The Great Global Warming Blunder

Absolutely </sarcasm>

 

From my post #3 in this thread regarding Spencer, but it seems equally apt:

"Considering the source, this is not a person whose global warming science conclusions I would consider useful. If you can't accept one of the basic tenets of science(evolution), there is little reason to accept any argument (about science, (my edit)) he might make ,thank you very much!"

 

I'm not a Biologist, But woulnd't a higher CO2 Content Be Better for Plans to Grow?
Also They all talk about the Growing Zones Shifting NORTH and Gardeners Love this because they can grow Crops.

I watched a Thing on Oregon Wine Growers and they were almost excited by the global warming idea, because they could grow the same crops that california does.

So other than the Polar Bears Reducing from an all time High of 25,000 (40 Years ago there was only 5,000 BTW And which we all know mother nature has a way of balancing out animals when there is to many.. They STARVE!)

But couldn't be more CO2 Be BETTER? for things to grow?

Trying to be an optimist...

 

The problem is it wouldn't simply raise the temperature a small amount everywhere.
When the atmosphere retains more heat, you have more energy in the system.
A more energetic system leads to more extremes.
In addition, the poles (according to computer models and observations) tend to heat up more than the equator.
The fear is, that as the arctic cap melts, the albedo of that part of the earth is lowered, which leads to more melting.
It is a very complicated issue. In the short run there will be some winners and some losers. My fear, and most models, indicate there will be more losers than winners

 

"But couldn't be more CO2 Be BETTER? for things to grow?"

I suggest that you look a little deeper into the consequences of climate change. The fact is, the earth will survive, and life will survive, and indeed people may survive, but the reality is that climate is going to (beginning to already) change at a rate that many species cannot adapt to. (evolve?) So yes, certain plants will thrive in a CO2 rich environment, but other changes are not so positive.

One huge danger (which I personally believe that if we haven't passed the tipping point we are close) with global warming is the melting of permafrost. The consequences of that is the very real potential that as the permafrost melts, it begins to release huge quantities of carbon that become an uncontrollable "feed back loop" . The release of carbon and the potential for methane releases from the sea, as well as ocean acidification.

Please, while you chose to remain positive, please don't remain ignorant to the real issues. Research everything you read to ensure it's voracity, especially those who would have you believe that AGW is a myth. As evidenced by some posters here, some don't believe in basic science, how can we trust their opinions on the research that has been done?

 

I guess I'm Optomistic because what "EXPERTS" have said in my lifetime:

Men would die from radiation, if they traveled in space,

There will be no more oil by 1980, they changed it 1995, then 2000, and the last I heard in 2000 was 2012. when will have no more oil.
And the oil of course comes from dinosours...

An Ice Age anounced in the 60's,

Killer bee's going to kill everyone in North America (I remember in 6th grade we discussed this in class.)

The hole in the ozone was going to kill us all by 2000,
and Don't, Aids and any number of Experts telling us other BS.

Because of all these Experts, I don't hear them Cry "Wolf Wolf" anymore like others... (I guess I followed the fools too much.)

Even the EXPERTS don't really know what all the CO2 will do, they keep debating even basic science...

You are right the real issue is Experts don't know Anything...
:rockon:

 

Your ignorance of the information (or reliance upon a media system that broadcasts ignorance of information) is not a reason to not listen to experts at all.

Radiation in Space: Yes without shielding you would be subjected to intense radiation. But have you seen a space suit lately? I think you are referring to some of the wackos around the time of the Apollo mission that said passing through the Van Allen belt could not be done because of the intense radiation. Some even use this to "disprove" the lunar landing! But the main radiation source are high energy protons, which are childs play to shield against. Almost as easy as tin-foil hats. Also, it is not of uniform density/width and the mission plotted a course through the thin bits at a high speed limiting exposure entirely. Even keeping the pod around 30-ish degrees limited the exposure. Every precaution was made. However extremists took this to mean it was impossible, not experts.

Regarding Oil: I have never heard that there will be no more oil by those dates, but usually in reference to peak oil. This is controversial, but considering it takes millenia to make oil (yes from dinosaurs or any other decomposing organic material) and we are using a crapton of it, it makes sense that at somepoint along the supply vs. demand curve there will be an intersection. The only question is when. 2012 is still a reasonable estimate, 2020 is more likely. There will still be oil, but it will be harder to obtain. Drilling miles below the surface of the seas like what has been happening in the Gulf and everywhere else is normal now to obtain oil. No more Beverly Hillibilly striking black gold in your back yard, now you will have to work for it. Eventually it will just become too hard, so prices get raised, and then it doesnt look as hard anymore. There will be an end to oil naturally where we will only get what is supplied. Think of it as a bathtub full to the brim. The faucet is running but dripping. What is coming in is the currently decomposing dead-things. What is in the tub is the oil we have now. We can take out a large amount of oil, and we have. But eventually we will only be able to take it out as fast as it drips in. When is hard to predict, but it will happen.

I'm not familar enough with the 60's Ice-Age claim, maybe someone else is? I do know that there were lots of studying going on about radiactive decays of isotopes and using them to determine time scales of global temperatures right around that time.

I'm sure there is equal evidence out there for anything you list. It doesnt take much for a scientists warning to become gospel of doomsday after it goes through the media's cycle. Even a story about flowers in a city park wilting is presented like there was a serial killer on the loose and your whole family is going to be slaughtered RIGHT NOW unless you stay tuned after the commericals. People need to do their own editing, and find out the facts for themselves. Once you do, you can see who is actually an expert and who isnt.

 

Wow.Thats an interesting list.
Theres many here who are full of
"Fear Uncertainty Doubt" ,but refuse to realize how they may be spreading FUD.

 

Fact-based or faith-based, take your pick.

 

AGW cheerleaders are definitely mostly faith based.

Im talking about those who think that Obama is going to "renegotiate NAFTA" ,before GM builds the $500 million plant in Mexico.

 

Spiderman wrote: "Even the EXPERTS don't really know what all the CO2 will do, they keep debating even basic science.."

But at the very least, they are debating the basic science, something that apparently you are not willing to given your discount of one of the basic building blocks of biology,,, evolution.

"The hole in the ozone was going to kill us all by 2000,"

Just for your information, the ozone hole has been worked on (not solved per se) because of a understanding of the science ,and a concerted effort to make the changes required in our lives to solve it, primarily by reducing and eliminating CFCs, that are ozone depleting. Turns out it wasn't as expensive as the naysayers said it would be, and there have been other benefits to the economy/environment as a result of the changes. (Like higher efficient A/C seer numbers for example). Just like I predict that the changes that are required to solve CO2 will be cheaper, as well as they will throw off side benefits to the economy.

Perhaps if the deniers would get the hell out of the way, and people were to understand the hard reality we could begin to solve the CO2 issue before we pass the tipping point. One of the hard facts is, every day we delay, only makes the problem harder to solve, and more expensive.

 

It was primarily media based, even then global warming was the more common scientific concern.

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

 

Only if CO2 was the limiting factor in plant growth, but that is rarely the case. Most of the time is either a limitation of nutrients in the soil or water supply (which global warming threatens to disrupt).

 

I actually googled after I posted this, and found out a lot of plants would do really good with a higher temp and higher CO2 During the Dinos There was a higher percentage then and the plants did pretty good IMO

Look at the studies by some colleges I found, they said it would be positive effect!

hmm...

 

My Ignorance is a direct result from listening to EXPERTS! LOL
And yes I remember the ICE Age Thing (I was alive then)

Of course they can't sell books if they don't scare the crap out of you!

If the book was "don't worry this will all go away," who would buy their book? or pay them to be on TV?

No the Book is "THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING"
HYPE!
Look at all the HYPE about Y2K

it had my mom thinking that her car wouldn't work and we would have no electricity or water and the banks would close..

Stop Drinking the cool-aid is all I say!

 

Your problem is that you have been listening to the media's interpretation of science, not the actual science.

No one here is defending the media's interpretation of science. It is always wrong.

 

And real science is wrong part of the time, but it converges toward real understanding. It's a process, not divine knowledge. People propose theories. The good ones survive, the bad ones get beaten up and discarded.

I don't know why people are so surprised and shocked when flawed theories are replaced by better theories. It's all part of the process.

Tom

 

Icky, you are going to have to point out in which post I made those remarks... cause I don't think I did. But after so many posts, it is possible. Thanks sweety.

 

That's part of the problem. And just a guess, but Fox News has no experts and could be a root cause of your issues.

People only seem to care if it directly effects them right now. Hence the scare tactics, it sells. If people were more compassionate and/or smarter they would care for other reasons. Or read articles just to learn. When I am interested in a topic, I research it and read articles about it from various authours. I dont just google it and go to Fox or CNN and take their point of view.

And again, the hype about Y2K was media based. I am not sure how to clarify that the experts and those that know, do not claim the sky is falling. Generally they show an issue, possible problems with doing nothing, possible outcomes by trying to fix it, and how to fix it. With Y2K it was a very real problem. However, it only required some changes in code to prevent. For years companies were upgrading their software to support the year changeover, and guess what it worked. If nobody had spoken up about the problem, then there would have been chaos. This is what the media took and blew up. Smarter people knew there was no problem. Now if you want the next Y2K scare, just wait until Y2K38 in 2038. This is when unix epoch time which uses a 32bit integer value counting up every second since Jan 1st, 1970 will overflow and return to 0 (i.e. reset from January 19th, 2038 to Jan 1st 1970). Now the problem is essentially coding again and can be solved rather easily, but almost every program that relies on 32bit time will need to change and it is doubtful they all will be. Be scared for your life!!!! j/k, all critical systems have already been fixed anf can switch to 64bit counts if needed. Military systems and banking systems are already using 64bit counts.

 

Spidey,

My humble apologies, it was indeed not you that posted that phrase, but rather The Priusman.com.

The point remains however, science provides the answers (over time) for many of the questions confronting us.