100 years of global warming 'erased' after record worldwide temp drop

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Do you think the qualified astronomer is qualified enough to talk about the sun?

well his statement that he talks to quite a few solar astronomers, could be interpreted to mean he doesn't really know much about our sun at all could it not?

So really he's a second hand source, just like Crichton. Not to suggest which one of them if either is right, but if you're going to ridicule one source don't you think you should the other?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Dan02

well his statement that he talks to quite a few solar astronomers, could be interpreted to mean he doesn't really know much about our sun at all could it not?

So really he's a second hand source, just like Crichton. Not to suggest which one of them if either is right, but if you're going to ridicule one source don't you think you should the other?

What no. He has his PhD in astronomy. He would be a reliable source for information about astronomy, including information about the sun. If you want to cancel out Crichton and Suzuki because they are not in their field, fine. But Phil Plait is very much in his field of expertise with astronomy. Sources don't just cancel out because they differ.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Dan02

well his statement that he talks to quite a few solar astronomers, could be interpreted to mean he doesn't really know much about our sun at all could it not?

So really he's a second hand source, just like Crichton. Not to suggest which one of them if either is right, but if you're going to ridicule one source don't you think you should the other?

That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Let's just finish this off because this stupid "my source is more qualified than yours" game (again, admitting that I'm the one that foolishly started it).

More qualified scientists believe humans are a significant cause of climate change than don't. That's it. Now I'm sure someone will bicker about the way I've said it or who is considered qualified or some other nitpicky nonsense, but at the end of the day, a very large majority of the scientific community believes it and the minority doesn't.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Wasn't my point.

Just because Fox News reports something, it doesn't necessarily mean its spin-doctored, wrong, false, lame, etc, etc.

In this case it was wrong. In other cases they might be right. Which is why you don't attack the source.

You are aware that in the US of A and even in Canada the spin doctors have turned Global Warming into a liberals vs conservatives. All they want is for you to think there is a massive debate, not to promote the truth.

Exactly what they wanted to achieve, hire people to put a spin and convince people there is a massive argument amongst the scientific community and the average joe 6 pack will end up thinking this is some controversial debate amongst the community.

Its exactly what the tobacco industry did with their spin doctors and paid scientists who prolonged the eventual truth coming out so their profits wouldn't be hurt until the very last moment. You think that the heavy polluters like big oil aren't doing everything in their power to ensure their huge profits aren't hurt by government programs to slow down pollution that would cut massively into their profits?

Fox has a very heavy bias towards conservative issues, and in the USA that means you think all the trillions of tons going into the atmosphere just gives the earth this pretty glow, doing no harm

But yeah Photon belittled that original link quickly enough, my job was to remind people of the bias that Fox has and will always show in this debate.

Its amazing to me that people let it become political, since really improving the world with less pollution and using our vast resources of brilliant minds to clean up our act is worse than just watching the world reach a tipping point and screw up this one planet we have.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Thor

You are aware that in the US of A and even in Canada the spin doctors have turned Global Warming into a liberals vs conservatives.

So you combat it by attacking the source, and not the argument?

How effective do you think that is supposed to be?

It does happen on both sides though....you attack Fox News for what they reported, Photon posts an ACTUAL retort...someone attacks the source of his argument.

Kinda lame, but whatever.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Azure

So you combat it by attacking the source, and not the argument?

How effective do you think that is supposed to be?

It does happen on both sides though....you attack Fox News for what they reported, Photon posts an ACTUAL retort...someone attacks the source of his argument.

Kinda lame, but whatever.

Photo combated the source, the job was done.

I made a crack against Fox.

The USA media is the worst place to gather any information, I mock Fox but they all are terrible in their duty to report things to us. They care more about ratings and selling more papers than to give us dry information which science is all about. Gotta shine it up for the average person sitting at home convinced they know something about environmental change.

But its always important in everything to question a source, its motives, its goals. This goes for any information you recieve, be it Fox, CNN, Me, photon, or anything you read, watch, or learn.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Thor

You are aware that in the US of A and even in Canada the spin doctors have turned Global Warming into a liberals vs conservatives. All they want is for you to think there is a massive debate, not to promote the truth.

Exactly what they wanted to achieve, hire people to put a spin and convince people there is a massive argument amongst the scientific community and the average joe 6 pack will end up thinking this is some controversial debate amongst the community.

Its exactly what the tobacco industry did with their spin doctors and paid scientists who prolonged the eventual truth coming out so their profits wouldn't be hurt until the very last moment. You think that the heavy polluters like big oil aren't doing everything in their power to ensure their huge profits aren't hurt by government programs to slow down pollution that would cut massively into their profits?

Fox has a very heavy bias towards conservative issues, and in the USA that means you think all the trillions of tons going into the atmosphere just gives the earth this pretty glow, doing no harm

But yeah Photon belittled that original link quickly enough, my job was to remind people of the bias that Fox has and will always show in this debate.

Its amazing to me that people let it become political, since really improving the world with less pollution and using our vast resources of brilliant minds to clean up our act is worse than just watching the world reach a tipping point and screw up this one planet we have.

Unfortunately scientists are human too. Photon's source is as liberal as Fox is conservative: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-p...0_b_78800.html

Don't make either one of them right or wrong but, it does raise the possibility of a predisposed opinion.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Unfortunately scientists are human too. Photon's source is as liberal as Fox is conservative: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-p...0_b_78800.html

Don't make either one of them right or wrong but, it does raise the possibility of a predisposed opinion.

Well I'll tend to respect the overwhelming majority of scientists over a small minority.

I'll listen to any counter arguments and take it for what its worth.

Again you cite liberal, this was my previous point. Its become so much about political spectrum, while the vast majority of scientists make the strong case yet we turn it into a liberal vs conservative.

If you get news from Fox, CNN, etc.. You might as well slap yourself silly

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

So you combat it by attacking the source, and not the argument?

How effective do you think that is supposed to be?

It does happen on both sides though....you attack Fox News for what they reported, Photon posts an ACTUAL retort...someone attacks the source of his argument.

Kinda lame, but whatever.

Ya know something, I agree. It's a petty and all-too-often repeated way of going about things and I'm just as guilty as anybody.

So, instead of attacking the source, which you obviously don't like, go ahead and debunk this, which is a significant point of the Bad Astronomy article in question...

In general the solar output varies very little over the course of a year, less than 1%. Over the whole sunspot cycle, though, it’s a little more complicated. The sunspots darken the Sun by about 1%, but they are surrounded by regions called faculae, which are actually brighter in the visible and ultraviolet. So when the Sun is its spottiest, it’s actually brighter than average by about 0.1%. At most, this would raise the temperature of the Earth on average by 0.2 degrees Celsius

If I can drag myself to the end of that Michael Crichton article, I'll try to do the same, even though I think another poster did it already and a lot better than I'll be able to do (he used science words!).

[Hack&Lube]

In many ways, the argument for me is the philosophical one. I tend to adhere to Crichton's view that only by looking at the big picture in proper perspective can you properly understand a current phenomenon. To be quite frank, I am more interested in climate change for the human reaction and human behavior than the actual environment. I don't know why it is that way for me, perhaps it is my heavy bias against what I have seen as a historically demonstrated truth about human nature - manias, fads, religions, conspiracy theories, doomsday theories (supernatural or natural via environmental destruction, technological destruction, overpopulation, war, etc.), all have the same root in human nature and to me, it's more destructive and misleading than anything because people are always madly concerned that the present is the critical age (again, for the supernatural or natural)...when history shows that the present will pass and the earth will march on. It's part of the self-preservation instinct in an age with over-abundant security and information so it kicks into overdrive or seeks out other avenues to exercise itself. Then these critical issues become the enlightened man's religion...and people start getting belligerent about it.

But as Crichton says, encouraging an issue can help to avoid it's consequences (even if the efficacy of human action on the phenonmenon is marginal) so I really have no problem with efforts to stem climate change. Without "Silent Spring" being published back in the 60s, we might still be using DDT and causing the extinction of most bird species today. In the end, I suppose my issue is people getting rabidly up in arms about it without considering the big picture, I have had many friends and others outright attack me when I voiced my doubts regarding the efficacy of changing human behavior to prevent climate change and my thoughts on how the socio-political reaction to it has many trademarks of being a fad or fear for a momentary concern, very much like those that Crichton mentions. I have a nagging feeling people are grossly oversimplying the issue and it's much more complex than it seems.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I have a nagging feeling people are grossly oversimplying the issue and it's much more complex than it seems.

I totally oversimplify the issue. We burn a thousand barrels of oil a second and the equivalent in coal (if not more, correct me if I'm wrong). Now I'm not a scientist but I can't believe all that smoke and poison and whatnot can't be bad for us and the earth

So, as a simplifier/simpleton, I have a simpleton question...

A) burning all this stuff is bad for the earth and for us
B) burning all this stuff is not bad for the earth and for us

If the answer is A, we should slow down on the burning or at the very pathetic least, slow down on the speeding up of the burning.

If the answer is B, party on Garth.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Burninator

What no. He has his PhD in astronomy. He would be a reliable source for information about astronomy, including information about the sun. If you want to cancel out Crichton and Suzuki because they are not in their field, fine. But Phil Plait is very much in his field of expertise with astronomy. Sources don't just cancel out because they differ.

so if you had cancer you'd go to a pediatrist? screw the oncologist, they're both doctors. Or do you actually believe that all astronomers are equally knowledgable about all facets of astronomy? If you read the article you'd discover his knowledge is based on conversations he's had with other astronomers who focus on the sun more.

Edit. and for the record i do realize that is a over generalization, however, this perception that the scientists supporting global warming are infalible needs to end. and I fully believe and accept that CO2 is a contributing factor to global warming.

[Flame Of Liberty]

For me, the biggest problem is not the glomal warming/cooling/climate change/whatever. For me, the biggest problem is what the left wants to do about it (regulate, tax, regulate, tax, rinse and repeat) and what it will accomplish (nothing or very little compared to alternative use of the resources and it will cause further damage on our freedom, economic activities etc.) Moreover, when Gore and Bono are seen as saviors of the Earth, something is very wrong with this world and that goes beyond just damaging the economy. Very sad.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I totally oversimplify the issue. We burn a thousand barrels of oil a second and the equivalent in coal (if not more, correct me if I'm wrong). Now I'm not a scientist but I can't believe all that smoke and poison and whatnot can't be bad for us and the earth

So, as a simplifier/simpleton, I have a simpleton question...

A) burning all this stuff is bad for the earth and for us
B) burning all this stuff is not bad for the earth and for us

If the answer is A, we should slow down on the burning or at the very pathetic least, slow down on the speeding up of the burning.

If the answer is B, party on Garth.

its not bad for the earth..the earth doesnt care, it bad for us...It is pretty arrogant at this point, to think otherwise...the earth has been through much bigger disasters with bigger consequences than our little carbon polluting would ever do..99% of species on this planet are no longer, and whether is out fault or not we are next...and there is nothing we can do about it, despite our best efforts to terraform mars.


to think that 100 years ago there were basically no cars....is it fair to think 100 years from now, there wont be anymore?

I have no problem getting off Oil, cutting down emissions etc...going green all the stuff, but dont deny this isnt the birth of more big business...and that people who think they can make some cash off of the green movement aren't funding everything they can..(just like big bad oil!).

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

In many ways, the argument for me is the philosophical one. I tend to adhere to Crichton's view that only by looking at the big picture in proper perspective can you properly understand a current phenomenon. To be quite frank, I am more interested in climate change for the human reaction and human behavior than the actual environment. I don't know why it is that way for me, perhaps it is my heavy bias against what I have seen as a historically demonstrated truth about human nature - manias, fads, religions, conspiracy theories, doomsday theories (supernatural or natural via environmental destruction, technological destruction, overpopulation, war, etc.), all have the same root in human nature and to me, it's more destructive and misleading than anything because people are always madly concerned that the present is the critical age (again, for the supernatural or natural)...when history shows that the present will pass and the earth will march on. It's part of the self-preservation instinct in an age with over-abundant security and information so it kicks into overdrive or seeks out other avenues to exercise itself. Then these critical issues become the enlightened man's religion...and people start getting belligerent about it.

But as Crichton says, encouraging an issue can help to avoid it's consequences (even if the efficacy of human action on the phenonmenon is marginal) so I really have no problem with efforts to stem climate change. Without "Silent Spring" being published back in the 60s, we might still be using DDT and causing the extinction of most bird species today. In the end, I suppose my issue is people getting rabidly up in arms about it without considering the big picture, I have had many friends and others outright attack me when I voiced my doubts regarding the efficacy of changing human behavior to prevent climate change and my thoughts on how the socio-political reaction to it has many trademarks of being a fad or fear for a momentary concern, very much like those that Crichton mentions. I have a nagging feeling people are grossly oversimplying the issue and it's much more complex than it seems.

well said, and my thoughts exactly!

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

For me, the biggest problem is not the glomal warming/cooling/climate change/whatever. For me, the biggest problem is what the left wants to do about it (regulate, tax, regulate, tax, rinse and repeat) and what it will accomplish (nothing or very little compared to alternative use of the resources and it will cause further damage on our freedom, economic activities etc.) Moreover, when Gore and Bono are seen as saviors of the Earth, something is very wrong with this world and that goes beyond just damaging the economy. Very sad.

I agree with this post for the most part. The biggest problem is the response to the issue. All the wrong things are being done. Nothng that will have the dramatic impact required to address the issue is taking place. No changes in paradigms of human behavior has been promoted. No sweeping changes agreed to as how we can manage the situation. This is where the weakness lay.

Right now there are two camps. One is promoting regulation and cooperative efforts. The other is promoting doing nothing. While the one side is somewhat ineffectual in their actions, they are still taking action. The other side is burying their heads in the (oil) sands and hoping the problem will go away. Something concrete needs to take place, and it needs to take place immediately.

I'm not a fan of government getting involved in our lives, but in this instance, that is their job. The government is supposed to administer the systems that provide and protect the common good for all citizens. The environment is something that applied to all citizens, so it is the government's responsibility to take action when it is threatened. Because this is such a wide ranging issue, it is only the government that can take action and make the wide sweeping changes in law that can affect change. This is where any change must begin, because corporations are not going to do the right thing for their community. They never have, and they never will. They will continue to do what ever it takes to create profits and increase share value, even if it means destroying our environment. Hence, the government has to put in place laws that reframe the way we will do things and restrict the conduct of business. The government must impose penalties on those who do not move to clean up their act, and provide incentives through tax breaks to those that do and create the new clean systems that will enable us all to reduce our impact on the environment.

I will defend both Gore and Bono, and people like them. As much as I don't like celebrities getting involved in political causes that are beyond them, these people have brought a very important issue to the public eye and have accessed more people than possible any other way. They have put a common face to the problem and presented the issue in a way that gives access to anyone. When Jim Hansen (from NASA) speaks on the issue (when the Bush administration is not censoring him and his collegues) he does so in a way that is not accessible by most people. The issue becomes complex and people zone out. When Gore or Bono speak, they do so in a fashion that captures your attention and the information is presented in a manner that is easy to understand. This reaches greater audiences and helps the general population understand the issue. You need spokesmen that people will listen to, and these guys just happen to be in that position. Good on them for doing it, because this is a very serious issue that impacts us all, right or left.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

its not bad for the earth..the earth doesnt care, it bad for us...It is pretty arrogant at this point, to think otherwise...the earth has been through much bigger disasters with bigger consequences than our little carbon polluting would ever do..99% of species on this planet are no longer, and whether is out fault or not we are next...and there is nothing we can do about it, despite our best efforts to terraform mars.

This is somewhat true. We will not kill the planet, we will only destroy our species, and pretty well every other species of flora and fauna that has evolved in the biosphere. This big chunk of rock, with the molten iron core, will continue to float around in space for the next few billion years until the sun goes super nova and swallows up the planet. There is no doubt about that. We cannot destroy the "planet". What we can do, and what we are doing, is damaging the atmosphere of the planet that sustains life, and as we do this it impacts every living breathing entity on the face of the earth. While we may not be able to destroy the "planet" we are damaging the thing layer of gases that provide the possibility of live on this chunk of rock.

I also have a problem with the defeatest BS about "there is nothing we can do" so we might as well not even bother. We have the ability to do so much as a species. We did enough to get us into this mess, we should at least try to get us out of it. Science has done some pretty amazing things, and there are some excellent technologies out there that are actually working in reversing some of the impacts. We should not give up, we should continue to push forward and find better ways of doing things and trying to reverse the effects we have had on the planet. If we can clean up Love Canal and Lake Erie, we can certainly halt the damage we are doing to the atmosphere and reverse those effects.

to think that 100 years ago there were basically no cars....is it fair to think 100 years from now, there wont be anymore?

That is a distinct possibility. Unlikely, but possible. We will likely have to move to a different fuel source as oil reserves will likely be completely exhausted unless managed better. The biggest channlenge will be getting to tat point 100 years from now. If things continue to degrade as they are, and the biosphere continues to suffer, we may see massive failures to our food sources, increases in diseases, and wars over the remaining resources. We could kill ourselves off before we get to that point 100 years in the future.

I have no problem getting off Oil, cutting down emissions etc...going green all the stuff, but dont deny this isnt the birth of more big business...and that people who think they can make some cash off of the green movement aren't funding everything they can..(just like big bad oil!).

Really? Doesn't sound that way. Anytime anyone has suggested that we do anything to the O&G sector you spaz out and attack them. Many solutions have been presented and you dismiss them all. Even when gived the spotlight to prove that you have even the slightest grasp on emerging technologies, and how they can be used, you duck the issue and hurl more insults toward those who are working on the problem and finding solutions.

You also say that the "green movement' is making massive dollars, which is unsubstantiated in any sort of way. We know that the O&G sector is making profits at levels never dreamed of in the past, and its well documented, but I haven't seen the "green movement" posting record profits. Heck, maybe you can point out who that "green movement" is, which companies are involved, and point ot their profit statements. I would like to know who these companes are so I can get a chunk of them and invest in our future!

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

You also say that the "green movement' is making massive dollars, which is unsubstantiated in any sort of way. We know that the O&G sector is making profits at levels never dreamed of in the past, and its well documented, but I haven't seen the "green movement" posting record profits. Heck, maybe you can point out who that "green movement" is, which companies are involved, and point ot their profit statements. I would like to know who these companes are so I can get a chunk of them and invest in our future!

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=FSLR&t=2y

Here's one to start you off. You may be late on the bandwagon though.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

This is somewhat true. We will not kill the planet, we will only destroy our species, and pretty well every other species of flora and fauna that has evolved in the biosphere. This big chunk of rock, with the molten iron core, will continue to float around in space for the next few billion years until the sun goes super nova and swallows up the planet. There is no doubt about that. We cannot destroy the "planet". What we can do, and what we are doing, is damaging the atmosphere of the planet that sustains life, and as we do this it impacts every living breathing entity on the face of the earth. While we may not be able to destroy the "planet" we are damaging the thing layer of gases that provide the possibility of live on this chunk of rock.

I think life will continue on without us. There is speculation now, that the biomass in the earth's crust is larger than that found on the surface (micro-organisms living in cracks in the rocks). Life goes on, even after mass extinction events.

The Human species is fortunate to have survived as long as it has. A comet could have ended us any time. Unless the human race can colonize space, our extinction may be inevitable.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I also have a problem with the defeatest BS about "there is nothing we can do" so we might as well not even bother. We have the ability to do so much as a species. We did enough to get us into this mess, we should at least try to get us out of it. Science has done some pretty amazing things, and there are some excellent technologies out there that are actually working in reversing some of the impacts. We should not give up, we should continue to push forward and find better ways of doing things and trying to reverse the effects we have had on the planet. If we can clean up Love Canal and Lake Erie, we can certainly halt the damage we are doing to the atmosphere and reverse those effects.

Is their any peer viewed documentations backing up the fact that if just stopped burning fossil fuels today, that the glaciers will stop melting and return to their former glorious form? Ecosystems that may or may not have been damaged by climate change will spring back to life again? Seriously i am interested and who better to ask.

Science has done some amazing things....but it as also cried wolf plenty of times

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

That is a distinct possibility. Unlikely, but possible. We will likely have to move to a different fuel source as oil reserves will likely be completely exhausted unless managed better. The biggest channlenge will be getting to tat point 100 years from now. If things continue to degrade as they are, and the biosphere continues to suffer, we may see massive failures to our food sources, increases in diseases, and wars over the remaining resources. We could kill ourselves off before we get to that point 100 years in the future.

Ya I don't think so. But i agree fear is a great tool to motivate the normals

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Really? Doesn't sound that way. Anytime anyone has suggested that we do anything to the O&G sector you spaz out and attack them. Many solutions have been presented and you dismiss them all. Even when gived the spotlight to prove that you have even the slightest grasp on emerging technologies, and how they can be used, you duck the issue and hurl more insults toward those who are working on the problem and finding solutions.

uh? I do? Again i have posted my feelings before...any comments on Hack&Lube post?

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

You also say that the "green movement' is making massive dollars, which is unsubstantiated in any sort of way. We know that the O&G sector is making profits at levels never dreamed of in the past, and its well documented, but I haven't seen the "green movement" posting record profits. Heck, maybe you can point out who that "green movement" is, which companies are involved, and point ot their profit statements. I would like to know who these companes are so I can get a chunk of them and invest in our future!

of course not, well educated on everything that supports your arguments, in the dark about anything that doesn't.

Meanwhile i am going to buy up land in the north - you invest in your "green technologies"