Global Warming

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:58 am

On 2006-06-24 10:59, garyb wrote:
here's an article whose headline sez it all. this is the warmest it's been since 1600. they can't really even speak with any certainty before that, really not even before about 1850! (no reliable measurements....) that is a VERY small sampling of the many thousands of years of human existance and millions of years of earth's existance. it is too small to be sure of anything. scientists(real ones...) THINK it makes sense that hhuman activity is responsible for at least SOME of the temperature rise, MAYBE even all of it for SOME of this period, but what is NOT clear, is what effect if any, our actions will have in any long time period(even 50 years). the system is to a large part, self regulating. the sun and other natural components potentially are much bigger factors...

This is what the original article "sez" (you know the scientists, the "real ones"):

WASHINGTON -- There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National Research Council. Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, said the committee that wrote the report, although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900. Very little confidence can be placed in statements about average global surface temperatures prior to A.D. 900 because the proxy data for that time frame are sparse, the committee added.

On 2006-06-24 10:59, garyb wrote:
I THINK it makes sense that hhuman activity is responsible for at least SOME of the temperature rise, MAYBE even all of it for SOME of this period, but what is NOT clear, is what effect if any, our actions will have in any long time period(even 50 years).

Are you freaking joking? If the past 150 years of data indicate that human activities led to the rise of the surface temperatures, how in gods name is it NOT clear what will happen in the next 50?

[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2006-06-24 15:16 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:41 pm

well, I have to quote it again...
in germany we have a fairy tale that the bird storch brings the babies - kind of overnite airmail package...

a scientifically assured fact
statistically the regression of that bird is exactly(!) the same as the local birthrate

anyway, for GaryB's point of view it's not even relevant if there is a specific source for global warming - it's more about controlled publishing with a certain (non neutral) purpose.

Even if one doesn't agree in all details, the possibility and it's likelyness cannot be denied, unless one is very naive.

Imho people like to vote 'pro environment' unless their (very) personal convenience is affected. Then they quickly claim the exception, as their case is the most important.

cheers, Tom

Post by **garyb** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:46 pm

Mr. Clowno,
the reuters article shows the lack of long term statistical information to be sure of anything. did i say not to develope non polluting alternatives? no. did i say to use lots of oil(although there IS plenty)? no. did i say to stop studying the situation? no. did i question why such poor science is used to make common people look evil for trying to live their lives as they've been told to? well, yes. did i say that worrying about the south polar cap melting is stupid? why, yes i did. the ONLY way that cap will melt is if say, a huge meteor or nuclear explosion knocks the axis out of whack or wrecks the earth's orbit around the sun or something similarly monstrous. in the case of something that extreme, likely all bets are off anyway. if the iceshelves and most of the rest of the ice melts, don't expect sea levels to rise. sea levels WILL change anyway because the continents are moving and land is created and destroyed ALL THE TIME.

non issue(but interesting).
be more concerned with exactly why non-issues like this are used to justify the destruction of humanity. there is NOTHING wrong with people, just their programmers.

thank you astro-
the stork story hits the nail on the head. sometimes it LOOKS like the answer is obviously correct(more storks more babies, less storks, less babies, storks must bring babies) and it is not.

in this country(usa) this is one of those "hot button" issues that shows what side you are on, "liberal"(bullsh*t category) or "conservative"(ditto). i don't care for either side. both are liars. neither care about people, only ideals that have no real meaning to people, divide and rule. there is no left or right, the extremes of each are a police state that runs your existance. both sides make good aruments about SOME of the things that are debated and that's how good people are absorbed into bad thinking and behavior. i'm more interested in reality. reality is that temperatures are up, i'm not trying to deny that. the meaning and true cause of it all is unknown.

panic is pointless. be more concerned with why the governments want to disarm you.

Cochise · Post by **Cochise** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:01 am

Yeah Garyb and Astro, but I'm not convinced the ecosystem can autobalance itself to the bitter end.

Human contribution to global warming is 30%?
I don't know, cause also correctly calculate this percentage it's a busy task.
A fact appears evident: that number has had an exponential growing factor in the last century. Don't neither know what's the current trend of that curve, if it's rising or flattening.

I'm convinced this factor already has a certain weight in the equation.
If really it's still fully balanced, it couldn't be any longer in a short lapse of time.

What goverments have really done for this looks few and slow; permeated of a sort of insane disinterestedness imo.

Personally don't sympathize at all with extreme politic.
I neither sympathize with them following the easiest and insane way to profit.
( Still in the hope it's possible to say similar things without being anyway persecuted )

[ This Message was edited by: Cochise on 2006-06-25 06:29 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:35 am

well, on the (any) political side it's fairly simple, wired as a herd creature (as GaryB called it) guarantees the access to insane profits, as it guarantees insane amounts of ignorance, as you see it.

It's hardly to change 'as is', let alone from facing facts - the only way is by mobilizing the herd instinct, which itself is also easy - soccermania in germany for example

But usually leaders act for profits, their own or their 'selected' group - and it takes a leader to mobilize the herd, charisma as it's called

For my part I've seen enough 'good people' change their mind and directions - I stick with Nietsche for then...

The 'scientific' side of climate is a much more complex one and a lot of facts isn't even known to us, let alone understood.
On one side they deal with chaos theory and uncertainity, on the other hand they pretend their models relate to reality.
A solar flare could blast us off in a second.
The east coast of North America could be hit within 7 hours by a tsunami 10 times as heavy as the one devasting the Indian Ocean area, if 25 km of vulcano on La Palma slide 4km down into the Atlantic.
It's what life on this planet is about and it will certainly continue - with or without the human race.

cheers, Tom

Cochise · Post by **Cochise** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:45 am

Then we can only pray...

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:33 am

no, you can enjoy your life, be a good citizen, be a good customer, taxpayer etc

regardless how you turn it, they either 'get you' by your helpless position (...what can I do about it...) - or by their promise that '...it will be taken care of you...'
Your next option (according to convenience) will always be to let go and have that share of fun your life deserves - and don't worry, don't think and don't ask

it's the herd instinct and it works - everywhere.

But in fact you can do a lot in practical terms if you're aware of the attempts to control and direct your life.
Which isn't a bad thing at all - most people don't want to bother about decisions, they urgently look for someone to take it off their shoulders.
It's one of the fundamentals of the business 101 regarding sales...

Even here it's mirrored to a degree when someone asks 'what is the best compressor' and such stuff.
Of course it's all well packaged in facts and technical terms and lots of bla bla, but a lot of such questions are simply posted to verify an already made decision or to have someone to blame on later.
I didn't refer to any existing compressor question, it was just the first item that entered my mind...

WHAT you can do is individual (depending on your circumstances of life - to commit suicide would be pretty pointless), but there's always a couple of options.

I don't buy in certain supermarkets because I dislike their business model.
I avoid certain types of food since decades and I get along without a car (most of the time). I only update my hardware or operating systems when I see a real benefit.
Just some examples, not really much, but it could add up significantly if more people would act similiar.

But THAT isn't my concern - it's MY decision which I did after reasoning and because I'm convinced about it.
I may be wrong one or the other time, but at least I'm not unaware.

cheers, Tom

Cochise · Post by **Cochise** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:55 am

They're wise advices about way of interpret
life and live it.

But what you're expressing in your last
post looks to me a few different from the
fatalism of the previous ones (included
some Garyb's one).
Fatalism is quite widespreaded locally in my land, but I'm not inclined to it.

As well as, unfortunately, I'm not always
able to pick the good side of life
(especially when the bad side seems to
overlook the good one).

[ This Message was edited by: Cochise on 2006-06-25 09:38 ]

Cochise · Post by **Cochise** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:21 am

(I'm experiencing some difficulty posting and browsing Planetz, now)

If you still want ear something about what seems to be my form of associative madness:

after I posted for two time here today I had the desire for take guitar and play a song recalled out from my memories.
As well as I would now post the lyrics from that song, surely you know.
Can't do without posting the last phrases at least

"...Running over the same old ground.
What have we found? The same old fears.
Wish you were here."

[ This Message was edited by: Cochise on 2006-06-25 11:52 ]

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:51 am

Not to be on one side or t'other, alarmist or not, but the axis already wobbles. In fact, as the poles move due to increased lubrication, it may well be logical to surmise that it's possible for the wobble to increase & at an exponential rate at some point. Other 'little interactions' with the unexplained 'dynamics' could be very significant. This much is quite clear without taking anyone's word for it.

As mentioned, the scientists involved with this subject want more data as they feel there isn't enough. They keenly await this winters' facts & figures as they do next winters'. Another few years & there will be a clear picture, as many people want to know what is actually going on.

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:50 am

On 2006-06-25 09:51, Shroomz wrote:
As mentioned, the scientists involved with this subject want more data as they feel there isn't enough. They keenly await this winters' facts & figures as they do next winters'. Another few years & there will be a clear picture, as many people want to know what is actually going on.

Mentioned where? Why are you trying to distort the facts? The picture is very freaking clear. It is crystal clear. The year 2005 was the warmest on record. The global temperatures rose by 1 degree F in the last 100 years. These are freaking hard facts not estimates. This not my oppinion it is fact, measured, recorded by instruments. Please read the full report here (if you register you can get download the prepublication free).
Now since I don't see the human activity on Earth stopping to a screeching halt, and judging the current trend in the automotive manufacturing and other industries, the warming trend will continue.

And Astroman, I respect very much your knowledge, but regarding the "statistical uncertainties", you're wrong there. The uncertainties that they are talking about are the temperatures before year 900 where the proxy data is harder to obtain from multiple locations.

Proxy evidence are tree rings, corals, ocean and lake sediments, cave deposits, ice
cores, boreholes, glaciers, and documentary evidence. For example, records of Alpine glacier
length, some of which are derived from paintings and other documentary sources, have been
used to reconstruct the time series of surface temperature variations in south-central Europe for
the last several centuries. Studying past climates can help us put the 20th century warming into a
broader context, better understand the climate system, and improve projections of future climate.

This is an image representing a plot of different proxy data sampled over 1000 years.
(from Wiki)

And this is a detailed plot of the last 50 years

[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2006-06-25 11:29 ]

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:06 am

Sorry Bingo, but the consensis is that we don't have enough data to extrapolate. I'm affraid I don't have the time to google around again. I've already done it, and the situation is, that we don't have enough data. For example, reliable satelite info only began in 1979, which was after the climate 'shift' a few years earlier. Had satelites been orbiting 5 years ealier, our understanding may well be improved, but not decisive.

Sorry again bingo, but we definately don't have verifiable data when scientists are saying so (google around on this) (perhaps using 'Antarctic Ice melt') .. you'll find glacioligists in dissagreement, scientists in a state of uncertainty ... and ... disagreement.

We simply don't know enough to farcast & even then, a forcast is a forcast!!

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:25 am

On 2006-06-25 11:06, Shroomz wrote:
Sorry Bingo, but the consensis is that we don't have enough data to extrapolate.

Whose consensus? Please find it!

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:25 am

On 2006-06-25 09:51, Shroomz wrote:
... In fact, as the poles move due to increased lubrication, ...

the poles have always moved and the planet's surface has changed constantly including temperature and sea level ups and downs.

Today I'm climbing the remainings of coral riffs in the area nearby, or find footsteps of dinosaurs from right before the First Impact, another hill provides teeth of sharks and fossile starfish from the time preceeding the Ice Age and the red stone on some other hilltops reminds that the same area has been part of a swamp delta once as well...
nothing to worry about

cheers, tom

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:02 am

On 2006-06-25 11:25, BingoTheClowno wrote:
Whose consensus? Please find it!

Just google & read a little. Stats are currently uncertain. There is 'no' proof that 'anything' will happen.. It's pure speculation.

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:13 am

On 2006-06-25 12:02, Shroomz wrote:
On 2006-06-25 11:25, BingoTheClowno wrote:
Whose consensus? Please find it!
Just google & read a little. Stats are currently uncertain. There is 'no' proof that 'anything' will happen.. It's pure speculation.

I did, I could not find any.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:14 pm

On 2006-06-25 10:50, BingoTheClowno wrote:
...And Astroman, ...regarding the "statistical uncertainties", you're wrong there. The uncertainties that they are talking about ...

oops, that wasn't intended
I referred to a more general context, in which science deals with math models with full awareness of their complexity, while in the next best situation these rules are used in real world predictions.
There is a (natural) probability that any rule is correct, but the target of the modelling process is often published like a real observation.

cheers, Tom

Post by **garyb** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:19 pm

none has said the earth isn't warmer.
how hot was the cretaceous or precambrian? how hot was the ice age? NOONE really knows.

can we do something about this warming trend? maybe...and if we can we should.

REAL data is only from a VERY short period of time relative to the earth's age. there is only data to say what the temps are now, and to SPECULATE on why.

if one can't find any info showing the true lack of consensus, maybe one does not want to. the internet is a good source of info, but it is not the only source, nor is it always the best source.

my grandfather was PAID to do just this sort of pure scientific research on the environment back in the late '70s and early '80s and i can assure you, data that does not fit the desired model is often dismissed and buried, especially in official studies....

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:53 pm

On 2006-06-25 13:19, garyb wrote:
none has said the earth isn't warmer.
how hot was the cretaceous or precambrian? how hot was the ice age? NOONE really knows.

REAL data is only from a VERY short period of time relative to the earth's age. there is only data to say what the temps are now, and to SPECULATE on why.

Again, you are distorting reality with your thoughtless oppinions.
The discussion here is about the impact of human activities that ARE prooven to have increased the global climate. Do you accept that? All scientists are agreeing that IS the fact, they are not SPECULATING about that. Do you understand this?

What would temperatures of precambrian era of 4500 million years ago tell us? You think and tell me how would that be relevant. Life existed only at microscopic level at that time, how would you compare that with complex and fragile ecosystems that can be found today?
Nevertheless you are wrong again. The temperatures in precambrian are known. They can be found using hydrogen and oxygen isotopes found in cherts.

[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2006-06-25 17:06 ]

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:14 pm

On 2006-06-25 13:19, garyb wrote:
my grandfather was PAID to do just this sort of pure scientific research on the environment back in the late '70s and early '80s and i can assure you, data that does not fit the desired model is often dismissed and buried, especially in official studies....

Well in this case you should be paticularly ashamed because of your lack knowledge in this area.