More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-13 11:45:28

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20 … 281460.htm

Squirming time for radical enviromentalists?

Basically, this new research seems to indicate that pollutants from fossil fuels actually counter the greenhouse effect, therefore cutting back on burning those fuels would actually make the supposed global warming worse!

Stop driving those SUV's and we're doomed! :laugh:

There are days...

Palomar · 2005-01-13 12:38:41

*Ay carrumba.

Issues of these sorts remind me more and more of medical disputes: Medication A causes cancer...no it doesn't...well it might...definitely NOT...

Either burning fossil fuels is a detriment to Earth or not. The debate will rage on with Truth becoming increasingly lost or blurred.

No wonder people eventually simply tune stuff out, thanks to the ever-increasing confusion and contradictions.

--Cindy

P.S.: And how -- oh how -- did the Earth get along prior to the burning of fossil fuels to the extent we use them today? ???

clark · 2005-01-13 12:42:35

Dr Cox says take away fossil fuel by-products like sulphur dioxide without tackling greenhouse gas emissions, and the extra heat will speed warming.

But global warming isn't man made, or isn't happening, so we can cut out sulphur dioxide emmisions.

Oh wait, let's not do anything about poision in the atmosphere. Worry about fat people. :laugh:

More British pusedo-science melodrama made for TV. BBC does Tabloid-menteries too.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-13 13:28:24

More British pusedo-science melodrama made for TV. BBC does Tabloid-menteries too.

So on what grounds do you determine which scientists to ignore and which we should heed and make policy on when dealing with a subject on which the available data is at best inconclusive?

I'm of the opinion that all this theorizing misses the point of how large and complex these systems are, so I don't put much stock in this report any more than those embraced by radical enviromentalists.

But I haven't been running around screaming that the sky is falling and it's our fault either. :;):

Palomar · 2005-01-13 13:38:15

*Can we know for sure either way? The special-interest groups pulling strings and manipulating others, deliberate misinformation, etc., etc., on both sides of the issue...

--Cindy

clark · 2005-01-13 13:39:05

So on what grounds do you determine which scientists to ignore and which we should heed and make policy on when dealing with a subject on which the available data is at best inconclusive?

My main quibble was how you were presenting this "news". The use of sensationalist journalism to muddy the waters and support your own preconceived position is a poor tactic, and you should be better than that.

You don't believe that global warming is happening, and if it is, you think it's not so bad. So of course any little crap like the previously linked to is more fodder for you to laugh at the lunatic fringe tree huggers- instead of trying to take on the more sensible and moderate stance.

Pollution is bad. Poison air is not good to breathe. Man made actions have altered environments on a local level. Man made progression since the industrial age has seen wide spread changes to entire eco-systems that is beyond what is recorded as usual by natural progression and cyclic development. Continual models that take into account man made pollution, and use control and test models as well for comparison, demonstrate that humanity is having an effect on the biosphere.

But hey, sulphur dioxide is good, drink your gas.

BWhite · 2005-01-13 13:59:30

Stop driving those SUV's and we're doomed! :laugh:
There are days...

Others say elevated CO2 has delayed a geologically predicted ice age.

The problem is that we have scientists with academic and perhaps political biases arguing with folks having hundreds of billions of dollars in annual market share at risk.

So, we do the American thing and simply assume that what is good for General Motors MUST be good for the United States.

= = =

The real crime - IMHO - - is that the Right has decided to undermine any and every effort to reach a genuine scientific consensus.

Dana Rohrbacher, for example wants to slash funding for climate satellite studies, because, he says, all that does it create false data for the green-wackos to criticize America.

Their solution to climate issues? Ignore them.

Edited By BWhite on 1105647738

SpaceNut · 2005-01-13 14:11:10

If true then do not cut back on the deisel engine exhaust, soot, black smoke.... cool burning fire places and other...
Then if we need to warm the place up cut back on the exhaust outputs and turn on the air filtration system to clear up the smog...

C M Edwards · 2005-01-13 14:26:01

When preparing for "The Coming Global Superstorm" and "The Day After Tomorrow" sudden-onset ice age scenarios, it is necessary to plan for the fact that foods and ammunition have limited shelf lives. You must continually use and replenish your bulk storage over time in order to insure that your larder and arsenal will be ready when needed.

Just FYI... :;):

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-13 14:29:09

My main quibble was how you were presenting this "news". The use of sensationalist journalism to muddy the waters and support your own preconceived position is a poor tactic, and you should be better than that.

And were I intending to engage in legitimate debate I wouldn't use such a ploy, but the entire global warming clash has become so farcical that pretty much anything goes, even stale old tricks.

Hold on, there's a point here.

You don't believe that global warming is happening, and if it is, you think it's not so bad. So of course any little crap like the previously linked to is more fodder for you to laugh at the lunatic fringe tree huggers- instead of trying to take on the more sensible and moderate stance.

I do have a moderate stance on the issue. Human activity is affecting the enviroment in numerous ways. Many other factors are affecting as well, more significantly than we are and beyond our ability to influence. Pollution is generally bad, but car exhaust will not make this planet a barren lifeless burning orb of slag. Alternative fuels are worthy of development, but because they are cleaner and offer us greater geo-political options, not because the current fuels will destroy the world. The climate seems to be fluctuating, but then it always has, it is natural.

Seems boringly moderate to me. :hm:

Oh, that point I was getting to: It was just a ploy to hold interest.

No, really. There is a scientific consensus on global warming and it is simply this: It's probably happening and we may have some affect on it. Perhaps. Anything beyond that is moving beyond raw science and firmly into the realm of agenda-pushing.

EDIT::

When preparing for "The Coming Global Superstorm" and "The Day After Tomorrow" sudden-onset ice age scenarios, it is necessary to plan for the fact that foods and ammunition have limited shelf lives. You must continually use and replenish your bulk storage over time in order to insure that your larder and arsenal will be ready when needed.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1105648260

clark · 2005-01-13 14:32:48

And were I intending to engage in legitimate debate I wouldn't use such a ploy,

I know. Just beating you up over the head, playing my part.

and [bow]

Goodnight!

BWhite · 2005-01-13 14:41:50

No, really. There is a scientific consensus on global warming and it is simply this: It's probably happening and we may have some affect on it. Perhaps. Anything beyond that is moving beyond raw science and firmly into the realm of agenda-pushing.

This is largely accurate. I would leave the first probably and change the second "may have" to "probably have" - - this is why we need to establish a credible scientific procedure to investigate.

If the "scientists" from Greenpeace and the "scientists" from Exxon shout each other into a draw, then the "do nothing" agenda wins by default.

Which is why articles like the one linked to by Cobra are a particularly noxious form of propaganda. :;):

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-13 14:55:42

If the "scientists" from Greenpeace and the "scientists" from Exxon shout each other into a draw, then the "do nothing" agenda wins by default.
Which is why articles like the one linked to by Cobra are a particularly noxious form of propaganda.

I'd rather they do nothing than do something worse.

Besides, I want both sides beating each other to a standstill, remember?

Euler · 2005-01-13 15:04:39

If the "scientists" from Greenpeace and the "scientists" from Exxon shout each other into a draw, then the "do nothing" agenda wins by default.
Which is why articles like the one linked to by Cobra are a particularly noxious form of propaganda.

The article basically says that global warming could be a more serious and more complex problem than previously thought, and that it needs to be investigated. How does that support a do nothing agenda?

ERRORIST · 2005-01-13 15:07:47

You will see the results in ten years. The Ross ice shelf will break off in five years and five years later the oceans will rise 6 feet.

ERRORIST · 2005-01-13 15:18:32

This is just the start of things.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/co … ...erg.htm

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-13 15:18:37

You will see the results in ten years. The Ross ice shelf will break off in five years and five years later the oceans will rise 6 feet.

Only we've been hearing that for the last twenty years if not more. A "fusion effect" if you will, always coming at some ever-constant interval in the future.

Besides, we'll all be destroyed by the Deep Impact mission first. :laugh: :;):

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1105651306

ERRORIST · 2005-01-13 15:29:32

As our ozone is depleated on both the north and south poles. This will happen more. Keep adding chlorine to our atmosphere and it is going to get real bad. As china and India get into the industrial age and start owning as many homes and cars per capita as we do here in the USA then there is no stopping it. Also,scientists do not figure into the problem of burning chemicals in the world which emit tons upon tons of chlorine into the atmosphere. Nor do they care about chlorine!

Euler · 2005-01-13 15:55:24

Stearns says the calving brings the Ross Ice Shelf to the about the size it was in 1911, when members of Robert Falcon Scott's British expedition first mapped it.

Neither the breakup of the Larsen B Ice Shelf nor the melting of icebergs that break off Antarctic ice shelves causes sea levels to rise because the ice is already floating.

The breakup of Antartic ice shelves is not related to the holes in the ozone layer, and it will not affect sea levels until the breakup reaches ice that is not already floating.

ERRORIST · 2005-01-13 16:29:32

Once the land based ice melts watch out. Without the ozone at the poles I am sure the arctic oceans will warm up more.

C M Edwards · 2005-01-13 16:38:51

Actually, sea level changes are a scenario that I believe quite likely if global warming persists more than a century or so.

It's got nothing to do with the polar ice caps - there isn't enough water in them to make any noticeable difference, even in Tuvalu. However, as the ocean water warms, it exchanges heat with its lower layers over the course of several centuries. The warmed water - eventually the bulk of the ocean - will expand, changing the sea level.

BWhite · 2005-01-13 16:44:33

If the "scientists" from Greenpeace and the "scientists" from Exxon shout each other into a draw, then the "do nothing" agenda wins by default.
Which is why articles like the one linked to by Cobra are a particularly noxious form of propaganda.
The article basically says that global warming could be a more serious and more complex problem than previously thought, and that it needs to be investigated. How does that support a do nothing agenda?

Euler, you are correct.

I had a "Click, Whrrr" automatic reaction to the suggestion that "new" science was saying driving SUVs was actually good for the environment.

I guess I am guilty of reading too fast.

= = =

On the other hand, Cobra has essentially conceded that the goal is to so muddy up the public discussion space that meaningful public discourse on global warming becomes essentially impossible. Something that entirely benefits the "do nothing" agenda.

Euler · 2005-01-13 16:50:32

Once the land based ice melts watch out. Without the ozone at the poles I am sure the arctic oceans will warm up more.

You are sure of a lot of things that are wrong. The polar ice may melt as part of global warming, but that has nothing to do with the depletion of the ozone layer; if anything, the hole in the ozone layer should actually cool the polar regions.

It's got nothing to do with the polar ice caps - there isn't enough water in them to make any noticeable difference, even in Tuvalu. However, as the ocean water warms, it exchanges heat with its lower layers over the course of several centuries. The warmed water - eventually the bulk of the ocean - will expand, changing the sea level.

The last time I did much research on global warming, the "experts" were saying that the effects of ice melting and ocean water expanding should be about the same magnitude.

ERRORIST · 2005-01-13 18:12:58

The polar ice may melt as part of global warming, but that has nothing to do with the depletion of the ozone layer; if anything, the hole in the ozone layer should actually cool the polar regions.

Doesn't make sense. It will let more ionizing radiation in thus warming the Arctic Oceans more. The people in Argentena have been limited to stay out in the sun for one to two hours per day now because of it. Skin Cancer is another by product of such denial.

Trebuchet · 2005-01-13 18:57:17

Errorist, less net warming occurs if the UV hits ice and reflects than if it's absorbed by the ozone layer. Ice is shiny, you might have noticed....

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-01-13 11:45:28

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#2 2005-01-13 12:38:41

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#3 2005-01-13 12:42:35

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#4 2005-01-13 13:28:24

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#5 2005-01-13 13:38:15

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#6 2005-01-13 13:39:05

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#7 2005-01-13 13:59:30

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#8 2005-01-13 14:11:10

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#9 2005-01-13 14:26:01

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#10 2005-01-13 14:29:09

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#11 2005-01-13 14:32:48

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#12 2005-01-13 14:41:50

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#13 2005-01-13 14:55:42

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#14 2005-01-13 15:04:39

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#15 2005-01-13 15:07:47

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#16 2005-01-13 15:18:32

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#17 2005-01-13 15:18:37

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#18 2005-01-13 15:29:32

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#19 2005-01-13 15:55:24

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#20 2005-01-13 16:29:32

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#21 2005-01-13 16:38:51

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#22 2005-01-13 16:44:33

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#23 2005-01-13 16:50:32

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#24 2005-01-13 18:12:58

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#25 2005-01-13 18:57:17

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

Board footer