• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

danhall

Beach Lover
Jul 14, 2006
140
9
danhallstudio.com
Dan, I agree that labeling people as tree huggers and hippies is counterproductive. All I was trying to point out was the rather chilling fact that there is an attempt to silence dissenters who feel they have credible data that counters the popularly accepted theory of global warming. When mass hysteria replaces rational thought process, you end up with situations like this:

Well, we won't kill you if you disagree. ;-)

I would love to know what mass hysteria about global warming would look like. Would there be long lines at the recycle bin, excessive carpooling, used car lots overflowing, bicycle manufacturer's ads flooding the Super Bowl?

I would also be interested in watching a docu-info-mentary about how everything is just peachy. Maybe one of these dissenters will get on that pretty soon. Maybe that is what Bush will do with his time off, sort of like an anti-Gore. Maybe they can cancel each other out. Then we'll have a lengthy debate while Big Oil gets more onery. We'll keep driving our Hummers, eating our Big Macs and burning up our cellphones calling American Idol.

Sorry to rant, my issue is with consumerism at large. I believe that we are altering our environment, and rampant consumerism is the prime mover. It is what makes the big wheels churn steadily on.
 

TripleB

Beach Fanatic
Jul 15, 2006
572
3
65
Huntsville, AL
Well, we won't kill you if you disagree. ;-)

I would love to know what mass hysteria about global warming would look like. Would there be long lines at the recycle bin, excessive carpooling, used car lots overflowing, bicycle manufacturer's ads flooding the Super Bowl?

I would also be interested in watching a docu-info-mentary about how everything is just peachy. Maybe one of these dissenters will get on that pretty soon. Maybe that is what Bush will do with his time off, sort of like an anti-Gore. Maybe they can cancel each other out. Then we'll have a lengthy debate while Big Oil gets more onery. We'll keep driving our Hummers, eating our Big Macs and burning up our cellphones calling American Idol.

Sorry to rant, my issue is with consumerism at large. I believe that we are altering our environment, and rampant consumerism is the prime mover. It is what makes the big wheels churn steadily on.
I think Dan has summed up with his last paragraph the reason for the skepticism.
 

danhall

Beach Lover
Jul 14, 2006
140
9
danhallstudio.com
I think Dan has summed up with his last paragraph the reason for the skepticism.

My take on the environmental issue is indeed chained together with a number of other ideas, which you may find overtly political. But, that doesn't mean that everybody else does the same. I apologize for my over-the-top generalizations, and for linking this issue to the others. I certainly don't think it's a bad thing to be skeptical. Believe me, I am VERY skeptical about a great number of things; most everything that I see on TV, in fact. I am, however, not ready to believe that Gore is doing this thing to make a buck, sell some movies, or get his close-up. I can't be that cynical just yet, as I am still an idealistic young man. I have to hope that majority science, though certainly not infalliable, has honed the craft enough to get this one right. Nobody wants there to be global warming, least of all the scientific community. It would threaten the world in which they are so interested. I am simply concerned. I read too much Alvin Toffler. I think about all the factories turning out the next plastic widget, in a last grasp at novelty. Can we just keep on "truckin"? There was an earlier post about how we as a society are going "green" regardless of this issue, because there stands to be a big dollar to be made from it. I don't care how or why we go there, I just hope we all can.

thanks for listening...
 

ecopal

Beach Fanatic
Apr 26, 2005
261
7
Check out this "long range" weather forecast of "wild weather" to phase in during this century.

Even though it is admittedly speculative it is very fascinating.
There actually is some relatively "good news" for our area.

excerpts:
... "What we take now as a surprise will be normal"...

..For many parts of the world it seems this trend is already under way. Climate scientists announced last week that 2006 has been the hottest year on record for the US, topping nine years of almost continuous rises.

Meanwhile, Europe experienced severe heatwaves in both 2003 and 2006, and for the UK 2006 was the warmest year since records began. ...

... the European Commission warns of stark changes for EU countries over the coming century, including shrinking forests, floods, drought and the drying out of fertile land - unless radical steps are taken to combat climate change.

..Rainfall in places in the middle, like Australia and the southern US, is expected to remain fairly close to what it is now."


BTW the graphics at this site for this article are very interesting

http://environment.newscientist.com...74.000-2100-a-world-of-wild-weather.html2100:

A world of wild weather
* 18 January 2007
* NewScientist.com news service
* Kate Ravilious

Think back to the hottest summer you can remember. Now imagine a summer like that every year. For those of us who are still around by the end of the 21st century, this is what we can expect, according to a new index that maps the different ways that climate change will hit different parts of the world. The map reveals how much more frequent extreme climate events, such as heatwaves and floods, will be by 2100 compared with the late 20th century. It is the first to show how global warming will combine with natural variations in the climate to affect our planet.

"We hope it will help policy-makers gain a quick overview of the scientific facts without getting lost in the detail," says Mich?le B?ttig of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, who created the index with colleagues after talking to delegates at the 2005 UN Climate Change Conference in Montreal, Canada. The index allows anyone to compare the severity of the predicted effect of climate change on a chunk of the Amazon rainforest, for example, with its effect on a corner of Antarctica.

The results are presented on a global map (see top image), in which the areas experiencing the greatest changes are shown in the darkest shades. Swathes of the tropics and high latitudes are coloured a foreboding brown, signifying the most marked changes.

Perhaps the most startling feature is how few areas remain unscathed. "This reinforces what much of the piecemeal climate science is telling us - that many places will face severe challenges," says Neil Adger of the UK's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, Norfolk. In the coming decades people in these areas could find it difficult or impossible to adapt to the changed conditions, he adds.

For many parts of the world it seems this trend is already under way. Climate scientists announced last week that 2006 has been the hottest year on record for the US, topping nine years of almost continuous rises. Meanwhile, Europe experienced severe heatwaves in both 2003 and 2006, and for the UK 2006 was the warmest year since records began. Nor does it look as if the mercury is going to stop rising. In an energy technology outlook study published last week, the European Commission warns of stark changes for EU countries over the coming century, including shrinking forests, floods, drought and the drying out of fertile land - unless radical steps are taken to combat climate change.

Yet in a global context, even these dramatic changes seem relatively modest. On B?ttig's climate change index map Europe, the US and Australia are coloured in shades of yellow and orange, putting them at around 6 or 7 on the scale. Parts of South America's Amazon rainforest and Africa's Congo basin fare much worse, with a predicted climate change index of around 11 (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2006GL028159).

The index was calculated from nine separate indicators of climate change. These included years that are hot, dry or wet overall, and also those in which the months of June, July and August, or December, January and February, would be extremely warm, dry or wet. B?ttig and her colleagues divided the world into squares measuring 375 by 375 kilometres, and for each indicator they identified the extreme climate events that in the period 1961 to 1990 would have been expected to occur in 1 year in 20.

Using three different global climate models, each based on a mid-range forecast for greenhouse gas emissions, they computed the likely change in frequency of these extreme events during the period 2071 to 2100. The changes were then weighted to provide a single number between 0 and 19 for each grid square. A value of 0 equates to all nine climate indicators remaining as 1-in-20-year events, whereas a value of 19 equates to all climate indicators becoming annual events.

"It is a very striking graphic," says Chris West, director of the UK Climate Impacts Programme at the University of Oxford. While other climate change indices have compared changes in average temperature or precipitation, this is the first global index based on climate extremes. "It focuses the debate on the big events we ought to be worrying about," says Tom Downing of the Stockholm Environment Institute and author of The Atlas of Climate Change.

The new index has its limitations. "Places that become hotter will face different problems to places that become wetter, but the index implies that they have the same level of risk," Downing says. B?ttig has addressed this problem with separate maps for each climate indicator. The first of these, representing additional hottest years, shows the world in an ominous deep red (see Map). When it comes to overall temperature, 1-in-20-year temperatures are set to become annual events by the end of this century. "What we take now as a surprise will be normal", says Downing.

Meanwhile, Antarctica and the Arctic can expect exceedingly wet years to become 13 times more likely, while tropical regions like the Amazon rainforest and the Congo basin will suffer droughts around 13 times more frequently (see Map). Rainfall in places in the middle, like Australia and the southern US, is expected to remain fairly close to what it is now.

Where natural disasters now take their toll

Climate change is not the same as climate impact, as changes in temperature and precipitation will affect people in some regions far more than others. For example, sub-Saharan Africa is a drought hotspot, while south and south-east Asia are vulnerable to storms and flooding. Any changes in climate here could affect people more severely than, say, those in Europe.

Art Lerner-Lam and colleagues from Columbia University in Palisades, New York, have sketched out which natural disasters pose the greatest threat to life on a global map of their own (see bottom image, right). They produced their map by combining data on hazard frequency and intensity from the recent past with population density, GDP and geographical factors such as land use. This has already influenced organisations such as the World Bank in deciding which regions should be prioritised for emergency lending.

The next step will be to overlay the extent of climate change, as revealed by B?ttig's index for example, and see how this affects the frequency and severity of future hazards. "We are working on this right now," says Lerner-Lam.
From issue 2587 of New Scientist magazine, 18 January 2007, page 6-7
Close this window
 

TripleB

Beach Fanatic
Jul 15, 2006
572
3
65
Huntsville, AL
Check out this "long range" weather forecast of "wild weather" to phase in during this century.

Even though it is admittedly speculative it is very fascinating.
There actually is some relatively "good news" for our area.

excerpts:
... "What we take now as a surprise will be normal"...

..For many parts of the world it seems this trend is already under way. Climate scientists announced last week that 2006 has been the hottest year on record for the US, topping nine years of almost continuous rises.

Meanwhile, Europe experienced severe heatwaves in both 2003 and 2006, and for the UK 2006 was the warmest year since records began. ...

... the European Commission warns of stark changes for EU countries over the coming century, including shrinking forests, floods, drought and the drying out of fertile land - unless radical steps are taken to combat climate change.

..Rainfall in places in the middle, like Australia and the southern US, is expected to remain fairly close to what it is now."


BTW the graphics at this site for this article are very interesting

http://environment.newscientist.com...74.000-2100-a-world-of-wild-weather.html2100:

A world of wild weather
* 18 January 2007
* NewScientist.com news service
* Kate Ravilious

Think back to the hottest summer you can remember. Now imagine a summer like that every year. For those of us who are still around by the end of the 21st century, this is what we can expect, according to a new index that maps the different ways that climate change will hit different parts of the world. The map reveals how much more frequent extreme climate events, such as heatwaves and floods, will be by 2100 compared with the late 20th century. It is the first to show how global warming will combine with natural variations in the climate to affect our planet.

"We hope it will help policy-makers gain a quick overview of the scientific facts without getting lost in the detail," says Michle Bttig of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, who created the index with colleagues after talking to delegates at the 2005 UN Climate Change Conference in Montreal, Canada. The index allows anyone to compare the severity of the predicted effect of climate change on a chunk of the Amazon rainforest, for example, with its effect on a corner of Antarctica.

The results are presented on a global map (see top image), in which the areas experiencing the greatest changes are shown in the darkest shades. Swathes of the tropics and high latitudes are coloured a foreboding brown, signifying the most marked changes.

Perhaps the most startling feature is how few areas remain unscathed. "This reinforces what much of the piecemeal climate science is telling us - that many places will face severe challenges," says Neil Adger of the UK's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, Norfolk. In the coming decades people in these areas could find it difficult or impossible to adapt to the changed conditions, he adds.

For many parts of the world it seems this trend is already under way. Climate scientists announced last week that 2006 has been the hottest year on record for the US, topping nine years of almost continuous rises. Meanwhile, Europe experienced severe heatwaves in both 2003 and 2006, and for the UK 2006 was the warmest year since records began. Nor does it look as if the mercury is going to stop rising. In an energy technology outlook study published last week, the European Commission warns of stark changes for EU countries over the coming century, including shrinking forests, floods, drought and the drying out of fertile land - unless radical steps are taken to combat climate change.

Yet in a global context, even these dramatic changes seem relatively modest. On Bttig's climate change index map Europe, the US and Australia are coloured in shades of yellow and orange, putting them at around 6 or 7 on the scale. Parts of South America's Amazon rainforest and Africa's Congo basin fare much worse, with a predicted climate change index of around 11 (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2006GL028159).

The index was calculated from nine separate indicators of climate change. These included years that are hot, dry or wet overall, and also those in which the months of June, July and August, or December, January and February, would be extremely warm, dry or wet. Bttig and her colleagues divided the world into squares measuring 375 by 375 kilometres, and for each indicator they identified the extreme climate events that in the period 1961 to 1990 would have been expected to occur in 1 year in 20.

Using three different global climate models, each based on a mid-range forecast for greenhouse gas emissions, they computed the likely change in frequency of these extreme events during the period 2071 to 2100. The changes were then weighted to provide a single number between 0 and 19 for each grid square. A value of 0 equates to all nine climate indicators remaining as 1-in-20-year events, whereas a value of 19 equates to all climate indicators becoming annual events.

"It is a very striking graphic," says Chris West, director of the UK Climate Impacts Programme at the University of Oxford. While other climate change indices have compared changes in average temperature or precipitation, this is the first global index based on climate extremes. "It focuses the debate on the big events we ought to be worrying about," says Tom Downing of the Stockholm Environment Institute and author of The Atlas of Climate Change.

The new index has its limitations. "Places that become hotter will face different problems to places that become wetter, but the index implies that they have the same level of risk," Downing says. Bttig has addressed this problem with separate maps for each climate indicator. The first of these, representing additional hottest years, shows the world in an ominous deep red (see Map). When it comes to overall temperature, 1-in-20-year temperatures are set to become annual events by the end of this century. "What we take now as a surprise will be normal", says Downing.

Meanwhile, Antarctica and the Arctic can expect exceedingly wet years to become 13 times more likely, while tropical regions like the Amazon rainforest and the Congo basin will suffer droughts around 13 times more frequently (see Map). Rainfall in places in the middle, like Australia and the southern US, is expected to remain fairly close to what it is now.

Where natural disasters now take their toll

Climate change is not the same as climate impact, as changes in temperature and precipitation will affect people in some regions far more than others. For example, sub-Saharan Africa is a drought hotspot, while south and south-east Asia are vulnerable to storms and flooding. Any changes in climate here could affect people more severely than, say, those in Europe.

Art Lerner-Lam and colleagues from Columbia University in Palisades, New York, have sketched out which natural disasters pose the greatest threat to life on a global map of their own (see bottom image, right). They produced their map by combining data on hazard frequency and intensity from the recent past with population density, GDP and geographical factors such as land use. This has already influenced organisations such as the World Bank in deciding which regions should be prioritised for emergency lending.

The next step will be to overlay the extent of climate change, as revealed by Bttig's index for example, and see how this affects the frequency and severity of future hazards. "We are working on this right now," says Lerner-Lam.
From issue 2587 of New Scientist magazine, 18 January 2007, page 6-7
Close this window
What was the average temperature between the years 1613 to 1663? How about 345 BC to 245 BC? I don't know. The Earth, by most accounts, is 3 1/2 to 4 billion years old. So we use records that date back (maybe) 100 years or so to conclude that we are beginning a global warming period. BTW global warming apparently started about 10-15 years ago according to mostof the data proponents offer (the decade of the 30's also showed increased temps.).

The point is that the Earth is a living planet and goes through climatic changes. We can't start it and we can't stop it. We can do things that can help give us a cleaner enviroment which can provide us a more healthy place in which we live. The cause of global warming and global cooling is the SUN, which also is a living body. What caused the "Ice Age"? What caused the end of the "Ice Age"...mammoth farts?

We have what seems to be warming in the Artic but also cooling in the Antartic. Are we only having global warming in the northern hemisphere? I believe I have the answer that most of the alarmist want to hear: The initials for global warming is gw...GW is in the White House! It's George Bush's fault!!!
There...i said it for you. Now you don't have to "beat around the Bush" (pun intended). I now must apologize to the ozone because I'm eating Mexican tonight.
 

ecopal

Beach Fanatic
Apr 26, 2005
261
7
ttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524861.500-meet-the-global-warming-sceptics.html

MEET THE GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS

* 12 February 2005
* NewScientist.com news service

"Most of the prominent organisations making the case against mainstream climate science have an avowed agenda of promoting free markets and minimal government. They often accept funding from the fossil-fuel industry. Few employ climate scientists.

1 Competitive Enterprise Institute (Washington DC)

A free-market lobby organisation that employs six experts on climate change. Two are lawyers, one an economist, one a political scientist, one a graduate in business studies and one a mathematician. They include economist Myron Ebell, most famous in the UK for a tirade on BBC radio in November 2004 in which he accused the UK government's chief scientist David King of "knowing nothing about climate science". The institute receives funding from ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil company and an outspoken corporate opponent of mainstream climate science.

2 American Enterprise Institute (Washington DC)

Another free market think tank. The five experts it sent to the most recent negotiations on the Kyoto protocol, held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in December, included just one natural scientist - a chemist. Receives money from ExxonMobil.

3 George C. Marshall Institute (Washington DC)

A think tank that has been promoting scepticism on climate change since 1989. It is a leading proponent of the argument that climate science is highly uncertain. Receives money from ExxonMobil.

4 International Policy Network (London)

Free-market think tank which in November 2004 said global warming was a "myth", and described David King as "an embarrassment". Receives money from ExxonMobil.
5 The scientists

There are a few authoritative climate scientists in the sceptic camp. The most notable are Patrick Michaels from the University of Virginia, who is also the chief environmental commentator at the Cato Institute in Washington DC, and meteorologist Richard Lindzen from MIT. Most others are either retired, outside mainstream academia or tied to the fossil fuel industry. In the UK, three of the most prominent are Philip Stott, a retired biogeographer, former TV botanist David Bellamy, and Martin Keeley, a palaeogeologist. Keeley argues on a BBC website that "global warming is a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests". He is an oil exploration consultant.
From issue 2486 of New Scientist magazine, 12 February 2005, page 40
Close this window
Printed on Fri Jan 19 22:27:55 GMT 2007
 

A Zalace

Beach Comber
Jan 5, 2007
45
4
I hope everyone is watching or listening to what is happening in our government right now. If you look at the number of American cities, local governments, and now even politicians who are pushing for "global warming" based change it is hard to imagine it is all a hoax. Some of the biggest "free thinking" places in America are taking a stand because their president will not. Now even congress is taking a stand on the issue. Someone told me today that Scotland made "An Inconvenient Truth" a mandatory part of school curriculum. So I ask anyone who doubts global warming one question, "does a hoax or farce fool this many intelligent people?" I wonder how many of the skeptics writing on this thread have even seen Mr. Gore's film. The thing that I find amusing is that Gore addresses every single point being brought up in this discussion. He then goes on to solidify his points with both scientific and photographic proof. He address the heating-cooling cycles of the earth, the former ice ages, carbon records, and much more. It is hard to ignore the data, which by the way no one argues. Things are beginning to change very quickly. If you don't believe this just research what Chicago, New York, or better yet your Congress (as of today) is doing to bring about change. I say let the skeptics think what they want, but when the change comes they will have the most difficulty adjusting.
 

Bob

SoWal Insider
Nov 16, 2004
10,366
1,391
O'Wal
I think the point is not to be fooled by any propaganda machine, regardless of who is greasing the wheels. Silencing voices on either side of the debate is wholly contrary to the scientific method.
Isn't it a flaming coincidence that the oil industry pays for the anti-global warming lobbyists. Whose interests do they speak for? The public? Assuming one side is wrong here, even if the enviromentalists are wrong, what is the catastrophe of alternative fuels and a cleaner backyard. Can you imagine an entire generation of Americans not fixated on the Middle East, or trying to jeopardize our coastlines or wilderness in order to pump fossil fuels? I can, because we have the technological know-how to do it and make the change. Oh, I forgot....the oil companies don't want this to happen. Why do we have a carrier battle group heading to the Persian Gulf? Freedom? Our kids are dying to keep the entire region stable for the uninterupted flow of oil. We have been pumping oil for about 150 years now, and I look forward to the day when a model drilling platform is in the Smithsonian, to be treated as a relic and curiosity.
 

TripleB

Beach Fanatic
Jul 15, 2006
572
3
65
Huntsville, AL
I hope everyone is watching or listening to what is happening in our government right now. If you look at the number of American cities, local governments, and now even politicians who are pushing for "global warming" based change it is hard to imagine it is all a hoax. Some of the biggest "free thinking" places in America are taking a stand because their president will not. Now even congress is taking a stand on the issue. Someone told me today that Scotland made "An Inconvenient Truth" a mandatory part of school curriculum. So I ask anyone who doubts global warming one question, "does a hoax or farce fool this many intelligent people?" I wonder how many of the skeptics writing on this thread have even seen Mr. Gore's film. The thing that I find amusing is that Gore addresses every single point being brought up in this discussion. He then goes on to solidify his points with both scientific and photographic proof. He address the heating-cooling cycles of the earth, the former ice ages, carbon records, and much more. It is hard to ignore the data, which by the way no one argues. Things are beginning to change very quickly. If you don't believe this just research what Chicago, New York, or better yet your Congress (as of today) is doing to bring about change. I say let the skeptics think what they want, but when the change comes they will have the most difficulty adjusting.
No one that I have read on this thread (I may have missed it) has said that global warming is a hoax. I have stated several times that we may indeed be in the beginning stages of a period where the Earth is warming. Its the assumption that it is "man-made" or I guess to appease many appetites "Big Sleazy Corrupt Corporation-Made" that I find ridiculous. Either side can and has picked "facts" that support their positions.

So bluntly, my position is that if we are going through Global Warming...its a part of the natural process the Earth has experienced for billions of years. If you believe that global warming is caused or can be stopped by man... then this is the first time in about 4,000,000,000 years such a thing has happened (I could be mistaken by this, so please enlighten me if there have been other such occassions.)

Questions I would like addressed : End of "Ice Age"? (no big mean oil companys around). Did we have global warming in the 30's? (5 of the top ten hottest on record were during the 30's) If the ice shelf is melting in the Artic due to global warming...why is the ice shelf growing in the Antartic? I really would like to hear some views on this (other than the old "propaganda" reply which seems to be the standard response.)
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter