Is news coverage of stories global?
-
The industrial revolution started well before the 1900s and the amount of coal pumped into the atmosphere was likely fairly big. While they may be alarmists, there is a reason to be alarmed. We don't exist in a vaccum. We need the environment to sustain our people, our resources are being used rapidly, and we need to start thinking long term for a change. The standard answer to having a problem substance or item is to bury it. What happens when we run out of places to bury stuff? Wall-E was way over the top, but if you look at some cities, they kinda already look like giant garbage dumps. *cough*Detroit*cough*
Wall-E? Try Idiocracy :) Anyway... I was going to quote St. George (Carlin), but I couldn't remember enough of the skit to do it justice, so I found a link instead... http://amahchewahwah.wordpress.com/2007/06/02/the-planet-is-fine/[^] (NSFW - Language)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
I was skiing with some French friends in the week and they hadnt heard about the 'Climategate' emails from the CRU. This struck me as odd, since the CRU prepare data for the IPCC, which IS international of course. I was wondering why French news hadnt given the story the attention it deserves, and this got me to thinking about whether other countries news outlets have coverd it? So, a quesiton to everyone, have you heard of these leaked e-nmails in your countries media or not? If you arent sure just what Climategate is here is a UK news piece on the latest developement: Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 [^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
However, if you get enough snow then it must disprove GW. No?
If it's worldwide, then possibly. But one region getting more snow doesn't disprove it. Have to look at the entire planet, because the warm/cold regions could just be shifting around. "The Day After Tomorrow," though ridiculously exaggerated and not at all scientific, IS loosely based on a real theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation[^]. I think the idea is that global warming could potentially screw up the ocean currents, which would in turn screw up heat transfer from the equatorial regions toward the poles... Hot areas get hotter, cold areas get colder... Now, I have no idea how credible the theory is... I'm a programmer, not a meteorologist... But it's something to think about.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
So would you have apply the same global rule to warming? ie, if GW is a fact, thenthe entire world has to warm? If thats the case then by your own rules GW isnt happening because Antartica and much of the southern hemisphere isnt warming. In fact its been getting colder for 50 years. So do you call it global warming or northern hemisphere warming?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I'm not speaking for or against CO2 as the cause... Just using it as an example. Personally, I'll find it hard to believe if our pollution and excessive industry ISN'T causing some kind of climate change. It just seems logical that all of this crap we pump into the atmosphere would have an effect. Obviously that's just my take on it, not backed up by any scientific evidence. That said, I think any climate shift caused by humanity wouldn't start until at least a century or two down the road, since I would guess the heavy pollution didn't start until the early 1900's. Figure something as big as the planet would take a little while to react, though it couldn't hurt to clean up our act now and limit the effect. Again, just my thoughts, not backed up.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It just seems logical that all of this crap we pump into the atmosphere would have an effe
CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food. The more the better as far as plants, and those that depend on them are concerned. Secondly yes, we do produce other 'pollutants' SO2, NO2 and so on. These do affect the clmate (SO2 causes cooling). But, volcanoes also produce vast amounts of similarly acting products. A lot of the morality involved cones down to whether one thinks man, and thuis his actions are natural. After all, he is just an animal. All other animals and their actions are considered natural, no matter how damaging.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
The industrial revolution started well before the 1900s and the amount of coal pumped into the atmosphere was likely fairly big. While they may be alarmists, there is a reason to be alarmed. We don't exist in a vaccum. We need the environment to sustain our people, our resources are being used rapidly, and we need to start thinking long term for a change. The standard answer to having a problem substance or item is to bury it. What happens when we run out of places to bury stuff? Wall-E was way over the top, but if you look at some cities, they kinda already look like giant garbage dumps. *cough*Detroit*cough*
ragnaroknrol wrote:
the amount of coal pumped into the atmosphere was likely fairly big.
We have added about 30% CO2 to the atmosphere.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
there is a reason to be alarmed.
And what have we seen in the last 100 years? Possibly some warming (depending on the validity of the data, and the accuracy of past thermometers. 0.5 degree C would be within the margin of error for old thermometers.) And the effect of CO2 is logarithmic. The next 30% we add will have half the effect of the first.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
We don't exist in a vaccum. We need the environment to sustain our people, our resources are being used rapidly, and we need to start thinking long term for a change.
And that is an entirely different discussion to AGW.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
So would you have apply the same global rule to warming? ie, if GW is a fact, thenthe entire world has to warm? If thats the case then by your own rules GW isnt happening because Antartica and much of the southern hemisphere isnt warming. In fact its been getting colder for 50 years. So do you call it global warming or northern hemisphere warming?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
No, if the AVERAGE temperature of the planet is increasing. What happens in one region doesn't matter in and of itself.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It just seems logical that all of this crap we pump into the atmosphere would have an effe
CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food. The more the better as far as plants, and those that depend on them are concerned. Secondly yes, we do produce other 'pollutants' SO2, NO2 and so on. These do affect the clmate (SO2 causes cooling). But, volcanoes also produce vast amounts of similarly acting products. A lot of the morality involved cones down to whether one thinks man, and thuis his actions are natural. After all, he is just an animal. All other animals and their actions are considered natural, no matter how damaging.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Doesn't matter whether it's natural or not. Yes, volcanoes spit a lot of crap into the air, but that DOES affect the climate. Here's the first link from google: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-volcanoes-affect-w[^] Morality has nothing to do with science. Anyway... Sure, CO2 is plant food. Oxygen is human "food", but too much can still kill us. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
No, if the AVERAGE temperature of the planet is increasing. What happens in one region doesn't matter in and of itself.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Doesn't matter whether it's natural or not. Yes, volcanoes spit a lot of crap into the air, but that DOES affect the climate. Here's the first link from google: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-volcanoes-affect-w[^] Morality has nothing to do with science. Anyway... Sure, CO2 is plant food. Oxygen is human "food", but too much can still kill us. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yes, volcanoes spit a lot of crap into the air, but that DOES affect the climate. Here's the first link from google:
As I stated.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Morality has nothing to do with science.
Neither does AGW. And no, oxygen is not human fod. Carbohudrates are. As for txiocity we arent even remotely near those levels of CO2 so its a spurious argument.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
So, in the case of snow "If it's worldwide, then possibly. !" (it is global cooling) But if its not snowing (warming) non worldwide then it IS global warming. Nice logic. Care to explain?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I don't see what's so difficult here... AVERAGE temperature. If you average the temperature for each region, including the oceans, and put it all together (Weighting by area, of course), you get a number. If that number goes up, the planet is getting warmer. The hard part is actually measuring that.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yes, volcanoes spit a lot of crap into the air, but that DOES affect the climate. Here's the first link from google:
As I stated.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Morality has nothing to do with science.
Neither does AGW. And no, oxygen is not human fod. Carbohudrates are. As for txiocity we arent even remotely near those levels of CO2 so its a spurious argument.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
And no, oxygen is not human fod. Carbohudrates are.
And what happens if you ingest too much carbs? That can kill you too. Too much of ANYTHING can kill you. Just because it's "good" in proper doses, doesn't mean that more of it is good.
fat_boy wrote:
As for txiocity we arent even remotely near those levels of CO2 so its a spurious argument.
Perhaps, but we're getting sidetracked anyway. I thought we were talking about temperature effects.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
I don't see what's so difficult here... AVERAGE temperature. If you average the temperature for each region, including the oceans, and put it all together (Weighting by area, of course), you get a number. If that number goes up, the planet is getting warmer. The hard part is actually measuring that.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
the planet is getting warmer.
No no no. Only PART of the planet is warming. It is crucial that this is understood. The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm. So nights warm, and the poles warm. So if only ONE pole is warming then we are not looking at GH gass caused warming, regardless of what the average temperature does. It is also part of GH gass warming theory that the troposphere, wghere CO2 accumulates, warms MORE than the surface. It has to in order to radiate heat back to the surface. However the troposphere is not warming sufficiently in line with GH gass theory. And that is even after the data has been adjusted to show more warming than originally measured. Both of these facts show categorically that the warming seen today only in the northen hemisphere is NOT caused by CO2.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
And no, oxygen is not human fod. Carbohudrates are.
And what happens if you ingest too much carbs? That can kill you too. Too much of ANYTHING can kill you. Just because it's "good" in proper doses, doesn't mean that more of it is good.
fat_boy wrote:
As for txiocity we arent even remotely near those levels of CO2 so its a spurious argument.
Perhaps, but we're getting sidetracked anyway. I thought we were talking about temperature effects.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Yes, so back on track. There is no proof whatsoever that the recent warming trend is caused by CO2. Prof Bob Watson of DEFRA, a prominent AGW scientist, stated on Channel 4 news that they canot account for the recent warming and thus, in the absence of any other demonstrable cause, CO2 must be the reason. There is NO scientific proof that CO2 is causing warming. It is only circumstantial guesswork.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
the planet is getting warmer.
No no no. Only PART of the planet is warming. It is crucial that this is understood. The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm. So nights warm, and the poles warm. So if only ONE pole is warming then we are not looking at GH gass caused warming, regardless of what the average temperature does. It is also part of GH gass warming theory that the troposphere, wghere CO2 accumulates, warms MORE than the surface. It has to in order to radiate heat back to the surface. However the troposphere is not warming sufficiently in line with GH gass theory. And that is even after the data has been adjusted to show more warming than originally measured. Both of these facts show categorically that the warming seen today only in the northen hemisphere is NOT caused by CO2.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
What point are you trying to prove here? * That the planet isn't warming? * That it IS warming, but not because of CO2? * That the warming isn't uniform? Pick your position, then get back to me. You're jumping all over the place trying to counter every point I make. My position is that the AVERAGE temperature of the planet is increasing, and that this will significantly affect heat distribution and climate patterns throughout the globe, and I think it's likely that industrialization has something to do with it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
The Climategate has definately been in the news in Norway. And has resulted in more momentum for the GW skeptics, which I'm glad to see.
Good. How about the errors in the 4th AR fomr the IPCC. The errors about glaciers, africa, antarctica, the netherlands, and the recent statements by Phil Jones, former head of CRU. Have you seen those too?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
What point are you trying to prove here? * That the planet isn't warming? * That it IS warming, but not because of CO2? * That the warming isn't uniform? Pick your position, then get back to me. You're jumping all over the place trying to counter every point I make. My position is that the AVERAGE temperature of the planet is increasing, and that this will significantly affect heat distribution and climate patterns throughout the globe, and I think it's likely that industrialization has something to do with it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
My point is that an average temoperature is misleading because if one pole is warming and the other cooling (which is what is heppening today) then GH gasses are not at work. If GH gasses were at work both poles would be warming. GH gass theory states this. It really is quite fundamental.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
My position is that the AVERAGE temperature of the planet is increasing, and that this will significantly affect heat distribution and climate patterns throughout the globe, and I think it's likely that industrialization has something to do with it.
I disagree, and here is why. Lets look at what we do know. Man has increased atmospheric CO2 by 30% The effect of CO2 is logarithmic. The first part has twice the effect of the next part and so on. So we have already done pretty much all we can to the planet through CO2. And what has been the effect? A slight increase in average temperature, and some signs of increased plant growth. We have not seen any change in weather or climate patterns over this period.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
My point is that an average temoperature is misleading because if one pole is warming and the other cooling (which is what is heppening today) then GH gasses are not at work. If GH gasses were at work both poles would be warming. GH gass theory states this. It really is quite fundamental.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
My position is that the AVERAGE temperature of the planet is increasing, and that this will significantly affect heat distribution and climate patterns throughout the globe, and I think it's likely that industrialization has something to do with it.
I disagree, and here is why. Lets look at what we do know. Man has increased atmospheric CO2 by 30% The effect of CO2 is logarithmic. The first part has twice the effect of the next part and so on. So we have already done pretty much all we can to the planet through CO2. And what has been the effect? A slight increase in average temperature, and some signs of increased plant growth. We have not seen any change in weather or climate patterns over this period.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
The effect of CO2 is logarithmic. The first part has twice the effect of the next part and so on. So we have already done pretty much all we can to the planet through CO2.
I've never heard that before... What's your basis?
fat_boy wrote:
And what has been the effect? A slight increase in average temperature, and some signs of increased plant growth. We have not seen any change in weather or climate patterns over this period.
- The ecosystem is a pretty immense thing, and changes don't take effect instantly... It takes time for things to circulate... How much time, I honestly don't know. But just think of the concept of pre-heating an oven... Takes a few minutes just to heat up that small amount of air... Now extrapolate to the entire planet, and you can see how it would take some time. 2) We haven't seen any changes? I keep seeing articles about how the hurricane patterns are changing, for one. As for the "slight" increase in average temperature... Don't forget, the ecosystem is a pretty delicate thing, and there are such things as positively-reinforcing changes. If the temperature at the poles rises a few degrees, parts (Not all, just parts) of the ice caps will melt off into the ocean. We're already seeing that. Now, the ice caps are like giant mirrors on the poles, reflecting sunlight and exerting a cooling effect on the atmosphere. If they shrink, and aren't replaced elsewhere, then less sunlight is being reflected, which means more is being absorbed. This, in turn, will heat the planet up more. As I keep saying, I'm no meteorologist, but the basics of the theory are pretty much common sense. It's all a question of magnitudes. CO2 does affect the climate, but how much? How much do other greenhouse gases (Carbon monoxide, methane, nitrous oxide, etc) affect it? How much can the atmosphere absorb? How much does the temperature have to change before heat transfer currents are affected? Look, I'm not saying we're all going to die in ten years from being deep fried in an ocean of carbon dioxide. I just think it's hard to believe that 6.6 billion people driving cars and burning coal for electricity have no effect on the ecosystem, and I think spewing immense amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere and expecting it to just vanish is naive at best.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark.
-
Yes, so back on track. There is no proof whatsoever that the recent warming trend is caused by CO2. Prof Bob Watson of DEFRA, a prominent AGW scientist, stated on Channel 4 news that they canot account for the recent warming and thus, in the absence of any other demonstrable cause, CO2 must be the reason. There is NO scientific proof that CO2 is causing warming. It is only circumstantial guesswork.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Heh, I like this guy... Just read the Wikipedia[^] article on him, after writing my last post... The big quote they have is pretty much the same thing as what I just wrote in my other post. Anyway, I'd like to see a transcript of the interview you're referencing... I found one editorial from Watson: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/21/ofcom.channel4[^], that seems quite sensible.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Heh, I like this guy... Just read the Wikipedia[^] article on him, after writing my last post... The big quote they have is pretty much the same thing as what I just wrote in my other post. Anyway, I'd like to see a transcript of the interview you're referencing... I found one editorial from Watson: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/21/ofcom.channel4[^], that seems quite sensible.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/climate+email+row+scientists+speak+out/3524137[^] Third video down. He is debating with Lawson.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Can't watch videos at work :(
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)