Brown clashes with Orange!!

[CT_Tree_Guy]

<font color="blue"> I do find it odd though that NASA has data showing Mars atmosphere warming by the same percentage as the earth's. Depending on which side of the fence I were to stand, I could say we earthlings are causing Mars global warming </font>

I do not find this odd at all. Suppose that Nasa had data showing that my big toe was warming by the same percentage as the earth's. Using the same "reasoning" as above, you "could" say that the warming of my big toe is being caused by the emission of greenhouse gases and other activities of "we earthlings", but I respectfully submit that you would be equally incorrect in attempting to draw a correlation between the two.

Please note: I have the education and intelligence to dispassionately reach conclusions based on what the world's scientists are telling us. Similarly, even though I do not have a medical degree, if I were to consult three doctors, and each one told me that I had lung cancer, and that it was probably caused by cigarette smoking, I would be inclined to believe them.

I honestly do not understand why so many people think they know better than the collective observations, analyses and conclusions of the world's scientific community.

Does man's role in global warming have as much to do with ego as with carbon dioxide?

Website that has the "ring of truth" to it.

 

[inveresk]

No one likes to be responsible, even unwittingly, for mindless destruction (and let's face it, that's what we're seeing) so I can understand those in the denial camp who shout (to use a Scottishism) "it wisnae me, mister!!".

Egon, I absolutely defend your right to argue your corner but if you check the thread I think you'll find that you were the one who was challenging mine. I would ask only that we try to debate rather than confront.

Here's a little ditty from Yahoo News yesterday:

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( At a recent conference, all six former heads of the EPA raised their hands when EPA's current chief, Stephen Johnson, asked whether they believe global warming is a real problem, and again when he asked if humans bear significant blame.)</font>

If anyone can examine an environmental problem from the standpoint of being informed rather than simply opinionated, these guys can.

 

[Jstpssng]

Wow, this thread took off while I was gone. Anyone mind if I shift gears a little and ask a related question? (Actually, 2 questions)

1) Assuming we are responsible for global warming, or even air/water pollutiuon, which are both obviously our fault); what can we do to effectively counteract it, given our current society, and population level?

2)Do you believe society as a whole, and we as individuals are willing to make the necessary sacrifices?

I hope this doesn't step overe the "politics" limitations; if it does I apologise in advance and ask that it be deleted.

 

[CT_Tree_Guy]

jst -

Excellent questions. First, I'd like to draw a distinction between "global warming" (a naturally occurring phenomenon based on "natural" causes, and the flip side of periods of "global cooling" that sometimes occurs, also due to "natural" causes) and what I'd call "accelerated global warming" (caused by, among other things, the dramatic rise in CO2 levels introduced into the atmosphere since the dawn of The Industrial Age).

Sometimes problems have no ready solution, and this might be such a case. Every day, the world's population increases by the equivalent of the population of San Francisco. China and much of the Third World is becoming increasingly industrialized, putting even more pressure on the environment, while depleting the world's oil reserves. (Most experts agree that we have about 40 to 50 years worth of oil left). The world is running out of fresh water. (When the midwest runs out of water, what then?) The world's population is expected to be around 9 billion by 2100 (about 2.5 billion more than it is today). Clearly, something's got to give, and it looks as if that thing might well be civilization as we know it.

In the meantime, money in politics is creating a climate in which short-term, short-sighted greed is displacing long-term thinking and foresighted actions.

OK that's it for now ... I could go on .....

 

[Jstpssng]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Can you send some of that rain down here? )</font>

Believe me, if it was possible I would. I think of you folks everytime I b**** about the rain... an all too often gripe in the last year.

 

[TresCrows]

I might point out that the earth has been "globally warming" since the end of the last Ice Age roughly for laymen purposes about 20ish thousand years ago. There were several global warmings and coolings previous to this one before there were people--before MANKIND existed!!!!!! While I am not dismissing human factors I hate to tell people, as a geologist with MS plus 30 and somone who has studied at least to some degree the earth's history--as a geologist--I see the earth's thermostat responding normally. Over the next hundreds of years the earth will likely continue to warm, the mechanisms of heat distribution, currents, winds, storms, will respond to the decreased global variance in temperatures. Then, we will enter a cooling period provoked by the reduced solar energy transport mechanisms and the path into another Ice Age will become established.
We do affect the climate, the degree to which we do is up for argument, my long term forcast has not changed, cold, ice, glaciers but 30-0-30 degrees of lat. will be quite nice.
Of course, over the next few hundred years hopefully our knowledge of climate--long term climatic mechanisms--will allow us to perhaps steer our climate. Carefull, carefull there.
I imagine--my best guess, the remainder of our lifetimes and our children will see moderate increases in temperature globally. The western and interior areas of the US will remain relatively dry--overall. Our children may see the opening of the Northwest Passage. Many low lying areas will feel the effects of seal level rise of about five feet maximum.

JFYI, the beach shelfs easily found in the Gulf of Mexico--I have been there--- and other areas of the world represent flooded ancient beaches. These range in depth from approximately 120 feet to about 20 feet from current sealevel. Yep, sealevel has been rising now for an awfull long time in human "scale" terms.
Try not to totally freak out over all the junk science commonly seen even on the National Geo. and Discovery type networks.
My biggest concern with fossil fuel consumption is that we waste the stuff. We use most of our imported oil for electricity--not cars. There is NO current fuel except for hydrogen that has the energy density of fossil fuel and hydrogen is difficult to transport and store. We must take steps to save petroleum for the uses to which there is no other alternative---flying jet aircraft for example, plastics and fertilizers and chemicals etc. We must go nucleor on electricity and reasonably conserve to have fuel for future applications until something else comes along. THERE IS NO reasonable alternative to the high energy desnity fossil fuels for operating aircraft and other similar types of machinery and just imagine a world without plastic--hey--that computer your at now is run by burning fossil fuels, made from chemicals from fossil fuels and on and on. We must conserve the stuff for future generations and give them a healthy planet as well. J

 

[CT_Tree_Guy]

TresCrows, I'm surprised at you.

<font color="blue">Try not to totally freak out over all the junk science commonly seen even on the National Geo. and Discovery type networks. </font> ????????????????????

I don't believe in "freaking out". I believe in the pursuit of truth, and doing what makes sense based on empirical evidence.

As a geologist, you have direct experience with one small aspect of the phenomenon of global warming - namely, the study of the earth's history to determine what has occurred in the past. I do not feel that this makes you qualified to predict what will happen in the future, and why.

I will continue to get my information from the world's best scientists in the field of climatolgy. This is not a slam at you, just a gentle criticism of your conclusions, and how you seem to have arrived at them.

More to come.

John

 

[Egon]

inveresk:

Sorry if my replies sounded like confrontation. They surely were not so intended.

Many times my diction and elocution are challenged.

Egon

 

[texbaylea]

Fellas
I am not replying to anyone in particular and have not been following this thead until reading some of it just now.

I have a few general comments:
1. Don't believe that all scientist are the dispassionate, unbiased observers they would have you believe. I spent nearly a decade as a research manager for NASA and saw many, many with a "Chicken Little" approach to asking for funding for their project. "I just did a study and found this horrible thing - give me money and I will tell you how bad it will be". In 2-3 years they will be back with, well that really wasn't so bad after all but I found this other thing that may be really, really horible - GIVE ME MORE MONEY.

2. In the field of science as in a lot of others, the squeaking wheel gets the grease (money).

3. Politics plays a big factor in whose current theory gets the grease.

I agree that we as a whole should be less polluting in our activities but feel that we have too little data to make any positive decision on whether mankind is the major factor or not in the current climatic situation. Remember that a lot of the current data has only been collectible since the advent of the space program - a little more than 30 years.

Vernon

 

[TresCrows]

"I will continue to get my information from the world's best scientists in the field of climatolgy. This is not a slam at you, just a gentle criticism of your conclusions, and how you seem to have arrived at them"

I am not intending to trash you either. I did study in my second series of post grad under a noted climatologist now working for NOAA. I did, as a grad student, as do all grad students supporting research. You have excesivley limited the field of geology and I might point out that I worked in that field and also have over 10 years of formal education in that field and related fields. Further, I was not dismising the "scientist" you mention, only applying the most basic geologic principles in a purposely and extremely simplified manner. I also, for my former employer spent nearly a half year in supporting research in the field of climatic impact and human impact on living coral reefs. My specific training is carbonate geology. That is why I was chosen to support. My published report was internal to my company, several publications were later released by the university that had proposed the research and aquired the grants from us. Just because I live in Kansaw now and pursue a quiet life mowing my lawn with a Kubota does not mean I was not a "real" scientist.

And, while on the subject, both the National Geographic, History, Discovery have some fine programing interspersed with some downright junk science.

I know it gets the alarmist in a tizzy when anyone, anyone, points out that human impacts are only a partial explanation for climatological changes which have been ongoing now for let's say about 5 billion years. You might also note that I said we must be good stewards of our planet and conserve our resources and attempt to limit our impact whenever possible.

LOL, one might start by destroying their tractor, their house, their cars, move into an apartment complex within walking distance of their work and of course only work for a company that is 100% green and all that--however---I realize that is not what you are suggesting, I am going to an extreme in my example as you seem to have misundertood my prior post.

If you want to believe the world is ending go right ahead, for every noted scientist you find who supports that view there is one who does not. What this indicates to me is that we are still, unfortunately not up to speed on the global climate mechanisms much less how our human imputs are involved.

I might also point out an often misunderstood concept about higher education, the point of educating a mind in a science or an art is to allow that person to gain the tools needed to continue that education on their own for a lifetime. While I no longer pursue those fields as a career, I seriously follow current research and I am fully capable of digesting it.

Read some of the stuff by Nigel Calder, though no longer in vogue and there is a bunch of other stuff. In fact, take the bibliography from "The Weather Machine" and then run with it forward in time. It makes an interesting serious of self studies if you do so. I am suggesting it as a begin point, there are several other books that would be perhaps a better starting point but that is the one that comes to mind. The idea is to get a borad perspective and I find chasing a bibliography fun as well as educational.

And, oh dude, my wife is a geologist as well, lol, she is from New Orleans and her field in school and her original work was in clastic sedimentology. I certainly can remember standing on marsh land that is no longer there thanks to the Corps of Eng. diverting the Mississippi Rivers flow and life bringing sediments deep into the Gulf. That is certainly an example with solid ramifications where human actions have severely screwed up the ecosystem though not specifically in a climatological sense.

I am with you all the way when it comes to including science discussion in policy making.

Sorry if I have offended you, it was never intended. Have a nice day. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
J