Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#103
#103
TennTradition said:
This is an incredibly difficult thing to do on almost any subject, FWIW.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Very true, almost everyone has an angle and there are many drivers at work on this particular subject that should cause anyone with the slightest bit of objectivity to ask questions.
 
#104
#104
IPorange said:
Not just academic dishonesty. It would have to be the largest scale conspiracy in the history of mankind, perpetrated by mostly the brightest and highest educated on the relevant subject matter, but sniffed out by the Joe six-packs with GED's and associate's degrees of America. Truly amazing. It'd make a great made-for-tv movie starring Billy Ray Cyrus or Alan Jackson.
Click to expand...

That's funny because it's true.

However, if global warming wasn't used as a scare tactic by politicians, people wouldn't be near as skeptical.
 
#105
#105
TSwafford said:
The colder winters britain has been experiencing are due to global warming according to these scientists
Global warming 'will give Britain longer, colder winters' as melting sea ice plays havoc with weather patterns | Mail Online


A few years ago Global Warming scientists were saying the oposite:
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

does anybody actually believe the global warming garbage, except the people that are making billions from this myth? LOL
Click to expand...

Who is making billions?

Anyone who watches WWII footage knows the snowfalls of this winter in Europe are nothing. The media and the personal anecdotes at the airlines give a false impression.

But I ask again, who is making billions from the "global warming myth?"
 
#106
#106
IPorange said:
Not just academic dishonesty. It would have to be the largest scale conspiracy in the history of mankind, perpetrated by mostly the brightest and highest educated on the relevant subject matter, but sniffed out by the Joe six-packs with GED's and associate's degrees of America. Truly amazing. It'd make a great made-for-tv movie starring Billy Ray Cyrus or Alan Jackson.
Click to expand...

Absolutely brilliant.

The best post I've read on VolNation to date.

You get a :loco:
 
#107
#107
MG1968 said:
volcanic eruptions are natural events, and before man came along forest fires would rage unchecked for who knows how long.
Click to expand...

Wow. I mean, double wow. I mean (jawdrop) wow. I mean :epic facepalm: wow.

I can only assume (and hope) this post was tongue-in-cheek. If not, it is proof positive that:

It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
 
#108
#108
IPorange said:
Not just academic dishonesty. It would have to be the largest scale conspiracy in the history of mankind, perpetrated by mostly the brightest and highest educated on the relevant subject matter, but sniffed out by the Joe six-packs with GED's and associate's degrees of America. Truly amazing. It'd make a great made-for-tv movie starring Billy Ray Cyrus or Alan Jackson.
Click to expand...

the real question is what the effect will be and also if we can do anything about it. there is no question that those two issues have become political and likely hugely exagerated to try to freak people into action.
 
#109
#109
droski said:
the real question is what the effect will be and also if we can do anything about it. there is no question that those two issues have become political and likely hugely exagerated to try to freak people into action.
Click to expand...

Of course we can do something about it.

The real question is will we?

If people aren't freaked out by a false economy, dwindling cheap energy supplies, sea levels displacing 500M people and changing world maps, a Sixth Great Extinction event, I'm not sure what we should get up in arms about.

Nuclear war? Sun Supernova? Alien invasions?

The super sad part is, and the true demonstation of our infantile culture, is people DO get up in arms about the latter three.
 
#110
#110
utgibbs said:
Of course we can do something about it.

The real question is will we?

If people aren't freaked out by a false economy, dwindling cheap energy supplies, sea levels displacing 500M people and changing world maps, a Sixth Great Extinction event, I'm not sure what we should get up in arms about.

Nuclear war? Sun Supernova? Alien invasions?

The super sad part is, and the true demonstation of our infantile culture, is people DO get up in arms about the latter three.
Click to expand...

we can do something about it if we completely shut down industry world wide which would send the world into poverty and likely starve billions of people. sounds like a brilliant idea.

mankind survived the ice age, we'll surivive global warming. your sea levels killing and displacing millions of people is an exact example of the type of ridiculous hysteria that comes from the global warming nuts.
 
#111
#111
To be honest, sea levels probably wouldn't have to rise that much to displace hundreds of millions from places like Indonesia and Bangladesh (also, some areas of China) where you have ridiculous population densities in flat, low-lying, coastal areas. I assume that is where the number comes from. 500 M people might correspond to 3 or 4 feet of sea level rise, not the 30 feet of bad History channel movies.

This is just conjecture though...I don't know these numbers. The 500 M number could correspond to much higher levels...care to comment gibbs? I'm just throwing it out there...

Also, I'm sure the believability of 3 or 4 feet can be argued as well.
 
Last edited:
#112
#112
droski said:
we can do something about it if we completely shut down industry world wide which would send the world into poverty and likely starve billions of people. sounds like a brilliant idea.

mankind survived the ice age, we'll surivive global warming. your sea levels killing and displacing millions of people is an exact example of the type of ridiculous hysteria that comes from the global warming nuts.
Click to expand...

Which is the scare tactics I referenced earlier.
 
#113
#113
TennTradition said:
To be honest, sea levels probably wouldn't have to rise that much to displace hundreds of millions from places like Indonesia and Bangladesh where you have ridiculous population densities in flat, low-lying, coastal areas. I assume that is where the number comes from. 500 M people might correspond to 3 or 4 feet of sea level rise, not the 30 feet of bad History channel movies.

This is just conjecture though...I don't know these numbers. The 500 M number could correspond to much higher levels...care to comment gibbs? I'm just throwing it out there...

Also, I'm sure the believability of 3 or 4 feet can be argued as well.
Click to expand...

i understand the bangladesh stats. but shoudl we be driving policy for the world to protect one country? and is a 3 foot rise in sea level going to whipe out the entire country? seems questionable at best. is a couple of million people having to move really something that should be scaring the crap out of us? we did it for katrina.
 
#114
#114
droski said:
i understand the bangladesh stats. but shoudl we be driving policy for the world to protect one country? and is a 3 foot rise in sea level going to whipe out the entire country? seems questionable at best. is a couple of million people having to move really something that should be scaring the crap out of us? we did it for katrina.
Click to expand...

I've had a lot of these discussions. They are difficult discussions. My belief is that it will take a preponderance of (likely physical) evidence for the US to do much about any potential or actual effects of global warming. In the end of the day, the US can largely adapt to any changes that are thrown our way. There could be some discomfort, a fair amount of money spent, etc., but unless the worse outcomes occur (for example, permafrost melts, huge changes in land-ice mass, etc.) we can adapt.

The question of other nations and their ability to adapt is of course a harder question. And, Bangladesh is just one country of several in a similar situation. I'm not suggesting that the whole country would be under water, but if we see any appreciable sea level rise, some areas will be. The unrest caused by this would be intimately tied to the local geopolitical situation, of which I am not familiar. Can a few million people pick up and move inland in Bangladesh? Would those who are inland accept them? Are there tribal or political barriers? I don't know, but those are the sorts of things that could begin to muddy the waters.

Let's look at Indonesia. If millions of people are uprooted and looking for a new home, do you think folks like Al Qaeda might benefit from this? They are well-financed by the Saudis and would be able to provide assistance, a new home, etc. I'm not saying this to provide a scare tactic, I think they are worthwhile questions. Of course, Al Qaeda will likely not be the concern it is today in 100 years - so this exact question could be irrelevant - but the stress put on these populations in areas of the world that are already not-so-stable is still a valid concern.

Also, we are not only talking about sea level rise here. If we lose glacial mass or mountain snow volume, areas that rely on summer glacial/snow melt for drinking water and irrigation for their crops will be faced with water and food shortages. So, this takes the issue from a coastal problem to a more uniform problem for a lot of countries. Will we see more drought? Will this lead to additional food shortages? I don't know. But, it is why I entertain the discussion and don't dismiss it. I think the questions are valid and our role in it is worth discussion.

Also, all of these things *could* happen without human influence. That is the big "why bother" contributor for a lot of people. Th orbit could shift, the sun could go on hyperdrive, etc. and the earth could see these exact same effects with no input from man. I understand these arguments, but I don't really subscribe to them. Yes, those things *could* happen. We *could* also be hit by an asteroid tomorrow. If we can't predict that they are going to happen, then we can't just hold up these possibilities as reasons not to act on something that we can predict that we may cause. Of course, these predictions have their own error bars, uncertainties, etc. But, I think the case for action should be argued on what we can predict and the confidence we have in those predictions.

Personally, I don't believe that in the current political "climate" that a cap and trade program would achieve the desired reductions. I think that it would be susceptible to political manipulation, and the targeted emissions reductions would not be achieved and those that are achieved would likely be reached in a very inefficient manner. So, where does that leave us? Try another carbon abatement program? At what cost? Would it really lead to industrial collapse? I think that the answer is no to that, but only if the carbon abatement program is a unified effort among all industrial or industrializing nations. What are the chances of this happening? Slim.

I think that unless we see a wealth of physical evidence, the world will go on with business as usual. I think we will just *hope* that the effects of any warming we cause (and I do believe we will cause warming) will not be so bad (and I also believe this is a possibility....though I don't know what the odds are). I'm not advocating this as the best position to have, but I do think it is going to be what happens.
 
Last edited:
#115
#115
TennTradition said:
I've had a lot of these discussions. They are difficult discussions. My belief is that it will take a preponderance of (likely physical) evidence for the US to do much about any potential or actual effects of global warming. In the end of the day, the US can largely adapt to any changes that are thrown our way. There could be some discomfort, a fair amount of money spent, etc., but unless the worse outcomes occur (for example, permafrost melts, huge changes in land-ice mass, etc.) we can adapt.

The question of other nations and their ability to adapt is of course a harder question. And, Bangladesh is just one country of several in a similar situation. I'm not suggesting that the whole country would be under water, but if we see any appreciable sea level rise, some areas will be. The unrest caused by this would be intimately tied to the local geopolitical situation, of which I am not familiar. Can a few million people pick up and move inland in Bangladesh? Would those who are inland accept them? Are there tribal or political barriers? I don't know, but those are the sorts of things that could begin to muddy the waters.

Let's look at Indonesia. If millions of people are uprooted and looking for a new home, do you think folks like Al Qaeda might benefit from this? They are well-financed by the Saudis and would be able to provide assistance, a new home, etc. I'm not saying this to provide a scare tactic, I think they are worthwhile questions. Of course, Al Qaeda will likely not be the concern it is today in 100 years - so this exact question could be irrelevant - but the stress put on these populations in areas of the world that are already not-so-stable is still a valid concern.

Also, we are not only talking about sea level rise here. If we lose glacial mass or mountain snow volume, areas that rely on summer glacial/snow melt for drinking water and irrigation for their crops will be faced with water and food shortages. So, this takes the issue from a coastal problem to a more uniform problem for a lot of countries. Will we see more drought? Will this lead to additional food shortages? I don't know. But, it is why I entertain the discussion and don't dismiss it. I think the questions are valid and our role in it is worth discussion.

Also, all of these things *could* happen without human influence. That is the big "why bother" contributor for a lot of people. Th orbit could shift, the sun could go on hyperdrive, etc. and the earth could see these exact same effects with no input from man. I understand these arguments, but I don't really subscribe to them. Yes, those things *could* happen. We *could* also be hit by a meteor tomorrow. If we can't predict that they are going to happen, then we can't just hold up these possibilities as reasons not to act on something that we can predict that we may cause. Of course, these predictions have their own error bars, uncertainties, etc. But, I think the case for action should be argued on what we can predict and the confidence we have in those predictions.

Personally, I don't believe that in the current political "climate" that a cap and trade program would achieve the desired reductions. I think that it would be susceptible to political manipulation, and the targeted emissions reductions would not be achieved and those that are achieved would likely be reached in a very inefficient manner. So, where does that leave us? Try another carbon abatement program? At what cost? Would it really lead to industrial collapse? I think that the answer is no to that, but only if the carbon abatement program is a unified effort among all industrial or industrializing nations. What are the chances of this happening? Slim.

I think that unless we see a wealth of physical evidence, the world will go on with business as usual. I think we will just *hope* that the effects of any warming we cause (and I do believe we will cause warming) will not be so bad (and I also believe this is a possibility....though I don't know what the odds are). I'm not advocating this as the best position to have, but I do think it is going to be what happens.
Click to expand...

Gee that's scary.

And ever so scientific I might add.

Just think one of our solutions so far (ethanol mandate) led to food riots in over twenty coiuntries.

I just can't wait for the next political solution, doubling our energy costs, I see buildings in America burning to the ground when the riots really get serious.
 
#116
#116
gsvol said:
Gee that's scary.

And ever so scientific I might add.

Just think one of our solutions so far (ethanol mandate) led to food riots in over twenty coiuntries.

I just can't wait for the next political solution, doubling our energy costs, I see buildings in America burning to the ground when the riots really get serious.
Click to expand...

Please show me where I have suggested that corn ethanol mandates were a reasonable approach to solving the problem.

Also, this post was clearly focused on potential ramifications of inaction assuming that the predictions play out. There was no need to proceed through a scientific assessment once that assumption was made. I've made my scientific points elsewhere.

Also, recalling your difficulty with reading comprehension - you will note that I said your posts often lack a scientific quality. You also occasionally copy and paste something that is based upon elements of science - that is why I said often, not always. I'm sorry that this bit of truth has obviously caused you a great deal of consternation...since you have brought it up .... again. The key difference between posts like mine above and many of yours is that the post you quoted was not intended to make a case for (or against) AGW - thus it contained little science. On the other hand, you consistently try to make a case that AGW is bunk using silly cartoons, charges of conspiracy, and broad generalizations with the occasional scientific point thrown in, but often incorrectly or out of context. I will give you credit, though, I am sure you have occasionally copied and pasted a valid scientific criticism here and there. Good job.
 
#117
#117
TennTradition said:
I've had a lot of these discussions. They are difficult discussions. My belief is that it will take a preponderance of (likely physical) evidence for the US to do much about any potential or actual effects of global warming. In the end of the day, the US can largely adapt to any changes that are thrown our way. There could be some discomfort, a fair amount of money spent, etc., but unless the worse outcomes occur (for example, permafrost melts, huge changes in land-ice mass, etc.) we can adapt.

The question of other nations and their ability to adapt is of course a harder question. And, Bangladesh is just one country of several in a similar situation. I'm not suggesting that the whole country would be under water, but if we see any appreciable sea level rise, some areas will be. The unrest caused by this would be intimately tied to the local geopolitical situation, of which I am not familiar. Can a few million people pick up and move inland in Bangladesh? Would those who are inland accept them? Are there tribal or political barriers? I don't know, but those are the sorts of things that could begin to muddy the waters.

Let's look at Indonesia. If millions of people are uprooted and looking for a new home, do you think folks like Al Qaeda might benefit from this? They are well-financed by the Saudis and would be able to provide assistance, a new home, etc. I'm not saying this to provide a scare tactic, I think they are worthwhile questions. Of course, Al Qaeda will likely not be the concern it is today in 100 years - so this exact question could be irrelevant - but the stress put on these populations in areas of the world that are already not-so-stable is still a valid concern.

Also, we are not only talking about sea level rise here. If we lose glacial mass or mountain snow volume, areas that rely on summer glacial/snow melt for drinking water and irrigation for their crops will be faced with water and food shortages. So, this takes the issue from a coastal problem to a more uniform problem for a lot of countries. Will we see more drought? Will this lead to additional food shortages? I don't know. But, it is why I entertain the discussion and don't dismiss it. I think the questions are valid and our role in it is worth discussion.

Also, all of these things *could* happen without human influence. That is the big "why bother" contributor for a lot of people. Th orbit could shift, the sun could go on hyperdrive, etc. and the earth could see these exact same effects with no input from man. I understand these arguments, but I don't really subscribe to them. Yes, those things *could* happen. We *could* also be hit by a meteor tomorrow. If we can't predict that they are going to happen, then we can't just hold up these possibilities as reasons not to act on something that we can predict that we may cause. Of course, these predictions have their own error bars, uncertainties, etc. But, I think the case for action should be argued on what we can predict and the confidence we have in those predictions.

Personally, I don't believe that in the current political "climate" that a cap and trade program would achieve the desired reductions. I think that it would be susceptible to political manipulation, and the targeted emissions reductions would not be achieved and those that are achieved would likely be reached in a very inefficient manner. So, where does that leave us? Try another carbon abatement program? At what cost? Would it really lead to industrial collapse? I think that the answer is no to that, but only if the carbon abatement program is a unified effort among all industrial or industrializing nations. What are the chances of this happening? Slim.

I think that unless we see a wealth of physical evidence, the world will go on with business as usual. I think we will just *hope* that the effects of any warming we cause (and I do believe we will cause warming) will not be so bad (and I also believe this is a possibility....though I don't know what the odds are). I'm not advocating this as the best position to have, but I do think it is going to be what happens.
Click to expand...

good stuff. i agree with your points and questions. there is such a wide range of possible effects (i.e. almost none to catestrophic) that it's a hard issue to discuss rationally. personally i don't think sending the world into an economic depression is worth it. time will tell i suppose.
 
#118
#118
TennTradition said:
Please show me where I have suggested that corn ethanol mandates were a reasonable approach to solving the problem.

Also, this post was clearly focused on potential ramifications of inaction assuming that the predictions play out. There was no need to proceed through a scientific assessment once that assumption was made. I've made my scientific points elsewhere.

Also, recalling your difficulty with reading comprehension - you will note that I said your posts often lack a scientific quality. You also occasionally copy and paste something that is based upon elements of science - that is why I said often, not always. I'm sorry that this bit of truth has obviously caused you a great deal of consternation...since you have brought it up .... again. The key difference between posts like mine above and many of yours is that the post you quoted was not intended to make a case for (or against) AGW - thus it contained little science. On the other hand, you consistently try to make a case that AGW is bunk using silly cartoons, charges of conspiracy, and broad generalizations with the occasional scientific point thrown in, but often incorrectly or out of context. I will give you credit, though, I am sure you have occasionally copied and pasted a valid scientific criticism here and there. Good job.
Click to expand...

Long time no see TT.

Don't get so worked up TT, it's not worth it. Maybe you should take a quick break,step outside and hug a tree!:)
 
#119
#119
If the earth heated up, wouldnt we see more moisture in the air? Possibly making some areas new "Bread Baskets" since growing would seasons be longer
 
#121
#121
VolsNSkinsFan said:
If the earth heated up, wouldnt we see more moisture in the air? Possibly making some areas new "Bread Baskets" since growing would seasons be longer
Click to expand...

Most likely to more water vapor. Quite possibly to new bread baskets. You typically associate a warmer world with an atmosphere that has more energy in it. If this means more storms, then that is not necessarily good for crops. You don't get a lot out of intense storms that strip away top-layers of soil...instead of more prolonged rain. But, that is probably a big IF....

This is one of the hardest areas to predict and I don't have a lot of faith in the predictions at the moment (a leading climate modeler currently says that a coin flip is as effective at predicting the impact of a warming world on local precipitation patterns as is the climate model). We are talking about an atmosphere that - on global average - has more heat and more energy. How this plays out locally with regard to precipitation is a much tougher dragon to slay than, say, global average temperatures.
 
#122
#122
KB5252 said:
Long time no see TT.

Don't get so worked up TT, it's not worth it. Maybe you should take a quick break,step outside and hug a tree!:)
Click to expand...

:eek:lol:

Just make sure it isn't an Indonesian al-qaeda tree!!



VolsNSkinsFan said:
If the earth heated up, wouldnt we see more moisture in the air? Possibly making some areas new "Bread Baskets" since growing would seasons be longer
Click to expand...

Gee what if the Greenland ice cap were to melt enough to allow those Vikings to farm there again?

Now that's really frightening.

I'm developing carpal tunnel just wringing my hands over all these dire possibilities.
 
#124
#124
VolsNSkinsFan said:
If the earth heated up, wouldnt we see more moisture in the air? Possibly making some areas new "Bread Baskets" since growing would seasons be longer
Click to expand...

The IPCC does detail some increases in grain production in some areas. However, only up to a certain point. Go beyond a 2.5C average and everything, everywhere falls down in every scenario. Moreover, even though there are regions of increased productivity, the regions of DECREASED productivity are still more numerous in almost every scenario.

The Sahel is the textbook region.
 
#125
#125
VolsNSkinsFan said:
If the earth heated up, wouldnt we see more moisture in the air? Possibly making some areas new "Bread Baskets" since growing would seasons be longer
Click to expand...

You would see more water in the air (absolute humidity would increase), but lower relative humidity because the warmer the air is, the higher capacity it has for water vapor. You only have condensation (dew, cloud formation, etc.) when you reach capacity of a given air parcel, which requires more and more water the hotter it is.

Humidity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This stuff is intricate.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top