Why wait 5-7 years? Will cutting GHG effect something negatively that can't be fixed by simply releasing the cap? Waiting 5 more years just gives us 5 more years of peak GHG production. It is like saying let's wait until after New Years to clean up after our St. Patrick's Day party just so we can be sure these beer cans on the floor make it dirty.
The 5-7 years is so we can get more data on the warming trends and determine how much the recent termperature flux was a result of el nino or la nina cycles and how much can be attributed to GHG. This give us more time to tweak these models and determine their falsibiability. We really need more time to determine what forms of renewable energy sre most efficient and most susstainable. The obvious harm of rushing into something like this blindly is obviously the economic drain it will have on this country. Our economy is on life support as it is. 4-5 yrs down the road, if it is determined that GHG are not having a significant impact on our climate (which some would suggest has already happened by the disproving of the results from the various models) then the money we spent could have gone to directly help out struggling homeowners, people out of work etc.
Nice Post. I think the warming period you reference is basically what did in Al Gore's/Mann's hockey stick. The alarmist on here will probally not admit to this but that is the way I see it. The hockey stick basically said that the earth showed the most warming in history has been in the last 100 years when man started the industrial revolution. It seems that Mann calculated some data incorrectly which kind of messed up the results. The warmest time in our history actually was during the period around the time you mentioned and we have had periods of Hi/Lo temps every 100 yrs since then. The alarmist are really into this computer model thing now. Even though there are obvious problems with the models' results comparing to actual observed data that their own internal scientist have spoke out about, the IPCC still swears by these models. For hese models to put out unbiased results, they have to be loaded with unbaised raw data that represents accurate trends, temps etc of the time period in question. This is where the models seem to be failing. They are not getting the results they want when the data in input correctly.Wow, what a thread.
Personally, I'm all for conserving resources - it's called being responsible. However, I take issue with this fanaticism with Global Warming and, by definition, that's exactly what it is.
I still want someone to explain the research the ancient Egyptians did on global warming. Their "scientists" were concerned that the sun was getting hotter as a result of Ra's anger. The summers were getting hotter every year, and it was adversely affecting the crops. They researched the temperatures (using water thermometers which are just as accurate today as they were then) and water tables. After several hundred years they decided that the sun got hotter and cooled off in cycles and that is what was causing the global warming and cooling trends. They charted about a dozen cycles, all with varying degrees of temperature change, longevity, and speed. Also, the peak of the highest recorded mean temperatures and the lowest valley of all of the recorded cycles occurred in one cycle, which went from cold to hottest ever to coldest ever in less than 100 years. That's pretty darn quick, and the temperature variances were larger than any we've seen in the past 100 years.
An ecology professor of mine showed me some books which detailed these findings. The books had nothing to do with global warming, it was a research of ancient Egyptian "scientific methods". There was a lot of stuff in it on medicines, poisons, and magical spells, but this was the section on their study of weather. Of course, they placed more stock in their fortune tellers weather forecasts than their scientists'.
Anyway, the internet has become so bloated with information on global warming that you can't really find this info - at least I can't. And, to be honest, I don't care enough about it to spend the time searching. However, there are at least a half dozen history books that detail this study, all mentioning it matter-of-fact-ly and all written prior to any global warming "crisis" and debate.
I wish I could get the names of those books he had, but unfortunately the opportunity to ask has passed.
Anyway, I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find the details of what I'm talking about. The problem is you have to look in the History section, not the Science section.
My question is this: if it's not primarily a part of a natural cycle, and we are the major cause of this warming cycle, then why were there similar instances recorded in history?
Some will say that it is cyclical, but we are making it worse, and it's happening worse or faster than it has before.
The problem is that the temperatures and water tables recorded show larger temperature changes than we've recorded and, in that one instance, a greater speed. That is unless, of course, the physical properties of water has changed in the last few thousand years.
My professor showed me this stuff when this global warming fad was starting, and these books were all 30 or 40 years old, at least. There was no political reason for fabrication when they were written, and I can't think of any the Ancient Egyptians might have had.
The simple truth of the matter is this:
1. The mean temperature of the Earth has been rising over recent years
2. Many scientists believe that man is a/the primary cause (many do not)
3. There is absolutely no way to prove one way or the other
4. Most of the evidence on both sides is not scientific*
5. This debate is being fueled by politics
* see the text-book definition of scientific study - for evidence to be scientific, it must be studied scientifically which, by definition, requires the event to be observed from beginning to end and then be replicated with controlled factors on an equivalent scale. Somebody please tell me how you can do any one of those things in a study of global warming without the benefit of time travel!
Here is that same paragraph from your original post:
CrimsonCT said:
It was a good paragraph, and I'm glad it is now sprucing up Page 15 a bit. Thank you for the repost.
People always say this, and subsequently link me to Senators and newspaper editorials. Why don't you take a gander in scientific journals and see how the balance of evidence really looks? Or do you merely preach intellectual integrity without backing it up?
You either woefully misunderstand me or are deliberately mischaracterizing. I'm not arguing any original thoughts in this thread, I'm merely showing people what real scientists in this field say in response to certain arguments from skeptics, since most people are not inclined to seek it out themselves. Some are valid, but others are weird Ancient Egyptian weather or hockey sticks. Take these two links as examples: I'm only pointing you in the direction of a scientific rebuttal to the criticisms raised. If you're as objective as you claim, then you wouldn't admonish these attempts.
*sigh*
I'm gonna go with "woefully misunderstanding" me.
It almost sounds as if you're saying that the scientists who don't push the political Global Warming agenda aren't real scientists. I'm hoping you simply mis-typed there.
uafan4life said:
You're reading it the wrong way. I was distinguishing their opinions from the lay-views of this board.
You didn't really present any arguments, which is why no one responded to your post directly. You told a story about something you kinda half-remembered. That reference was the only thing I could find on the subject, which I googled strictly out of curiosity. And from the conclusion of that article:
So maybe the Ancient Egyptians died of massive drought due to the slowing of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation. Well guess what we're seeing now? You'll probably use this as evidence that global climate alters without human input, even though that proclamation (which is obvious) would be irrelevant to the current issue. Don't believe me on that, let's look at what Dr. Henry Lamb (the lead author on the paper I linked) said about this:
Moral of your story: when global warming happens, for whatever reason, entire civilizations die. On a purely logical appeal, then, perhaps we should try to cut emissions of gases that are proven to insulate heat.
There are many possibilities here. Maybe their numbers are correct. Maybe their tools were inaccurate or the recordings were altered. Maybe you should post some actual information so we can stop talking hypothetically.
Ok, that makes sense.
The point of that paper was not concerning climate shifts but concerning the life cycles of the Nile and the possible reasons for it. As such, conclusions were not directly drawn concerning that issue. However, there are other papers, and allusions in that one even, to evidence of climate shifts at various times in history found in the Tana Lake research. Some of these shifts appeared to have been very major.
1. yep
This is my biggest sticking point, the models themselves. It appears that they are having various problems getting the model results to match up with observed data. They have to create trends and make multiple adjustments to get the desired results and these are not even matching with data observed by other means. It almost seems like the are to the point of starting witht he desired results and adjusting the data to match up.
And earth's climate used to be uninhabitable. We know it shifts--that's not the question here.
Science doesn't prove. If you're waiting on that, you'll never have enough evidence to support action.
Of course climate models are imperfect, no one is denying this. One might argue that you can test climate models by looking back in the past, but since that data constitutes the input of the model, that would obviously be a flawed test. But models are hardly the only data that constitute study in this area, and it would be potentially self-destructive to wait around until the variables were perfected. Instead, numerous studies are performed on the physical properties of atmospheric gases with no model input whatsoever, which arrive at the unequivocal position that the earth will undergo significant warming if greenhouse gases are not immediately reduced.
You mistake experimentation and observation. Evolution is an observation that has no control, yet it is still accepted as fact. Astronomy has no control, yet its observations are not denied. The same with paleontology, the determination of gravity, and numerous other fields. You can't always manipulate a system due to practical or ethical concerns, and the lack of experimentation does not make it any less of a scientific undertaking.
And that's fine. There are plenty of problems and everyone can prioritize their own way. This is what people should be debating: the policy to either support or to oppose. But this opinion should not be based on some false hope that the IPCC predictions are anything but an underestimation, because the literature doesn't support it.
It's convenient for you that they have the same name, but that is obviously a different person. Ten seconds of searching would have told you this, as well as identifying his lack of training to in climate science.
Thanks on the links, but not on the resurrection of this thread. :biggrin: I will read them this weekend. But seriously, how many of us do you think will actually read them? Not many. Besides most of us have already made up our opinion before we start reading them so I doubt reading them will change anyone's mind regardless of the side.
Yeah I know, but since their are supposedly no peer-reviewed journals in existience against or skeptical of global warming, I thought I would post a few for the record. I really don't expect to "convert" anybody. Hope you enjoy the read!:biggrin2:
Since I don't know you in real life, and you will likely never be able to collect if I am wrong.....Sure. Let's make it a million. :biggrin:Yeah I know, but since their are supposedly no peer-reviewed journals in existience against or skeptical of global warming, I thought I would post a few for the record. I really don't expect to "convert" anybody. Hope you enjoy the read!:biggrin2:
Whats our "point of no return" now, 15yrs? I bet you $50 we'll all be fine with no changes in policy in 15yrs, any takers?
