Are we about to go into Global Cooling? If so why?
quote:
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.
Edward Teach said this in post #1 : Are we about to go into Global Cooling? If so why?
Unlike the politically motivated junk science of the MMGW agenda, true science has proven that there is a regular, worldwide, 1,500 year (plus or minus 500 years) warming / cooling cycle that goes back at least one million years. This is confirmed in ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagtites, tree rings, and human records. There is no proof of what is forcing this 1,500 year cycle, but the best evidence points to the sun as the cause.
In recent times, there was the Roman Warming followed by the Dark Ages, followed by the Little Climate Optimum (or Midievil Warming), followed by the Little Ice Age, followed by the Modern Warming which we are now in. The Little Ice Age lasted until the late 1800s.
The Little Climate Optimum was warmer than today's warming cycle. If manmade CO2 is causing global warming today, how does one explain how the LCO was warmer without any manmade CO2?
Moreover, the scientific eveidence shows that it is the coolings that afflict the world with famine, disease, death and destruction, whereas the warmings have been benificial. The primary characteristic of the coolings is bad storms and erratic weather, unlike the warmings which produce more food and bring stable weather.
According to this long range, 1,500 year cycle, there is no question that we are in a warming, and will once again enter a cooling. This transition can happen in as little as one or two decades. Therefore, the next cooling cycle could be right around the corner. The so-called whacky, or wild weather that the global warming proponents and news media love to highlight as evidence of their cause, could actually be evidence of entering the cooling cycle. Such weather is the primary destructive attribute of the cooling cycle.
if last year was the cooling cycle i want to know why we had record breaking heat waves in central plains area. it was 115 + humid for about a month. We broke a heat record every other day or few days the entire summer.
Dreamzwalker said this in post #5 : if last year was the cooling cycle i want to know why we had record breaking heat waves in central plains area. it was 115 + humid for about a month. We broke a heat record every other day or few days the entire summer.
You can't judge by any given weather event. The global warming phennomena, whether man caused or not, is only based on a measurement of average temperature increase that is less than 1 degree per century.
It seems to me like an enviromental issue that has become partisan. If so, neither side is going to win. At worst the Global Warming theory/fact is accepted and we start treating the environment better. What's the matter with that? Lessen the dependency on oil, save electricity, all that jazz.
HECK! said this in post #8 : It seems to me like an enviromental issue that has become partisan. If so, neither side is going to win. At worst the Global Warming theory/fact is accepted and we start treating the environment better. What's the matter with that? Lessen the dependency on oil, save electricity, all that jazz.
-HECK!
The "all that jazz" part is fine, but there is a huge price to pay in order to offset the threat of the theory of manmade global warming. I doubt anybody wants to pay that price. They certainly don't want to pay it if the theory is wrong.
Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn't stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.
I should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we're only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.
I think there are a lot of better reasons to question the validity of the theory of manmade global warming besides the contention that scientists were predicting global cooling in the 1970’s. During the Roman Warming and the Little Climate Optimum, the climate was warmer than it is today, yet nobody was producing CO2 (except for exhaling).
It is easy to determine whether the climate is warming or cooling by measuring temperature over time. Determining the cause or even quantifying the total CO2 on earth is practically impossible. The strongest evidence for today’s popular theory of MMGW is computer models. Yet there is much to question about their validity because of their observed failures, including their inability to hindcast weather conditions that have already occurred.
The "all that jazz" part is fine, but there is a huge price to pay in order to offset the threat of the theory of manmade global warming. I doubt anybody wants to pay that price. They certainly don't want to pay it if the theory is wrong.
But my question is what's the worst that can happen if we do take those steps?
But my question is what's the worst that can happen if we do take those steps?
-HECK!
There is nothing wrong with treating the environment better aside from the issue of MMGW, but the problem of MMGW has been specifically defined by its proponents, and that definition also defines the specific, required solution. And a country that thinks $3.00 per gallon gasoline is painful, cannot possibly understand what level of sacrifice will be required if they are willing to move ahead with a cure for the alleged threat of MMGW.
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has indicated that stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at "moderate" levels might require cutting fossil fuel use by 60 to 80 percent worldwide. Kyoto member countries might have to cut much more in order to balance the rising emissions of developing countries such as China and India, which Kyoto exempts from compliance.
Most people want to do what is reasonable to protect the environment, but to achieve the goal of reversing the alleged effects of MMGW, the following sacrifices must be made:
1) End the use of industrial nitrogen fertilizer, which is produced by fossil fuels, and revert to 100% organic farming, which would cut food production by 50% and raise the price accordingly.
2) End the burning of coal, and revert to wind and solar for the generation of electricity, and raise the price accordingly.
3) End the consumption of meat and dairy products.
4) End private personal automobile transportation.
5) Replace the use of gasoline and diesel with ethanol.
Obviously these changes would be extreme, but we are talking about ending the use of fossil fuels. Of course, these sacrifices do not have to happen overnight, but they certainly MUST happen within ten years.
Edward Teach said this in post #14 : Still there is no scientific proof that Global Warming exist. However there is a lot of scientific proof that it's a natural occurance.
I absolutely agree. But it does not have to be proven in order to make a remedy to it the law of the land. All that is necessary is for enough people to believe that it is a proven scientific fact. Once that critial mass of belief is reached, we are all going to sacrifice for the remedy whether we want to or not. All of network TV is promoting MMGW as if it were a proven fact. They say the debate is over. And they say the proponents have won.
The proponents of MMGW obviously want to alarm us about the threat. People ought to be alarmed about the cure.
The U.S. Supreme Court is in the process of deciding whether CO2 must be regulated by the Federal Evironmental Protection Agency. If they decide that it must, they will have essentially decided that the THEORY of MMGW is no longer a theory, but proven scientifc fact, and that we must all take action to combat it. Imagine that! The highest court in the land deciding the validity of a scientific theory that some of the most brilliant scientific minds cannot agree on.
The "all that jazz" part is fine, but there is a huge price to pay in order to offset the threat of the theory of manmade global warming. I doubt anybody wants to pay that price. They certainly don't want to pay it if the theory is wrong.
In the end, it is the mockery of democracy - where (mis) informed individuals finally say no more and declare the Earth flat again. The public noise would drown the issue and sentence Galileo to the guillotine. That's putting an end to natural science. Truth is again overshadowed by popular perception heavily influenced by Hollywood quality cG rather than by honest facts.
Then the only science that would be left is political science - men would have the ability to sucker their fellow while the Truth & honesty suffers in the public place.
Then the only science that would be left is political science
Yes there is political science and then there is science that has been politicized as is the case with the science that is pimping the theory of man made global warming.
I know there are a lot of people making money off of this Global Warming thing be it truth or myth.
One things for sure, it still doesn't hurt to put less polutants in the air, more for creature comfort than anything. I mean I don't want to breath all that smog but I hardly think it's destroying the Earth. Heck plants need CO2.
I don't know if any of you remember Acid Rain, for some reason that has dropped off the radar screen.
I just hate how this is a political issue. However, you know Big Oil lobbyists are tossing money at their republican puppets to try and quash this. Same is happening on the other side I'm sure.
Facts are facts. The climate is changing and pollution is a worldwide problem. We've identified actual problems. Anything else you hear that clouds your judgment is just spin.
Not only does it discuss climate science, it gives references to the peer reviewed articles and discusses the various aspects of climate science. Unlike the whole global cooling myth, which originated with Newsweek back in the 1970's, that was not the popular thought at the time and the science is more clear cut on this issue. The only debate here is the political one because there is no debate within the scientific community.
quote:
Tvee said this in post #17 : Computer generated (Cg) images and projections.... its the stuff that makes scifi movies a hit. Fantasies become realities thru special effects.
I don't even know what you're referring to, are you talking about my graph? If you are, then no...you can easily compile data and place it on a graph by hand on the computer.
Read UNSTOPPABLE GLOBAL WARMING by S. Fred Singer, and Dennis T. Avery, published by Rowman & Littlefield. There is plenty of debate in the scientific community.
The "Little Ice Age" ended about 1850, and we are currently in what has been named, "The Modern Warming." The contention that this current warming trend is being cause by man is an unproven theory. It does not make any difference how many people say that it is a proven fact. A consensus cannot convert a theory into a fact.
Damn, what happened to my response, I thought it was posted last night...
I'll just give a gist of the longer post I wrote yesterday. He uses many poor arguments, false logic, and poor analogies. You see it from the start where he starts talking about DDT using false analogy saying, "Al Gore says this...," when Al Gore didn't say that. The ozone hole is closing and then he uses false arguments utilizing only news articles while ignoring the science.
He then goes on about global cooling, which is part of the global cooling myth, as the scientific community was at no such consensus: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
Even so, saying something was wrong in science 30 years ago means science is wrong now is just plain stupid because a lot has changed in terms of ability to measure.
Whenever three or more contrarians are gathered together, one will inevitably claim that water vapour is being unjustly neglected by 'IPCC' scientists. "Why isn't water vapour acknowledged as a greenhouse gas?", "Why does anyone even care about the other greenhouse gases since water vapour is 98% of the effect?", "Why isn't water vapour included in climate models?", "Why isn't included on the forcings bar charts?" etc. Any mainstream scientist present will trot out the standard response that water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas, it is included in all climate models, but it is a feedback and not a forcing. From personal experience, I am aware that these distinctions are not clear to many, and so here is a more in-depth response (see also this other attempt).
Everything about the video is cherry-picked (up to what I saw, for some reason the entire video won't play on the computer here). But I'm sure going through this video more of the argument will fall apart. However, it still makes no sense that 2000+ scientists from over 100 countries are part of a cabal to push environmentalism. That's what this guy is trying to say, when it is really the people denying global warming that have a political motive.
Anytime someone brings up something they claim disproves global warming, it's always a book, never a place with scientific articles. When you do see scientific journals presented, for some reason or another it always seems they are funded by oil companies, it just so happens I guess... Any scientific articles presented are refuted and the people that wish to show the "holes" in global warming come off no differently than those showing the "holes" in the theory of evolution.
We can even look at the weak arguments that use terminology in the wrong way, like "theory becoming fact." Scientific theory never becomes fact, and science can't prove global warming no more than you can prove gravity. The real problem I see is that, as this video claims, the "common sense" approach usually involves muddying what science is with colloquialism, thus making nothing more than a false set of arguments.
EUCLID said this in post #28 : Read UNSTOPPABLE GLOBAL WARMING by S. Fred Singer, and Dennis T. Avery, published by Rowman & Littlefield. There is plenty of debate in the scientific community.
The "Little Ice Age" ended about 1850, and we are currently in what has been named, "The Modern Warming." The contention that this current warming trend is being cause by man is an unproven theory. It does not make any difference how many people say that it is a proven fact. A consensus cannot convert a theory into a fact.
Your usage of the word theory as it pertains to science is incorrect and the posting of a book highlights the continuous problems with global warming deniers arguments. The reason why their arguments don't make it far in the scientific community is because their research has holes in it. As a result, they turn it into a conspiracy against them and start releasing books with the "real truth." I've seen the same tactic with evolution deniers.
But I'll say it again, theory does not become fact. Gravity is a theory, there is also cell theory, there are many theories from theory of relativity to plate tectonics. Many people try to focus on theory, but ignore what a scientific theory is, preferring to muddy the waters by pointing to the definition of theory is a regular dictionary.
These books and authors are thinking of hypotheses because it is a high bar for something to reach a theory, many facts are involved in the formation of a theory.
Inner City Blues said this in post #31 :
Your usage of the word theory as it pertains to science is incorrect and the posting of a book highlights the continuous problems with global warming deniers arguments. The reason why their arguments don't make it far in the scientific community is because their research has holes in it. As a result, they turn it into a conspiracy against them and start releasing books with the "real truth." I've seen the same tactic with evolution deniers.
But I'll say it again, theory does not become fact. Gravity is a theory, there is also cell theory, there are many theories from theory of relativity to plate tectonics. Many people try to focus on theory, but ignore what a scientific theory is, preferring to muddy the waters by pointing to the definition of theory is a regular dictionary.
These books and authors are thinking of hypotheses because it is a high bar for something to reach a theory, many facts are involved in the formation of a theory.
I like how you can dismiss a book you think you don't agree with.
In science, skepticism is the road to truth. The proponents of man made global warming have declared the debate to be over, and they say they won it. When one side of a debate declares victory and demands that debating cease, who are the real deniers?
If all explanations are true and valid as theories, how do you explain why some conflict others?
Here is what dictionary says: THEORY; a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectual, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Once there was a theory that the earth is flat. But it has since been proven to be round, and that's a fact.
And you do exactly what those that muddy the definition of theory use, the dictionary. This is the definition of a theory in science:
In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.
Fact and theory do not stand against each other. For instance, and apple falls to the earth when dropped, that is an observable fact, the theory of gravitation explains why the apple fell. A car is a good analogy for a theory. There are many parts to the car that work in a specific way, they are the experiments and observations. The theory is how all those pieces fit together to make a car.
Your usage of theory is incorrect. Flat earth was never a theory, that was just urban legend, science knew the world was round for a long time. Newtonian physics was a theory and was based on experimentation; however, when objects were very small or traveling very fast, the laws failed, thus relativity came into play, a new theory. That's how science works, you don't prove a theory because theories don't turn into facts. The facts are the observations and experiments, the theory explains the phenomena.
Plus I didn't dismiss the book because I disagree with it, I dismiss it because if it could go through the peer-review process in scientific journals, then you wouldn't need to write a book, you'd let the science do the talking. Creationists do the same thing. They try to inject political discourse when if they truly were making a scientific argument that was strong, their research would show it. The next problem is there is no debate, everything doesn't have two sides. Global warming deniers just claim there is one because they want to make everything politically correct where both sides are equal. If you take a sample of scientific papers, you are not going to find a significant number of people that deny anthropogenic global warming. This is not the result of some conspiracy, this is the result of science and experimentation confirming the theory. The deniers try to turn themselves into victims, but when you examine it, their motivations are political and they are financially backed by groups that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
If their research stood up to science, then they would have the consensus, it doesn't. As a result, they try to turn this into a political argument.
Inner City Blues said this in post #33 : And you do exactly what those that muddy the definition of theory use, the dictionary. This is the definition of a theory in science:
In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.
Fact and theory do not stand against each other.
Well words mean things, and the dictionary makes sense to me with its distinction between facts and theory. I have read your complex scientific defintion of theory several times, but I have no idea what those words really mean overall. For example, a "logical explanation" may be either correct or incorrect, right? The last condtion of your definition says that a theory is capable of being falsified. How does that differ from the dictionary definition?
What if we sacrifice to prevent the catastrophe predicted by the theroy of man made global warming, and later the theory is falsified through experiment or empirical observation as your definition allows?
What if we sacrifice to prevent the catastrophe predicted by the theroy of man made global warming, and later the theory is falsified through experiment or empirical observation as your definition allows?
Then we will have engaged in the very wise practice of preventative maintainence.
Let's look at the scenario here:
a) We do nothing about global warming
MMGW is proven false, and there are no consequences
MMGW is proven true, and negative consequences of unknown proportions (mild to extreme) result
b) We do something about global warming
MMGW is proven false, and there are no consequences
MMGW is proven ture, and there are no consequences or the consequences are minimized
Given that breakdown, what is the smartest course of action?
Then we will have engaged in the very wise practice of preventative maintainence.
Let's look at the scenario here:
a) We do nothing about global warming
MMGW is proven false, and there are no consequences
MMGW is proven true, and negative consequences of unknown proportions (mild to extreme) result
b) We do something about global warming
MMGW is proven false, and there are no consequences
MMGW is proven ture, and there are no consequences or the consequences are minimized
Given that breakdown, what is the smartest course of action?
Given that breakdown, "b" is the smartest course of action, however, that is not the breakdown that applies to this issue.
Under your option "b", "We do something about global warming," your alternative #1 is, "MMGW is proven false, and there are no consequences."
There will be HUGE consequences. Maybe not, if by "doing something about global warming," you mean changing to different light bulbs, and turning your computer off when not in use. I agree that these are negligible consequences. But these diddly little gestures are not going to stop MMGW according to the scope of the threat as it is being defined by its proponents. Far from it.
We are being told by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (a body established by the U.N., and perhaps the highest authority amoung the proponents) that the world must reduce its use of fossil fuels by 80% just to stabilize the onset of MMGW.
Since developing countries such as China and India are not expected to make that large of a reduction, countries such as the U.S. will have to reduce their use of fossil fuel by 100%. And this has to happen fast according to this authority because we only have ten years to reverse MMGW or it will become unstoppable.
That leaves only wind and solar to produce all of the electricity needed and less that ten years to accomplish the conversion. Changing light bulbs won't be too tough because one light bulb is about all we will be able to afford to power. Besides coal, fossil fuel also includes all gasoline, diesel, heating fuel, and natural gas. So get ready for a life with no cars, no refrigeration, no hot water, no air conditioning, and a house that does little more than shield you from the wind during the winter.
There will be electricity from wind and solar as well as ethanol fuel, but the scarcity will force up the price so high that it will be severly rationed.
The same scarcity / high price rationing will also apply to food due to the required elimination of the use of industrial nitrogen fertilizers, and due to the higher cost of all commercial transportation from the higher price of all motor fuel.
There will be serious, major consequences if we really take the action that the proponents of MMGW say is needed to stop the catastrophe.
This argument that we have nothing to lose by taking action is being put forth by the proponents of MMGW as a kind of sugar coating to get us to swallow some bad medicine. And it is obviously bad medicine according to the their definition of the problem.
Well words mean things, and the dictionary makes sense to me with its distinction between facts and theory. I have read your complex scientific defintion of theory several times, but I have no idea what those words really mean overall. For example, a "logical explanation" may be either correct or incorrect, right? The last condtion of your definition says that a theory is capable of being falsified. How does that differ from the dictionary definition?
What if we sacrifice to prevent the catastrophe predicted by the theroy of man made global warming, and later the theory is falsified through experiment or empirical observation as your definition allows?
Logical explanation is not some nebulous term. It has basis in such logic as Occam's razor and laws of logic. In many papers the equations that are used are based on logical expressions. This is not some made up definition. And the problem with your definition is that you separate facts and theory, they are not mutually exclusive, the dictionary definition is not the same as the scientific definition. A theory is an explanation of phenomena that is based on facts seen in computer models, logical expressions, confirmed hypotheses, experiments, etc. Fact and theory aren't separate in any way. Moreover, all scientific theories must be falsifiable, or they're not theories at all. You have to understand that theory in colloquial terms and theory in scientific terms are different.
The last part of the definition you point out is the most important part of the definition. Evolutionary theory is falsifiable. Gravitational theory is falsifiable. Germ theory is falsifiable. Falsifiability is a requirement for a scientific theory because that's the only way to incorporate new observations, data, and models.
I think your comment about falsifiability is very revealing because it is a given. Without falsifiability, there's no science. For instance, creationism isn't falsifiable as the God variable is considered a factor that can't be removed. Falsifiability is what separates people having conversations saying, "I have a theory...," and scientists writing papers that form a theory.
Here's something that needs to be clarified, cutting down on emissions does not mean no emissions at all, that is a straw man argument. Another thing, the IPCC said nothing about cutting emissions by 80%, where did you get that information? They called for leveling off of emissions by 2015-2020 and cutting to less than a third of emissions by 2100. We're talking about 90 years of development to transition to alternative energy, which just makes economic sense because absent global warming, oil is not an endless source of energy so moving in another direction makes more sense than doing nothing and maintaining the status quo. Your taking action argument is complete hyperbole.
Inner City Blues said this in post #45 : Here's something that needs to be clarified, cutting down on emissions does not mean no emissions at all, that is a straw man argument. Another thing, the IPCC said nothing about cutting emissions by 80%, where did you get that information? They called for leveling off of emissions by 2015-2020 and cutting to less than a third of emissions by 2100. We're talking about 90 years of development to transition to alternative energy, which just makes economic sense because absent global warming, oil is not an endless source of energy so moving in another direction makes more sense than doing nothing and maintaining the status quo. Your taking action argument is complete hyperbole.
I'm being hyperbolic? The proponents are only promising the end of the world if we don't reverse MMGW within ten years. Seeking alternative energy and energy efficiency does make sense, but that wise, measured action does not begin to match the dire urgency of the MMGW threat that I hear on the news every day.
Dekka00 said this in post #39 : there is a strong correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.
it is EXTREMELY PROBABLY that increasing CO2 levels are caused by human industrialization and activities.
There is a correlation between rising CO2 and rising temperatures, and there may be eveidence that rising CO2 causes a rise in temperature.
But it is a proven fact that rising temperature heats the oceans and releases CO2 that is stored in the oceans, thus increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere where CO2 levels are measured.
Therefore: An increase in temperature from natural causes (such as has happened in the past) will raise the level of CO2.
So it is not extremely probable that increasing CO2 levels are being caused by human activity. The rising levels may just as likely be caused by natural warming. There is a theory that the natural warming is being caused by solar activity.
Edward Teach said this in post #42 : And.... what's the proof that it's because of humans? Again there is NONE.
FACT: industrialized society produces a lot of CO2
FACT: CO2 levels are rising
FACT: temperatures are rising
Logical conclusion: Us releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is causing an increase in overall CO2 levels. That increase in CO2 is causing an increased greenhouse effect, which in turn increases the temperature.
Seems like a reasonable deduction to me.
if you don't "believe" humans are capable of altering Earth's overall climate, well the facts seem to be stating otherwise.
this data is from drilling into ice sheets to measure CO2 levels over the past several hundred thousand years. The present concentration is significatnly higher than it has ever been (at least as far back as we can currently measure).
Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
The more extreme anti-environmentalists keep clamming that humans are not responsible for the recent increase in carbon dioxide increase. On the main page the authors simply present some "fun facts" and let the readers reach their own conclusions. But if you read some of their side pages, like Global temperature deviations vs. solar activity and increases in carbon dioxide it is clear that the authors are also making this claim, and it is the source of the "about 0.2% - 0.3%" figure used above. Also note that while volcanoes are a very minor source of carbon dioxide they are made to appear significant by lumping them with other unrelated sources. This claim is patently false and has been debunked a number of times. (See Why does atmospheric CO2 rise? by Jan Schloerer or I've heard from the US EPA. Also see Why Do Human-made Greenhouse Gases Matter When Water Vapor Is the Most Potent Greenhouse Gas? from the World Meteorological Organization.)
At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.
The authors are once again redefining terms. Carbon dioxide is not a nutrient in the normal meaning any more than oxygen or water are. And anything in too much of an amount or in the wrong place is a pollutant. When plant growers use carbon dioxide it is inside a greenhouse where the can control factors like water and nutrients and weeds.
CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.
Sine 1955 atmospheric CO2 has gone from about 315 ppm to about 370 ppm.
If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!
In the geologic time scale, human existence is not even a percent of the total life of the planet...(moden man existence limited to Quaternary stage) yet one must note the progression of changes separated by cataclysmic events that differentiates one complete set of environmental condition from another. How come environmentalists are blind to the fact that the present set of conditions is about to change and that there is no way for men to stop the cycle from happening?
The frequency of environmental change is observed to be increasing over time, where periods of relative environmental calm and balance are increasingly ending shorter.
If we take a "political" approach to the situation, then men would only blame their fellow for these natural occurrences. In effect, environmental advocacy groups are fueling a modern witch hunt through ignorance and deceit. However, if we view things in perspective, then probably, there is still hope that men would rediscover that the fragile balance of life as they know it is slowly altered, forewarning of a radical break from the present to the next stage of the planet Earth’s own cycle. Geo time scale
Tvee said this in post #52 : In the geologic time scale, human existence is not even a percent of the total life of the planet...(moden man existence limited to Quaternary stage) yet one must note the progression of changes separated by cataclysmic events that differentiates one complete set of environmental condition from another. How come environmentalists are blind to the fact that the present set of conditions is about to change and that there is no way for men to stop the cycle from happening?
Your view is contrary to the majority of scientists who do think we have caused the present problem by polluting the planet and that there is something we can do about it - reduce the amount of crap we produce.
But if you're right, and we are irrelevant and future generations are irrelevant, then who the hell cares what happens to either the human race, the earth or the whole universe.
We are hearing a lot about carbon footprints and carbon offsets. Everybody has a carbon footprint, which is the amount of CO2 they emit. These emissions come from heating and cooling your house, driving your car, riding on airplanes, etc. The more you emit CO2, the bigger your carbon footprint is. So the smaller your carbon footprint, the more eco friendly or “green” you are. We are being told that we must reduce our carbon footprints in order to prevent the destruction of the planet by man made global warming.
Along with the concept of carbon footprint, is a trading system using carbon credits. Right now, this is a voluntary system. The basis of this system is the premise that everybody has an equal right to emit CO2. In other words, everybody is entitled to a carbon footprint of a limited size. That basic, allotted footprint is expressed in a quantity of what are called carbon credits or carbon offsets. So carbon credits are like a kind of currency, and everybody is given the same amount as the game begins, so to speak.
If your carbon footprint happens to be smaller than what is allowed, you will have extra carbon credits that you don’t need. If your carbon footprint happens to be larger than what is allowed, you must purchase extra carbon credits so you have enough to match what is required for your oversize footprint. You can purchase your extra carbon credits from those who have more carbon credits than they need for their undersize footprint.
Now Al Gore lives in a mansion and consumes vast amounts of electricity. He therefore has a gigantic carbon footprint compared to what is allowed under the carbon trading system. Some would call him a hypocrite because he goes around lecturing the rest of us about how we need to reduce our carbon footprints. But Gore defends his lavish consumption by informing us that he purchases carbon credits sufficient to offset his huge footprint. Gore is rich, so he not only can afford a mansion, but he can also afford to purchase carbon offsets for that mansion.
But, at the end of the day, doesn’t this amount to a rich guy living rich and absolving his guilt by spending money on carbon offsets? His lavish lifestyle is harming the environment according to his own beliefs and crusade about global warming. It does not reduce the environmental harm that his lifestyle is doing by his purchasing of carbon credits from people who are doing less harm than they are entitled to do. If Gore really wanted to help the environment, he would cut back on his extravagant lifestyle. Is Al Gore the world’s biggest hypocrite?
Just somebody lining their pockets I expect. You know I've been thinking about this scam. I know I could plant some $2 trees for some of those big offsets money. Hell the rich aren't willing to change their lifestyle I might as well benefit from it.
Wow I got it! That is why Global Warming is so big right now. It's a great way to get the rich and governments to pay the little guy with all that guilt money. Where do I sign up and where do I buy the seeds.
Ahhhh my solution to Global Warming...KUDZU! If you don't know what that is, look it up.
Inner City Blues said this in post #57 : Al Gore uses electricity, therefore anthropogenic global warming is not real. I'm sorry, but that is an extremely poor argument.
Yes it is, but that is not the argument I was making.
Solar activity does not cause global warming, I already gave information, it is not at a level higher than human activity so to say cosmic rays cause warming is ludicrous. Moreover, the experiments done used unrealistic numbers that do not reflect the conditions on Earth. So experimentation that takes into account the environment we live in that shows warming is junk, but the idea that cosmic rays affect climate despite little to no relaiton and experiments that don't reflect the earth's environment are considered worthy alternatives...
I'm sorry, the science behind the other explanations is not there, and that's why there aren't any papers out there that can stand up to peer review. As a result, global warming deniers stop talking science and then start attacking people, "Oh let's attack the rich for leading lavish lifestyles. Now we know there is no global warming, we can ignore all the science." Al Gore could be melting the polar ice caps with a big satellite, that doesn't mean the science is wrong.
Inner City Blues said this in post #59 :
As a result, global warming deniers stop talking science and then start attacking people, "Oh let's attack the rich for leading lavish lifestyles. Now we know there is no global warming, we can ignore all the science." Al Gore could be melting the polar ice caps with a big satellite, that doesn't mean the science is wrong.
What I am saying about Gore has nothing to do with the validity of science. I just think he is a major hypocrite for not practicing what he preaches. I don't care if he is rich. He can be rich and still set an example by living the lifestyle he expects the rest of us to live.
Your view is contrary to the majority of scientists who do think we have caused the present problem by polluting the planet and that there is something we can do about it - reduce the amount of crap we produce.
But if you're right, and we are irrelevant and future generations are irrelevant, then who the hell cares what happens to either the human race, the earth or the whole universe.
Excuse me, but this is not a matter of plural viewpoint, otherwise, we need not post any opinions anymore.
The geologic time scale is not even my opinion. It is an established fact.
Many of the most vocal and noisy scientists are political scientists or journalists turned environmentalists. As I see it, there is a worldwide propaganda to use the environment issue and grab political control over many countries. The party or individual who controls environmental policy also gains control over the whole world.
Thus, one world, enforcing one set of environmental policy equates to the rise and empowerment of the One World Government.
Inner City Blues said this in post #57 : Al Gore uses electricity, therefore anthropogenic global warming is not real. I'm sorry, but that is an extremely poor argument.
I like Al Gore.... but he should have instead began his discourse on climate change with the policy of FDR to have "two cars in every garage."
Apparently it was the solution viewed by FDR to reverse the lack of economic appetite that became the great depression. Probably the longest serving, most reelected US president, FDR is truly democrat who enabled industry to design wastefully huge cars and large engines, so that the economy would create demand and ensure consumption, while enjoying economies of scale. If this has not been the original idea behind the poor sustainability policy, FDR could have thought less about environmental cost than about the issue of economic health.
Tvee said this in post #61 :
The geologic time scale is not even my opinion. It is an established fact.
And the point your making is? That given the massive time scale and size of the universe we are pretty much irrelevant?
If so, then yes, we're just some accident of nature that's only as relevant as the space around us or rocks floating about in that space, and in the end what does global warming matter, or what does it matter if the human race dies off? It is an interesting philosophy.
quote:
As I see it, there is a worldwide propaganda to use the environment issue and grab political control over many countries.
What absolute nonsense. Countries are free to pollute and ignore the warnings as much as they like. The US is the prime example. Bush has scientists working for him for the purpose of casting doubt on the scientific evidence.
quote:
Thus, one world, enforcing one set of environmental policy equates to the rise and empowerment of the One World Government.
How does producing less pollution = having your country run by a one world government? America will no doubt be at forefront all any new technological advances that work with the environment, rather than against it. Why shouldn't we respect the earth? Culturally it's a step up the evolutionary tree as far as I can see. Some cultures have long history's of respecting the earth.
Western culture is incredibly wasteful and polluting. For what good purpose? So we can produce stuff that gets thrown away in months? It's like some people can't even see that we are living on an planet with finite resources, and that it might actually need some looking after. But many people continue with this screw that attitude, and screw any future generations - we'll use what we want, how we want, and stuff the consequences.
EUCLID said this in post #60 : What I am saying about Gore has nothing to do with the validity of science. I just think he is a major hypocrite for not practicing what he preaches. I don't care if he is rich. He can be rich and still set an example by living the lifestyle he expects the rest of us to live.
There's a conundrum. Do as I say not as I do. How can the rich and famous preach?
Bono can spout environmental sermons all he wants, but is no-one supposed to notice the massive houses he owns all over the world, or the private jets he flies around in, or the enormous amount of pollution produced to make and ship his millions of CDs around the world, all so he can afford to keep living that glamorous lifestyle?
Pink Floyd said it very well in the song Money.
Money, its a crime.
Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie.
And the point your making is? That given the massive time scale and size of the universe we are pretty much irrelevant?
If so, then yes, we're just some accident of nature that's only as relevant as the space around us or rocks floating about in that space, and in the end what does global warming matter, or what does it matter if the human race dies off? It is an interesting philosophy.
The implication of that geologic time scale is that the next stage is going to happen much sooner than the last.... unless the trend for the last 5 billion years suddenly takes a reversal of sorts.... It’s statistical rather than a social issue. There is no disputing "probability."
Please, this is not Philosophy. Science is more of observation and respect for facts.
+++
Or are you saying that swallowing what media and environmental advocacy groups feed the public are philosophical? Is being mesmerized by such issues to attract public attention and response a sign of philosophical genius or the lack of it?
I'd say you're a VICTIM of propaganda. Apparently the propagandists practice mind juggling to deliberately CONFUSE scientific issues and FORCE their agendas into people's throats.
What absolute nonsense. Countries are free to pollute and ignore the warnings as much as they like. The US is the prime example. Bush has scientists working for him for the purpose of casting doubt on the scientific evidence.
The pioneers of emission control are in the US.... Long before the Earth day festivities, pollution awareness and stricter standards pertaining to waste disposal are already in place. In fact, many private industries have shipped their operations elsewhere to lower their costs as an off shoot of stricter regulations.
What scientific evidence are you talking about? You mean propaganda material made to weaken US policy and make Americans create social unrest? After the US crashes, the One World Government takes over.... and it would control information and scientific response to the point of no resistance.
How does producing less pollution = having your country run by a one world government? America will no doubt be at forefront all any new technological advances that work with the environment, rather than against it. Why shouldn't we respect the earth? Culturally it's a step up the evolutionary tree as far as I can see. Some cultures have long history's of respecting the earth.
Western culture is incredibly wasteful and polluting. For what good purpose? So we can produce stuff that gets thrown away in months? It's like some people can't even see that we are living on an planet with finite resources, and that it might actually need some looking after. But many people continue with this screw that attitude, and screw any future generations - we'll use what we want, how we want, and stuff the consequences.
Define environment. Realize its boundless nature. The idea is to have a single entity manage the environment for men. The One World Government is all about creating policies to manage the environment.
Environment is not only about technology. It is also about people, societies and culture. It is about CONTROL of human activities to make men prevent the destruction of the Earth.
“Save the planet Earth”? Is man really in that position? If the Earth fails to deliver despite men going back to nature, what then?
Even if the Earth finally becomes moonlike, void of an atmosphere/biosphere, dry and exposed to the elements... it would still be planet Earth. Men have no control or influence over the extinction of the Dinosaurs, yet it happened. Scientific evidence shows that these events leading to the rise and extinction of species have happened before and would likely happen again. The environment as we know it today would CHANGE, we can only pray for our own survival. Let us STOP blaming one another.
Tvee said this in post #65 :
[B]Please, this is not Philosophy. Science is more of observation and respect for facts.
It's philosophical to me whether or not we're an irrelevant spec in the universe.
You believe - despite overwhelming scientific evidence - that the rate of global warming is natural and there's nothing we've done to cause it, and nothing we can do to avoid it in the near future.
quote:
Or are you saying that swallowing what media and environmental advocacy groups feed the public are philosophical?
No, it's a belief I have based on a science you don't believe in. You believe the minority scientific skeptical view. Is that based on any philosophical or religious views you hold. Or
