First off, we don't get snow when it is really cold. The Arctic air pushes the storms too far south.

AlpineHikerFan71
12-08-2006, 12:00 AM
The big problem is that a slow start to the ski season and a warm November are not directly correlated to global warming. Its not that simple. How do you explain the record cold that is sweeping across the United States right now, the extreme snow in the Pacific Northwest, and frost in central Florida? How much snow did Buffalo get in the first week of October?

Nobody mentions all the record lows that get set or the below normal temperatures. They only focus on record highs because they have global warming on their mind.

A basic meteorology class would teach you that "normal" temperatures can be deceiving. Most of us live in a region of the globe where weather masses are always clashing. Sometimes cold air moves south, while other times warm air moves north.

We were speculating about this winter's forecast with a group of people and one lady said it was going to be a warm winter with no snow because of global warming. I didn't know her that well so I was able to restrain myself. But that assumption couldn't be anymore wrong, it was wrong on so many levels. First off, we don't get snow when it is really cold. The Arctic air pushes the storms too far south.

Bill,
I am not saying it is global warming, i just sent the link I saw on the news. I tend to agree with you, it is all a matter of how the storm tracks are and the Jet stream positioning. right now there is a trough dug out to allow the artic air flow in and then by late saturday the polar jet will retreat to the north and high pressure will sit off the mid atlantic coast and the flow around that high will allow the warmer temps to flow from the SW into our area. :)

tkahike
12-14-2006, 01:46 AM
The planet goes through cycles that span lifetimes. Yet in 30 years the so called experts have changed their tune on the effects, causes, and future. They are using a 200 years of data, compared to the real age of the earth, drop in the ocean.

AlpineHikerFan71
12-14-2006, 10:14 AM
The planet goes through cycles that span lifetimes. Yet in 30 years the so called experts have changed their tune on the effects, causes, and future. They are using a 200 years of data, compared to the real age of the earth, drop in the ocean.

Of all the reports I see, 65% say this is all due to El nino but the other 35% say it isnt due to El nino. Usaully when we have an El nino the jet stream doesnt continously flow through the Pac West, it actually goes through So Cal into the midwest and then down to the gulf coast and then northward. As for my weather knowledge, it is just due to the location of the Jet Stream. Looks like mid week next week around thr 20th, we may get some rain to snow type of event here nest tues into Wed and perhaps over the holiday weekend. but we cant pin all of this on El nino, there are more reasons as well.
Pray for snow:)

Patrad Fischroy
12-14-2006, 01:56 PM
My impressions based on a number of years of interest in climate, not weather, is that there is a chicken and egg problem being discussed here. The weather this year may have been milder than others due to the presence of a somewhat stronger El Nino event, but what is causing the El Nino to express itself. It may be a natural long-term (decadal) cycle of events, or it may be due to increased temperatures. To further confuse the issue, the increased temperatures could be due to cycles in the solar output or it could be due to greenhouse gas effects, or both, or even neither.
From my view, it seems like greenhouse gas increases are a good possibility. But that is just an opinion based on the evidence that I have seen.

rockin rex
03-06-2007, 05:59 AM
and i agree wiff u cause in the uk frost this winter is almost non existant and snow fall is zero unless we talk about the mountains of scotland and even up there snow is only lying in small shallow drifts where there should be snow deep enough for ski-ing and this is a major problem and i know that 'america' is slow to recognise global warming but it is real likes:eek: :eek: :eek:

Step out the door on the rock pile tonight and then we can talk about global warming.

Brad
03-06-2007, 11:14 AM
Interesting article about a "huge" snowstorm across China. One place is reporting 56mm of snow!

That is 2.2 inches ......

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/?id=307881&type=National

Patrad Fischroy
03-06-2007, 04:11 PM
That was reported as precipitation

Bill O
03-06-2007, 04:17 PM
Interesting article about a "huge" snowstorm across China. One place is reporting 56mm of snow!

That is 2.2 inches ......

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/?id=307881&type=National

That was liquid. The biggest snow total I saw in that article was 20cm. I'm not familiar with where this fell, but it could be huge if they never get snow in that location.

TEX
03-09-2007, 06:04 PM
It is good to read that someone else has not bought into "global warming" I am concerned about our enviroment and we should do all we can to preserve our planet for furture generations. I remember here in Texas the summer of 1980 when we had several days of 100+ temperatures. If it only got to 99 it seemed like a pleasant day. A couple of years later we had a record cold winter. (it got down to 2 degrees)

druford
04-08-2007, 08:43 AM
Hello all. I just registered because this discussion is worrying to me.

One cannot legitimately evidence a claim for or against the existence of human activity related climate change based solely on isolated weather events in specific places. Period. It doesn't take a very keen understanding of the scientific approach to get this. So saying that it's really cold outside now, or the Scots can't ski this winter, or speculating on whatever happened in the spring of '82 are mostly pointless in legitimate debates about climate change. These things can be selected and used at will to support what a person has already decided to believe anyway. It is just this kind of simplistic thinking and half-science that makes it so easy for the politicians of the world's most wasteful country to keep dragging their heels about highly needed policy changes. Larger global and longer-term trends must be observed with the recognition that there will be fluctuation within these trends. And as far as I have seen, there is a huge consensus among scientists that human-related climate change is very, very real.

Thanks. D.

tkahike
04-08-2007, 03:09 PM
If you have time watch this The Great Swindle (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4340135300469846467&q=the+great+swindle), very good.

tkahike
04-08-2007, 03:12 PM
Mars 'more active than suspected'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4266474.stm

New images of Mars suggest the Red Planet's surface is more active than previously thought, the US space agency (Nasa) reports.
Photographs from Nasa's orbiting spacecraft Mars Global Surveyor show recently formed craters and gullies.
The agency's scientists also say that deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near the planet's south pole have shrunk for three summers in a row.
They say this is evidence to suggest climate change is in progress.
Mars rumble
The new gullies appear in an April 2005 image of a sand-dune slope. A previous shot from July 2002 had no trace of them.
The team operating the Mars Orbiter Camera on MGS has found many sites on the Red Planet with fresh-looking gullies, and checked back at more than 100 gullied sites for possible changes between imaging dates, but this is the first such find.
Such gullies might have formed when frozen carbon dioxide, trapped by windblown sand during winter, vaporised rapidly in spring, releasing gas that made the sand flow as a gully-carving fluid, the team speculate.
"To see new gullies and other changes in Mars' surface features on a time span of a few years presents us with a more active, dynamic planet than many suspected," said Nasa's Michael Meyer, Nasa's Mars Exploration Program chief scientist.
Bright future
The newly released images also show boulder tracks at another site, which were not there two years ago.
Michael Malin, the principal investigator on the Mars Orbiter Camera, said it was possible strong winds or even some kind of seismic activity had caused them to roll to their new positions.
But some changes may be happening slower than expected, the scientists report.
Studies suggested new impact craters might appear at only about one-fifth the pace assumed previously, Dr Malin said. This had important implications, he added, because crater counts were used to estimate the ages of Martian surfaces.
The Mars Global Surveyor has been orbiting the planet since 1997; Nasa expects it to carry on doing so for several years to come.
"Our prime mission ended in early 2001, but many of the most important findings have come since then, and even bigger ones might lie ahead," said Tom Thorpe, project manager for Mars Global Surveyor.

tkahike
04-09-2007, 03:10 PM
Here you go. Scientists are 100% correct, until they are proven wrong.

http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html

Bill O
04-09-2007, 03:17 PM
Good article here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

Mike D
04-09-2007, 11:40 PM
A natural tendency is for people to wait for a result, and then react to it. Global warming critics say we have no hard evidence linking severe storms, droughts, or floods to anthropogenic warming, therefore we should not act rashly... or at all. I would agree with the wait-and-see approach, if we were talking about something less dire, like the effect of steel tariffs on the construction market. But if there's even a 1% chance that man-made global warming could render this planet unrecognizable (or uninhabitable!) a century or two from now, then we have no other reasonable choice but to cut down our worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.

Chances are no one is going to steal your car, but you lock it anyway. We should apply the same cautionary principle to the environment that we apply in our daily lives.

PS - I am not speaking for the Observatory here. The Observatory is not a political advocacy group. Stepping off soapbox...

tkahike
04-10-2007, 01:14 AM
Mike, I agree with you. However this is two fold. If you get the chance watch the video I posted. What is being fed us, is not the real story.

We should not live without worries, but sometimes the solutions are worse then the problems. Example: Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage (http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/print_item.asp?NewsID=188)

Lets not put our heads in the sand to either side of it. I want this world to be beautiful for my childrens children too.

forestgnome
04-10-2007, 07:09 AM
Hello all. I just registered because this discussion is worrying to me.

One cannot legitimately evidence a claim for or against the existence of human activity related climate change based solely on isolated weather events in specific places. Period. It doesn't take a very keen understanding of the scientific approach to get this. So saying that it's really cold outside now, or the Scots can't ski this winter, or speculating on whatever happened in the spring of '82 are mostly pointless in legitimate debates about climate change. These things can be selected and used at will to support what a person has already decided to believe anyway. It is just this kind of simplistic thinking and half-science that makes it so easy for the politicians of the world's most wasteful country to keep dragging their heels about highly needed policy changes. Larger global and longer-term trends must be observed with the recognition that there will be fluctuation within these trends. And as far as I have seen, there is a huge consensus among scientists that human-related climate change is very, very real.

Thanks. D.

I agree that a cold April or a warm December as proof for or against global warming is absurd.

But, the planet has been and will continue to warm, which is a good thing. The model used to predict environmental armageddon is invalid. It does not work when it is used to hindcast. When we use the data from the past 100 years to forecast today's climate, it "predicts" today's climate to be much hotter than reality.

A "huge consensus" means very little. Anyone who says "the debate is over" has no understanding of science. Discovery is made when scientists question, not when they dig in their heels. There are far more scientists dicovering and reporting evidence against man-made climate change than we read in mainstream media.

China will soon pass US as the world's top producer of greenhouse gas, yet noone wants to punish them. They say China is a "developing nation" so it's OK. What?!!! China just destroyed a satellite in orbit with a missle, and they will soon have their own GPS system. They are planning a manned mission to the Moon. They are opening new coal-fired power plants at the rate of one per week, yet they are given a pass. This makes it clear that global climate change alarmism is more about punishing America than protecting the environment. Chinese CO2 is the same as American CO2.

Mike D
04-13-2007, 07:53 PM
We should not live without worries, but sometimes the solutions are worse then the problems. Example: Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage (http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/print_item.asp?NewsID=188)


I read the Recorder article, and it bothered me that Toyota might be greenwashing us on the Prius, so I decided to ask them myself. I submitted this via Toyota's Contact page:


Dear Toyota: I am a great admirer of the Prius and its importance in proving the viability of environmentally sound technology. I was worried to learn that the nickel for the hybrid batteries comes from a factory in Canada that has destroyed the local environment. Is this true? If so, does Toyota plan to switch to an environmentally sustainable supplier for the nickel? Thank you for your time.

Here is the body of their reply:


Nickel has been mined in Sudbury since the late 1800s. The large majority of the environmental damage from nickel mining in and around Sudbury was caused by mining practices that were abandoned decades ago.

Please note: Toyota is strongly committed to reducing the impact of its products on the environment and on global climate change. In the U.S. alone, we’ve sold more than 250,000 hybrids that, combined, have saved more than 100 million gallons of gas. In addition to saving fuel, those vehicles are also among the top performers in their classes in terms of smog-forming emissions.

To find out more, please explore the following URL's.

Title: Toyota Environment
URL: http://www.toyota.com/about/environment/index.html

Title: Hybrid Synergy Drive Mini-site
URL: http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/minisite/hsd

You can see the age of the Sudbury mine at the current owner's site: http://archive.xstrata.com/falconbridge/www.falconbridge.com/our_business/nickel/operations/sudbury.htm

...and it's loony to say that the Hummer costs less to drive per mile than the Prius (without the mistaken assumption of a 100,000 mile lifespan). That is only the hybrid-part warranty period (see http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/2005/prius/faq.html).

Toyota pays $200 per battery to recycle them (see http://www.hybridcars.com/faq.html#battery). Every pound of recycled nickel is one less that needs to be mined.

As to the comparison of the Prius to the Chevy Aveo; according the Consumer Reports, the Aveo is a clunky econobox with poor durability, whereas the Prius is spacious, low-maintenance, and drivable. Despite the new 45 MPG rating, the Prius still has 150% of the Aveo's fuel economy (http://www.fueleconomy.gov).

Check out http://www.driveclean.ca.gov/en/gv/driveclean/emissionrating.asp for info on the emissions ratings.


I enjoy discussions, like this one, that challenge our assumptions.

mark777
06-05-2007, 01:24 AM
wow i get that 45 miles per gallon in my diesil...so these batteries must cost lots of money...does their life = savings in money/their short lifes

Mike D
06-05-2007, 10:03 AM
A great website I found for figuring the green-ness of a vehicle is http://www.fueleconomy.org/. That's the EPA's site for vehicle emissions, so it will reflect their own methods, as accurate as they are.

Diesels get great gas mileage, but their particulate emissions tend to be lousy. That's true at least in the U.S., where most people drive gasoline cars and diesel is less-refined than in Europe. Europeans tend to drive manual diesels, which is the opposite of what you see over here.

Bill O
06-05-2007, 10:08 AM
A great website I found for figuring the green-ness of a vehicle is http://www.fueleconomy.org/. That's the EPA's site for vehicle emissions, so it will reflect their own methods, as accurate as they are.

Diesels get great gas mileage, but their particulate emissions tend to be lousy. That's true at least in the U.S., where most people drive gasoline cars and diesel is less-refined than in Europe. Europeans tend to drive manual diesels, which is the opposite of what you see over here.

What about ultra-low sulfur diesel? Its the only thing you can buy in the US now and its supposed to be very clean.

Bill O
06-06-2007, 05:54 AM
Moose photoed in Darien, CT on June 5th. About 2 miles from Long Island Sound.

Take that global warming!

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/media/photo/2007-06/30301115.jpg

Rich
06-06-2007, 08:13 AM
Unfortunately, wasn't he hit and killed on the Merritt Parkway? I heard the driver is in Norwalk Hospital.

Bill O
06-06-2007, 09:21 AM
Unfortunately, wasn't he hit and killed on the Merritt Parkway? I heard the driver is in Norwalk Hospital.

Yeah, I left that part out of the story. Honestly, that moose was dead weeks ago. Its amazing he lasted that long with all the roads and highways around here.

Rich
06-06-2007, 09:37 AM
Wonderful and terrible at the same time! :) :(

Wonderful to see the bear population increasing in CT but unfortunate that people have to report sightings which bring in the DEP to tranquilize and relocate them. This process is so extreme on the animal. Just watch it meander through and let it be.

Now with that moose sighting...how wonderful!! I'm sure there is no real population of moose in the state but to see the one is promising! Actually, you're right Bill, we might be better off without them in the lower counties with such busy roads and traffic. Sorry...off topic.

Steve M
06-06-2007, 06:15 PM
I am amazed to hear about a Moose in CT. In all my life I don't think I have ever heard of a Moose in CT. Not that it hasn't happened, I just haven't heard of it. I thought that NH was the farthest south these animals were found.

Bill O
06-06-2007, 07:50 PM
I am amazed to hear about a Moose in CT. In all my life I don't think I have ever heard of a Moose in CT. Not that it hasn't happened, I just haven't heard of it. I thought that NH was the farthest south these animals were found.

Not just CT, but Fairfield County. And not just Fairfield County, but Darien, only a few miles from Long Island Sound. In the southwest corner, close to New York City.

Steve M
06-06-2007, 08:20 PM
Maybe he was trying to get to New York City to get a job:D

Patrad Fischroy
06-08-2007, 03:21 PM
I heard it was an audition for Bullwinkle, the musical on Broadway

Brad
06-19-2007, 06:47 AM
Very interesting article and study. Makes you wonder.

http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

Steve M
06-19-2007, 07:23 AM
The funny thing is that most people don't give that a second thought. They don't realize the affects of the surroundings. People can make things look however they want them to look cant they.

Brad
06-21-2007, 08:24 AM
Another interesting research article. Conclusion is = watch out for global cooling.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

Steve M
06-21-2007, 08:56 AM
Great article, it has been my feeling all along that global warming was not as much a man made issue but a climatic one. We have almost no power over our global climate change. It's far bigger than us.

Brad
06-30-2007, 02:45 PM
And another article. It sure makes you wonder about the hype.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article

Puck
08-08-2007, 03:06 PM
And another article. It sure makes you wonder about the hype.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article

Makes me wonder why you guys buy this stuff hook line and sinker. I have yet to meet a skeptic. A skeptic would scrutinize both sides of the debates, question all credendtials and funding, set some standards regarding integrity and conflict of interest.

Here to get you started:

1. Who is James M Taylor?
2. What are his credentials?
3. What is the Heartland Institute?
4. Who funds the Heartland Institute?
5. What other major controversy have the Heartland Institute been involved in that involves a huge industry in the US that has faced law suits and bans on the state and municipal level?
6. Why would this editorial appear this week? (Hint: What large event on July 7 is being produced by Al Gore?)
7. Are Taylor’s citations complete?
8. Are the quotes Taylor uses complete? I.e. do they convey the entire message of the article from which they came?
9. Are the quotes current or were they current at the time of the making of “An Inconvenient Truth”
10. Are Taylor’s references easily verified?
11. Can you identify the use of any logical fallacies in the editorial?
12. Why would a desert in Africa Shrink? Where is this “Shrinking desert”? Is the shrinking related to climate?
13. What happens to the temperature of the air surrounding ice as it melts?
14. Who else has challenged Gore’s prediction of 20’ gain of sea level due to the Greenland meltdown?
15. What is the name of the most recent book that tracts the topic of Global Warming and Hurricanes? (It presents the arguments by both Gray and Emmanuel)

Bill O
08-08-2007, 08:25 PM
Ever here of the silent majority?

While I very much like protecting the environment I do not subscribe to the global warming hype.

Seems like most global warming studies involve more passion than science.

Has anybody seen the latest issue of Backpacker Magazine? It is one of the most extreme left wing global warming bs issues I have ever seen. I guarantee not one of their 50+ doomsday predictions will come true.

For those of you alive in the 70's (not me), how quickly we have forgotten the doomsday ice age forecast. Ironically, all of the perils forecast in the coming ice age are identical to the perils forecast for the impending global warming.

I think that MWO should tread lightly on this issue as extreme views on this topic tend to turn off many people. Right now there is a fine line between education and alarmism.

Brad
08-08-2007, 08:41 PM
I am all for understanding facts - gaining understanding - and education. I do remember the global ice age predictions and that did not last long. We can be sure the climate will change. There will be cycles and extremes. We happen to be in a time where we are measuring and watching things, which is good.

It is hard to define a trend off a single data point - which in the larger scheme of things is what we are able to see right now.

Steve M
08-08-2007, 10:19 PM
I just knew I liked you guys for some reason!:D

JimS
08-09-2007, 09:06 AM
I'm going to have to disagree with the concencious on this thread.

The media still treats this as a political issue, inclided to show both 'sides'. Worse, they tend to let the loudest liberal/conservative screamers on both sides have at it. From a political analogy standpoint, the extreme liberals are doomsdayists (Mangrove swamps in Boston), and the extreme conservatives are nit pickers (since this glacier is growing the whole theory is off, so there) and they get the most play because as always, the squeeky wheel...

The problem with these blowhards is that they do not represent the 'silent majority' doing the research itself. The IPCC report combined the efforts of 2500 leading scientists from around the world concluded that with 90% certainly humans are substantially changing the climate. The rest othe report, a worthy read, pens the current state of the science without the extremest banter...

Scientist have reached their conclusions through a variety of methods, including, most impressively, back modeling the atmosphere with different constants and independant variables, and only CO2 and greenhouse gases match the trends that we are already seeing...advancements thanks to super computers not possible but a few years ago...

Science is peer reviewed, science is scrutinized, science is presented to academia in cited papers and presentations. Science isn't in editorials from a right wing funded institute or a left leaning backpacking magazine.

As for the Observatory's role, I believe that they are doing the community a service by inviting leading scientists in the field to discuss their research and discuss their own conclusions, to allow for far greater scientific content to reach the public than the media will provide...

A few links..

IPCC REPORT:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Indicators of Climate Change in the Northeast:
http://inhale.unh.edu/Climate/index.html

New England Climate Assessment:
http://www.necci.sr.unh.edu/2001-NERA-report.html

Patrad Fischroy
08-09-2007, 10:32 AM
Perhaps the consensus of some more prolific posters, but not of others. I happen to believe that the phenomena is real and should be a concern. I can also appreciate the views to the contrary that have been posted here and elsewhere. The overall consensus view of the scientific community is, I think, in support of the concept of global warming occuring now. Some exceptions to the process are evident and can always be pointed out, but the chaotic nature of "weather" and "climate" essentially mzke this a certainty. I don't necessarily think that we need to start building levees around Boston and New York City yet. But maybe the idea should be considered.
By the way the coming ice-age thoughts of the 70's were, in my recollection, more a factor of the "nuclear winter" ideas of the time. That scenario of large amounts of dust and debris thrown up into the upper atmosphere and blocking the sun was more a matter of increased international tensions and the pressures for SALT and SALT 2. Other references to the late 1800's, "the summer that wasn't" in New England also supported this idea. Finally in the aftermath of the eruption of Mount Pinatuba in the Phillipines in 1991, where global temperatures were seen to decrease for a couple of years.
But I could easily be mistaken in this as the 70's was one of the times that I was living in NH and spending a bunch of time in the Whites.

Bill O
08-09-2007, 02:15 PM
Science is peer reviewed, science is scrutinized, science is presented to academia in cited papers and presentations. Science isn't in editorials from a right wing funded institute or a left leaning backpacking magazine.


Often the science you hear on tv isn't peer reviewed or scrutinized. It's simply dramatic and mistakenly called science.

One problem I have is the disturbing amount of scientific research that proves exactly what they set out to prove. How could so many theories be correct? It seems that half of all research should be wrong. Since people make rational guesses I'll accept that slightly more than half of all theories should be correct.

The coming ice age in the 70's scare had nothing to do with nuclear winter, that was a separate issue. There was real science, peer reviewed and scrutinized that said we were spiralling into an ice age.

This is a topic I generally hate because so many people misunderstand what global warming is. There is no doubt in my mind that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will make the earth warmer. That is about the only thing we can be certain of. Everything else is just a guess.

It's alarmism like Backpacker Magazine that is so disturbing. They get some things right. But they make claims that there will be tress on the top of Mount Washington in 80 years, the Outer Banks will be gone in 20 years. Anyone care to make a wager on that?

I heard that global warming caused those executions in Newark, NJ. Serious, it was so hot the robbers got so agitated they had to kill 3 people. Even though its been a fairly cool summer in the northeast.

Puck
08-21-2007, 05:12 PM
The coming ice age in the 70's scare had nothing to do with nuclear winter, that was a separate issue. There was real science, peer reviewed and scrutinized that said we were spiralling into an ice age.


The coming ice age predicitons in the 70s was made by the media. The climatologist were holding out. There was a play between the cooling effects of particulates and the warming effects of CO2 climatologist were waiting to see what would pan out.

Steve M
08-22-2007, 08:32 AM
Not all climatologists have given in to global warming theories, which is what it is, a theory. Many researchers studying the affects of greenhouse gases and the atmosphere say it is still too early to say with certainty that man is the direct cause of our warming planet. I still hold to the idea that the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling and mans affect on the climate is minimal. The problem I have is that global warming has become an issue that is politically and financially prosperous. If we say that global warming is caused by man and we get enough people to believe it then it opens doors to regulate, which leads to financial gain, and those who stand to gain are those who cried global warming to begin with. If legitimate studies of global warming over a broad spectrum of researchers can come together and agree that we are affecting the weather on this planet and give concrete areas we need to work on then I'm all for fixing the problem but just to say that by 2030 we all must be driving little electric cars along with all the other restrictive regulations coming out of Washington is just propaganda.

JimS
08-22-2007, 08:49 PM
Not all climatologists have given in to global warming theories, which is what it is, a theory. Many researchers studying the affects of greenhouse gases and the atmosphere say it is still too early to say with certainty that man is the direct cause of our warming planet. I still hold to the idea that the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling and mans affect on the climate is minimal. The problem I have is that global warming has become an issue that is politically and financially prosperous. If we say that global warming is caused by man and we get enough people to believe it then it opens doors to regulate, which leads to financial gain, and those who stand to gain are those who cried global warming to begin with. If legitimate studies of global warming over a broad spectrum of researchers can come together and agree that we are affecting the weather on this planet and give concrete areas we need to work on then I'm all for fixing the problem but just to say that by 2030 we all must be driving little electric cars along with all the other restrictive regulations coming out of Washington is just propaganda.

I agree with you, I do think that the biggest problem with the science of global warming is that there is to much political and financial interest in it, and that the lobbists, politicians and corporations are the ones spreading the message the loudest. The fact though is that when you ignore the crud that the media spews out on both sides of the alarmist spectrum...the science IS already there, I believe at the level you desire to accept it.

The IPCC report combined the research 2500 leading multidiciplinary scientists from around the world to say that with greater than 90% certainty that man is affecting the climate. It's not 'Washington Banter', it's peer reviewed science. The author list begins on page 15 of this link, and continues to page 28...have a look it's pretty impressive:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Annexes.pdf
Of course the climate goes through cycles, no scientist would refute that, but the full report states that back modeling the entire climate record, the only variable that accounts for recent trends are greenhouse gasses. And the report highlights ALOT of other variables...

You mention that you are skeptical because of the profit to be made off of adaptation. I look at it from the other angle...the profit to be lost. If society demands change, it would necessitate the immediate disruption to the world's leading economic sector, aka, the people who currently have the money and the power. I imagine that if I were faced with a threat to my livelyhood, my place at the top, I would do everything in my power to stop what is at the root of it...in this case, merely clouding the issue is worth TRILLIONS...

Scientists, I think have done a poor job getting their message out. The media likes to show fair and balanced reporting of political issues, and it percieves climate science in that light. Lobbyiests, pundits, radio personalities, politicians, oil companies, alarmists and hippies have lead the discussions in this county, and their oft outrageous claims grab headlines more than the steady, widely held, moderate scientific view...

Lastly, the word theory isn't one to be tossed around lightly in the scientific community...as cell theory and theory of relativity are also prominantly held theories, the term holds more clout in real science than the literal word may suggest.

Patrad Fischroy
08-23-2007, 08:43 AM
Thanks Jim, for lucidly posting what I have been thinking for a long time. I would think that it should be pointed out that the IPCC report that you reference was unanimously approved by the 13 pages of authors. True, some authors wanted some more explicit statments published, but the final document was approved by all.

Mike D
08-23-2007, 09:44 AM
As a non-scientist, I believe we should eschew the sensational. That point has already been made here. I also believe that a cautionary principle should be applied. If the scientific evidence demonstrates even a tiny chance that man-made greenhouse emissions will plague us with droughts or worse, render this planet uninhabitable, we have an obligation to cut down on fossil fuel consumption. George F. Will would complain over the "social wealth" lost to government regulations, but we have to recognize that there might be no social wealth--nor any society at all--if carbon emissions go unchecked for the next century.

The Observatory does not take political positions or advocate specific policies, so everyone is speaking their own opinion here, including me.

Puck
08-23-2007, 09:57 AM
Jim great post. I was thinking how I wanted to respond. You are very civil and respectful.

I would like to add a comment about the media. They have a responsibility to be unbiased and to present both sides of an issue. So when the scientific communtiy presents data and predicitons the media feels obligated to present the opposing view point. However, the opposing view point is based on a well orchestrated well funded campaign to confuse the issue. See the Newsweek cover story. I think the media is to blame in part because they did not qualify thier sources ie establishing a conflict of interest, investigating the facts and statements etc. The public in this country is left with the illusion that there is doubt and uncertainty surrounding the issue of AGW.

Also a note on the IPCC, there are some oppinions by scientist of the Goddard Institute (the article was in either Science or Nature) that the IPCC report did not go far enough and that many of the predicitions are far worse)

Mike D
08-23-2007, 10:40 AM
They have a responsibility to be unbiased and to present both sides of an issue.

I believe this is a misconception. Presenting both sides does not make a story unbiased. Take another issue as an example; should journalists give 50% coverage to the North Korean government when reporting on human rights in that country? Certainly not. Nor should we expect the public relations line of a polluting industry to be given half of a story's weight.

Bill O
08-23-2007, 12:18 PM
Despite what Al Gore the attorney says, there are more than two sides to this problem.

Reading my comments you might think I am some sort of coal baron looking to consume all the worlds resources and destroy the environment.

That couldn't be farther from the truth. I love the outdoors, clean air, clean water...the whole ten yards. I think national parks are cute but wilderness areas are what we need more of. What excites me the most is the permanent protection of large tracks of land. I think the White Mountains have too many trails. The idea of somebody camping above treeline in the Whites really disturbs me (in the summer of course). I could go on.

I fully acknowledge that adding carbon into the atmosphere will make the world warmer. How much? I don't know. If ice caps melt, will the sea rise? Of course. 2 inches or 200 feet? I've seen estimates of both, which one is it?

There is a common problem built into the human brain. It recurs often and is very hard to cure. The problem is that people tend to make long-range predictions based on relatively small amounts of data. Casinos bank on this flaw, investors lose millions on hot stocks because of this. You can trace many mountaineering accidents to bad decisions made from recent successes. Even very detailed models do this.

A famous emperor once said: "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one's self in the ranks of the insane."

How many times in history has mass hysteria occurred? I was really scared of bird flu two years ago. Is bird flu coming? Maybe, maybe not. But the problem that dominated news two years ago has totally fallen off the radar. Meanwhile, the threat of bird flu really hasn't changed.

Meanwhile, while chickens were being slaughtered something completely unexpected happened. The Indian Ocean tsunami came out of nowhere and killed 250,000 people. Often, disasters come from the least expected source. Remember what the dominant news headline was in August and early September 2001? Sharks! Shark attacks were happening everywhere. If you watched Foxnews you'd think that sharks were the nation's leading killer. Early on a Tuesday morning we learned that shark attacks weren't the biggest problem around.

I watched a great NOVA on PBS about the Scablands in eastern Washington state. In the early 1920's the smartest geologists in the world agreed that this land formation was created by slow erosion over millions of years, like the Grand Canyon. This was how it happened and the book was closed. Then one scientist flow over the area in a plane and blew that theory away. The scablands were created in one massive flood that occurred over hours not millions of years. Ostracized at the time, his theory is now assumed to be fact.

My point is to try to avoid being caught up with the hysteria of the masses. Otherwise, I've got some million dollar tulips for sale, anyone interested?

Puck
08-23-2007, 12:20 PM
I believe this is a misconception. Presenting both sides does not make a story unbiased. Take another issue as an example; should journalists give 50% coverage to the North Korean government when reporting on human rights in that country? Certainly not.

I am not sure what you disagree with, the media has or does not have a responsibility to be unbiased. Understood unbiased reporting is an ideal that is not always obtain at best. At worst it is a guise (slam against Fox News intended).

For your North Korean example, the news stories should carry the rational, denial or no comment from the offending government. It is part of the story.


Nor should we expect the public relations line of a polluting industry to be given half of a story's weight.
This is the point I am trying to make; the Polluting industry public relations line has been given equal weight in AGW. The press has turned to grass roots organizations for opposing comments not realizing that they are oil funded astro turf orgainizations. Fact check thier statements you will find them to be half truths and misrepresentations.

Puck
08-23-2007, 04:54 PM
Found this interesting article about the media and environmental issues;

From http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2006/12/08/chapter.html

The Daily Planet: Why the Media Stumble Over the Environment
By Andrew C. Revkin
Chapter from "A Field Guide for Science Writers," second edition
National Association of Science Writers (www.nasw.org)
Edited by Deborah Blum, Mary Knudson and Robin Marantz Henig
Oxford Univ. Press, 2005
The Tyranny of Balance
As a kind of crutch and shorthand, journalism has long relied on the age-old method of finding a yeah-sayer and nay-sayer to frame any issue, from abortion to zoning. It is a quick easy way for reporters to show they have no bias. But it is also an easy way, when dealing with a complicated environmental issue, to perpetuate confusion in readers' minds and simply turn them off to the idea that media serve a valuable purpose.
When this form is overused, it also inevitably tends to highlight the opinions of people at the edges of a debate instead of in the much grayer middle ground, where consensus most likely lies. I can't remember where I first heard this, but the following maxim perfectly illustrates both the convenience of this technique and its weakness: “For every Ph.D. there is an equal and opposite Ph.D.”
One solution, which is not an easy one, is to try to cultivate scientists in various realms—toxicology, climatology, and whatever else might be on your beat—whose expertise and lack of investment in a particular bias are established in your own mind. They should be your go-to voices, operating as your personal guides more than as sources to quote in a story.
Another is what I call “truth in labeling.” Make sure you know the motivation of the people you interview. If a scientist, besides having a PhD, is a senior fellow at the Marshall Institute (an industry-funded think tank opposed to many environmental regulations) or Environmental Defense (an advocacy group), then it is the journalist's responsibility to say so.
In a recent piece on climate politics, this is how I described Pat Michaels, a longtime skeptic on global warming who is supported in part by conservative or industry-backed groups:
''Climate science is at its absolutely most political,'' said Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist at the University of Virginia who, through an affiliation with the Cato Institute, a libertarian group in Washington , has criticized statements that global warming poses big dangers.
Such a voice can have a legitimate place in a story focused on policy questions, but is perhaps best avoided in a story where the only questions are about science. The same would go for a biologist working for the World Wildlife Fund.

Bill O
08-23-2007, 05:07 PM
Nice article. That's exactly the point Jim was trying to make and I think I missed.

It makes perfect sense for the media to put both extremes together. It creates for a lively and heated debate.

JimS
08-23-2007, 07:02 PM
Found this interesting article about the media and environmental issues;

From http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2006/12/08/chapter.html

The Daily Planet: Why the Media Stumble Over the Environment
By Andrew C. Revkin
Chapter from "A Field Guide for Science Writers," second edition
National Association of Science Writers (www.nasw.org)
Edited by Deborah Blum, Mary Knudson and Robin Marantz Henig
Oxford Univ. Press, 2005
The Tyranny of Balance
As a kind of crutch and shorthand, journalism has long relied on the age-old method of finding a yeah-sayer and nay-sayer to frame any issue, from abortion to zoning. It is a quick easy way for reporters to show they have no bias. But it is also an easy way, when dealing with a complicated environmental issue, to perpetuate confusion in readers' minds and simply turn them off to the idea that media serve a valuable purpose.
When this form is overused, it also inevitably tends to highlight the opinions of people at the edges of a debate instead of in the much grayer middle ground, where consensus most likely lies. I can't remember where I first heard this, but the following maxim perfectly illustrates both the convenience of this technique and its weakness: “For every Ph.D. there is an equal and opposite Ph.D.”
One solution, which is not an easy one, is to try to cultivate scientists in various realms—toxicology, climatology, and whatever else might be on your beat—whose expertise and lack of investment in a particular bias are established in your own mind. They should be your go-to voices, operating as your personal guides more than as sources to quote in a story.
Another is what I call “truth in labeling.” Make sure you know the motivation of the people you interview. If a scientist, besides having a PhD, is a senior fellow at the Marshall Institute (an industry-funded think tank opposed to many environmental regulations) or Environmental Defense (an advocacy group), then it is the journalist's responsibility to say so.
In a recent piece on climate politics, this is how I described Pat Michaels, a longtime skeptic on global warming who is supported in part by conservative or industry-backed groups:
''Climate science is at its absolutely most political,'' said Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist at the University of Virginia who, through an affiliation with the Cato Institute, a libertarian group in Washington , has criticized statements that global warming poses big dangers.
Such a voice can have a legitimate place in a story focused on policy questions, but is perhaps best avoided in a story where the only questions are about science. The same would go for a biologist working for the World Wildlife Fund.

Bingo...and I definately didn't say it better myself ... a well written commentary!

Brad
08-23-2007, 07:58 PM
Bill,

I love tulips.

http://images21.fotki.com/v758/photos/8/8235/4832896/IMG_3322_a-vi.jpg

Steve M
08-23-2007, 09:52 PM
NICE TULIP,BRAD
Yes, it would be nice to be able to weave through the mess of "scientists" which are corporately funded or are pushing an agenda for one reason or another on both sides of the fence. I can agree that the left and the right(in the political realm) have something to gain/lose in their stand on global warming. The media certainly doesn't help matters because for the most part there is very little unbiased reporting and for the most part are one-sided politically. What I am interested in more than anything is to know the TRUTH of the matter(not someones agenda)and then act accordingly to see the problem corrected. There must be a balance, leaving extremism behind.
I don't think we all need to start using only one sheet of toilet paper to wipe our butts in an effort to save the environment. There is way too much hypocrisy from the loudest voices on saving the environment. It seems that everyone else should do all sorts of things they are mandating but the same rules don't apply to them.
We have the opportunity to reduce the amount of fossil fuels being used in creating energy off the coast of New England by use of wind powered turbines, yet it seems these turbines will interfere with a certain lifestyle so they are dismissed.

Puck
08-24-2007, 08:57 AM
Steve
Good luck finding a news source you can trust. I turn to NPR. If you hear an "expert" quoted as a source from an organization check it out with
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch
If I see that thier organization has a funded bias that expert is dimissed from the discussion regarless of thier credentials. To double check I will fact check thier statements. For example I posted some questions on this thread about an editorial by the Heartland Institute. I found the editorial to be filled with misrepresntations and half truths, they oil funded. Now they will never be a source now I know that they lack integrety and honesty.

I try to stay current with the latest discussion among climatologists with

http://www.realclimate.org/ the articles are dry and lack the buzz words that is typical of sensationalist media.

Here are some other good sites.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Steve M
08-25-2007, 08:23 AM
Puck, thanks for the websites. I'll check em out.:)